Microsoft Flight Sim 2020

[SAS_Storebror]

If everything goes well, you usually have the increased loading times only the first time when the game "sees" a change in the Community folder.

However when things go sour, the game will keep parsing the folder over and over, and update it's internal file database over and over too.

 

So if you encounter a significant increase in startup times, just exit to desktop and check the second attempt.

If that's still slow, then you're doomed.

 

Mike

[CanadaOne]

6 hours ago, SAS_Storebror said:

The Community folder can easily become a problem anyway.

I've had 55 Gigs in there lately and had to dump it completely as the game took about an hour to start.

 

Mike

 

Is that 55GB all add-ons?

 

 

[DBFlyguy]

New Partnership Series Video: Textron Aviation

 

 

[Monostripezebra]

I found a really funny bug: There is a hangar at JFK that will force-extract your gear if you fly through it

 

[SAS_Storebror]

7 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

Is that 55GB all add-ons?

Indeed, from all kind of sources.

Partly self-ported FSX things involved and that's where I've probably messed it up to a point where FS20 refused to load in proper time anymore.

No biggies, just dumped the Community folder and started with a fresh one.

 

Mike

[Trooper117]

I need more old school flying... I'm not into jets of any size or shape, I hate the 'glass cockpit' scene entirely.

I wait in anticipation for old and bold aviation to get more representation.

[SCG_motoadve]

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

I hate the 'glass cockpit

Same here, dont not like it at all.

[Lusekofte]

3 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

I need more old school flying... I'm not into jets of any size or shape, I hate the 'glass cockpit' scene entirely.

I wait in anticipation for old and bold aviation to get more representation.

I agree. I fly mostly the cessna 152 for this reason. I would however love a twin otter and such. A catalina too.  A little bit fire bombing

[Blooddawn1942]

Is it by any chance possible to dim the Garmin screens? They are bright as hell in night conditions. 

[CanadaOne]

2 hours ago, Blooddawn1942 said:

Is it by any chance possible to dim the Garmin screens? They are bright as hell in night conditions. 

 

+1

 

I was looking around for that but haven't found anything.

6 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

I agree. I fly mostly the cessna 152 for this reason. I would however love a twin otter and such. A catalina too.  A little bit fire bombing

 

I think Aerosoft is making a Twin Otter, but it might take a while.

 

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, Blooddawn1942 said:

Is it by any chance possible to dim the Garmin screens? They are bright as hell in night conditions. 

With the street lights al flt level 20, there is little point in night flying anway unless you want to simulate substance use.

[Blooddawn1942]

3 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

think Aerosoft is making a Twin Otter, but it might take a while.

Can't wait until A2A throws their hat into the ring. By far the best flightsim experience I ever had and it even surpasses DCS imho. 

2 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

With the street lights al flt level 20, there is little point in night flying anway unless you want to simulate substance use.

Well yes, that's quite annoying. But I'm sure it will be fixed sooner than later. 

[Monostripezebra]

Turns out the hangar bug is also on other objects, like the Eifel Tower..  now, knowing that,  one can actually fly a 747 through the Eifeltower.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2020 by Monostripezebra

[CanadaOne]

3 hours ago, Blooddawn1942 said:

Can't wait until A2A throws their hat into the ring. By far the best flightsim experience I ever had and it even surpasses DCS imho. 

 

 

Yep, they're pretty good. I had some of their stuff for FSX. I'd buy the P-51 for sure.

 

I hope CaptainSim steps up. I would love to see them make the C-130 for FS20. And I would gladly pay a premium price if they remade their F-104. I had a ton of fun in both those planes.

 

[AndyJWest]

Today's lesson for aspiring TBM pilots: if you are going to fiddle with the fuel tank selector, make sure you know where the engine starter switch is first. ?

 

 

I managed to shut the fuel off, and was running out of altitude and options fast. Pure luck had made me select Taiwan for my first flight, and I had plenty of flat land to dead stick onto - though I suspect they may be paddy fields in real life. I located the starter (I'd not used it before since I'd taken the easy option, and began the flight engine-on, from the runway), taxied back a bit to give myself plenty of room, and took off again, with no obvious damage.

 

Hopefully, by the time I get to Manila (I'm testing the TBM's flight envelope  ?) I'll have figured out how to land it properly, without doing any more damage.

Edited September 19, 2020 by AndyJWest

[Lusekofte]

Was going for a 1 week worktrip, Normally I just take my iPhone with me and use it. It is a midrange phone since I tend to throw them in a wall at least one time in their lifespan, and loose it from a couple of meters. 

This time job got extended to last abot 6 weeks, luckily I took my iPad mini with me so I figured I could see netflix on it. Appaerently that streaming service take some resources. 

So I bought a small Acer laptop on the company, telling myself that getting invoices out on a weekly bases is a good motif.

Point is, this is the first time since forever I logged into this site with a pc, and see now the screenies from this site is just awesome. 

Pleace post them and videos, god knows when I am home again

[AndyJWest]

Coming into Unalaska, in the Aleutians, Definitely not a good place to screw up a landing.

 

The live weather (now it's working properly) adds a whole lot to the MSFS experience. I'd taken off from Nikolskoye, a dirt strip at the Russian end of the Aleutians, with the intention of seeing what a storm system looked like from above. Not particularly spectacular, as it turned out, as swirly things at this latitude don't usually develop the sort of hole-in-the-middle look that you get in the tropics. Something to do with corolis forces, I think.
 
While I was up there (took the TBM to 31,000 ft, its nominal ceiling) I saw that Windy.com was reporting a jet stream a little to the south, so I decided to hitch a ride along the island chain. I had an 85 kt tailwind at one point. I could have gone further, but landing while I had plenty of fuel and options seemed sensible. As it was, there was more low cloud than the METAR was reporting, and my 'VFR' approach into Unalaska was more reliant on blind faith and instruments than it should have been.

 

The next thing I need to do with the TBM is sort out the thrust reverser control. The Unalaska runway is over 4,000 ft, so stopping shouldn't really be a problem, but when you've got water and then a big lump of rock facing you, it helps to know you can stop in a hurry.
 

 

 

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Something to do with corolis forces, I think.

You need a warm sea for that.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Indeed, latest patch has significantly improved performance on my rig, although not to the level IL-2 provides, but they're completely different beasts...

 

Weather is now also more coherent, both aloft and near aerodromes with METAR reports.

 

I still need to consider a PC upgrade, maybe later this year or arount 2021 to be able to profit from the amazing graphics MFS can provide.

 

Yet, my main concern are flight and systems modeling. The SDK docs are rather sparse in details, but ASOBO is actively working on it, helicopters will arrive sometime along 2021, and I am sure that the arrival of major 3pd players will bring additional features.

 

All in all, a very good source of fresh air for the civil simulation community. But IL-2 is still ahead, way ahead, in physics modeling, IMO...

[Lusekofte]

58 minutes ago, jcomm-in-il2 said:

But IL-2 is still ahead, way ahead, in physics modeling, IMO...

Agreed, but they too took their time. But I think GB by having too light irplanes to start with. By improving this it simply got amazing 

[SAS_Storebror]

23 hours ago, jcomm-in-il2 said:

IL-2 is still ahead, way ahead, in physics modeling, IMO...

I'm not convinced yet.

The dancing 109 with it's physics-denying negative G manoeuvres after having received a few thousand cal .50 bullets is probably not what you're referring to, right?

I mean... there's little WW2 planes yet in MSFS 2020 (actually: Zero) and little airliners or private aircraft in IL-2 either (actually: Zero), so how do they compare?

How would a P-47 fly in MSFS 2020, and how a 747 in IL-2?

We don't know.

 

Mike

[ZachariasX]

I think one should not confuse basic functionality of a simulation with the amout of work that is inversted in a particular plane.

 

Also, no simulation out there can compute post stall flight characteristics. This is always arbitarily scripted in one or the other way. You cannot take such behavior as reference for a simulations capabilities. If one could, you could also move „the other sims“ code base to /dev/null.

 

As far as lifting line theory is concerned, IL2 is amazingly good in hitting numbers that you get when you invest far more resources than just real time. But same goes for other simulations.

[Lusekofte]

I find it hard getting any sense in any related media about msfs 2020. 
Personally I am happy this came out now. 
Ironic you go to cfs related forums to find a balanced pow and good advices. 
I do not know what people expected, we started GB with just a few planes. 
We flew happily along. Not to mention DCS gazillion failed patches. 
I believed cfs community was hysterical but we are actually nice guys

[AndyJWest]

The trouble is that people have very differing expectations of what MSFS is supposed to be capable of, and very different ideas regarding what they expect to be using it for.

 

Some people (like me) are mostly interested in the GA aircraft, which are mostly capable of being flown as such. Sure, there are issues, some more significant than others, and features missing that should probably be there, but not enough stop anyone from flying most of the smaller aircraft, and getting enjoyment out of it.

 

For people wishing to fly the bigger stuff, there are obviously real problems. Falling-out-of-the-sky ones that make flying the beasts in a manner anything like the real thing very problematic. I can understand such people not being at all happy.

 

And then there are those (mostly from the '"it's a simulation not a game" crowd) who seem to think that anything that doesn't replicate the entire universe in exact detail 'is 'a bug', and evidence that the whole thing is a humongous scam. These people are idiots...

[Hoots]

6 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

The....

 

What he said.

 

[Ace_Pilto]

 

Yeah, well Sean Bates is obviously a virgin. Everyone knows that flying under bridges is the primary requirement of any flight simulator.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Ace_Pilto

[RedKestrel]

10 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

The trouble is that people have very differing expectations of what MSFS is supposed to be capable of, and very different ideas regarding what they expect to be using it for.

 

Some people (like me) are mostly interested in the GA aircraft, which are mostly capable of being flown as such. Sure, there are issues, some more significant than others, and features missing that should probably be there, but not enough stop anyone from flying most of the smaller aircraft, and getting enjoyment out of it.

 

For people wishing to fly the bigger stuff, there are obviously real problems. Falling-out-of-the-sky ones that make flying the beasts in a manner anything like the real thing very problematic. I can understand such people not being at all happy.

 

And then there are those (mostly from the '"it's a simulation not a game" crowd) who seem to think that anything that doesn't replicate the entire universe in exact detail 'is 'a bug', and evidence that the whole thing is a humongous scam. These people are idiots...

The problem with sims is always expectations. You can't fully simulate the real world on a home PC. So you make concessions based on the gameplay you want to facilitate. But simmers want the 'real thing' and are upset when that proves impossible.

 

[ZachariasX]

FS2020 is just a sketch of what it can be. And already it is great. FSX was utter turd when it came out, this is awesome. It shows you how things should be, despite all the things that don't work yet.

[Lusekofte]

On 9/20/2020 at 8:10 AM, ZachariasX said:

You need a warm sea for that.

I was reading "You need a warm tea for that " ? 

[CanadaOne]

4 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

The trouble is that people have very differing expectations of what MSFS is supposed to be capable of, and very different ideas regarding what they expect to be using it for.

 

Some people (like me) are mostly interested in the GA aircraft, which are mostly capable of being flown as such. Sure, there are issues, some more significant than others, and features missing that should probably be there, but not enough stop anyone from flying most of the smaller aircraft, and getting enjoyment out of it.

 

For people wishing to fly the bigger stuff, there are obviously real problems. Falling-out-of-the-sky ones that make flying the beasts in a manner anything like the real thing very problematic. I can understand such people not being at all happy.

 

And then there are those (mostly from the '"it's a simulation not a game" crowd) who seem to think that anything that doesn't replicate the entire universe in exact detail 'is 'a bug', and evidence that the whole thing is a humongous scam. These people are idiots...

 

That was good. 

 

My #1 priority with FS20 is geographic accuracy. I want the sim planet to look like the real planet as much as possible. After that, give me two or three planes and I'll be happy.

 

As it is right now, I think FS20 is outstanding. One of the few times I've paid for a game/sim and received far more than what I paid for. Had the standard edition been $150 instead of $80 I would still think it was worth the price.

[Lusekofte]

11 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

As it is right now, I think FS20 is outstanding

Me too. I have big plans for this.  I cannot understand why but it is refreshing buying this in my case deluxe version and fly where ever you want for nothing. 
I easily can look beyond the problems. 

[CanadaOne]

3 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

Me too. I have big plans for this.  I cannot understand why but it is refreshing buying this in my case deluxe version and fly where ever you want for nothing. 
I easily can look beyond the problems. 

 

Exactly. Besides, this thing is going to see a lot of updates. I can't see that it will be like FSX and just get one or two. There will be some serious bug squashing and improvements I'm sure. 

 

And other than a few small locations that are special to me, I don't see the need for payware scenery. The scenery already looks great. I'm not plomping down $20 for a little airport in the middle of nowhere when I'm only going to spend 60 seconds there and then bugger off to see the rest of the planet that looks so damn good. And I don't see the need for weather/cloud improvements either. It already looks amazing. So this is a real money saver. 

 

Just need a Twin Otter. 

 

 

...and an F-104. 

[Lusekofte]

8 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

Just need a Twin Otter. 

 

 

...and an F-104. 

Both are welcomed. Or a thud

[ZachariasX]

19 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

And I don't see the need for weather/cloud improvements either.

You'll surely think of that differently when seeing what you have vs. what is possible.

[CanadaOne]

27 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

You'll surely think of that differently when seeing what you have vs. what is possible.

 

Maybe, but when I saw what REX was going to offer, I was underwhelmed. But I could well be wrong.

 

I think it's a "diminishing return" sort of thing. Before, ORBX, for example, offered a 200% increase in eye candy for $30. (You know what I mean.) Now it's more like a 20% increase in eye candy for $20. And that 20% is being offered at the same time as the whole planet already got a 300% increase in eye candy. 

 

Will it be like this for the weather and clouds? I don't know. But I've already gone through some hurricane cloud formations that were like an acid trip. Flying through valleys and giant tunnels in the clouds, it was very impressive.

[SYN_Vander]

This would be my ride:

Let’s hope they release it for Msfs2020, but they can keep that Garmin.

[Hoots]

5 minutes ago, SYN_Vander said:

This would be my ride:

Let’s hope they release it for Msfs2020, but they can keep that Garmin.

 

Way too refined... Look at it being all sleek and shiny.

 

[Trooper117]

21 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Some people (like me) are mostly interested in the GA aircraft,

 

I'm right with you...

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

Maybe, but when I saw what REX was going to offer, I was underwhelmed. But I could well be wrong.

If it is indeed only METAR that REX uses, then it probably gives little more than what you already have for small GA planes But for planes with weather radar, you get that functtionality. If that is useful to you, your decision. The main difference that you will see is that weather transitions insetah of just outright changes. For any long haul, this is significant. You don't "jump" from one METAR setting to the next. Weather adjusts in between. That is a huge difference. Especially when METAR regions don't match climate barriers.

 

I would like something like FS Global real Weather that had weather data beyond METAR and has better coverage in places where no airports are. Smooth transition between stations is a must of course.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Regarding weather modelling in MFS, it's already being fed by model data ( the several sources that feed Meteoblue themselves ) and most probably making post-processing on some of those products. The only aspect that was very problematic before the last patch  was the blending between METAR and model data, but it seems to have been almost completely addressed now. At least the places I have tested look fine to me.

 

Yet another possible use for MFS 2020 - joining the most advanced ever Boeing 747-400 simulator with the most advanced ever flight scenery sim:

 

I am looking forward for the release of the already announced Spitfire Mk1A for MFS 2020, by Aeroplane Heaven...:

 

https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/content.php?21294-Aeroplane-Heaven-Announces-Spitfire-Mk1A-For-MSFS

 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by jcomm-in-il2