Where Flight Simulation is Going is 2023

[DHenriques_]

Where I Believe Flight Simulation is headed into 2023
Dudley Henriques

I have been an advocate and enthusiast as well as an advisor and consultant to add on development for flight simulator since the year 2000. I’ve seen a lot of good and bad pass through my hands during this time. As a retired professional pilot having flown 72 different types of aircraft naturally the area of main interest for me has been immersion, as well as depth of fidelity in aircraft systems and aerodynamics as these factors affect realism. In this role I have served the industry officially with Microsoft during the FSX period as well as many high end add on developers.
As many of you know for many years now, twenty I believe, I have been exclusively involved here with A2A Simulations.

All this being said, I find myself now looking forward to flight simulator and where it might be headed in the future. I see a wonderful future for flight simulator.

Getting into specifics I am fully aware that every enthusiast has their own preference and choice of the simulations now available. Each simulation has its own following and picking out one simulation over the rest will naturally open a wide door for comment both good and bad as each simulator now in use has its positives and its negatives. When adding to this that many people have invested a great deal in specialized product and you have a community with widely spread opinion.

I can honestly say that over time I have tested in all the simulations currently available to the public. Each simulation has strong points and weak points, so where is the venue going as we move forward into 2023? In a world wide competition for first place, which simulation will emerge supreme?

Well, I can only speak from my personal experience but from what I have seem and from my exposure within the simulation community I see a bright future for Microsoft Flight Simulator.
Why, you may ask, do I feel this way?
Yes, I am fully aware of the problems within MSFS. I have considered these carefully believe me.
Taking a close look at what a good flight simulator must have, the first requirement isn’t what you might think. It’s a totally believable world in which to fly. And NO, this doesn’t mean the other components aren’t important because they are. Every single person who buys a flight simulator MUST believe when they see the program on the screen for the first time that they are looking at the real world. Microsoft has done that. That first all important factor is there. MSFS2020 is BELIEVABLE from a real world standpoint.
Of course there is still room for improvement and it’s getting better every day. It’s an active program involving working professionals and they are aware of their investment.
I realize that for every positive thing I am saying there are most likely a lot of people who will disagree. Everybody has an opinion when it comes to a subject as highly controversial as this one. Trust me, I’ve heard them all.
For negatives, I see huge problems existing now with the ATC interfacing. It’s being worked on. The weather could use some work. THAT’S being worked on.
Now for the meat of the subject………..the flight model !
Actually this is the area in which I see the most positives for the future. MSFS2020 will have its default aircraft and its flight model, and these will serve a certain level of the community quite well. But the real meat of this area will come from high end aircraft developers and A2A Simulations as far as I am concerned anyway is at the very top of that list. A2A will be supplying add on aircraft for use in FS2020 that use our own flight model. The first sample of this will be forthcoming with our release of the Comanche 250 for FS2020. I am testing this airplane as we speak and I assure you you will not be disappointed when we release it.

So there you have it, my opinion on where we are going in 2023. MSFS2020 will continue to improve. The world will get better. The weather will get better. ATC will eventually be what it should be, and A2A will be giving you aircraft you will enjoy flying like never before.
Dudley Henriques

[jonnieb57]

I believe in patience.
I can see the great promise in MSFS 2020.
I have been using it from the beginning and have, of course, experienced many growing pains.
But, from that beginning, I have recognized that there is so very much potential and that the scope of the endeavor is so huge that it simply could not have been an out-of-the-box piece of perfection as so many seem to have been expecting.
After all this time, I see the steady improvements in every aspect of the simulation and I am more than happy with what I can do, even if the still-present crashes and behavioral problems continue to pop up (but not as often).
I will not fly FSX anymore, so I need you to develop some of your marvellous aircraft for MSFS.
In FSX, the aircraft I had from A2A were always at the top of my favorite aircraft lists. The AccuSim feature was wonderful. I miss the immersion that I could get in your planes. But, I will continue to miss it until your products appear in MSFS.
So, here I am. I am sure that I am not alone. We are waiting.
Please bring the B-17 to MSFS. And maybe you could even put a Storch in all of your supported simulations.
Regards to all of you.
PS, If you need a Comanche 250 test pilot, here I am.

[MarcE]

For the simulator to become better with flight model and (live) world aspects I think the most important part before all this is that our computer must be able to serve and carry the sim properly. Right now fliught simulation is still an almost archaic single core system fighting with its own strength. Physics, weather, rendering all requires a lot of hardware ressources and currently we're once again limited massively by "main thread". Our bottleneck in the sim is the CPU, no 4080 and 7900 GPU will be able to fully resoulve this issue, not with DX12, not with Vulcan. The best example in MSFS is the Fenix A320 that runs in its own program outside the sim but still doesn't utilize more than the core MSFS runs on. FPS in DX11 (12 is buggy) on my really fast system are around 40 while PMDG gets 60 and default is running at 80. If I add traffic (Yes, I'm a very lonely person in MSFS) I could just start P3D and fly there. A single core flightsim will not be able to grow much more in the future, it must be rewritten for multicore use and I am totally aware that this is an incredibly difficult task for a flight sim. As long as we're stuck with this minimum utilization of our hardware the sim will evolve nowhere. We're at the limit.

So... the first step is the base on top everything else can be built, flight characteristics is one of them.

[DHenriques_]

For the simulator to become better with flight model and (live) world aspects I think the most important part before all this is that our computer must be able to serve and carry the sim properly. Right now fliught simulation is still an almost archaic single core system fighting with its own strength. Physics, weather, rendering all requires a lot of hardware ressources and currently we're once again limited massively by "main thread". Our bottleneck in the sim is the CPU, no 4080 and 7900 GPU will be able to fully resoulve this issue, not with DX12, not with Vulcan. The best example in MSFS is the Fenix A320 that runs in its own program outside the sim but still doesn't utilize more than the core MSFS runs on. FPS in DX11 (12 is buggy) on my really fast system are around 40 while PMDG gets 60 and default is running at 80. If I add traffic (Yes, I'm a very lonely person in MSFS) I could just start P3D and fly there. A single core flightsim will not be able to grow much more in the future, it must be rewritten for multicore use and I am totally aware that this is an incredibly difficult task for a flight sim. As long as we're stuck with this minimum utilization of our hardware the sim will evolve nowhere. We're at the limit.

So... the first step is the base on top everything else can be built, flight characteristics is one of them.

I'm anything but a computer guru but I would offer an alternate perspective.
There is no doubt that a program like a flight simulator can put a heavy drain on a computer, that is UNLESS the person using the sim uses some plain old common sense in how they set up the sim and what they stick into it "to make it better".
I won't attempt to speak for others but I will tell you that without question, for me anyway, taking the time to set the sim up to run properly on my system has worked out quite well.
Right from the gitgo I wanted to avoid the pitfalls I had to live through when I was advising Microsoft on FSX. There was a LONG period there where the way the program was written exceeded the ability of even mid-range hardware to handle it. It eventually caught up and things worked out but it was a trying time for many to say the least.
I have found that setting up MSFS to favor a more conservative side pays big dividends for the user.
My system is mid-range. I have an I7, adequate ram, and an Nvidia 2070 Super GPU. Nothing fancy, just a good mid-range system.
I set up the sim at the quality level avoiding the Ultra settings. I have a fair sampling of AI traffic and for the most part have accepted the FS2020 defaults. My simulator runs just fine; smooth as glass and with very little serious issues. I get a CTD every once in a while but that could easily be a server issue at the other end. A simple reboot and all is well.
What I'm getting at is this.
Microsoft and Asobo went to great trouble to code the basic sim for an acceptable experience IF the end user is willing to accept that and not go crazy loading the sim up with extra software and/or moving sliders beyond where their computers can handle the load.
As I said, I can't speak for others but personally I have discovered that using sensible settings, MSFS 2020 provides a beautiful world and will run just fine on most any present day mid-range computer.
Dudley Henriques

[Oracle427]

I acquired MSFS2020 last week.

I am running a Phenom II X4 955
GTX 960 4GB
16Gb DDR3 RAM
512GB SSD
TrackIR
X56 Hotas and Saitek pedals

It's getting old, but it runs stable.

I get a rock steady 18 FPS on MSFS on mostly low/med settings in 1080p even when flying over NYC in my RW stomping grounds. It looks great to me, the landmarks look perfect as compared to what I see RW flying the same routes> This is 110% acceptable for my needs.

FSX does not maintain a stable FPS on my rig, especially when using the mouse FPS killer, and it is not a stable platform on longer flights.

No tweaks, no editing config files, just click on a few graphics settings, map my controls, max the realism settings and presto everything has been golden since. It's refreshing.

It also handles very well and is overall a better simulation than any other I've used with it's default prop aircraft. The feeling of flight and the appearance of the world, especially when flying in IMC is a big step up for me.
An A2A aircraft will be the icing on the cake and the Comanche is a perfect start as I don't own it for FSX and it should be a good substitute for the performance of the aircraft I own which is a win-win. I really miss the depth of the systems simulation that A2A brings to the table.

Once I see that working well in MSFS 2020 I may finally spend some $$ on long neglected hardware upgrade.

[Mustang]

A great post, Dudley, and I agree with you. While everyone has different goals from their simulator, and even 'immersion' can mean different things to different people, I agree that MSFS offers a very immersive out-of-the-box experience (if you're one of the rare people that bought the DVD version and have a box - ha!)

MSFS has an environment that looks and feels alive, from the visual perspective and sounds to the air mass simulation and smooth, evolving weather patterns. That already puts it way ahead of most other sims that I've ever experienced, even with its shortcomings and the rough-around-most-edges default flight models. When I take an aircraft up in MSFS I really feel like I am flying in a living atmosphere, not a controlled science experiment where maths formulas ensure everything is very 'samey' (except the forced turbulence off/low/medium/high settings which even ActiveSkyNext had to work with).

On the hardware front, some seek ultimate performance and visuals as their way to 'immersion'. I flew MSFS for two years with an i5 and a 1060, and I was happy enough. I ran it at medium settings and it was enjoyable. Not super-smooth, but still good enough for GA flight on a 2K panel (20-30 FPS typically). For some that's not enough of course, but to me it doesn't destroy the experience, it just detracts from it a little bit - just like the occasional scenery glitch, half-baked ATC, unpredictable AI traffic and other bugs that come and go. On the whole, it gives me more joy than frustration, and it isn't constrained by so many specific limitations that other sims have had.

Goes without saying that I can't wait to see where A2A takes it

[Bat29]

Awesome post Dudley! Just to share some random thoughts on the subject. When I first jumped into the world of MSFS I was amazed. Many... many... hours later I'm still amazed and have situations and scenarios where I'm like "Wow, how cool was that!" or "Unreal!" Then there are some moments where I'm like why can't they fix that!" In all seriousness, this is the one simulator that has ever really captured me and given me that feeling of flying for real. Especially, in VR! I have had plenty of nostalgic moments of real world flight from memories replayed in MSFS. No other simulator has given me this experience to the extent that MSFS has.

I take flight simulation to the Max. I always have and always will. I treat it as if it were the real world and the things I have learned over the years through my studies and experiences I practice and treat it as such to the best I can in a simulation environment. I've trained with it before I started flying and during my active flying days. Flight simulation has helped me in so many areas of training and proficiency that I excelled with my CFI beyond the average because of flight simulation and made a believer of my CFI to use it as a tool. Now that I'm not flying these days due to primarily financial reasons, flight simulation is even more important to me now then it was before to stay sharp and still feel connected and involved in the world of aviation and not to loose what I have learned mentally. So, the point I'm making here is if used appropriately, flight simulation can be very valuable with the proper mindset. If only I had MSFS in the days of my training.

The world of MSFS is believable. Now that the sim is maturing nicely and were starting to see "decent" add-ons hitting the market for MSFS, I mainly gravitate towards MSFS now. It's been a few months since I even opened up X-Plane, which for awhile was my go to sim of choice. X-Plane which I love, I have to spend so much time with Ortho files and extra add-ons to make the world look nice, but let's be honest MSFS wins hands down in this department. It's funny because I always included my self in the "I'll take physics and simulation of the aircraft etc, over eye candy", crowd. It wasn't until MSFS, that I realized just how important the simulation "world" itself is and is a core fundamental principle to make a believable simulation.Especially for VFR flying.
At the time, I always thought FSX and X-Plane looked fine enough for me and it served it's purpose with the right add-ons of course, until now My humble opinion.
It's just so hard to go back and "fiddle" with the other sims and the settings and this is where MSFS has spoiled me I'm afraid. I have a mid range system too nothing high end. I7 6700k 16GB Ram 1080TI. I'm in need of an upgrade but MSFS runs just fine for me, in fact better then X-Plane etc. Which still boggles me with how the visuals are in MSFS.

For me now the 4 main pillars to a decent sim is the world, ATC, weather, and system depth of the aircraft. The world of MSFS ,although not perfect of course, is night and day compared to any sim.

The built in ATC system is garbage. I'm afraid to say it always will be garbage, in my opinion. If you want to learn real ATC communications and take it serious to understand how it works and to use for training the built in ATC is a no-go. Always has been , maybe in the future I may be wrong. I would love to see a decent useable built in ATC system and I believe it's long over due in the Flight Simulation genre. Even if people don't have any interest in it, it should at least resemble some realism and not be a hindrance and in any way sorta of speak. ATC is a huge part of real world flying that one would think the built in ATC would be miles ahead these days compared to the old days.
However, this is okay because thankfully we have Pilotedge and Vatsim. While I use both, primarily I use Pilotedge. When I feel the need to stretch my legs past the area of service I use Vatsim and I cannot recommend Pilotedge enough for enthusiasts, student pilots, and current pilots! I just simply don't fly without it at all. In-fact it's been so long that I haven't used any ATC program that flying in any sim without it just doesn't feel right Then there's Pilot2ATC which is a add-on that is much better then the default ATC, but it's a computer speech engine and it doesn't hold a candle to what Pilotedge can offer. Nothing beats talking to a real person!

I actually think the weather system in MSFS is well done. It's not perfect by any means but it's a great start and it really does suffice for now for me at least in terms of what I'm looking for, without the feeling of needing to grab ActiveSky like program or the sorts to feel satisfied. Sometimes I'm astonished to be honest sometimes just how realistic it can be when it's working lol I could go on with the subject for awhile. Although not perfect granted I think MSFS is on a whole level of its own with the weather system and not just visually. I really do enjoy planning my flights with the weather in mind like I would in reality in MSFS. Hopefully we see continued improvement in the future with the weather engine.

Last but not least Aircraft system depth. Thank goodness for A2A. I'm really excited to see what can be done here with MSFS. Honestly, if it wasn't for a few companies that have made decent aircraft for MSFS already that I really do enjoy and A2A coming to MSFS, I would have gone back to X-Plane/FSX as my "main" sim of choice. I mean after all it is a flight simulation lol If the dam plane don't fly right well.... yeah. Hard to call it a flight simulator. I mainly enjoy GA flying in my sims, however I do enjoy airliners and jets from time to time when I get the urge. We do have some good add-ons for MSFS. I'm really curious on the impact A2A is going to have on the MSFS community and the market going forward. I hope and want to see it it forces other companies to step up their game and show people and developers how far MSFS can go in terms of immersion, system depth, "study-level" whatever you want to call it. I'm hoping it attracts more casual "gamers" to our what seems like nich community that strive for in depth-study level simulations and ultimately get involved with aviation and get the bug for flying. I unfortunately see a lot of "dumbing down" in software and simulations these days especially in Flight Simulation that it could go both ways.This is a whole other topic I could go on about, however I see it for what it is. This technology we have in MSFS could go so far and be so valuable, it would sure be a waste of tech to see it not reach it's full potential. Especially for the future of simulation. I'm thankful for A2A striving for quality and the passion for immersive study level aircraft.

Anyhow enough rambling here lol Just wanted to share some thoughts. I really do hope A2A can knock it out of the park and I'm sure they will. One of the many thing I like abut A2A is they take their time and do it right! Your thoughts and feedback give me hope Dudley for the future of MSFS and what can be achieved. I'm super glad and thankful A2A has someone with your expertise and experience working with the team, Dudley. I do see a bright future for MSFS and A2A too.

[MarcE]

For the simulator to become better with flight model and (live) world aspects I think the most important part before all this is that our computer must be able to serve and carry the sim properly. Right now fliught simulation is still an almost archaic single core system fighting with its own strength. Physics, weather, rendering all requires a lot of hardware ressources and currently we're once again limited massively by "main thread". Our bottleneck in the sim is the CPU, no 4080 and 7900 GPU will be able to fully resoulve this issue, not with DX12, not with Vulcan. The best example in MSFS is the Fenix A320 that runs in its own program outside the sim but still doesn't utilize more than the core MSFS runs on. FPS in DX11 (12 is buggy) on my really fast system are around 40 while PMDG gets 60 and default is running at 80. If I add traffic (Yes, I'm a very lonely person in MSFS) I could just start P3D and fly there. A single core flightsim will not be able to grow much more in the future, it must be rewritten for multicore use and I am totally aware that this is an incredibly difficult task for a flight sim. As long as we're stuck with this minimum utilization of our hardware the sim will evolve nowhere. We're at the limit.

So... the first step is the base on top everything else can be built, flight characteristics is one of them.

I'm anything but a computer guru but I would offer an alternate perspective.
There is no doubt that a program like a flight simulator can put a heavy drain on a computer, that is UNLESS the person using the sim uses some plain old common sense in how they set up the sim and what they stick into it "to make it better".
I won't attempt to speak for others but I will tell you that without question, for me anyway, taking the time to set the sim up to run properly on my system has worked out quite well.
Right from the gitgo I wanted to avoid the pitfalls I had to live through when I was advising Microsoft on FSX. There was a LONG period there where the way the program was written exceeded the ability of even mid-range hardware to handle it. It eventually caught up and things worked out but it was a trying time for many to say the least.
I have found that setting up MSFS to favor a more conservative side pays big dividends for the user.
My system is mid-range. I have an I7, adequate ram, and an Nvidia 2070 Super GPU. Nothing fancy, just a good mid-range system.
I set up the sim at the quality level avoiding the Ultra settings. I have a fair sampling of AI traffic and for the most part have accepted the FS2020 defaults. My simulator runs just fine; smooth as glass and with very little serious issues. I get a CTD every once in a while but that could easily be a server issue at the other end. A simple reboot and all is well.
What I'm getting at is this.
Microsoft and Asobo went to great trouble to code the basic sim for an acceptable experience IF the end user is willing to accept that and not go crazy loading the sim up with extra software and/or moving sliders beyond where their computers can handle the load.
As I said, I can't speak for others but personally I have discovered that using sensible settings, MSFS 2020 provides a beautiful world and will run just fine on most any present day mid-range computer.
Dudley Henriques

I'm absolutely with you, Dudley. There is a "but" though. People with the most recent hardware, even the 4080 and top notch CPU and RAM will experience significant performance cuts if they add rather simple addons like traffic. If these addons were shared across the cores we have there would be no problem at all. I have pretty much the fastest system you could buy for sensible money a year ago and if I fly the Fenix with AI traffic I need to tune down the sim itself significantly to keep the fluent and smooth experience. The sim itself runs perfectly smooth and incredibly fast, way faster than my 60Hz monitor. And this means that we're at a limit what can be done. If the Fenix and FSLTL brings my PC to its knees nothing can be added any more that requires calculations. Multicore support is a huge task in flightsims though, Eagle Dynamics have been working on it for a long time now, we'll see how the first release will turn out this year. MSFS is certainly on a good path and DX12 will bring more optimizazion as well. The futer IS bright, I am totally with you. But we'll need our available hardware to be used as well or we'll be stuck.

[twsharp12]

As it stands now P3D is still superior for flying IFR. MSFS2020 flying VFR is no competion though. Looking forward to A2A releasing aircraft for it, as well as the Q400, 747, and others. The only reason to hold onto P3D at that point would be to fly the L049 COTS unless that also get a release.

[LSEdwards]

On July 25, 2012, Microsoft announced it had cancelled further development of Microsoft Flight, stating that this was part of "the natural ebb and flow" of application management.

On 9 July 2014, Dovetail Games announced a licensing agreement with Microsoft to distribute Microsoft Flight Simulator X: Steam Edition and to develop further products based on Microsoft's technology for the entertainment market.

While FSX: Steam Edition remains on sale, Dovetail also released a new flight simulation franchise, Flight Sim World. The company originally planned to bring this game to market in 2015. However, the program became available in 2017. In April 2018, Flight Sim World development was closed, and sales ended in May 2018.

The future was bright for all of those products too, until it wasn't.

Until and unless MS release some meaningful stats and financials, I will not be investing hundreds of pounds in MSFS. All it takes is a change of management and the ten year roadmap gets filed in the round filing tray under the desk.

As a wise person once said "It's difficult to make predictions, particularly about the future".

[Skyhawk54]

Hello Dudley,
May I ask have you tested X-Plane 12 and if so what is your take on the flight dynamics.
Thanks

[DHenriques_]

Hello Dudley,
May I ask have you tested X-Plane 12 and if so what is your take on the flight dynamics.
Thanks

I always respectfully refrain from discussing competitor's product publicly but I will say that I have no problem at all ranking Accusim WAY above any and all flight simulation products I have been exposed to. In my opinion there is nothing available to today's market that can compare with Accusim.
I realize you might expect me to say this because of my association here with A2A but anyone who has known me over any length of time will tell you that if I didn't actually believe this I simply wouldn't say it at all.
Dudley Henriques

[Oracle427]

The future was bright for all of those products too, until it wasn't.

One difference I see this time, and the only reason I decide to purchase MSFS2020 was the community attitude toward MSFS2020 vs Flight and FSW. I didn't bother with FSW as I didn't want to invest in a platform that the community tarred and feathered, again.

I was probably one of the few that liked Flight only because it had the best flight sim dynamics and especially ground handling dynamics. It also introduced great visuals and it ran well on this very same PC. Yes it had a lot of limitations, but as with all sims, I always expect them to grow if there is community support for them. I was hoping that it would one day grow into a great sim. I have yet to see any sim, even with aftermarket add-ons replicate the realistic ground handling that was available in Flight. It was the only sim where taking one's feet off the rudder pedals on a landing or takeoff roll was asking for trouble, exactly as it should be. I can do that now with FSX and MSFS 2020 in any aircraft, including all add-ons and it's generally a non-event, including with tail draggers. This is something I just live with, but I know it can be done because Flight did it.

The community response to MSFS2020 is positive and I expect that will take it forward well into the future.

[ImpendingJoker]

The future was bright for all of those products too, until it wasn't.

No, the future for MS Flight was never bright. That is why it died 6 months after release. Why? They didn't listen to the beta team(to include myself) and they didn't listen to the hardcore users that would have made MS Flight successful. When they announced MSFS about a year before release, they stated they had been working on it for 5 years already. That would have put it just before Dovetail pulled the plug on Flight Sim World. Microsoft didn't let them renew their licence to continue developing it and it wasn't very good really(I'm one of the few that got it for free for owning the trainer sim they made before FSW) and I can tell you, it's future was not very bright either. It lasted barely a year after being pushed back 3 years. It was actually the success of P3D and FSX:SE that got Microsoft back to looking at where they screwed up with MS Flight. You see, MS Flight actually had a fantastic flight model, that was light years better than FSX and early P3D models, (and I've always wondered why, neither L-M, Dovetail, or Asobo didn't start with that base code and flight model instead of going all the way back to FSX and MSP) what it didn't have was a good business model. MSFS has already out performed both MS Flight and FSW and is only getting better. It was Dovetail's inability to bring it to market quickly that killed FSW. When MS started working on MSFS it pretty much just didn't allow Dovetail to renew their licence, and they had to make due with that they had. So again the future wasn't very bright for either Flight or FSW.

Until and unless MS release some meaningful stats and financials, I will not be investing hundreds of pounds in MSFS. All it takes is a change of management and the ten year roadmap gets filed in the round filing tray under the desk.

This is a very narrow point of view actually. FSX ran for what? 8 years before support was dropped? And yet I'll bet you flew the living heck out of it didn't you? And bought ALL kinds of planes and scenery for it to boot, right? And now you are standing there "demanding" to be shown sensitive stats and financials that you have no right to before you buy into MSFS? That's a joke right? It has to be. And it's been two years since the release of MSFS and you are still taking the "wait and see" approach? Again, that has to be a joke right? There is literally no reason for that stance at this point. You are either going to buy it, or you aren't. If two years isn't enough time then what is? 5 years? 10 years? MSFS A2A Comanche years? It's like saying you want to buy a 2023 car but are going to wait till 2025 to buy it so you can read the reviews first.

[LSEdwards]

I accept I have a very narrow point of view, but I am not joking. I started flightsimming in 1983, with a break in the 90s when work didn't allow me the time. I am now retired and fly in P3D almost every day, mainly long haul but starting to get back into GA with the A2A aircraft. If I was a new simmer then I would recommend MSFS, but to be honest it's only in the last year or so that it has even become stable and started to get decent addons. There are still no decent modern long-haulers available. I fly the PMDG 747 and 777, the FSLabs A32X, the Dash 8 Q400 and a whole lot of other addons like the Connie, the DC9, the MD80. All of these are extremely well modelled and very satisfying to fly. I have a lot of scenery that makes P3D look quite realistic to me, I get solid 30 fps with reasonably high settings, even on a 4 year old system, by using overclocking, affinity mask and Process Lasso. Most of the time P3D is completely stable - I can do 14 hour long hauls without worrying about CTDs.

On the issue of financials this is the way I see it - I am not 'demanding' MS release believable financials (although as a public company they do have some responsibilities around financial reporting). But as things stand I do not believe that MSFS is profitable given the development costs, the fact that the amount of data they are hosting and the licensing costs of that data must be extremely high and flightsim is a niche market (at least simmers with deep pockets who buy lots of addons). Lockheed Martin do not need non-commercial customers for their product to survive whereas MS do, at least at the moment. The tech industry is going through a very tough time at the moment - big companies are laying off thousands of staff. I worked for decades in large companies - I was one of the awful bean counters that tells management to pull the plug on projects that are not making money or start charging properly. I could of course be completely wrong and the franchise is a cash cow - it's just that we don't know and probably never will.