MSFS AAU2 arrives on June 23rd and fixes the default Boeings! Check out my preview here ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-hgt07L8hsn4.html
I personally like the concorde, i cant fault it. Mainly because im not a hardcore flight simmer, but i enjoy the experience of flying anywhere i want, and the graphics etc.
@@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.
@@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.
I think you should make a note that this is for people who are interested in doing the ultra realistic stuff, I for example feel quite at home with the default A320N but I also enjoy flying the PMDG 737s as they are some of my favorite aircraft.
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.
The FSS Embrarer has some good potential imo. At least they got active devs that actually cares too. Being able to fly it early means users can give feedback to further improve the plane. Downside of that are bad reviews though. Also CaptainSim really does have a bad reputation haha.
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.
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.
Also one thing to add about Concorde, when on console, below a certain throttle output on the ground with the snoot droop Down is a siren that blares at the loudest setting possible until either you throttle up or put the nose back
Im glad to realize that i wasnt losing my mind with the 787 i always thought i was doing something wrong with the autopilot when something would randomly break
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
I've been noticing a lot of atc problems lately, it has been broken since the last big update, but I never hear anyone else mention it. Same with the autopilot systems. General aircraft seem fine, but all jets have gone buggy since update 13.
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
Really enjoyed this video, I think you got your points across rather elegantly, some people (including me at times!) can be too sensationalist. This was well-balanced and enjoyable :)
imo the DC Designs Concore cockpit feels completely unrealistic esp looking at the pilot pov. Like the modeling just seems very wrong compared to other concords like the colimata concorde tho idk abt what other ppl think about it haha
this list should be full of every cs and bredok and demio product ever made for mfsf and sure the dc designs concorde might have its faults but it better then any product made by any of the three i just named
Solid review...however, this is somewhat the problem in the flight sim community. I feel like people think there's only one way to sim and that's "realistic" as possible. Yet there's a massive market of people who aren't expert level flyers and don't want to mess about with Cold/Dark and realistic operations like myself and others. Some folks just want to get home from work and fly whatever no matter how "high fidelity" it is. Just some food for thought
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!
I fly all of the Boeings and Airbuses using the Autopilot BUT I control Altitude and Heading using Vertical Speed and Heading inputs to follow the flight plan. I cancel Flight Following when descending and approaching the destination airport and later ask for landing clearance prior to final approach. This allows me to continually stay involved during a long flight but is still relaxing. This method seems to be a good work-around to avoid the shortcomings of the sim while still providing an adequately realistic experience.
Just to add onto your first points with yhe Boeing's. Working title are working on a custom autopilot for the 787 (with vnav). Also salty sim are doing the sane for the 747 (can be instslled from the fly by wire installer)
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 have never had any issues with the Boeing 78X. The plane is not perfect, but it’s pretty flyable when you get used to manually descending when needed. I like using the Azure ATC; they do a decent job on telling you when you should start descending most of the time. The only problem I have with the two Boeings is that both the 78X and 748 do not obey cruise speeds after you finish climbing
Yeah, I can see these being fairly true. However, I only tend to focus on higher fidelity planes and the FSS E-Jets are pretty fun. They feel the niche of a lot of regional jets and have come a long way. They're updated frequently.
i'm gonna be honest. i've been flying the standard boeings quite a lot and i haven't encountered any problem with them. one plane i do have problems with is the Cessna Citation Longitude as the power keeps flickering off and on at random. doesn't affect the flight but does affect the Standby attitude indicator, if you're on the ground it's even worse, it flickers and makes the route go away before i've even started to taxi to the runway-
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.
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?
Luckily there are plans for updating the 787/747 in AAU2. I think the best thing with these planes though are being included with the game. Although yes, freeware such as the FlyByWire does a much better job, I think it is difficult to complain about the 747 in particular. The 787 is improved by the Heavy Division mod, but that isn't a good excuse, especially being in the premium deluxe edition of the game. Where I find issues with the use of these systems are in things like the Captain Sim planes, where they are payware and use the default systems (not even changing the aircraft type in the FMS).
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
Something about the default 787, the LNAV doesn’t work for me as well. It always veers the aircraft off course so I have to babysit it as you said in the video
FSS has been a very great aircraft so far and the devs are dedicated. It's also the best ERJ in MSFS period. Hard to complain when it's the only real 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...
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.
I too have noticed how Concorde lands slightly to the right at JFK when using approach mode. I find the engines shutting off at 37% fuel when I'm on finals more angering though as I don't have enough altitude to perform a quick autostart.
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).
@@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.
It might not be perfect, but the concorde is still definitely enjoyable from my point of view: I wouldn’t feel msfs complete without it and it’s the plane I like flying the most (definitely not an expert simmer though, I recreate just small flights purely for fun, I don’t know how to proper trim all the settings)
I disagree with the 787, ejet and concorde tbh. 787 by itself is really bad yes, but with the 78XH by heavy division it adds an actual vnav. The default 747 has the salty improvement mod which is absolutely brilliant. the fss Ejet while still alpha its not that bad and is still miles better than the Virtualcol ejets. athe concorde sure isnt the greatest but its still loads of fun to fly. Also the captain sim 767 and 777 are horrible by default but also have a salty improvement mod. i havent tried the 767 with it but the 777 mcdu with the salty improvement is probably has the most features of any mcdu in game rn, maybe not fenix and pmdg but pretty close. So that pretty much just narrows it down to the bredok products which are incredibly bad with little to no improvement mods.
I can't explain how annoyed I've gotten when I'm 3 hours into a long haul, over the Atlantic, and I get back from getting a drink and my 787 is inverted nose diving into the ocean
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.
I think you should’ve replaced the Concorde with the 73 max for aesthetic reasons. The cockpit truly looks horrendous and the outside looks pretty bad too. The most important aesthetic is the cockpit aesthetic and it is really fucking disgusting on the 73 max.
I have not watched the Concorde segment in full but from a buyer speaking here, I do not recommend you buying the Concorde at all (and trust me I wanted it). The intention of this Concorde was to be a not full study level aircraft but close enough study level, however, when you can't even have functioning autopilot and glitchy systems, I get frustrated. Especially in "non study level planes" I still expect there to be working autopilot to some degree. The Concorde really had no proper systems that never seemed to work great. Not a good purchase in my opinion
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
Default Boeings - AAU2 Update by WT is good now CaptainSim 767 - stay away from any CS products, if you are willin to pay, wait for the pmdg and the *freeware* Lunar Sims 767 FSS Embraer Early Access - Too many bugs DC Designs Concorde - the toy of VATSIM Bredok Eurofighter - No comment
😂 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.
This helps me realize I’m not actually messing up with the 747 flying it in fact I find the autopilot on almost all aircraft to be buggy. I follow the charts from navigraph to a science and still fail to capture the glide slope sometimes. And then the garmin adds extra waypoints that are not even from the world map planner. Dude what’s going on with this sim?
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.
@@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
@@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
What about the Airbus 318 and the A319, physics are garbage, taking off and landing, landing either plane is a joke, the planes bounce like basketball balls when they land, no realism whatsoever
@@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.
@@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...
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.
Is anybody using the default 747 & B787 with Salty & Heavy Division around?. I havent used the default 747 since a few months after Salty came along & the Freighter Mod just takes it to another level (but thats not Salty) that did it but a Livery Repainter. If it was upto Asobo we would be flying the Default 747 in Boeing livery.. Well I wouldnt be as I wouldnt have got past single figures where as Im not at 1100 Freighter hrs in 2 1/2 yrs.
Hi TiJay, this is a very well made, well thought out video. However, due to me: 1. Not using the VNAV mode in any Flight Simulators (X-plane, FlightGear, FSX or FS2020), I have never noticed the poorly functioning VNAV function in default Boeings. 2. Always flying the Concorde manually, I did not know that the localizer mode on the Concorde is not accurate.
Concorde worked, then didnt work and is now working again. Flown properly eg: Managing fuel CG etc its fine. FSS Embraer is early access a concept that should be shot, though I have fronted up $$ for ND-11 and DC-10's that are under development that was with the knowledge they are works in progress. Capt Sim stuff is junk and coupled with the hostile support its just junk. Same goes for the Asobo A320 and the 787 having paid for Premium Deluxe was very disappointed. Want a real plane load the FlyBy Wire A320 allot closer to the plane than the Asobo game. Very surprised you haven't mentioned the MSScenery aircraft all of which are junk, graphics, flight models are all a joke!
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
Why does anyone 'fly' long haul flights in a simulator? They only practice take-off, landing and bad weather in simulators because they're too expensive to have (student) pilots using up hours of valuable simulator time just to 'simulate' long haul flights.
I have the Concorde, and it's basically my favourite plane in MSFS (and possibly even in real life). In my opinion it flies like a dream. I do understand your issues tho I'm on Xbox
@@boudewijnzwaal8186 RU-vid 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
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 ;)
The Grumman Widgeon is garbage. It's a port from Flight Sim X and they claim it has updated graphics, and yeah, maybe they "updated" them to 2012, but it still looks godawful.
@@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
Yeah sorry I’ve done countless long haul flights in the 787 even on VATSIM and have had zero issues with the things you mention. Big freaking deal you have to adjust speed on decent. That’s hardly an excuse to “avoid” this one lol
@@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…
I wish I could say I enjoy msfs but sadly xplane 12 has been my new sim the scenery has never bothered me I've always been a fan of the flight model and the SSG 747 knocks the standard one in msfs out the park
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.
Unlike the other planes here, at least the FSS E series is actually under active development. You could probably put the new ATR on this list too (with the CRJ).
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.
The only reason I like x plane is because they have waaaay better planes msfs has the scenery tho and like only 4 good planes but I’m sticking with msfs
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
Don't forget the F-35 and Leonardo M346: truly god-awful aircraft when it comes to nav and autopilot. Both can barely manage to follow a heading in AP and devs should hang their heads in shame.
