Has MSFS 2020 met your initial expections?

[Wobbie 948]

3 minutes ago, DJJose said:

I can only compare it to what I've experienced. Before the release ASOBO did ask for community feedback and I was one of those simmers that made a simple list of things that I wanted. A simple fully working C172 was not a difficult expectation that they could have met. Failed.

Dont be upset that your simple list of request to a games developer went unanswered. I'm sure that there were a lot more than yours..

[CFIJose 5,485]

I'm sure that every single person who has posted on this thread expected a lot more than just pretty photo world scenery and a nice looking atmosphere. So IMO everyone's expectation have not been met.

Just for fun.

[CFIJose 5,485]

1 minute ago, Wobbie said:

Dont be upset that your simple list of request to a games developer went unanswered. I'm sure that there were a lot more than yours..

I'm not upset about an incomplete c172. It took Rob Young's mod to showcase what is really possible in this new sim. So it can be done.

[Wobbie 948]

Just now, DJJose said:

I'm sure that every single person who has posted on this thread expected a lot more than just pretty photo world scenery and a nice looking atmosphere. So IMO everyone's expectation have not been met.

Just for fun.

LOL, not! If all of you rely & believe in advertising, without doing a due diligence, then suck it up!

Say to yourself 10 times.. Mea Culpa

 

[CFIJose 5,485]

18 minutes ago, Wobbie said:

LOL, not! If all of you rely & believe in advertising, without doing a due diligence, then suck it up!

Say to yourself 10 times.. Mea Culpa

 

You got issues, bro. 😀

Edited November 1, 2020 by DJJose

[Wobbie 948]

1 minute ago, DJJose said:

I'm not upset about an incomplete c172. It took Rob Young's mod to showcase what is really possible in this new sim. So it can be done.

Not an issue, even in previous sims, default aircraft were improved by modding them, especially the default 172 by Realair.

[CFIJose 5,485]

16 minutes ago, Wobbie said:

Not an issue, even in previous sims, default aircraft were improved by modding them, especially the default 172 by Realair.

That's all I'm trying to say. That the community is what I'm most impressed with not with the sim itself. The 1st video that MSFS released blew us all away and raised all of our expectations. Now ASOBO is playing catch up.

Edited November 1, 2020 by DJJose

[Farlis 2,450]

Yes it met my expectations. I expected a game that was released too early and basically at best in an early beta stage.

And that is exactly what it turned out to be .

So while I'm not dissapointed, I'm also not thrillled.

[lambourne 211]

It fell slightly below my expectations. A lot of what was promised simply wasn't working or complete on release, and it's accepted now that Microsoft forced a premature release out of the door as an unlabelled early access product.

Ground physics are worse than P3D and FSX: on a crosswind takeoff I need to do all kinds of unrealistic tapdancing on the rudder as the model flips from ground to air with all the subtlety of crashing into a brick wall.

Control sensitivity is still way OTT despite patches and the flight physics engine does some things brilliantly (wind and weather, terrain influenced wind) while falling down on the basics for things like coordinated turns: you simply don't need the rudder once airborne.

Despite all that it looks beautifully convincing and it's just immersive enough for me to look positively on the game as a whole.

[leprechaunlive 1,861]

It exceeded my expectations. With my setup, i was sure i would NOT be able to run the sim. 

But it runs, in Medium, at 30fps, looking bloody amazing. Its not perfect, but i didnt not expect perfection, because its a flightsim, come on. 

[JBDB-MD80 1,585]

Oh boy another one of these threads. SMH.... 

[cavaricooper 2,615]

5 hours ago, byork said:

I'm a Yes.

... 99 percent of all users could really care less about torque bloom, for example.

For me, it's very difficult to start FSX or P3D after seeing MSFS.

I do know about and WANT proper Torque Bloom, as well as about a 100 more tiny details to be sorted.  This said, I concur 100%

C

[Dominique_K 10,156]

Expectations are not wishful thinking. My expectations came from several sources : 

- the EP videos which were sort of Asobo’s mission statement. Mildly said, the new sim does not meet yet all the expectations they carry, even if the general joyful feeling of something at last breaking the old FS mould and going in the right direction, is here.

- the team declaration that they were designing the sim for « serious » simmers in mind and they had draw their lessons from MS past mistakes. Flight and engine modeling (including the poor turboprop FSX implementation ), cumbersome UI and file management, need for utilities à la Fsuipc etc., the sim as it is, does not convince me they were true to their words. Was it PR BS or was it just ignorance of what flight simulation has become in the last 10 years and what a « serious » simmer is ? I think the latter, they didn’t do their homework here.

- the alpha testers disturbing returns seen on other forums, specially on persistent bad flight modeling, and the official screenshots which showed great aircraft 3D modeling, very nice terrain and sometimes sublime light rendering but also flaws like bloody skies, clouds looking like pyroclastic flows, weak DEM.  The sim is meeting the mixed expectations for the good and the bad. In a way these screenshots were the most honest things (if voluntarily...) that the PR staff did.

- Contrary to the P3D mercenaries and 3rd Party Dev. haters, working hand in hand for once,  I’ve always been convinced that the sim would trigger a boom of freeware and payware. Expectation fulfilled beyond what I thought possible early on.

All in all, the sim is close to what could be expected in the last couple of months before its release.

About the 10 years project. I don’t understand it as 10 years to bring it at level of what it should have been at release but 10 years to enhance it (the twin Earth concept) . Then at a ripe 71, in 10 years, I might be dead or intellectually unable to sim (aka senile), they’d better bring it at level sooner 😅 !

Edited November 1, 2020 by Dominique_K

[tweekz 2,165]

It's a bit short in what I would've expected for release, but the overall impression is promising.

[SierraHotel 1,001]

8 hours ago, BigG433 said:

I'm interested to know if the simulation has met your initial expectations. If so, why? If not, what would you characterize are your biggest disappointments?

Not only did MSFS meet my expectations it far exceeded them. I have lost count of the amount of money I have spent over the last 40 years in software purchases, what I haven't lost count of, however, are the disapointments in much of said software! I won't go into detail as I don't think I'll live long enough, but suffice to say it's a long list. the only software to live up to all my expectations has been MSFS. The discontent, I believe, springs from the diversity of users, which can be broken down into three main types. Type 1 Mainline simmers with open minds, a view to the future and a desire for perfection. Type 2 Mainline simmers with closed minds who spend their time looking for confirmation that they made the right choice. Type 3 New simmers/gamers, with no conception of the hi's and low's that the first 2 types have been through for the last 40 years, these are the people that "want it now!" with no idea or care as to to how that would be possible because what they want is all that matters. So as you may have guessed I align with Type 1, sympathise with Type 2 and completlely ignore Type 3 (Unless the bow to Type 1's experience and ask nicely)...........😜🤪😉