GWJ FBO: Flight Simulation Catch-all

I am very curious, too. My last major flight sim, that I really learned soup to nuts, was Falcon IV. This might get me back into it. And if I get my HOTAS going well, I may actually fire up Elite Dangerous again lol.

Also posted in their dev update

IMAGE(https://assets-global.website-files.com/5b27a494dc3d312fe5c01da8/5f1ae691f681a2ec5036ad0c_image0.jpg)

TrackIR/VR still no status update. Hopefully that's something that can be get up and running soon. Having something this pretty screams headtracking and it would be a shame to not be able to just look around, without the need to use a control axis to move the camera around. I played xplane for the better part of 2 years before getting track IR as a COVID purchase and I am disappointed I waited this long to get it.

Yeah, I added TrackIR back in the early 2000s or so, and would find it really weird to go back to using a hat switch for views.

That's excellent. Looking forward to August 18.

Looks like a number of embargoes were lifted today so there's quite a bit of content out there. I haven't checked most of them out but the ones I browsed appear to still be quite a bit of sizzle.... strange things I noticed...

- No commercial airline liveries. The A320 is always the "A320" plain livery. Other simulators all have real liveries in there pretty much for free and unlicensed, but could be because this is MS they are much more sensitive or prone to trademark lawsuits?

- Did not see any airliner startup for FMC procedures in any video I quickly scrolled through. Every one was either already in the air or engines started on the ground.

- One video that was supposed to be KSFO-KLAS in a A320 was nothing like how that departure would go. The automated ATC was basically giving VFR instructions and there were no procedures. Granted, this was an IGN video, so who knows if the person playing knew anything about how this departure should be flown but (excuse me while I put my FS Snob hat on) I couldn't watch anymore when I saw that happen.

- That being said, there is a clip by a popular streaming real world b738 pilot flying into LOWI with an A320 and I doubt he flies that VFR, so I'm assuming all these procedures are in there somewhere.

- Graphically everything is as expected. Its beautiful. It was good to see it on non-supercomputers and you can see that its not going to be 4k 60fps all the time, but I think if you have a modern computer that plays games well now, this should work. That being said, I think instead of "holy crap this is 1000% better than xplane", I think its a very nice incremental gain... if that's all it was I still think its worth the price of admission. If you're coming from older versions of p3D or FSX this is a massive upgrade.

- I still don't like the flight dynamics. In my quick scrolling I found this video. I have been taking RL flight lessons in a C172. I've only been doing it for a bit so I'm no expert, but the vid below is a C152 which is lighter and has a lot less power and its climbing 500-800 fpm at 90 knots through 4000 feet. The Vy (Best climb speed) of a C152 is 67 knots. I know there are a million factors but I have a hard time believing that sort of performance. This guy sounds like a RL pilot, so maybe this is all fine.

So at the end of the day, I think this only succeeds kind of the same way Xplane and P3D exist now.. it's just a platform. The default aircraft will not be good. It is going to take 3rd parties.. whether community free or paid to make this work. The huge benefit MSFS has is that it *should* have a huge user base which will encourage developers to work on it. And if 10% of the MSFS base is willing to pay $100 for an addon aircraft that's still probably going to be a lot more than the 25% (random number) of Xplane or P3d that may already do so.

For the hardcore users who are happy to shell out this kind of cash, how long are we willing to wait while our other platforms already offer better aircraft?

MSFS never had real-world airline liveries included in the base game in the past, they were always generic/fictional paint schemes. I would presume that as you say, the boutique sim developers can fly under the radar (ha!) but Microsoft is big enough to actually be worth going after for an airline... especially considering the dire financial straits a lot of carriers are in.

As someone who is mainly interested in "low and slow" vintage/general aviation flying with a 40's warbirds being about the hottest thing I would want to climb into the virtual cockpit of, stuff like detailed ATC procedures honestly could not matter any less to me. I understand that stuff has a big audience (to the extent any aspect of flight simulation has a big audience now) and I'm not denigrating those people. I want great graphics and "good enough" (if not professional training level) flight model fidelity.

MSFS has always offered mind-boggling "breadth" in its simulation with moderate depth. To make a comparison to some other game genres, a game where the player has to be able to do 100 different things is never going to deliver on any 1 thing as well as a game where that's the only thing the player does. Skyrim's sword fighting doesn't come close to For Honor's, but For Honor also didn't need its programmers to spend their time on a magic system, an alchemy system, faction reputation, etc. The cottage industry of third party add-on developers have always been the ones who drilled down to flesh out specific aspects of the simulation in MSFS in greater detail for those who wanted that. I wouldn't really expect this new edition of MSFS to be any different in that regard. The last version of the game was 14 years ago and from a hardware/graphics standpoint that's multiple historical epochs. I would expect this MSFS to show off what can be done in this type of game in terms of graphics and world detail and the improvements over predecessors in other areas to be only moderate.

Middcore wrote:

As someone who is mainly interested in "low and slow" vintage/general aviation flying with a 40's warbirds being about the hottest thing I would want to climb into the virtual cockpit of, stuff like detailed ATC procedures honestly could not matter any less to me. I understand that stuff has a big audience (to the extent any aspect of flight simulation has a big audience now) and I'm not denigrating those people. I want great graphics and "good enough" (if not professional training level) flight model fidelity.

I've actually flown a lot fewer airlines and a lot more GA in xplane since I've started my RL flight lessons. That's the thing for me though, I want this to supplement my flying knowledge. In just a few lessons in a C172 I have a sense of how it feels. My Xplane payware C172 feels pretty damn close, so I feel comfortable flying that knowing that if I try to do something I can't do IRL, I can't do it in the sim either.

In the end "realism" is the key for the folks who will continue to fork out cash.. whether its the flight dynamics or the procedure. No one flies an A320 from KSFO to KLAS without procedures... no one climbs a C152 at 1000 FPM at 90 knots. That's why I was hoping for a subscription service. I know these things aren't easy and cost money, if my extra $10/month gives you the most accurate P-51 (that I'll never fly) but also gives me the best A319 (that you'll never fly), I'm happy to do that, and it gives MS and whatever developer base they have some level of revenue to encourage continued development.

Carlbear95 wrote:

This guy sounds like a RL pilot, so maybe this is all fine.

Did you watch the second video? You probably won't think quill's a real pilot after that.

That said, the video made me feel better about scenery & airports away from the areas that they've been featuring so far. It really looks stunning at times.

I was particularly amused when he neglected to respond to his ATC landing clearance, and ATC made sure he was still awake.

Middcore wrote:

MSFS never had real-world airline liveries included in the base game in the past, they were always generic/fictional paint schemes.

That was my recollection, too, at least back in 2003 or whatever the last version I flew was.

Carlbear95 wrote:

I've actually flown a lot fewer airlines and a lot more GA in xplane since I've started my RL flight lessons. That's the thing for me though, I want this to supplement my flying knowledge. In just a few lessons in a C172 I have a sense of how it feels. My Xplane payware C172 feels pretty damn close, so I feel comfortable flying that knowing that if I try to do something I can't do IRL, I can't do it in the sim either.

I'm sort-of in between you guys. I want the aircraft & airports to behave realistically, but I also want the same to have (configurable) aides to help me learn. It sure looks like I'll get my wish on the second part; it remains to be seen for the first.

Carlbear95 wrote:

In the end "realism" is the key for the folks who will continue to fork out cash.. whether its the flight dynamics or the procedure. No one flies an A320 from KSFO to KLAS without procedures... no one climbs a C152 at 1000 FPM at 90 knots. That's why I was hoping for a subscription service. I know these things aren't easy and cost money, if my extra $10/month gives you the most accurate P-51 (that I'll never fly) but also gives me the best A319 (that you'll never fly), I'm happy to do that, and it gives MS and whatever developer base they have some level of revenue to encourage continued development.

I'm in agreement with you here. I'm more of a dilettante with stuff like this. I spent a lot money (to me) on gear, and bought a couple of planes and some scenery during my previous dalliance with flight simming. So, I'll almost certainly buy a few things, but I'm not one of the hard-core people that keep the third party folks in business.

For this, I was definitely willing to sign up for a subscription and had really expected to do so. This time around, I probably need to upgrade my PC even to be in the game.

At the very least I need a new SSD; I only have 22 GB free on my main drive. I have over 700 GB on my backup drive, but that's a USB drive so probably wouldn't be a good place for a game.

I also need to replace my pedals if I want toe brakes, and I'm not 100% sure my yoke will work since I haven't used it in some time.

The PC itself is also 6 years old. It's an i7-4770 with 16 GB RAM, a GTX 1650, and a 22" 1080p monitor. I think that puts me between the minimum & recommended specs, although I'm a bit ignorant of Intel's CPU naming conventions.

My wife basically told me to buy a new PC, but between paying my taxes and the general state of the world these days, I don't feel comfortable making a big purchase like that right now.

Here is the best video I've seen that highlights all the sim settings and gives some good comps on this streamers PC (which is pretty good) at ultra/high/med/low settings in different cities.

I would say even at Low the graphics look nearly as good as Xplane 11 default scenery at least from a few thousand feet and a whole lot better than default P3D or certainly FSX scenery and with very good performance.

One thing that has kind of surprised me is as amazing as the sceneries look, the interiors of the aircraft look kinda meh. Something doesn't look right with the colors inside some of the aircraft. The G1000 displays look a bit off, the analog dials look a bit off a lot of the buttons and switches don't look great. They don't look horrible, but compared to the fidelity of the exteriors its actually quite a contrast in visuals particularly when sitting in the cockpit looking out. This is again probably all attributable to the aircraft themselves not being great.. but if the high end 3rd party developers start making the great interiors, what will that do to FPS?

PMDG, who makes the best-in-class 737 series for P3D showed some previews of their MSFS cockpit and it was jaw dropping. Between the better interior graphics and the compute power needed for the detailed systems, that has to take a toll on the overall FPS, so it will be interesting to see how it runs when it comes out next year (likely at somewhere between $100 - $120). Xplane I can get a 40 FPS difference between stock aircraft and the high fidelity aircraft I have. That's not a great comp since the final Vulcan release hasn't come out yet and its OpenGL architecture isn't ideal, but it is a data point to consider.

C&D A320 video

I won't go into everything that was wrong with this but lets just say MSFS will need payware aircraft sooner rather than later.

Aside from flight dynamics, the biggest gripe I have is that the MCDU (flight computer) was preprogrammed based on clicking map points and menus on the MSFS map screen (this streamer does it on another video). Normally you program or load it in to the MCDU (that's what all the buttons are for!) . I know not everyone wants to do that, and its great that there's a simplified process for new or users who can't be bothered, but I'm curious CAN I even do it the more realistic way if I want to? Vspeeds already filled, perf page already filled... an Airbus does a lot of things much more automatically than a Boeing.. but not that much.

The more I think about it I have no idea how VATSIM will work here. If 5 airbus A320's are taking off from an airport back to back, if 3 are from P3D or Xplane with realistic dynamics and 2 are MSFS, those MSFS ones are going to really screw up the spacing and timing. While they haven't announced it, I'm going to guess that VATSIM on MSFS will need to be on a separate server and maybe with specific events, so as not to make all the controllers decide if they want to be on the normal servers or MSFS servers.

Again the outside is pretty, so looking out the window will always be fun. If you dont' care that you're climbing or descending at 5000 FPM (and basically losing your lunch) for an extended period and you do a lot of 3rd person flying from outside the aircraft this will be great.

I'm pretty convinced now that at launch this really is nothing more than a pretty graphics display to buzz your house or go by some landmarks or cities in a GA aircraft. A quirky way to show Google (I guess its Bing) maps. It will be up to MS, Asobo and the 3rd party developers to get the stuff that the monetizing players want to see, and that is (IMHO) realistic aircraft and dynamics. Like everyone else, I'm going to take the Cessna out and fly it around the bay area and other cities just to see how pretty it all looks and see how it feels. Most sims get the C172 mostly right out of the box... but then what? If I want to do any "real" flying I have to go back to xplane. For those who dont' care about the flight dynamics or the realism, what will MS do keep them engaged? And can MS actually keep both of these audiences engaged?

As more content creators are coming out with videos I'm definitely feeling better about this. The initial wave of content seemed to be more about people more from the game/entertainment side (including Chewwy94 who is a good flight streamer but leans more towards the silly side). This video below of someone just taking out the default C152 in a left closed pattern at Sedona shows much more realistic flight dynamics then I've seen in other streams. I have yet to see something that will convince me IFR procedures will be usable but I'm really looking forward to taking the cessnas or diamond out for a VFR flight.

That looks like fun, and the terrain... Amazing!

I'm super excited about the new flight simulator. I haven't flown virtually in at least 10 years (and not a real pilot either), so for me it'll be starting off again from basically scratch. I haven't totally forgotten how to fly, but it's been long enough that I'll have to go through flight school again.

Yeah I won't keep linking more but I think its safe to say that the externals graphics are amazing. VFR GA flights in basic aircraft like the C152 or C172 will be a lot of fun (to the extent flying is fun for you). The training sessions seem pretty good, and even though I'm pretty familiar with the aircraft and how to fly them I'll probably still go through them all if anything to familiarize myself with the controls.

I have an addon for Xplane that gives me a bunch of little GA missions. While that of course won't work with the new MSFS I'll probably just fly some of them in MSFS just so i have somewhere to go. Oddly enough, despite having 37000 airports, figuring out *where* you want to fly can be a lot harder than you think when you have such a blank canvas.

However if you are interested in tubeliners, learning how your Southwest flight got you from LA to San Francisco and all the steps involved to do that realistically, including ATC (whether real through VATSIM or whatever AI ATC is built in) you will need to wait and/or stick with Xplane or P3D. Nothing I've seen with the default A320 or B747 looks ready for a true full flight from cold and dark. To me that is what will ultimately get me to move over from Xplane. We will see what happens when PMDG or Aerosoft drops their $100 addon aircraft where the market will be for MSFS 2020.

Something interesting news, one of Flightsim's most prominent scenery developers, Orbx, actually announced suggested pricing for their MSFS products.

Existing owners on other sims can get the MSFS version for $8-$11 USD. That's not really news as a lot of developers have announced similar plans. However they also announced that you can buy them new for anywhere between $14 - $20 USD, and that's actually quite a bit cheaper than what they sell for on current sims. (example: Orbx's KTIW in Xplane = $25USD, per the article it will be $12.99 USD in MSFS) As an aside Orbx generally quotes prices in AUD as they are an Australian company so Americans have actually already gotten them cheaper than usual since the USD has been quite strong recently, but this pricing is in USD and is still cheaper.

That's all quite promising for scenery pricing. That could be because the scenery in MSFS is already so good it will be hard to convince a consumer to spend the normal $20-$40 on an airport, or they are expecting so many users that they can lower the price to hopefully get the same revenue. Could also be because since they now have to price in USD for the MSFS Marketplace that they end up doing better because of the FX rate and Europeans, who are a pretty big market, actually get pinched more because now they are converting to USD instead of AUD.

Apparently Microsoft are sending out a goody box to FS-related youtubers (like Quill), which included the Honeycomb yoke, Logitech throttle quadrant, and Thrustmaster rudder pedals. Oh, and a pair of John Goodman glasses.

When he pulled that pedal out of the box, it reminded me of one of the titanium fins on a Falcon 9.

Are there any Thrustmaster config layouts yet, for this? I doubt I'll do the footpedals - I can map those to a hat switch - but I'm definitely going to do the HOTAS setup. It'd be cool to have it all ready to go on release...

If your hotas has a twist axis, then pedals are just a luxury for precision or immersion purposes. Assuming it maps controls the way most other sims do, when it doesn't detect a separate nosewheel axis, the rudder/yaw axis just doubles up as nosewheel control on tubeliners. Most non-jet GA aircraft do not have a separate nosewheel tiller, so rudder and nosewheel are already the same axis.

If you don't have a twist axis, then that can be tough. I'm not sure how easy it will be to do rudder control without an axis. Rudders pedals in most aircraft naturally recenter, so a hatswitch may not give you that same response.

While its nice to have asynchronous braking from pedals that can give you better turning control, I'm sure you can map something to some sort of synchronous 'hold brakes' button.

What HOTAS do you have? Happy to give you suggestions on mapping. Most important for GA are trim controls easy accessible, and in my experience something for the heading bug. Also, buttons for AP connect and disconnect. If you plan on doing any voice ATC you'll need a Push to Talk button. You'll also want at least one hatswitch for camera control. Even if you are using VR/TrackIR, you're going to want to bounce around the aircraft and outside, and you'll need a button for "recenter view" to snap you back to the pilots seat, with or without headtracking. Before I got trackIR I had left/right hatswitch mapped to "hold for look left/right 90 degrees", so I could quickly glance to the left and right and release to go back to straight ahead with just one button instead of holding a pan button then pushing another button to recenter.

If you plan on using G1000 aircraft with more Autopilot controls or the jets with full LNAV/VNAV capabilities, a hatswitch with altitude and speed bug settings is very helpful. Moving around and fiddling with knobs and dials with the mouse isn't the most convenient thing. While I don't know the specific layouts of the aircraft in MSFS certain configs Beechcraft C90's have their AP controls on the center console between the seats so looking down, turning a dial and looking up can be a pain, even in VR. Having buttons that dial up/down heading or altitude bugs is helpful.

It's a Warthog. I was going to get deep into Elite Dangerous, but it turned out I... didn't.

I won't lack for programmable buttons and switches lol.

Robear wrote:

It's a Warthog. I was going to get deep into Elite Dangerous, but it turned out I... didn't.

I won't lack for programmable buttons and switches lol.

Yeah.. unfortunately I don't think it twists does it? That's going to be tough for rudder control on a GA. Lesson number 1 when learning to fly a single piston prop engine... MORE RIGHT RUDDER!

If any of those hatswitches acts more like an axis than a button, I would use that for rudder control.

I think the hats use analog pots, so it should be okay. I could put the rudder pedals in, but my desk is kind of short and so I'd be sitting very awkwardly to use them. I know it makes coordinated turns easier, but I think I can work with the hat.

Carlbear95 wrote:
Robear wrote:

It's a Warthog. I was going to get deep into Elite Dangerous, but it turned out I... didn't.

I won't lack for programmable buttons and switches lol.

Yeah.. unfortunately I don't think it twists does it?

I think it does twist (I fly simulated 787s with one in our Propulsion lab at work, and assuming I'm not confusing sticks, that's how I control the rudder).

No, no twist on mine. Except there's a ring to remove and replace the stick. Maybe there's a version that has a twist base that can be placed on it...

If you have rudder pedals I would use them. While you're right about the coordinated turns, in a sim, that really doesn't matter unless you're making steep turns.

Where rudder control is needed is maintaining heading on takeoff roll and climb. Single engine props will continually yaw to the left through those phases of flight, and the faster or steeper you go the more right rudder you need. If you go full power and go into say a 15-20 degree nose up in a cessna (not recommended unless you're trying to stall) you basically need to stand on the right rudder to keep it flying straight. By the time I do my oral exam I'll be able to tell you exactly what physics are at play there, but it has something to do with the torque of the engines and the airflow caused by the propeller over the left wing.

Because of that, having an axis where you can "feel" how far you off of center like a twist or pedals and hold it in that position, is very helpful.

I know. It's just, I'm constrained by the table my system is on. Not sure whether I can work around it or not. I guess I can give it a try, though.

Robear wrote:

I know. It's just, I'm constrained by the table my system is on. Not sure whether I can work around it or not. I guess I can give it a try, though.

This is flightsim.. get a new table!

Rolling launch starting now. Anyone in Australia or Asia looks like this is ready to download.

I'm not thrilled about Microsoft's launcher/installer. I have no idea where this thing is installed or being pre-installed. I moved the initial install folder from C: to a secondary SSD with 500GB+. Checking the properties it "says" its installed there at 900 MB, but when I go to that drive, there is nothing in the windowsapp folder (yes I set the permissions to view it), that is that big. I don't see any 1GB folder anywhere.

I'm probably just being impatient and when this thing actually launches for me (9pm local pacific time), hopefully everything ends up where its supposed to. I just don't want this massive download sitting on my OS hard drive that is limited in space and then having to spend time trying to get everything into the right place.

I actually have a relatively slow WFH day tomorrow so if I can I'll try to get a stream going and create/join a Flightsim channel in discord in the On Demand section.

Anyways.. Skyhawk N95CB holding short ready for departure.

I bought it on Steam, so it'll be available after midnight. What I hear, though, is that the MS Store preload is something like 500MB, with the rest coming when you first fire up the game. Have not confirmed that.

Yeah, the download was 500 mb, but the app properties says 990 MB, so I assume it just unpacked it. Wish I knew where they hid it though.