That sums up MSFS, a game, designed for anybody, fly from the outside with Xbox controller. I wish it was more hardcore to appeal to those types.

@@iain8837 As far as im aware it can be made into a proper hardcore flight sim with the right settings/graphics, etc. Some of the setups ive seen for MSFS/Xplane are crazy.

IMO it caters well for both markets

@@TiJayFLY Agree, and I only think its only a good thing. If we're being honest the days of fs, p3d etc and devs having this "closed society" take was getting pretty toxic. You can see that by how they're still clinging on in the forums. I mean the outrage over the asobo atr daring to be £12~? How dare someone maybe find a passion in flying planes.

It isn’t though IMO - this video mostly just flags basic functional issues that affect everyone. Stuff like random uncommanded descent, nosedives on approach, having to babysit fuel trim when the computer should do if for you. I would actually say these issues affect those who want a simple, easy flight *more* than it affects the hardcore players.

That’s a new one on me… 😆

You've got to sit the engines just up above idle and it stops.

Yea it gets very annoying

That means you’ve done something wrong, I forget what it is tho, something on the engineer panel.

it's also horrendously overpowered with flight dynamics closer to a SU27 than Concorde

Especially with the latest update that adds the E170. Its actually not a bad aircraft. You just need to do some extra work when it comes to following the decent path.

The Embraer should have stayed in the development hangar for 2 more years instead of trying early access.

The bad reviews are from ignorant people who didn’t take the time to actually READ the description

Captain Sim is now a joke. Sad because prior to MSFS they actually made some pretty decent aircraft. I believe they could do the same in MSFS , but they've just gotten lazy and don't give a crap.

Virtualcol E Jets are good too. Physics are hardcore and the cockpit door quality looks a##. But the cockpit itself is just good.

Fair - I don’t have it 😆

But it does state clearly that it doesn't have any cockpit. . So apart from that it's okay.

It literally has the name „exterior“. So you already know that it‘s just for asthetics

One of the most bullshit adds I’ve seen

Wish I realised before I got it :/

If you play in VR is even funnier! There is cockpit view but with Nintendo 64 graphics level and a hardcoded copilot that I like to call "Juanito"

I recommend the PMDG 737 - you can use the knowledge you already have and it’ll fly reliably :) should be a positive experience for confidence in your abilities

@@TiJayFLY ive started using the FBW a320 and am loving it

😄 right?? 😂

@@TiJayFLY, looks like you can finally rename & edit this post to "4 MSFS Airplanes you should Avoid" 😄

Just make sure any add on planes you have are updated - there was an AAU1 update to the sim which changed a load of avionics stuff, so any out of date planes will likely break

Indeed, I’ll cover it at the time

better then most the garbage on the ingame marketplace

DC Designs are the best dumbass🤦🤦🤦🤦

I’m told FSS changed a lot since the publication date of this video

Thank you, I appreciate the kind words :)

whats up pilot studd! love your content

@@twowheelzzz Hi mate, thanks that's very kind of you!

@@PilotStudd no worries man, just glad you enjoy my editing and TJs work and ideas :)

cant understand the logic in flying military aircraft in msfs when dcs exists

​@@jonnie2bad people who just can't get DCS.

Heavy Division does improve the 787 for sure. Salty 747 is a bug-filled disaster last time I tried it (Feb 2023), even less reliable than default… has it been updated since?

@@TiJayFLY You must've been really unlucky then as everytime i've used the salty 747 there's been no problems and flied quite nicely

Oh yeah not headwind . Heavy division! Headwind 330 neo is also great

@@clemensbogner3045 the headwind 330 is awesome, FBW systems in a 330 cockpit with 330 flight model... just amazing for freeware

Yup, updates are coming in AAU2 which should change things hugely - this video was made before the announcement. There’s also the Heavy Division 787 in the meantime of course. I never found Salty to be very good - every route I tried it on was actually worse than the default, so I’ll wait for the official update :)

I very much sit on the casual side of the fence - if you check out my tutorial content, it’s hugely simplified and aimed at beginners. For example, personally I always recommend planning flights with the in-sim map instead of Simbrief, and I rarely fly from cold and dark - unless I’m specifically making a video on it! My issue with these airplanes is that the stuff that makes flying *easier* for casual players is flawed. For example, using VNAV is much less hands-on than manual flight or FLCH mode - which in turn actually makes VNAV a *better* option for casuals. The same is true of a decent ILS mode and automatic landing, as it happens. Broken VNAV and broken ILS modes just make life more difficult - either through having to babysit the airplane, or forcing use of more complex flight modes. Same issue with Concorde - my entire argument is that it’s a pain to fly without a virtual engineer taking care of stuff for you. IMO the main flaw with the DC Concorde is that its omissions make life *harder* for casual players. So don’t worry - I got you, casuals 😉 because I am one!

@@TiJayFLY lol i bounce in between both some days I feel like setting up SimBrief or going from Cold/Dark other days I just want to turn on the Cessna and just take in the view. Appreciate the content!

Yup, as I mention, you can fly them fine using selected altitude modes :)

Ah, the developer actually answered me about this some months ago. This is due to certain tanks being empty. Concorde can only feed the engines from some tanks - the others are used for trim. With a virtual flight engineer, you wouldn’t have to worry about it… but without one, you need to manage the transfer yourself (or just put more fuel in).

@TiJayFLY okay ill just have to add more fuel nearer the destination. Thank you

​@@TiJayFLY is the virtual engineer available on the marketplace?

@@ProAvgeek6328 no, the DC Concorde has no virtual flight engineer. Other Concorde add ons for other sims (Colimata for Xplane, FSLabs for P3D, SSTSIM for FSX, PSS for FS9 etc) do have a virtual flight engineer.

@@TiJayFLY so there is no way to get virtual flight engineer for msfs?

Should be better in AAU2

Make sure you uninstalled any Working Title mods, they’re incompatible with AAU1 as Asobo integrated them by default. Also make sure that any hardware fuel/power switches are set to ON

@@TiJayFLY i don't have any Working Title mods. And the switches are on since i use the Honeycomb flight controls there seems to be a conflict between switches somewhere i guess since the power switches and generator switches flicker in the cockpit when it happens.

@@finalframe8223 yup it’ll be an errant hardware key. The flicker is because MSFS is automatically switching it back on and your controller is constantly polling “Off”

@@TiJayFLY the thing is. The button on the yoke is ON. so idk what's happening really cuz every other plane works fine. I'm using the Honeycomb Alpha Flight Yoke and Bravo throttle quadrant and have customized it so only the yoke has the battery switch but i guess there is a conflict somewhere or the longitude is just being a little bit of a POS.

@@TiJayFLY update. found the issue. TLDR: i'm an idiot. the default setting on the battery and Alternator buttons is on "Set Master Battery" or "Set Alternator". had to configure it to the "Master Battery ON/OFF". same with the alternator. now it works great. so it was my fault basically. just wanted to give you an update.

Almost as if I was aware of that and reversed it for comedic effect ;)

I’ll add a pinned comment for sure 😄 this video was made before the announcement

Yeah it’ll be amazing when the default 747 and 787 are in a good place. Arguably they should have been shipped in working condition to start with, but that’s what happens when a developer who usually makes Disneyland games attempts a flight simulator 😂

@@TiJayFLY They really should have. Although the 747 is more excusable than the 787, and they are meant for probably the more casual crowd At least they are being improved, and not just left with the excuse of the Heavy Division mod, and being free with the sim

Yup, as I say in the video - you can fly it just fine in FLCH and ALT HOLD modes following the ATC. The Heavy Division is a huge improvement too.

That can sometimes happen too, but first of all make sure you don’t have any discontinuities or “MANUAL”/“VECTORS” waypoints in your plan

@@TiJayFLY i always make my own custom waypoints on the world map screen and use LNAV from there, it used to work but now it doesn’t so idrk

Absolutely. Concorde can be hit and miss in many technical ways, some of which are beyond my comprehension. However, it’s such great fun to fly anywhere in the world, which for me at least is what it’s all about.

Not complaining, just saying IMO wait until it’s done 😄

737 MAX cockpit was reworked not so long ago

Thing is if you want a 777 (or atleast something that *looks* like it inside and out) you have no other option

​@@TiJayFLY You always have the option of by a copy of P3D and then buy a PMDG777, well, actually CS's own 777 for P3D is much better, I still fly CS757 and CS767 in P3D regularly and fell they are still feel a little better than FF757/767 for XP. Having more than 3 sim on a computer is a great option to start with...

So people tell me. I will cover it again

thx (: i would say some stuff is sooo god but then sadly still standad mcdu. but then they have these effects at the landing like fsrealistic its very very very good and bad at the same time. but when they finnish i think this will be a must buy (sry for the bad english haha)@@TiJayFLY

Yeah I feel like it’s difficult to judge it fairly until it’s released

Yeah I’ll make a pinned comment when the new 787/747 arrive

It’s fine for small flights or hand flying, but if you try to take it across the pond supersonic it’s awkward

Are you flying the default or the salty 747?

@@jaimes7050 salty is worse

The default routing and auto flight systems are far from perfect. For the 787 you can somewhat avoid these issues with the Heavy Division mod, but otherwise I’d recommend just buying the PMDG 737 and waiting for their 747

@@TiJayFLY I've never flown the default so I can't tell. With the salty I managed some long haul flights with no issues at all. Howerver I'd never dare to take anything except PMDG, FBW or Fenix to VATSIM etc. You can tell that msfs has a very different target audience to other flight sims.

100%, my most recent video actually covers exactly this. As soon as AAU2 is official, I’ll add a pinned comment to this video

@@TiJayFLY yeah I bought the premium deluxe upgrade today (minor-ish mistake should’ve bought the actual game instead of continuing with game-pass) and knowing about the testing version I installed it and the boeings fly wonderfully

Wait for AAU2 to be honest. Heavy div 787 is good in the meantime

That’s pretty much my summary too

😂 same as the Fenix has great systems cos they licensed em from ProSim. Outsourcing and buying stuff in is definitely a thing in flight sim. I think PMDG are the only true “vertically integrated” developer.

I’d recommend the Fenix or FlyByWire A320. The default Airbus (and those built on default systems such as the Project Megapack 330) are not bad, but the Fenix & FBW are better.

@@TiJayFLY last time I checked in the marketplace I couldn't find the fly by wire a320, but I will look for it again

@@ProAvgeek6328 it’s not on Marketplace. You need their launcher - PC only

@@TiJayFLY do I download the a32NX from their website?

@@ProAvgeek6328 yup. But if you can afford the Fenix I would get that instead

It’s the only option for a 777 though, so 🤷‍♂️🥴

I think MS are publishing a fairly comprehensive set of tutorial videos if you check the official channel :) but I will be looking at them and seeing if I can do better ;)

@@TiJayFLY thanks hopefully you do one because your tutorials are straight to the point.

Your tutorials are better. All the info needed in a tenth of the time

Because time skip doesn’t exist in MSFS yet 😂

AAU2 is beta only right now, when it hits the public branch I’ll add a pinned comment :)

@@TiJayFLY Oh yea, forgot about that. Thought it was released :)

Why is that?

@@TiJayFLY I think you missed the latest developer live stream, AAU2 will be focussing on upgrading the 787 and 747 systems, all the logics, CDU, LNAV, VNAV PFD, MFD is being worked on by Working Title, its supposed to be launched in the next update. It wont be Payware level but it will definitely be much more flyable

@@ayaanahmad03 nice I’ll add a note at the time

Indeed, you can *mostly* work around the issues depending how you fly

I never tried any MSScenery stuff - maybe I’ll give them a go and make a dedicated video ;) I recommend the Fenix A320 over FBW, but both are very good

Depends what you do with it and what experience you’ve had before :) It just doesn’t compare well to its older and current peers IMO

@@TiJayFLY that's true

I found Salty to be very buggy, but haven’t tried it since Feb. Heavy Division mod is excellent

Even using the “legacy” control scheme?

@@TiJayFLY yes it only works for like a split second when you hover over one of the control panel buttons and the cursor changes to the little circle. But once the camera moves abit and off of a control button it returns to a mouse pointer and can no longer move the camera until I hover over another button. Ive scoured the internet and for fixes. Tried everything. Just stopped playing eventually

I’m yet to try the ATR

Mate I gotta disagree. The new ATR should be treated like the FSS E series as it will almost certainly be updated in the near future to fix certain issues.

@@mattstuff4177 You have more faith then me *looks at the non-existent updates for the CRJ* a lot more faith then me.

​@@mattstuff4177 The FSS is working to have its own independent system, while the ATR will always be linked to the simulator's standard systems

I never had any… the A310 is one of the more solid airplanes in my experience. Can you elaborate?

@@TiJayFLY must've been fixed as I haven't used it for few months, The auto throttle would drop out & the thrust would be just really inconsistent with auto throttle...

@@TiJayFLY actually I may be wrong it may have been the a319 it would make more sense

@@knowethjc29 A319 uses default AP so likely has issues

The CS is less buggy but the RHD looks better. Neither are great

@@TiJayFLY Ye Rhd if you need some improvements

I don’t trust anything ending “*Designs”. I’ve no idea if there’s any affiliation between them and DC Designs, but the reputations of both don’t seem good.

@@TiJayFLY they're the same guy... same with cj simulaions... i dont need study level stuff, but they all fly and look so bad for what you pay for

Time stamps are in the description…

@@TiJayFLY ah that’s great sorry man, you see lazy asses like me don’t even look there and need it I’m the video itself lol

@@boudewijnzwaal8186 KZfaq should automatically adapt time stamps into chapters - I don’t have any control over that. I always tick the “identify chapters” box, sometimes it works sometimes it doesn’t. I’ve now added a 00:00 timestamp in case it makes a difference, thanks for flagging it

The LVFR planes? I’ve only tried the A321 - so I’d imagine they all fly like the default A320 in terms of systems, just with worse flight dynamics.

@@TiJayFLY The Airbus A320 that came with the game update is alright, its just the other dlc planes are off, physics are terrible, sometimes when i land on a runway atc tells me to land on the runway, plane will be full flaps engines at Idle and speed brakes at full and the plane “Airbus” will hover over the runway and not land, thats not realistic, this simulator and the developers need to go back to the studio and make this simulator more realistic, i also wish the atc voices were different everywhere in the world, this sim needs so many little things to be more realistic, at times it seems too arcadish, i have over a 1000 hours into this sim, needs so many little improvements!

@@hot00head00red The flare physics while landing have been brought up so many times but they just don't seem to care. The sad thing is they can afford to ignore these complaints by throwing out nice new world updates now and then since a vast majority of their audience simply don't care about physics or in depth systems and just want to see nice landscapes.

Depends how much you want a 777, it’s the only option

I had literally never heard of them until people started commenting on this video 😂 perhaps I need to make a special feature

It’s more a discussion of how it compares to its peers than “problems” 👍

It’s the only 777 available in MSFS - until there’s an alternative, you can’t avoid it if you want something that at least *looks* like a 777 inside and out

@@TiJayFLY there is an alternative option, save your money and wait for PMDG. The flight model is an absolute joke lol

What sort of frames are you getting, out of curiosity?

Yup, these are just my opinions :) I’m sure some other folks will feel differently, and that’s all part of the fun 😅

X-PLANE = 🤮 SCENERY.

From my experience, MSFS might have more add-on aircraft than XP, but the add-on aircraft for XP are more detailed and have a higher system depth. Quality vs. quantity.

@@simonwelser6973 From my experience MSFS is deep enough for me and for me it's the world satellite data. I like being able to go to anywhere on planet Earth and seeing the area as it really represents itself and you can't do that with X-Plane. The new SIM update 13 that just did all of Oceania and Hawaii is just incredible because now I have all the islands in South Polynesia visit. And photogrammetry is just breathtaking in some larger ares. Also we're 3 years into a 10 year project and every couple months there's a massive world update that just makes it so fun! I love being able to fly over my Hometown and seeing everything in Photogrammetry and actually see my house and street with photo satellite data. To me that makes it unbeatable.

UK- Japan etc

@@TiJayFLY fair enough..Nice to have the time for that

@@googleisshittoss you just set alarms and turn up at the start and the end 😂

@@TiJayFLY 🤣🤣....That'll work

That’s very much not what I said… 😉 but yes, you can avoid the issues if you fly it in a certain way (which I did mention)

@@TiJayFLY "Completely disregards altitude or speed restraints for SIDs and STARS making it useless for VATSIM" Yeah it kind of is what you said and its inaccurate.

@@Laxa30 it is accurate. The “VNAV” mode on default aircraft does not automatically adjust speed or altitude to match published SID/STAR limits - unless you manually adjust MCP alt to these limits at each stage, or of course if you’re flying in FLCH mode following ATC instructions. In “VNAV” mode, default airplanes essentially fly “max climb/descend” to MCP altitude - which is incorrect. The real airplane will respect published limitations during climb and descent, as long as the MCP altitude matches or is above the restriction on ascent, and matching or below on descent. I think the modified Heavy Division 787 does respect these limits, as do payware airplanes like the PMDG and Fenix. I think the Longitude with WT Garmin G3000 does too. If you can find a video of the default 787 levelling and continuing climb in accordance with a published SID, let me know…

Yes, building commercial software for ~13 years

@@TiJayFLY oosh, thats pretty cool

It improved a lot over time though. The original release was *bad*

​@@TiJayFLY so it is good?

@@aklnkl5369 yesn't

@@brodie.969 *exactly*

Indeed - I made a brief mention of fighter jets struggling to follow flight plans in the Concorde segment :)