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.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
