FS 2020 and X-plane 11

[direwolf500]

I hear fs2020 goes onto your record as a real pilot, although you still have to do some training irl. Is this true, and is it so with x-plane 11?

 

[SFFDesigns]

FS2020 does not have certification I believe. I think XP11 can be used to log hours, but only in a certified "environment". I wouldn't choose a simulator based on that reason. 

 

Personally, I think that if you are training to become a private pilot (which I am), do not rely on the sim for learning the actual "feel" of flying. It's mostly useful for stuff like VOR navigation and maybe getting a few basic visual references (if you are using MSFS and the scenery looks good) like identifying mountains and hills nearby if the mesh is decent. I'd get MSFS since your home airport is more likely to look nice and VOR navigation and such work well for the most part. It is an up and coming platform with a lot of room for improvement though, although it has much more future potential.

 

Honestly if you can afford it, buy both that way you can fall back to X-Plane if there's a bug with MSFS (it's very new)

[direwolf500]

Ok, thanks.

 

Also, does your cpu get fully utilized in fs2020, and if so, what is your max and avg fps?

Edited March 28, 2021 by direwolf500

[Action_Johnson]

1 hour ago, direwolf500 said:

I hear fs2020 goes onto your record as a real pilot

 

HA!

 

And I'm the Queen of England. 

[Action_Johnson]

I play a ton of FS2020 (Over 500hrs since August), with ambitions to get my PPL IRL after C-19 and we don't have to mask up anymore. In general,@Hymenopus_Coronatusis right.

 

At best, FS2020 is good for wrapping your head around the basics and philosophies of reading instruments/gauges, VOR/DME/GPS concepts, practicing patterns, learning and practicing dead reckoning, and learning the rough, rough concepts of radio interaction and following instructions laid out by ATC. 

 

If you're going to use it as a real tool to practice, the 172 (steam gauge) and 152 are really the only two planes that are completely fleshed out to something you can use to really learn these basics. The Garmin's still need some work, but the implementation in the TBM is probably the best for the glass cockpits. I don't spend any time in the TBM, but that's what I've been told. 

 

I'll plan out routes in ForeFlight and puts around in the 152 using dead reckoning and a stopwatch, and that's fun + educational. In the 152, the radios work exactly like they do in real life, and you can legit look up ATIS for the airport you're departing or arriving to, knob it into the radio in the virtual cockpit, switch it over, and it'll connect and transmit just like it does in the real thing, super cool!

 

PGatcomb on Youtube has some really great videos showing how FS2020 can be fun and easy to use as a learning tool, like learning the basics of an IFR approach. 

 

That being said, the moment you get seat time, you'll realize FS2020 is as close to flying, as F1 2020 is for driving. It looks like it's a close facsimile, but the reality is that it's completely different when you can actually feel what's happening. 

 

One thing that's kind of a bummer, but not really, is that it's real easy though to chart a lousy flight plan in the sim, hop into something fast like the TBM, click on autopilot, and Alt+Tab into something else and just let the sim to all the work for you without you giving a fuck. It's easy to get lazy, which is why the 152 is my favorite plane in the game, you're constantly giving inputs/corrections/running the radio, but it's not overwhelming or ultra-buggy like the 787, which really is designed to be operated with two people, and isn't really "fun" when you're by yourself at the computer IMO. 

[Action_Johnson]

2 hours ago, direwolf500 said:

Ok, thanks.

 

Also, does your cpu get fully utilized in fs2020, and if so, what is your max and avg fps?

The main thread does. FS2020 doesn't really use a whole lot outside of 4 cores, so the performance difference between a 5600X and a 5950X will be non-existent. 

 

On my rig, I generally see between 20-60% CPU usage, where my 5700XT hangs around 80-99% usage busting out 30-35fps on Ultra, at 1080p. 

[SFFDesigns]

8 hours ago, Action_Johnson said:

One thing that's kind of a bummer, but not really, is that it's real easy though to chart a lousy flight plan in the sim, hop into something fast like the TBM, click on autopilot, and Alt+Tab into something else and just let the sim to all the work for you without you giving a fuck. It's easy to get lazy, which is why the 152 is my favorite plane in the game, you're constantly giving inputs/corrections/running the radio, but it's not overwhelming or ultra-buggy like the 787, which really is designed to be operated with two people, and isn't really "fun" when you're by yourself at the computer IMO. 

Yeah I agree with this. If you are flying for fun, the flight planning is fine and it's pretty useful for doing a quick "tour" of a new area, but it isn't good training at all. The airliners aren't either for many reasons (not the least of which being they are buggy and unfinished). The GA aircraft are super fun without autopilot - imo that's the big advancement that MSFS made over other sims, it's actually possible to fly VFR all over the world!

[LogicalDrm]

-> Moved to PC Gaming

[Action_Johnson]

4 hours ago, Hymenopus_Coronatus said:

Yeah I agree with this. If you are flying for fun, the flight planning is fine and it's pretty useful for doing a quick "tour" of a new area, but it isn't good training at all. The airliners aren't either for many reasons (not the least of which being they are buggy and unfinished). The GA aircraft are super fun without autopilot - imo that's the big advancement that MSFS made over other sims, it's actually possible to fly VFR all over the world!

Totally, I remember running FS 5.0 on my parents 386 and trying to find our town, didn’t look like anything remotely close to resembling reality. FSX wasn’t even close either, it was just as bad.

 

FS2020 though, I sent my mother a screenshot and she thought I was down there visiting

[SFFDesigns]

Just now, Action_Johnson said:

Totally, I remember running FS 5.0 on my parents 386 and trying to find our town, didn’t look like anything remotely close to resembling reality. FSX wasn’t even close either, it was just as bad.

Even X-Plane wasn't close. My home airport in X-Plane took about 100 GBs of ortho + scenery just to get the airport looking decent and the area around the airport still looked horrible.

[direwolf500]

14 hours ago, Action_Johnson said:

The main thread does. FS2020 doesn't really use a whole lot outside of 4 cores

Interesting, really wish it would
but

 

Quote

so the performance difference between a 5600X and a 5950X will be non-existent. 

There actually is a significant difference between the two remember? the 5950X also goes up to 5GHz

[direwolf500]

7 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

-> Moved to PC Gaming

?

[LogicalDrm]

9 minutes ago, direwolf500 said:

?

You are asking about two games in Software section. It might have been fine at the start, but asking how they perform is 100% PC Gaming, not just software.

[Fraya]

MSFS all the way, look how far its come since release, and yes the scenery will only keep improving, we just need slightly better weather and lots lots more planes, traffic etc. 

i only like the Steam gauge cockpits and prefer the smaller aircraft that you actually have to fly and navigate. 

looking forward to a Cessna 421C Golden Eagle, Boeing 727, VC10, Lockheed Connie, DH Beaver,  all the planes i had on FSX but now want for MSFS. 

got the Seminole, its pretty nice.