Msfs 2020 Realism

[Llanque Mazurek]

Yourquestion is one that many pilots, both seasoned and fresh, often ponder upon. Let's delve into the various components of Microsoft Flight Simulator (MSFS) and compare them with the real-world flying experience.

Graphics Realism:

The latest release of MSFS boasts an incredible leap in graphics realism. From satellite imagery, real-world weather patterns to intricate cityscapes and landscapes, MSFS pushes the boundaries of what's possible. From my knowledge, MSFS uses Bing Maps as its primary source, which ensures that what you see below you when flying virtually is almost exactly what you'd see in real life.

Flight Dynamics:

Flight dynamics are crucial for a simulator. MSFS has made significant progress with the flight model and how aircraft respond to various atmospheric conditions. However, there are some nuances and subtle flight behaviors that might not be perfectly replicated in the virtual environment. Always remember that, while it's close, it's still a simulation.

System Failures:

System failures are well-simulated in MSFS. Whether it's engine failures, electrical issues, or hydraulic problems, the simulator provides a variety of failure scenarios that allow pilots to train for unexpected situations. This is invaluable for practicing emergency procedures, though it's worth noting that the intensity and unpredictability of real-life situations might vary.

ATC and Ground Handling:

ATC in MSFS has seen improvements, but there's room for refinement. Real-world ATC interactions have a human element that's challenging to replicate. However, the simulator provides an excellent foundation to familiarize oneself with radio etiquette and basic communication procedures. Ground handling, on the other hand, closely mirrors real-world operations, giving pilots a good feel for taxiing and airport navigation.

Training Potential:

While MSFS offers a visually stunning and operationally close simulation, it's essential to approach it as a supplement rather than a replacement for real-world training. Flight simulators can reinforce certain aspects of flying, such as procedural training, flight planning, and navigation. But they can't entirely replace the hands-on experience, gut feelings, and real-world challenges that come with flying an actual aircraft.

To answer your last question directly, while MSFS provides a realistic way to train, especially in procedures and familiarization, it's not necessarily the most accurate for every aspect of real-world aviation. For instance, experiencing real G-forces and the tactile feedback from an aircraft is something a simulator can't fully replicate.

In summary, MSFS is a powerful tool that offers a high level of realism in many areas. It's an excellent training aid but should be used in conjunction with real-world flying to achieve the best results.

If the question and answers provided above do not answer your specific question - why not ask a new question of your own? Our community and flight simulator experts will provided a dedicated and unique answer to your flight sim question. And, you don't even need to register to post your question!

Be sure to search for your question from existing posted questions before asking a new question as your question may already exist from another user. If you're sure your question is unique and hasn't been asked before, consider asking a new question.

So I'm pretty knowledgable when it comes to PC based flight simulators - I've been simming since MSFS 98 back in the day on Windows 1995. However, a flight sim caught my eye called "DCS World". What exactly is this simulator? It seems to be freeware...

I have no experience flying in real the real world apart from always wanting to take flying lessons. Ive used FS2004 for a few days and to me it seems realistic.Is this much like flying in real life and is it useful to learn on FS before taking flying ...

Dear Sirs: Maybe this is the wrong place for this question, but I searched everywhere and could not find what I want:At the moment, I am not interested in "piloting" a plane, but I would like to use MSFS as a sightseeing tool all over the world... Is ...

Hi everyoneNow I have a few questionsI am the type of pilot who likes to do everything in FS 2004 like it is done in real world (for example I wouldn't start an IFR flight, set the Nav/GPS switch to GPS and press NAV and let the plane fly itself, ...

@Daniel1968 Some aspects will improve the scenery with new lighting system, clouds, and trees (the trees will improve or rather "cover" the ground for sure). However, no, this will not be like MSFS as Laminar don't have Petabytes of proprietary satellite imagery it can serve out from a complex infrastructure across the globe like MSFS. I'm not here to be a fanboy and make excuses for Laminar - scenery is lacking and should be improved, but we have to be realistic in our expectations - improvements will still need to come from scenery add-ons or by using Ortho4XP.

The beauty of XP is in the ability to easily create such custom scenery locally. Ortho4XP (hopefully to be updated for the changes in the coastlines and other new XP12 features) can generate wonderful photorealistic ground textures.

As for autogen buildings, trees, etc., there is still a lot to be desired. Forest placement is nowhere near as accurate as MSFS 2020 nor are the buildings. (e.g. in 2020 I can find my actual house and it is even shaped properly, but nothing like that in XP.) So yes, there are still areas that can be improved.

I know we can use Ortho4XP but it a nightmare to use for me and maybe some other users . It would be great? If the owner of Ortho4XP make it like select norht america, africa or uk. I hope you understand what i want to say. but it to big to get it on hd or if he can make it like the way msfs 2020 did with the map. I hope you understand what i want to say

There are a few issues here. As you stated "too big" is exactly one of the problems with selecting an entire continent. Depending on the zoom level selected there the size would vary substantially. There are packages available to download from creators that have packaged them for easy use for folks who do not wish to learn ortho4xp.To give you an idea of the size of these lets take US Orthophotos as an example (link below), for the state of California through US Orthophotos the size of the archive file (.zip) is 44.6 GB. Thats a huge file, now times that by 50 just as a base line for size and thats 2.2 TB for the whole of the United States. The only way to reduce the size is to reduce the zoom level. In order to package an entire continent you would have to use a rather low zoom level and then it wouldnt look good anyhow defeating the whole purpose.

As far as your comment about "if he can make it like the way MSFS 2020 did with the map", that's not a realistic expectation. Microsoft owns Bing maps, which means they have access to that data directly as they own it. If Laminar tried doing something like that they would have to pay massive amounts of money in order to have the rights to use that data, especially if its dependent on thousands of people downloading data from the service constantly at any given time. This is not a financially viable option at all. Laminar would quickly go under and that would be another abandoned sim behind countless others that have died off in the past.

Expecting Laminar Research to do what Microsoft has done is simply an unachievable expectation and all these comparisons to MSFS is simply ridiculous. They both offer something different and wanting them to be the same defeats the purpose of them both existing simultaneously. It would be like expecting your corner privately owned grocery store to offer the same inventory as a big chain like WalMart.

MSFS adds a large amount of saturation to ortho creating overly vivid very rich coloured scenery. This creates as per many peoples impression that almost cartoon over saturated rich landscape. I live in the tropics and the greens etc in msfs are not just a little overdone but WAY over done.

Ive photographed with extremely high quality gear many if not all the places ive flown and what i see in my ohotos, see in ortho created using ortho4xp using goigle and bing and what i see in Msfs are very different region dependent.

I have been an XPlane loyalist for a while now solely due to its physics. I tried practicing some VFR navigation today to supplement my real world training and just found it to look really bad even with ortho4xp. edit: if it makes a difference I am uk based.

I understand that MSFS is superior visually, but are the physics decent enough to be able to practice things like stalls, steep turns, crosswind landings to an acceptable level of realism? I was fortunate enough to try the alpha and recall being dissapointed in that regard but surely things have improved since then. I would be looking to do this in the default cessna or robin. I don't really want to shell out lots of money on addons as I have lots tied up in XPlane.

What is the weather representation like in terms of accuracy? Today i set ASXP to historical weather mode and the weather was eerily close to what I experienced the other day at my local aerodrome despite it being interpolation-driven(my local aerodrome does not have a proper station.)

As a PPL-student (C172) i noticed that the default C172 is quite unrealistic when talking about the engine-performance. I had trouble to take off from the 500m runway i know from my real flights (about same weather conditions and similar weight). However i had the impression the stalls were quite similar to the real ones. And steep turns were quite well simulated (as my first impression, but didn't test them that much). Perhaps someone having more experience can share his thoughs?

3a8082e126