You cant talk sense with some people. It s because of the complacency, there s this whole trend of relying on 3rd party aircrafts for even decent mechanics. And people have no problem paying for those either , so there s no going back now because the trend has set. Look at apple. They are able to sell their products for overpriced cost because people are buying it.
It s really sad knowing that we will have to rely on 3rd parties for already included aircrafts. To an extent i agree they can’t include study level features and there i dont mind paywares coming into picture, but this just doesn’t seem to be that.
2 Likes
You’re right. You can’t talk sense with some people. Some people are extremely entitled and will go through life being disappointed by reality. I feel sorry for those people.
3 Likes
I sim mainly with the small GA prop. aircraft (cessna 152/172, Pitts, TBM 930) and to be fair I don’t think they are too bad. I have a couple of payware too but I wouldn’t say that those are really leaps ahead in terms of complexity.
Having said that, I can’t really comment on the small jets or airliners which I don’t fly at all.
1 Like
It’s pretty cheap. The TBM 900 for xplane costs $65. The a321 I bought was like $80. Those are for one aircraft. MSFS has what, 20-30? Plus the base sim, plus the best weather in any sim, plus the best scenery… want a cheap imitation of MSFS weather? That’s $69 for xEnviro in xplane, bro…
7 Likes
Yes, I have to agree with you. I got the premium version of FS2020 and, tbh, I think it was great value. And to get X-Plane 11 anywhere up to how this looks scenery wise would be almost cost prohibitive for a lot of us simmers. Maybe the airliners aren’t great but being a GA simmer, this doesn’t personally affect me.
Those small and med aircraft are often the focus of a strong 3rd party industry. The early offerings may not be leaps ahead of the default but as the SDK is fleshed out and the designers find new ways of implementing custom aerodynamics you will find the few now available will slowly fall behind.
If you consider that many of the quality offerings will be in the development stage for a year or more, the man hours to create them more than justifies the selling prices.
Yes, true enough
FM in KA is because KA has a Collins system and not Garmin. There is a lot wrong with King Air.
Anyone who expects 100% functionality out of stock planes is smoking rope. It has never happened nor will it ever. Even someone as relatively new to the civilian sim market such as myself has realized that from doing a bit of research on the topic. Like all other sims, modders and 3rd party devs will take care of that in time. The biggest issue atm is the shamefully incomplete SDK that’s preventing such 3rd parties from really being able to produce the planes that people want.
Considering the high cost of “complete” and study level planes in other sims, the cost of MSFS is basically a drop in the bucket. The amount of money it would cost to get a world that looks 25% as good as MSFS and be 5% as complete in XP, FSX and P3D, you’d actually be able to get your PPL and buy your own plane.
I think most of the GA planes in the standard edition are well done and complete enough for the price we’ve paid. We got a lot of planes in the basic edition. While some may have some issues, overall they’re pretty good.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the King Air seems to be a pretty half-assed effort. It’s like they races at the end to include another turboprop and didn’t finish it in time.
Several of the planes with the Premium Deluxe though are shamefully incomplete with the most basic systems not functioning and so many INOP switches for basic functions. They don’t even compare to the basic edition planes in terms of level completion. This reeks of a DLC that was rushed out the door at the last minute to meet the launch date without being even close to completion, and they haven’t bothered touching it since (for the most part) to complete their work.
1 Like
Crunch, I have half a log book filled with nothing but King Air hours, most on the C90. Since FS-9 I have been trying to find a good add-on King Air. I am not sure why such a ubiquitous aircraft in the real world has been so difficult to reproduce in the sim world. I have at least 6, maybe more, that I have downloaded, both payware and freeware. Every one of them was test flown and parked. Usually more to do with turbo prop modelling but many also lacking basic operational equipment.
The MSFS version is nearly as disappointing as all the rest. I can load in a flight plan and complete a flight on AP but cannot get past the dynamics. With any luck I will get a quality King Air some time before I die, but something tells me it will have to be through a broker and will involve a second mortgage, not to mention finding hanger space.
WHY!!?? can’t anyone do a King Air?
The reason behind the INOPs is because default aircraft aren’t intended to be 100% simulations of their real world counterpart. These aircraft exist to allow you to explore the world, and provide developers a demonstration of the capabilities of the SDK.
You guys bought the sim for what, $80? For 20 planes? Let’s say the aircraft accounted for $50 in the price, with sim environment costing $30.
You guys are getting each plane for ~$2.50. You’re high if you expect fully fleshed out simulations for every aircraft.
My only expectation for default aircraft is to demonstrate what is possible in the sim. I won’t lose sleep over the fact that Reversionary Mode is INOP in the CJ4, because it’s inconsequential, and I can tell that it’s possible even if it’s not modelled. I can still explore the world without reversionary mode.
I can still explore the world without AHRS slew
I can still explore the world without Emergency Lights arming
I can still explore the world without a movable detent lock.
EDIT: Or you can choose to never fly the A320 because it doesn’t have a standby whiskey compass that you can pull down and look at. Or never fly the sim because ARFF isn’t modelled at any airport. It’s your life and blood pressure, bro
3 Likes
This is crazy. I bought about $500 worth of Orbx scenery for P3D just to make it look ALMOST as good as MSFS… The King Air 350i from MilViz is $80.
What MSFS provides in VALUE is far beyond what any other sim does. To expect anything close to study level aircraft from default sim is unrealistic. No one buys P3D for default aircraft if they want realistic simulation. That’s why you spend $140 on PMDG aircraft, $60 for A2A General Aviation stuff, etc… And I am happy to pay those prices because it’s something you invest a ton of time into, but it’s not for everyone! Same thing will happen with MSFS once some study level aircraft becomes available.
It costs WAY less to have MSFS do the things you pay a lot of money for in other sims. To compain about default offerings here is insane.
4 Likes
Oh my god I just realized some of us have already seen this topic 3 weeks ago and had responded then, and are repeating the same thing now thinking this is a whole new thread.
This topic is a broken record, jeez…
1 Like
WHY!!?? can’t anyone do a King Air?
[/quote]
###################################
Great question for which I have no answer.
I looked forward to the C90 in X-Plane 11 and simmed in it only once. Very disappointing.
I have simmed in the king air 350 in FS2020 I think only twice for the same reason. Maybe our expectations are too high and yet I don’t really think so. Maybe the time has come for a 3rd Party Dev. to do a decent payware version?
I agree, or they could have chosen 1 plane and make it as close to a study level plane as possible. Would also set the bar for the other plane makers.
I think it’s probably because the King Air, while extremely common, is kind of boring and not “sexy”. People prefer flying new, flashy, high-tech aircraft that they could never afford in treat life.
That would set an unrealistic expectation for the rest of the planes though. I’d be happy if all the planes were on par with each other, rather than a couple of really good ones and a bunch of incomplete ones.
Although one could argue that the C152 and C172 variants are pretty ■■■■ close to that perfection. They’re not perfect, but beyond any of the other planes.
1 Like
Yes, could be
Well MSFS 2020 follows this “rule” indeed.
I hope it won’t be the same for NextGen Simulators.
It will. I’ll bet money on it.