I agree. Take the FSX template and update it a bit and you have a perfect out of the box experience for all the reasons you mentioned. Missions, adventures, training…it was really awesome…
7 Likes
My high level wishes:
- Something to do
- Immersion
- Realism (only to a certain degree)
For example I find that static shorelines or flat textures (projected sat images) destroy immersion for me.
2 Likes
Buzzin Sheep in my SuperBug
1 Like
This is what I’d like to see. Look to Euro/American Truck Sim for inspiration. Run your own airline/freightline. Manage aircraft, pilots, crew, mechanics, and finances. That’s what I want the most.
4 Likes
I’m the opposite as far as the base game goes. I own Air Hauler, and use it quite a bit, but I love the fact that FS has always been “Go fly.” No buying AC, not starting locations, etc. You want to barnstorm in a 747, knock yourself out. If they actually implemented something like the Truck Sim series as a mandatory part of the gameplay, I would actually feel like it had taken a horrible side step. As a voluntary option, or a free addon? Lovely, great, probably a day 1 addition for me, but I don’t want to be forced into any predetermined scenarios in FS.
2 Likes
I agree with @jenrick. That said, while I don’t want any “mandatory part of the gameplay” I do like the tools that FSX has to quickly build a flight that is fairly structured. In fact it is the one thing about XP11 that I have a real problem with–its inability to quickly generate a VFR flight using a graphical interface.
Stand by for Rant…all hands man your rant stations…this is not a drill. 
We all know that XP is IFR only if you want ATC…to the extent that you cannot get simple taxi instructions, clear for TO, clear for landing if you have not “filed” an IFR flight plan which you have to enter in text…really?
This is made especially difficult in VR where the map screen is ridiculously small so little chance graphically finding the various frequencies that you need. If you want those in VR using an XP screen you need to prepare a text file with all the info (mostly frequencies) that you need. Cumbersome? You bet.
I’ve been able to get GMapsHD (by FSWidgets) set up in and independent window and (using the desktop mouse pointer) can navigate around it and pick up info as needed…
…but still, landing at an airport VFR becomes a game of listen to the tower and/or ground freq to try and figure if it is safe to land…removes more than a bit of the emersion even in VR. 
Secure from rant, set the normal underway watch, on deck section 2.
So I’m going to go with Pilot2ATC…which, getting back to the latest theme of this thread, is a 3rd party add on…not “out of the box”.
5 Likes
I am thrilled that MSFS is coming back. I think it never should have left.
Will I be buying this one? Probably not. The streaming terrain is going to be the factor that keeps me away because I just don’t have the internet connection to accommodate it.
Regardless, it looks to be amazing.
3 Likes
Maybe it needed to step back for awhile. This way it will be a whole new sim, rather than an incremental upgrade. P3D was in effect, the incremental upgrade to FSX.
I’m pretty sure that MSFS 2020 won’t work well for me with my internet connection, but maybe I will be surprised. Right now I am pretty heavily invested in X-Plane 11, so I’m in no hurry to jump ship.
2 Likes
Yeah…I’ve puled enough about my huge investment in FSX on these pages so I won’t revisit that subject. That said in many ways it has been an unfortunate time to make a switch to XP11 and VR. I’m the opposite of @PaulRix’s situation. I am reluctant to invest heavily in XP11 in case the new MSFS turns out to be the sim of my future. What a predicament. 
2 Likes
I hung in with FSX as it was “good enough,” and XP years ago didn’t impresses. Didn’t get into P3D as it seemed like buying FSX over again. Turns out I might have gotten lucky in all this mess lol.
FSX had become so unstable for me, not being able able to address more memory. When P3D moved to 64 bit, I couldn’t get FSX and P3Dv3 off of my system quickly enough. P3Dv4 has been for the most part stable. Its VR support could be better but XP has its warts too. What sets XP above P3D is the flight model, IMHO.
An interesting dilemma.
At the same time:
- XP base product delivers good value today
- It is being actively updated and functionality added
- 3rd party developers seem to have ‘found’ XP and while not at the MSFS / P3D level, the add-on list starting to be pretty good and is getting better
Assuming the new MSFS will be targeted at the same market (which is still sort of a question mark?), how long is it going to take them to:
- Launch the base product
- Bug squash
- Optimise
- Start adding functionality / add-ons etc.
…all the while XP is already up and running and gathering speed? To me it could be a while before we’re talking about comparable products.
I guess making a ‘once in a decade’ type decision about really investing $ into a product to make it super awesome (like what it sounds like you’ve done previously with MSFS) is not something you want to make in a whim…but then again, doing selective purchases and getting good value from XP in the meantime might work quite well.
2 Likes
and
Both are true (IMHO). Which brings me to an insight that I think is valid. It is apparent to me that XP as and still is very focused on the flight model, and that is what they update at the expense of other features that desperately need updating.
As evidence the recent video for the .4 beta. Don’t get me wrong; the Mech Egr in me was fascinated. However, if you ask be, the lack of an accurate model allowing for exhaust thrust pales in comparison with the lack of any usable VFR ATC function.
…all lf which may be why I am holding off from purchasing any more XP11 “stuff”.
1 Like
It is always interesting to me to see what different people see as being the important features that make all the difference to their simming experience.
I am coming to the conclusion that as I get older, even though I hate to admit it, I am becoming more of a casual simmer. I get the most enjoyment out of flying simpler or vintage aircraft. I’m also enjoying the long treks we occasionally do here at Mudspike, and the Celestial Navigation project @TheAlmightySnark, @Sine_Nomine and I are working on (more on that very soon for those of you who want to try it out).
4 Likes
I would love to but all the pretty clouds from my 3rd-party weather app keep getting in the way. 
1 Like
I am similar in perspective. I actually enjoy flying a mission using the vintage aircraft utilizing old school navigation. I then like to take a more modern aircraft and experience the difference in the systems compared to the vintage aircraft I just flew. For example, I just love flying the DCS Mig-21Bis, using the various old school navigation systems, trying to learn and fight with that aircraft where I have to click several different buttons and switches just to get a missile off let alone trying to find the enemy with GCI and an extremely poor radar system.
Then, I love hopping into the Hornet (even though not yet fully system modeled) and seeing, experiencing the difference in avionics, flight model, navigation ease of use, weapon employment, just marveling at the variations in design and use of these aircraft compared to those old world system fighters.
5 Likes
We got some awesome screenshots in yesterday’s update, just wow!
Daher-Socata-TBM-930
procedurally-generated_Grass_Normandie-1
9 Likes
2 Likes
Went hunting into Google Maps:
You can see Mont-Saint-Michel in the distance.
7 Likes
Ok that’s pretty awesome.
1 Like