4 ms·

MS FS is developed, marketed, and priced as a game. That's what it is and in terms of pure flight sim I'm sure there are better.

mastazi 6y ago
I disagree, I believe that MSFS and XP11 are marketed to a similar niche. MSFS was marketed as a realistic sim and not as arcade, there were multiple statements about that, including in the very first post of the official blog[3]. At the same time, you can buy XP11 on Steam, a platform for gamers[2], and while it's true that there is a version of X-Plane for professional use[3], most people who own it, use it in a home setting. [1] "We are making Microsoft Flight Simulator. Emphasis on the word SIMULATOR." https://www.flightsimulator.com/june-20th-2019/ https://www.flightsimulator.com/june-20th-2019/ [2] https://store.steampowered.com/app/269950/XPlane_11/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/269950/XPlane_11/ [3] https://www.x-plane.com/pro/ https://www.x-plane.com/pro/
- Alupis 6y ago
  You may have misinterpreted what the parent meant about a "game" vs a "simulator". XP11 focuses on the flight models and physics of flying a plane, whereas MSFS2020 focuses on the visuals. Neither are perfect, but for those studying or familiarizing, XP11 is a far better choice since it goes out of it's way to mimic real life. MSFS2020's basic G1000 (crammed into nearly every cockpit in the game) still has buttons that don't function, just for starters. Different focuses, one's a "game" and the other is a "simulator".
  - mastazi 6y ago
    OK after reading your comment I get what you mean, yes it’s possible that that’s what parent meant. However I still think that MS should spend some effort fixing the avionics, because in their current state, they are not up to scratch, even considering the different focus as explained in your comment.
    - Alupis 6y ago
      Completely agree, and am hopeful they will add the missing features and have some sort of "realism" update. Basic things like the inability to manually set barometric pressure - there's no option in the G1000 implementation, you have to press 'B' on your keyboard and it just sets itself. Little things like that add up and firmly take MSFS2020 out of the "simulator" category... for now. Some others have mentioned that MSFS2020 might be more akin to a platform, upon which content will be added over years and years. Some enterprising individuals have already figured out how to add helicopters, for example, while officially there's no support for helis by MS/Asobo. So, I remain hopeful.
      - kewrkewm53 6y ago
        I would argue that historically MSFS series has indeed been more of a platform and an ecosystem than anything else. It's predecessor Flight Simulator X also had quite shallowly modelled default aircraft, yet over the years third-party (mostly payware) devs modeled almost all commercial airliners in use today to a very high detail. So, I think MSFS2020 will be a great simulator for those hardcore simmers who are willing to pay 50-150USD for a single aircraft modeled to a very high detail, just like they did in FSX days.
        mastazi 6y ago
        Yes, for sure the add-ons ecosystem will fill every possible niche. However if we look at X-Plane, we can see that having good quality default avionics can actually help add-ons makers, the two things are not mutually exclusive! Many 3rd party X-Plane add-ons improve on the default avionics rather than having to develop a unit from scratch (like it’s often the case with P3D add-ons). This means that developers can focus on other aspects (e.g. failures, systems, walk around, manuals) while reducing dev costs.
- spoonjim 6y ago
  What I mean by a "game" is that the goal of the software is to be enjoyable. It's definitely marketed towards a crowd that wants a simulator, but it's not trying to get you ready to fly a real airplane (even if that is possible as a side effect). That's not how it's marketed. Whereas, the flight simulator that Airbus trains its pilots on is evaluated by a different goal... that simulator's goal is to make sure that you don't kill 400 people on an A380. You're not supposed to enjoy it, using it is paid work and not recreation.
  - mastazi 6y ago
    Yes this makes sense, I would say that MSFS is purely focused on the entertainment market, P3D (and many other specialised sims) on the professional market, while X-Plane caters to both segments.
- 7952 6y ago
  I love planes but am not a pilot or trying to be a pilot. I think MSFS is enough of a simulator to satisfy me. It has enough technical sophistication to be interesting and teach me things. But I dont need to learn to fly with it. And the scenarios I play are completely contrived anyway.
theYipster 6y ago
Nope. MSFS and X-Plane may start as games, but you'd be surprised how widely they are used in professional aerospace and aviation for a variety of purposes. In fact, back when MS had the old Flight Simulator (disbanded in 2006,) they had developed and sold a parallel commercial version which was used in a variety of flight simulation and training platforms. It was this version that was sold to Lockheed Martin, which became Prepar3D, which--whether you agree or not--is explicitly licensed as "not a game." Now, one could argue the differences between X-Plane and MSFS in terms of realism. From a professional point of view (airline pilot or aerospace engineer,) both are very much in the same general field. Truth is that neither of them meet performance requirements to be used in the kind of certified full motion flight simulators airline pilots use on the job, although both products arguably have components that are useable in those. However, both products are also highly extensible. Just because the out of the box models may not be super detailed doesn't mean an add-on product can't come with its own flight and system models--for instance, PDMG and FlightSimLabs produce airliners for the old FSX and Prepar3D that will outperform most everything on X-Plane from a realism perspective. Expect that their products will be on MSFS2020 in time. Also, it's important to distinguish between flight model realism and systems realism. Both X-Plane and MSFS add-ons can and do come with their own flight and system models which replace out of the box componentry, but arguably it's the flight models that are more dependent on the capabilities of the base sim. Everyone complaining about the lack of realism in the MSFS stock G1000 implementation should just wait 6-9 months, and surely something better will be out. From my POV, the new MSFS does 2 extremely impressive, arguably revolutionary things, and the aerospace/aviation industry has taken note: a) The photogrammatry rendering of the whole earth in high fidelity 3D detail, and b,) the representation of the real ATC airspace through leveraging ADS-B (i.e. FlightAware and Flight-Radar 24.) Simulating a single airplane to a high degree of fidelity on desktop hardware is easy. Simulating (I mean truly simulating) an airspace of airplanes is not... ATC in most sims--to date--is scripted, not fully simulated. Piping in the real world (and combining it with live multiplayer) is a very interesting alternative.
- t0mas88 6y ago
  The visuals are not that relevant for professional training, it's much more about accurate instruments and procedures. On the other hand, in my multi-crew coordination training the first part was sitting in front of a cardboard 737 cockpit. That could also be done with a cardboard cockpit + 2 screens connected to MS FS. Because with cardboard only you have no time pressure, while if something is really "moving" you do have time pressure.

mastazi 6y ago

I disagree, I believe that MSFS and XP11 are marketed to a similar niche. MSFS was marketed as a realistic sim and not as arcade, there were multiple statements about that, including in the very first post of the official blog[3]. At the same time, you can buy XP11 on Steam, a platform for gamers[2], and while it's true that there is a version of X-Plane for professional use[3], most people who own it, use it in a home setting. [1] "We are making Microsoft Flight Simulator. Emphasis on the word SIMULATOR." https://www.flightsimulator.com/june-20th-2019/ https://www.flightsimulator.com/june-20th-2019/ [2] https://store.steampowered.com/app/269950/XPlane_11/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/269950/XPlane_11/ [3] https://www.x-plane.com/pro/ https://www.x-plane.com/pro/

Alupis 6y ago
You may have misinterpreted what the parent meant about a "game" vs a "simulator". XP11 focuses on the flight models and physics of flying a plane, whereas MSFS2020 focuses on the visuals. Neither are perfect, but for those studying or familiarizing, XP11 is a far better choice since it goes out of it's way to mimic real life. MSFS2020's basic G1000 (crammed into nearly every cockpit in the game) still has buttons that don't function, just for starters. Different focuses, one's a "game" and the other is a "simulator".
- mastazi 6y ago
  OK after reading your comment I get what you mean, yes it’s possible that that’s what parent meant. However I still think that MS should spend some effort fixing the avionics, because in their current state, they are not up to scratch, even considering the different focus as explained in your comment.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    Completely agree, and am hopeful they will add the missing features and have some sort of "realism" update. Basic things like the inability to manually set barometric pressure - there's no option in the G1000 implementation, you have to press 'B' on your keyboard and it just sets itself. Little things like that add up and firmly take MSFS2020 out of the "simulator" category... for now. Some others have mentioned that MSFS2020 might be more akin to a platform, upon which content will be added over years and years. Some enterprising individuals have already figured out how to add helicopters, for example, while officially there's no support for helis by MS/Asobo. So, I remain hopeful.
    - kewrkewm53 6y ago
      I would argue that historically MSFS series has indeed been more of a platform and an ecosystem than anything else. It's predecessor Flight Simulator X also had quite shallowly modelled default aircraft, yet over the years third-party (mostly payware) devs modeled almost all commercial airliners in use today to a very high detail. So, I think MSFS2020 will be a great simulator for those hardcore simmers who are willing to pay 50-150USD for a single aircraft modeled to a very high detail, just like they did in FSX days.
      - mastazi 6y ago
        Yes, for sure the add-ons ecosystem will fill every possible niche. However if we look at X-Plane, we can see that having good quality default avionics can actually help add-ons makers, the two things are not mutually exclusive! Many 3rd party X-Plane add-ons improve on the default avionics rather than having to develop a unit from scratch (like it’s often the case with P3D add-ons). This means that developers can focus on other aspects (e.g. failures, systems, walk around, manuals) while reducing dev costs.
spoonjim 6y ago
What I mean by a "game" is that the goal of the software is to be enjoyable. It's definitely marketed towards a crowd that wants a simulator, but it's not trying to get you ready to fly a real airplane (even if that is possible as a side effect). That's not how it's marketed. Whereas, the flight simulator that Airbus trains its pilots on is evaluated by a different goal... that simulator's goal is to make sure that you don't kill 400 people on an A380. You're not supposed to enjoy it, using it is paid work and not recreation.
- mastazi 6y ago
  Yes this makes sense, I would say that MSFS is purely focused on the entertainment market, P3D (and many other specialised sims) on the professional market, while X-Plane caters to both segments.
7952 6y ago
I love planes but am not a pilot or trying to be a pilot. I think MSFS is enough of a simulator to satisfy me. It has enough technical sophistication to be interesting and teach me things. But I dont need to learn to fly with it. And the scenarios I play are completely contrived anyway.

theYipster 6y ago

Nope. MSFS and X-Plane may start as games, but you'd be surprised how widely they are used in professional aerospace and aviation for a variety of purposes. In fact, back when MS had the old Flight Simulator (disbanded in 2006,) they had developed and sold a parallel commercial version which was used in a variety of flight simulation and training platforms. It was this version that was sold to Lockheed Martin, which became Prepar3D, which--whether you agree or not--is explicitly licensed as "not a game." Now, one could argue the differences between X-Plane and MSFS in terms of realism. From a professional point of view (airline pilot or aerospace engineer,) both are very much in the same general field. Truth is that neither of them meet performance requirements to be used in the kind of certified full motion flight simulators airline pilots use on the job, although both products arguably have components that are useable in those. However, both products are also highly extensible. Just because the out of the box models may not be super detailed doesn't mean an add-on product can't come with its own flight and system models--for instance, PDMG and FlightSimLabs produce airliners for the old FSX and Prepar3D that will outperform most everything on X-Plane from a realism perspective. Expect that their products will be on MSFS2020 in time. Also, it's important to distinguish between flight model realism and systems realism. Both X-Plane and MSFS add-ons can and do come with their own flight and system models which replace out of the box componentry, but arguably it's the flight models that are more dependent on the capabilities of the base sim. Everyone complaining about the lack of realism in the MSFS stock G1000 implementation should just wait 6-9 months, and surely something better will be out. From my POV, the new MSFS does 2 extremely impressive, arguably revolutionary things, and the aerospace/aviation industry has taken note: a) The photogrammatry rendering of the whole earth in high fidelity 3D detail, and b,) the representation of the real ATC airspace through leveraging ADS-B (i.e. FlightAware and Flight-Radar 24.) Simulating a single airplane to a high degree of fidelity on desktop hardware is easy. Simulating (I mean truly simulating) an airspace of airplanes is not... ATC in most sims--to date--is scripted, not fully simulated. Piping in the real world (and combining it with live multiplayer) is a very interesting alternative.

t0mas88 6y ago
The visuals are not that relevant for professional training, it's much more about accurate instruments and procedures. On the other hand, in my multi-crew coordination training the first part was sitting in front of a cardboard 737 cockpit. That could also be done with a cardboard cockpit + 2 screens connected to MS FS. Because with cardboard only you have no time pressure, while if something is really "moving" you do have time pressure.