MSFS 2020 - Unfit for Purpose.

[BendyFlyer]

Going against my better judgement I thought ok I will give MSFS 2020 a go, maybe it will improve, so I paid for a deluxe version via Steam. Mistake number 1. My initial reservations about a streaming game, just to install and download were well founded. After 18 hours and three or four restarts it failed and stopped. So that is where I stopped and I have requested a full refund.

In summary my initial assessment that this product was not fit for purpose (and the purpose is deceptively ambiguous) and is actually in breach of most if not all consumer law(s), in other words it does not do what it claims it will do in a manner that is either timely or effective. Simple. We have all been taken for a ride on this one, me included. That is it. I will not bother again! Caveat emptor how true!

[Daube]

Don't you think there was maybe a problem with your computer ?

[jmig]

I was not sanguine about MSFS when I first used it. While I still use P3D V5 for most IFR type flying, I have found MSFS to have gotten mostly better with each new release.

It is not P3D or XP. It is its own sim/game. Give it time. It will most likely grow on you.

[jankees]

while I admit installing and getting it to work was a pain, and while the constant updates are annoying as well, I musty say I am thoroughly enjoying it. OK, so their choice of aircraft was disappointing to say the least, (one of the reason I bought the basic version) but the lighting and scenery is brilliant, and since I converted a number of warbirds, I am happily awaiting new developments.
I recently went back to both P3Dv4.5 and v5, but was a bit disappointed, especially in the scenery. I'll probably delete them soon.

[centuryseries]

Best thing I ever did was do the updates and initial download over a wired connection to my router.

Saved hours of restarts.

[Bomber_12th]

And then there's my experience... I've been using MSFS since late April, from mid-Alpha through to release and now, and I have never had any installation problems/errors/update issues, etc., ever, it has just always worked (when I did the initial Alpha installation, and again the release installation, I used a wired connection as Centuryseries mentioned). I recently deleted FSX and P3D from my computer as I haven't used either since early May - when I last tried using them, they looked too fake, boring and lifeless (and that was with more than a thousand dollars worth, I'm sure, of the best addon scenery, sky, and planes - just no longer worth it after experiencing MSFS). The only issue I have had with this sim is that some of my local airports are still lacking hangars/buildings, but the airport/scenery makers tell me it is very easy to add them myself, so I will be working on learning the process when I have time off around Christmas (there are plenty of great tutorials it seems).

[stansdds]

What Asobo promised is quite ambitious for any flight sim, we will have to wait and see if they are successful. From what I gather, it is currently a public beta version and is more of a game and VFR sight-seeing deal. I think once it is fully developed as Asobo wanted, it will become the go-to sim for the vast majority of civilian flight sim enthusiasts.

[Bomber_12th]

With all of the "sim vs. game" rhetoric - are the flight dynamics of the default aircraft in MSFS better/more realistic or are they worse than the flight dynamics of the default aircraft that came with FSX? Are the flight dynamics of the default aircraft in MSFS better/more realistic or are they worse than the flight dynamics of the default aircraft that came with P3D? Are the flight planning capabilities better and more expansive in MSFS, or are they in the default FSX/P3D? How about the default weather simulation, etc...

[dvj]

Going against my better judgement I thought ok I will give MSFS 2020 a go, maybe it will improve, so I paid for a deluxe version via Steam. Mistake number 1. My initial reservations about a streaming game, just to install and download were well founded. After 18 hours and three or four restarts it failed and stopped. So that is where I stopped and I have requested a full refund. In summary my initial assessment that this product was not fit for purpose (and the purpose is deceptively ambiguous) and is actually in breach of most if not all consumer law(s), in other words it does not do what it claims it will do in a manner that is either timely or effective. Simple. We have all been taken for a ride on this one, me included. That is it. I will not bother again! Caveat emptor how true!

If you never go it loaded, it would be impossible to say it does not do what it claims to do. The initial download is massive, yes, large, and will stress any wireless connectivity to your router, or slow bandwidth service. Go eithernet connection, it will still take a long time to load, but that approach eliminated the restarts I had trying to do it wireless across the house. Good luck.

[UnknownGuest12]

BendyFlyer, I got what I paid for, no reasons at all for complaints here...
Regards

[mikew]

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Bomber. My experience with MSFS has been excellent. I think it was quite clear and frankly obvious that a fairly robust internet connection was going to be needed. I have enjoyed actually flying MSFS instead of spending time "fiddling with this and tweaking that". I haven't given one thought to affinity masks or other types of black magic to get MSFS to run. It just does. I too wait for more military and vintage aircraft but I have really enjoyed flying the planes in the deluxe version because several are not what I've typically flown in the past. All in all it's been a great sim and I hesitate to even now call it a game. I believe it will become less game like as it matures, not just through Asobo updates but 3rd party addons as well. Now I just have to re-learn repainting!

Mike

[guzler]

I had some challenges earlier on, somehow it broke Windows, had a few issues here and there, but all in all, it's brought me back to flight simming. I don't have the patience nor see the attraction of long flights on autopilot personally, so tend to do mostly VFR hops in and around scenic areas. It's simply stunning visually and little things that I really like is the way turbulence rocks the aircraft as you're flying along in a way that I can relate to from when I used to fly years ago. There's lot's of things missing currently but they're not stopping me from enjoying it, they will just make it better when they arrive either from Asobo or 3rd party suppliers. Add the ease of which some people are creating Google based scenery (I haven't mastered it yet but appreciate the work others are doing), it's the benchmark.

[Javis]

With all of the "sim vs. game" rhetoric - are the flight dynamics of the default aircraft in MSFS better/more realistic or are they worse than the flight dynamics of the default aircraft that came with FSX?

(in the voice of a certrain taxi driver while looking in the mirror : ) " you talking to me ??..." :

Better. Absolutely.

Are the flight dynamics of the default aircraft in MSFS better/more realistic or are they worse than the flight dynamics of the default aircraft that came with P3D?

Better. Absolutely.

Are the flight planning capabilities better and more expansive in MSFS, or are they in the default FSX/P3D?

Better and more expansive. Absolutely.

How about the default weather simulation, etc...

WAAAAYYYYY Better. Absoallegro.

And lets not talk about the sheer beauty of the feeling of flight, the ultra sheer beauty of the aircraft models and the ultra ultra sheer beauty of the scenery. No need for FSX nore P3D to even try and stand in its shadows.

( Btw, BF, i have the same experience as Bomber_12th, no problem what soever downloading and installing the main program and, afterwards, all of its updates sofar (bought via Steam because i couldn't even get a Microsoft account initially. I do have a lightningfast internet connection though... And that might exactly be where your engine runs hot.. Oh, and i AM taken for a ride indeed, almost every day and what a ride it is ! )

[Sundog]

I just flew from Palmdale to Yuma by going over Burbank, then through the valley to Palm Springs and south to Yuma last night in the MB.339. I flew at about 4000 ft. MSL. My settings vary between medium and high with regard to terrain detail. There was also low clouds/fog along the coast. I had one slight pause in external view while viewing all of the buildings in the LA basin. If I had tried to fly with that LOD in P3D my sim would have been a slide show at about 1 frame per minute. I'm constantly amazed at what's possible so far. Eventually, all of the planes I want will make it into MSFS, but it will take time, just as it did with the first release of FSX/P3D. Especially considering I haven't even tried converting existing models. I''m really going to have to get Dave's Mossie and JT's P-51s in here. And Gordo's updated version of Milton's Tigercat when he releases it.

[IanHenry]

The only thing "wrong" with the sim is the lack of various types of aircraft, a situation that I'm sure many developers are rushing to rectify, you just need a little patience.

I think to call it "not fit for purpose" is a little harsh to say the least, it's a flight simulator and it does exactly "what it says on the tin"

To their credit Asobo have done something ambitus that not that long ago we flight simmers could never have dreamed of. What you do get for your money is a product that's going to be updated continually updated for the next ten years.

Obviously everyone is entailed to their own opinion but were it not for the fact that you've already asked for a refund I'd have urged you to persist with trying to install it (I struggled with it initially) but I'm guessing the frustration of trying to install it has put you off it for good.

[Mach3DS]

Like Bomber_12th, my experience has been flawless. I think ASOBO has realized that they need to really improve the SDK in order to bring most other AP's to market, that use After burner, high mach numbers or transonics, and for more systems depth. But my experience with the core sim is exceptionally positive. I also used a WIRED connection. I was not going to risk it. Too big a DL for that. The weather engine in MSFS is far better than anything currently out there. Nothing comes close. Seriously. With years of development ahead, it's only going to get better. And as the SDK improves the addons will start to make their way into the marketplace.

[BendyFlyer]

All - yes understand your perspectives and respect your experiences and faith in this one. The biggest issue always for me and a lot of others was the streaming content -online- it's connectivity design. Simply If you live in an area where you cannot have even reliable or rudimentary broadband or bandwidth then this game is not for you, your locked out of the market or access by technological incapacity - I understand now that is me. You can have the best PC in the world but if you have a third world internet service - your stuffed. As for MS and this product well there is no up front disclaimer that this product requires a high speed high bandwidth internet to either download or function or that there is no working SDK or that there are no real viable addons apart from what is provided. I think we have accepted this sort of corporate deception for too long on a lot of levels, it is like buying a motor vehicle that is the best looking unit you ever saw but it can only be used on a super highway, on a sunny day between the hours of 9 and 12 and yes a lot of stuff is for show but it will be fine bring it back and we will and that later when we get it fixed, oh it and it only runs on this type of fuel but that is only my opinion, your welcome to yours and best of luck with it folks!

[bazzar]

An interesting perspective and one that I personally, respect. In all of the excitement, gushing compliments and the rhetoric, however, there is a major obstacle in the way of most who do not own big, expensive systems. The actual ability to run the thing.

If you examine the systems quoted by those that have no real issues, you will see that mostly they have big expensive rigs. Some are way ahead of even the recommended levels of equipment.

OK I think we have learned one lesson here - unless you run an 8 gig card and have a power processor, you are not going to be able to enjoy the game a) as it is intended and b) if at all.

This, in my opinion, creates the risk that the game can be considered "elitist" and not the choice for the "average" simmer. using the PC platform I am not sure that that was what MS originally intended.

However, it is clear now that XBox will become the major platform for the game as of mid-2021, so that will put it in the reach of most who are happy enough just to go flying and gaze at all that wondrous scenery.

We build for this sim, of course. There is demand. However, it is far easier and much quicker to build for P3D and the ability to put something up and fly it in a reasonable timeframe still kicks for me. And yes, I still enjoy P3D very much. My personal choice is V4.5 as a) my old test rig can run it with sliders on max and b) with the additional third party enhancements like sceneries, weather and so on, for me it still looks and behaves less like a game and more like the simulator it was intended to be.

Horses for courses as they say.

[Tom Clayton]

Even with my barely-medium spec laptop, I can get a solidly flyable 20 FPS over 90% of the time. The trick to getting good visuals and good frames at the same time is to know which settings just don't make enough difference when maxed out. The thread below shows a video that was my saving grace to get everything sorted out much more quickly that it would have been using trial and error. It's long, so sit down with a pencil and notepad, figure out what you need, then go into the sim and set it up. As for bandwidth, I do remember seeing that requirement in the pre-release specs, but I haven't seen anything about it since. I installed mine on a wired connection to my router, but in-flight streaming works fine on wireless. I also reconnect the hard line for the big updates. When I did the initial installation, I literally downloaded the core, let that launch into the main download, set the 'puter to not lock or sleep, then left and had a beer at my favorite watering hole. When I came back, it was ready to fly.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...ead.php/121713

[StormILM]

I know folks who're using my previous PC specs and are getting very good performance in the medium to higher settings. My rig is upper end but nowhere near any of the super gaming rigs out there that are more common than some realize. Despite one major issue I had after an big update and a few minior bugs, my experience with FS2020 made me abandon P3D for good. Right now, I get plenty of enjoyment out of the stock aircraft and scenery and the 3 pay addons I have bought so far. If I upgraded from P3D v4.5 to 5 and then purchased scenery and enviro upgrades, then re-purchased other addons, I'd have forked way more than I have on this so far and still come nowhere near to experience. Right now, FS2020 is without question the best VFR sim experience but as the SDK advances and devs finish work on the incoming advanced models, it will become the best full purpose sim to date. Just like the previous sims, this one will grow into great things.

[DennyA]

If anyone had issues and wants to give it another try, there's currently a deal where you can sign up for Game Pass Ultimate (and play MSFS) for three months for $1.

https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game-pass

[Christian Bahr]

Even with my barely-medium spec laptop, I can get a solidly flyable 20 FPS over 90% of the time. The trick to getting good visuals and good frames at the same time is to know which settings just don't make enough difference when maxed out. The thread below shows a video that was my saving grace to get everything sorted out much more quickly that it would have been using trial and error. It's long, so sit down with a pencil and notepad, figure out what you need, then go into the sim and set it up. As for bandwidth, I do remember seeing that requirement in the pre-release specs, but I haven't seen anything about it since. I installed mine on a wired connection to my router, but in-flight streaming works fine on wireless. I also reconnect the hard line for the big updates. When I did the initial installation, I literally downloaded the core, let that launch into the main download, set the 'puter to not lock or sleep, then left and had a beer at my favorite watering hole. When I came back, it was ready to fly.

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...ead.php/121713

It looks very similar to. Except that I get an average of 40 FPS.

I built in a processor (i7 4770K) that is about 6 years old and is installed on a similarly old motherboard (Asus z97 pro). The RAM (Kingston HyperX) is a modest 8 GB. The newest thing about the computer is my Asus GTX1070 Strix. But that too is now 4 1/2 years old. My internet performance is 30Mbit/s. Although my hardware is so old, MSFS runs fine to very well on it. I am very satisfied with the "new one" and would like to miss it more. He's the winner on everything that matters to me.

[Mach3DS]

Actually I would agree with Storm. The Super gaming rigs are Way more common than not. Go to any "other" flight sim/combat sim game forums/discord/reddit, people are generally running fairly good PCs. In fact when I went over to DCS world it was actually quite shocking having spent most of my time in the SOH, that so many people had such Medium to higher end systems. And honestly, many people have Systems that will drive MSFS at great levels of detail. even a mid range GFX card will get you good performance, and VR.

[Snurdley]

I have to disagree Bazaar. My system is 3 years old, and was mid-level when I put it together (i7-6700K 4GHz, GTX 1060 6GB, 16Gb RAM). I was more than shocked when after installing MSFS it selected the High settings based on my system. Since then I have had nothing but very smooth running, even in high density cities (Tokyo). I could never say that with P3D, and would no doubt run out of VRAM with v5. The only issue I had was realizing I couldn't move any files around after initial installation, so installed outside the WinApps folder. The way this sim looks and performs on my modest rig is amazing. How Asobo did it, I don't know, but kudos to them. I always said I would keep P3D on my box to run what MSFS won't, but now am very close to pulling the plug. (Note: I am running on cable internet, but Asobo made it clear what acceptable specs were).

[StormILM]

I have to disagree Bazaar. My system is 3 years old, and was mid-level when I put it together (i7-6700K 4GHz, GTX 1060 6GB, 16Gb RAM). I was more than shocked when after installing MSFS it selected the High settings based on my system. Since then I have had nothing but very smooth running, even in high density cities (Tokyo). I could never say that with P3D, and would no doubt run out of VRAM with v5. The only issue I had was realizing I couldn't move any files around after initial installation, so installed outside the WinApps folder. The way this sim looks and performs on my modest rig is amazing. How Asobo did it, I don't know, but kudos to them. I always said I would keep P3D on my box to run what MSFS won't, but now am very close to pulling the plug. (Note: I am running on cable internet, but Asobo made it clear what acceptable specs were).

My experience is similar. I get excellent performance with the settings maxed out on FS2020, I could never get such performance on FSX or P3D with a good system. Even when either ran good, there was always some sort of stutter or other issue that caused the sim to run less than it should've. That sim engine is just badly outdated. For the Devs who's bread & butter remain in the legacy market, of course we all hope the final SDK is finished soon so that work can begin or be finished on new Native products.