KKoskey wrote: ↑13 Jan 2022, 23:46
If you ask me, the vocal minority shouldn't override the voice of the people who have a true appreciation for realism when it comes to flight simulation.
I can't fly an RNAV GPS approach into a small GA airport since they don't exist in the GPS, even though they supposedly have some sort of subscription to a nav database. There are no towers or charted obstructions in the simulator (game), even though I am able to fly over my house and see it. The hangars at many GA airports are flat and essentially non-existent. The list goes on. There are so many things fundamental to flying are missing from FS2020 while they continue to push updates that don't address any of them. It wouldn't be quite so sad if it weren't for the fact that all of these things existed in FSX straight out of the box over 10 years ago.
That was kinda my point. It's not the vocal minority, it's the silent majority that is casting the votes for what they would like to see worked on next. Multi-monitor support has moved up that list but there are still a few things that are more desired by the community as a whole. As for this that an the other, being in FSX 10 years ago, you are very, very wrong. My home airport of Plant City Municipal (KPCM), is literally a gray line in the middle of nowhere in default FSX, and even in P3D. That said, default PCM looks almost exactly like the real one that I've flown out of many times over the years, and VerticalSim released a payware addon that made it even better. People see the past through rose colored glasses. Default FSX was horrible, and it took a LOT of scenery to make it look halfway decent, and most of that was because of Orbx, and that was only in certain parts of the world, and you had to pay a fortune for the privilege. Now, while the default MSFS may not be the hand adjusted photogrammetry of Orbx, it is LIGHT YEARS ahead of where FSX stood 10 years ago. Let's also not forget that abysmal default flight model that FSX had. Which is why A2A effectively turns it off and injects their own flight dynamics into it. So many people hated FSX that they stayed with FS2004, and P3D's flight model is essentially the same with little to no work having been done on what is still essentially the ESP/FSX flight model, all of these things are way better MSFS by default, and yes, I can acknowledge there are places that it can be improved but, those improvements will come from the 3rd party creators just like they did for FSX. A2A is a 3rd party developer, they had to work within, around, and in a lot of cases, outside of FSX to get the Accu-Sim aircraft to work. That is a fact that seems to be lost on a lot of people. MSFS is a base, that is still being actively developed by Asobo, and the 3rd party creators are starting to go there because they see both the potential for change and the power of the new platform to do things they never could before and be profitable while doing it. The vocal minority seem to the ones that kick and scream that, "It's not real enough", while hoisting FSX as the bar that was cleared by both P3D and XPlane a long time ago, while forgetting that FSX still to this day has a lot of issues with it, some of which were fixed by Dovetail, and still others by Lockheed-Martin but no one has fixed them all. After awhile you have to move on because you can no longer hitch a horse to a Corvette.
and used the subLogic product which was very good for its time. Now I use P3D v. 4 and XP 11.53 (since v. 5). I have no intention whatever in going to a subscription model should that suddenly appear out of Asobo's sleeve.
