I can see my house from here! Microsoft Flight Simulator has laid strong foundations for the nerdy scene's next generation Tomorrow the eagerly awaited 2020 incarnation of Microsoft Flight Simulator lands. The Register had a play with the release version and was impressed with this first draft. Developed from the ground up by French outfit Asobo Studio, Flight Simulator is one of the most hotly anticipated titles in the genre for years – though …
I tried the beta and while I can't comment on the accuracy of the flight model I can say the areas I flew around were pretty true to my knowledge / recollections; mostly Scotland, IoM and Northern Italy. Using a controller I had to resort to mouse + keyboard for a few things so I wonder how well it works on XBox. I didn't try the ultra settings but on high-end it ran perfectly on my Ryzen 3700X and GTX1060 6GB and I was very impressed. Clouds look amazing.
Quite honestly I spent ages flying around this as a hardcore flight simulation nerd and not nearly enough time trying out all the other features, though I only had 2 days to test and write this up.
The basic version is available on the Xbox Game Pass for something like £4/month and all you're missing out on is the extra detailed airports and some of the aircraft. The basic selection is plenty good enough if you're not a rivet counter or systems operation geek like me.
I really enjoyed (was frustrated by!) the landing challenges. There's a gameplay section where your job is to accurately touch down at the correct spot on the runway. Obviously there's lots of gusty winds and/or extremely challenging approaches which make that hard. Strongly recommended if you like that sort of thing.
I notice that it's a little more sophisticated than the first flight sim I ever played, on the Sinclair ZX81.
What an odd-looking game. Does that thing even count as a "flight simulation" in the conventional sense? It looks more like a mashup between a boardgame-derived strategy game, a choose-your-own thing and a text adventure.
It appears that they did an updated version later on, but even that appears to be essentially the same thing with non-interactive graphics slapped on.
Oh wow, I've never seen the version with actual graphics before...though I think you are right they look pretty static.
Avalon Hill used to have a game called Nukewar that I loved...its kinda like Battleship but with an arms race. You can still play the Apple II version here, the C64 was in color.
https://archive.org/details/a2_Nukewar_1980_Avalon_Hill
I remember that flight sim. It was written in Basic, I edited it a lot. :) Happy days.
I recall there was a landing practice mode that set you in the air lined up for a landing, but I changed to put you are ridiculous altitude (100000+ Ft?), then tried to see how fast I could impact the ground.
The hours of entertainment that provided.
Still remember swapping loads of my Commodore 64 games for a second-hand version of Flight Simulator II complete with its mind-blowing wireframe graphics, which my Dad then used to spend hours playing on his SX64 with its built-in 5" screen. He then got hooked on FS right through to X which he was still 'flying' in his late-80s, though sadly isn't around any more to enjoy this release.
".. I'll check out how my house looks from above."
The review yet but what made the old ones so good on PC was the squawk. I can't remember if it was in the base game on it game from mods. They had volunteers I believe, creating them. It made it so much better when round big airports being able to listen to the radio chatter. Doubt you'll get that on the console.
That was one of my favourite things from Flight Unlimited 2 & 3 - there were times when I'd load it up and just have it running in the background listening to the tower chatter at whichever airport I'd started up at, or tuned into the ATIS channel for a soothing weather report. Bit like listening to the shipping forecast, only in an American accent :-)
Indeed, the whole FU2/3 world environment felt so solid and convincing, that the first time I tried Flight Simulator (whichever version was around at the same time) it felt so lifeless and artifical that I couldn't understand how anyone would think FS was worth spending their time and money on. Then I got hold of the UK photorealistic terrain tiles, updated terrain mesh, and London 3D scenery packs, and started to appreciate it a whole lot more... So whilst some of the jarring glitches noted here would also have me going "umm, that's not *quite* right now, is it...", just looking at how generally realistic the urban landscapes look in this version would make me cry with joy and reach for my wallet without hesitation if I still had the same sort of time to devote to flight simming as I used to have.
The Cessna 172 is notoriously stable to the point of auto-recovering from a spin just by taking one's hands off the controls, but from what I've heard the 152 should have been able to lock in a spin after forcing it for a few turns. What you describe sounds a lot more like the 172, so I'm not confident they got the modelling correct on the 152
Review idea: give XPlane or FlightGear a try (if you haven't already) to see if they behave differently -- XPlane is consistently sold on the basis of the accurate modelling, but I'll admit I've never tried it.
Flying a 172 or 150/152 is so similar for normal flight that you barely need a conversion. No standard 172 is aerobatic so you should never be going there, 152 Aerobats with the correct seat harnesses and clear roof panels are the only version of the 150/152 that you should be forcing into a prolinged spin, there are only about 200 left in the world, just over 300 were built compared to 10s of thousands of standard 150/152. Yes of course you can spin and recover the standard ones but this is for flight safety, not really supposed to do it for recreation.
I did some stall practice in a C152 aerobat about 10 days ago, the instructor mentioned that it is a lot more likely to spin with power on (either a power-on stall, or putting the power on before getting the nose down in a power-off stall). The rotational effect of the prop wash, the counter-rotation of the airframe to resist the prop, and the increased airflow over the ailerons all increase the likelihood of a spin developing.
No standard 172 is aerobatic so you should never be going there
Look in the POH -- for many of the older ones, spins are explicitly approved assuming utility loading (forward CG). In Canada you have to demonstrate spins and spin recoveries to get a license at all.
Spins are probably one of the only "aerobatic" maneuvers a pilot is likely to inadvertently find themselves in, due to stall recovery practice. Stuff up the stall entry badly enough and nearly anything is going to want to spin.
Yes, the 152 Aerobat is the version that apparently likes to enter and lock in a spin*. And, strangely, in the article he specifically mentions the Aerobat as not wanting to stay in a spin in the simulator.
Icon 'cause spinning fixed wing is sorta rotary wing?
* https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/15040
I have the PoH for 172 and 150/152 and it describes their spin recovery procedure as almost word for word the same. Some 150/152 are placarded against intentional spinning, I think because of a rudder issue. They will un spin if you leave the controls neutral, just a matter of how long, 3 turns? Have never tried it.
For a really docile spin, try a DH82, it's very enjoyable.
Rudder stops preventing enough authority to get out of a fully developed spin, as I understand it. The 172 doesn't have that problem but also likes to get out of a spin on its own in something like 1/4 to 1/2 turn.
I was up (with instructor) doing all kinds of stalls and spin induction / recovery in a 172 recently, it's definitely allowed with proper weight and balance, but with two people and full fuel you're probably outside the utility category so have to take less fuel. The 152 (with rudder stop fix) is more suitable for this in general.
And yes, power on stalls with full power and a really high nose up attitude are all kinds of fun. I learned in a matter of only a couple exactly how to use the rudders, then proceeded to do falling leaf etc. Loads of fun overall and a great experience.
Xplane did mars way back in version 9. Fascinating stuff - thin atmosphere even at ground level so you need something like a U-2 spyplane with oodles of power to work. WIth very high stall speeds, low gravity so weak brakes, and low drag, landing even with the benefit of a very long runway is compromised. The solution in the end was to fit arrestor gear to the runway.
This post has been deleted by its author
Seems that NBN there is some traffic management going on in the NBN network affecting FS2020
A full day of frustration, and thought that the issue was with the cloud flare servers hosting the content for download. Nope a simple switch to VPN with an AU outfall point, and its downloading as fast as my FTTP can take it.
Annoying as the ISP claims not to be shaping the connection to the US via the VPN is taking a longer path, (ABB is only 3 hops) yet without the VPN I am getting at most 1 Mbps. On VPN 89 Mbps! All my other access/downloads/rdp etc from the US today has been fine.
So lesson here is try a VPN to avoid the traffic management that may be present either in your ISP or the NBN network.
The second one will be just how well will it perform without the VPN running when flying. time and testing will tell.
BvB
Great graphics, so-so dynamics, questionable framerates. But probably something that can be fine polished over the coming months/years.
The stall/spin characteristics of the Cessna 152 and the 172 are unrealistic, as are many others. A C152 will happily spin (and very easily) if you stall with full rudder. Engine on it will spin reasonably fast (very slow compared to an aerobatic plane or even another training plane such as a BE77 Skipper or a Pa38 Tomahawk. Stall recovery on the C152 is very easy. C172 is slightly heavier out of the dive, but also wants to help you.
The twitchy controls that the author mentions is also something I find a bit silly. It's the same kind of thing we have seen in car games, were "more twitchy=harder and must therefore be more realistic", which is not the case.
What's more, it feels like all aircraft have the same kind of control linkages, they all fly as if all controls use rods. No wire controls, no electronic or hydraulic controls... There is a difference in initial response and sustained response between the different control types. Rod controls on light aircraft have a much more immediate response, while most general aviation aircraft with wire controls have a more sluggish control response (wires can absolutely be tuned for more twitchiness, and more factors come into play such as control surface design and more).
As it stands, FS2020 is cool and worth having, but for accuracy of the actual simulation then X-Plane beats it easily.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
