Kurtvw

Since they have what appears to be a pretty extensive patch coming in the next 10 days or so, it seems like it might be worth the wait to see how that goes, if you're concerned about the current state...

Rough around the edges and 'broken' are miles away from each other. I wasn't calling it broken. Rough meaning all the little irritations that do occur like ATC randomly running you to weird altitudes in rapid succession. Switches marked 'inop' simply because it didn't get finished before rollout. U.S. Weather that is often hours old. things of that nature. The sim is functional, and generally great to look at, although issues with Bing imagery can be a little jarring that is a limitation of generating your world from the Bing data, and you do learn not to obsess about it. But, that is another thing that contributes to 'a little rough around the edges'. I didn't get beat up in other threads and called a fanboi just to come in here and be told I'm being over harsh :cool: :D I like the sim, I just think that as of right now, its not for everyone. I think it will be very soon. But right now, its got its pain points.

Don't let the build in ATC be a sales point for you, its really bad and needs to be rethought. Framerates are not always blinding fast even on a very strong system, but even at lower FPS (30 to 40 on my settings and system) its is very smooth, and it is rare that I notice frame speed, except sometimes when new autogens are popping in, or something like that. Unless you're fond of tinkering, I think it'd be wise to wait a little before hopping in, or if you are going to get in right now, take the standard version, as a there are only a couple aircraft in the higher versions that are worth having right now... The extra money will probably go further for you on 3rd party aircraft. Right now the sim is pretty rough around the edges... It'll get better with time, but unless you're ready for some frustration, it is a good idea to wait.

according to their official notes on the flightsimulator.com page, they are looking into a number of autopilot issues. I had an interesting one the other day where I was using the AP in the Caravan, I was in alt hold, and hdg hold, using the hdg bug to adjust... After about the 4th change to hdg, the AP just kinda freaked out and started turning left as you're talking about. I was in about the last 20 minutes of my flight anyhow, so it wasn't a big deal to hand fly, but annoying just the same. They seem to be targeting Sept24 for the next patch. I hope these kind of fixes are what they get in, and not just eyecandy things.

I thought it was just MSFS, you'd certainly know better than I would. It is odd that so many thought it was a catch-all then.

You are certainly a guy with a lot of interesting assumptions. Why do you have time to write essays, but I should not have time? Why are you so concerned that people might buy it, cause it to be a success and have a longer life with better development support? Most importantly, why do you think I'm hiding things? I fly it, I think it handles the GA planes pretty well and the heavy iron needs a LOT of work. The weather looks great when it works, but right now it doesn't update correctly. The knobs are hard to turn because they were being ding-dongs when they came up with the interface... Some of the knobs even turn backwards to what you would expect... They'll get it sorted, I'm not concerned about it. And if you are, you're wise to wait, or even never buy, if you can't trust it. Or me, or whatever. But, just like every other FS before it, it is entertainment software when it comes out of the box. Hobbiests turn it into something more if they see fit. No version has ever come out of the box as the sim you have in your mind. Just like it has been for all the years of its existence, MSFS is entertainment software to get people interested in aviation. It isn't flight training equipment. I'm not kind to the devs, I have a pile of tickets open with them, some I've had to open more than once because the zendesk idiots don't know what they are reading. Thats how I'm trying to help it get better, and I think that is much more valuable to everyone than you just spitting about it. Do as you please. I'm enjoying it flaws inclusive, but I am on them every day with each flaw I find. I'm not just sitting here grinning like an idiot or telling people its the best thing since biscuits and gravy... That is a version of me that you have created yourself, and that person only exists in your imagination.

MS has never released a flight training device, and they never will. You know full well that the certification process for that designation is way beyond the boundaries of their intent. I don't believe I've ever heard of anyone who took any version of MSFS that seriously, especially at release day. It is at its best a pretty good, but never ever official procedural sim, but even in old versions even that is only true after extensive mods. I'm not 'hiding' anything. I'm pretty sure I've been pretty open about it being flawed. But I also knew I wasn't buying an approved flight training device, and I'm pretty sure everyone else knows that too. You're the only person who seems to think people might think that.

In addition to the calibration check already suggested. Check the sensitivity of the roll axis in the sim, it has curves for that, I had to dial mine back quite a bit to get it a little less spicy.

They are now, looks like Nels changed it today, it didn't say 2020 yesterday.

^^^^^^^^ THIS Please.

Yes, Meigs is gone, however a clever scenery person could fix that. Maybe someone will.

Actually I agree with this remark. I'm not on any high horse. But being released too soon, and with bugs is not the same thing as what is getting spewed around by some who are just right off the cuff going with 'this sim sucks' and frankly going way beyond that saying that it will always suck and is irredeemable, which is just silly. But yeah, its loaded with bugs, and I get frustrated with it too. They'll fix it, I'm not worried about it. As long as GTA has been brought in to the discussion, it was full of bugs at release too, and RockStar is probably the only studio on earth that can make Microsoft look fast. But thats not really anything to do with anything.

This sim may do just that... Because up until Aug18, nobody was using bing maps for anything anyhow, so it didn't matter that it was years behind google. Now it does matter.

This response (and one or two from others) caught me by surprise. If you think I said that you can't have an opinion then you read it wrong. Or if you think I said that you can't post till you own it... Thats not what I said either. This was directed at the people that are just hanging out being disruptive trolls. If someone has legitimate questions or concerns, they should post and ask questions. But as far as opinion, how can anyone have a meaningful opinion on something they haven't actually used? I have never gone skydiving, I think it looks fun. But that is the limit of my 'opinion' of the sport because I haven't done it. Similarly, I think parkour is silly and dangerous, but I'm sure not swinging by some Parkour forum to tell them that. Just because a person has an opinion doesn't mean anyone cares. People thinking of buying are not going to get value in the 'opinion' of someone who has never used the product, or whose opinion is based entirely on someone elses opinion. People thinking of buying are looking for the opinion of people who have first hand experience. Lets try not to paint me into the corner of saying you have no right to speak. If that is all you got from my post, then you read it with a chip on your shoulder right from the start.

Yeah, you can't include climbout at the cruise burn rate, its much higher. To test cruise burn you need to use fixed numbers once you're established in cruise. In a real world flight, you can kind of average it because the excess you spend in climb will partially pay back during cruise descent... But most folks trying to quick and dirty up a 'guesstimate' in sim aren't going to do that. Glad to help.

Why do you suppose there is this faction of people who hang out in the FS2020 forum only to say how much they aren't going to buy it? To me this is like going to a forum about baseball to post about how much you prefer hockey. If you have already decided that FS2020 is poo, then you're right to go back to your other sim. In fact, I think most of us that are enjoying FS2020 would prefer that you do exactly that. Fly as you please. Because I'm sure not going to show up in one of the other forums and say "why are you guys still flying this?". It seems like its settling down a little now, but I'm sure there will be more. If your answer to someone's question is going to be "give up on this and fly this other thing.." You're not helping. And if your post title is "this sux" you're not helping. I think there is deliberate trolling going on in here, and I think it is mostly people that are concerned that either their preferred sim has actual competition, or they are concerned that some add-on company is going to switch platforms. To be honest, I understand the concern, I know how much gets dumped into add-ons for some specific sim, and changing up can be a pricey decision. But if you're just tearing down a platform because you don't have it, or don't want it, or because you have $3000 invested in making some other platform finally be what you want... You're not helping. A new sim on the field of play is not a bad thing. And I think anyone who really cares about the long term viability of the hobby should probably be happy that something new has finally shown up, because honestly, it's been a long long time since we saw anything other than rehash of old tech. I'm on this platform, and I'm sticking around. But if you're not, thats ok too. Just don't come into this forum to bust peoples skulls because you like some other sim. Just go back.. Or in easier terms... This forum is not an airport. Departures do not need to be annouced on the P.A. system. Thanks. Oh, and the white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers ONLY.

But have you tested that against actual burn rate? I just finished a longer test in the 172, and it is burning about 10% more than I would expect and more than it reports on its fuel flow gauge... The fuel flow gauge in these planes is NEVER trusted in real life anyhow, and is more of an approximation... But, here is what I got... In the conditions I described above, 5k feet, 2300RPM, just rich of peak lean, I'm showing about 8gph which agrees with my real world experience (not an exact science, values vary by many factors as Kapitan points out)... 8GPH is on the high end of what I've seen, real world, but its not unreasonable. Actual burn test over a timed period vs the actual capacity in the tank reported on the fuel screen not on the gauges shows that its in reality burning about 9gph... So, its a little high, but not so much that it would cut someones range so badly that a good reserve wouldn't have compensated for. C152 might have an issue, but the C172 seems plenty close enough to me. I'm not doing a second test in the 152, because I don't fly that plane normally and it's no value to me. If anyone else wants to do it, all you need to do is set your plane up, climb to alt, open the fuel panel in the sim, set a precise value of fuel... go away for an hour and come back. Pretty easy. But it does take an hour.. Or half hour if you want to keep it simple, but fixed time vs fixed fuel values. Easy math.

Interesting result, it died with 1.5 gallons in each side, so 3 of the seven gallons unusable (realistic, honestly)... It took about 25 minutes to drink the other 4... So it might be over consuming just a little, but it doesn't seem like its way out of whack.. I'm going to retest this now that I know that it's smart enough to handle unusable fuel. Will post again in a bit.

I'm doing a test of this right now in the 172, level cruise 110 kts 2300 rpm and just rich of peak... I'm getting a gauge indication of 8GPH, which is pretty much exactly what I would expect. I put only 7 gallons in the plane, so I'm just going to let it run dry... I would expect it to last about 50ish minutes, we'll see how it does.

Looks like you need to invert the axis.

Lets bring this out of the vague sweeping 'everything sucks' discussion and get specific. Lets take the C172, as its a nice simple plane that we've (you keep implying but not really stating that you're a real world pilot, so I'll assume you are) all flown at some point in the real world. Pops off the ground a little easy in FS, has in all previous versions... Has for sure an optimistic rate of climb that is not in line with any C172 I've ever met... Rudder is touchy, just like every flight sim I've ever been in, but can be dialed out with axis curves. And I am hearing there is a fuel consumption issue with it in the sim, thats acknowledged. We know the garmin is poorly modeled, so lets not get into that part of it, thats easily fixed and Asobo have stated explicitly that they are working on that currently. But you glossed over a lot of very specific areas and provided no data to support your position. I'm asking you to do that now. I want to know what exactly you're saying is wildly incorrect, in real verifiable terms, not opinions. ***Edit*** Your adverse yaw remark is of interest, I think what is really going on is the auto-rudder doesn't disable when toggled off. I think the adverse yaw is likely properly modeled, but auto-rudder is dealing with it. I have submitted a bug report on that already. It is however hardly a fatal flaw in a consumer level sim.

The $1 thing with the MS Store isn't about FS... It's their game pass which is a TON of different titles, many top end games. Its not a sale on FS, its not an intro deal.. Its game pass. Painting it as a reflection of their confidence in this product is misleading.

To report it you need to go to flightsimulator.com, in the forums there you will see a zendesk link at the top, that is the bug reporting system they are using. That site doesn't work well with chrome (at least for me) so be prepared to use Edge or Explorer browser.

Interesting, if it was the aerobat 150/152, that one had a bigger engine so higher consumption. Haven't played with that one yet... Used to have access to a real one, fun little plane. Way more power than the standard 152. I haven't done any long flights in the light Cessnas so I wouldn't have noticed a consumption issue. The Bonanza flight from North Las Vegas to Santa Ynez, the consumption seemed appropriate to the aircraft.