|
I've seen Redbird break poo poo with sims that cost as much as cars and are certified as flight training devices. If Asobo is imperfect but they manage to fix it quickly, I'm okay with it. Now let's talk about why the airports around me don't have all their RNAV approaches available and why the GPS doesn't indicate TERM/LNAV/LPV modes during the transition from enroute to approach. That's a far graver sin. They need to focus less on world updates and more on having the systems simulated more accurately. Not necessarily every aspect of an A320, but a reasonably accurate simulation of a 530w would be nice. A development mistake is less of an issue for me than just "ah gently caress it no one will notice the GPS barely works."
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2021 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 10:47 |
|
|
Is Navigraph worth it to get all the missing approaches and junk? By which I mean: I want the missing approaches, will Navigraph have them or will I spend money and be frustrated with it?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2021 21:13
|
|
|
jammyozzy posted:IMO it absolutely whips rear end. I was in the same boat as you, decided to try it and now I'm not sure I can go back. Having charts for all the procedures you could want and having them be properly synchronised between the sim, whatever planning software you use and the actual chart you're looking at is wonderful. Yeah, I think I'm going to give it a shot. At least for Canadian approaches, I already have a Foreflight subscription for work, but having international charts and accurate GPS databases/navaids would be quite good.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
Well, I got Navigraph and all the approaches I want at nearby airports (including Canadian RCAP) approaches seem to be available, so I'm satisfied. Haven't played around with the charts yet. Next question: what's with Load% on the DA62 MFD? Power is clearly changing when you adjust throttles when 100% load is displayed, fuel flow changes, but it just stays at 100 the whole time. Checking the POH, performance seems accurate if you set power based on fuel flow rather than Load%, I'm just confused as to what the hell it's doing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
jammyozzy posted:It's been a little while since I flew it, but I believe Load% is showing you how much of the engine's torque output at the current power setting is being consumed by the propellor. As you change power setting the plane automatically adjusts propellor pitch to keep that number at 100% as much as it can, otherwise you're leaving performance on the table. That was my thought too, so I checked a POH I found and it says Load% indicates % of available power, so now I'm extra confused. I'm curious if this is accurate behavior or if it's another sim error. Flying a piston engine with just a power lever is a little weird compared to what I'm used to as well, no doubt. But I do like flying it! Managed to land it in St. Barts. Just barely. Not something I'd attempt in real life, but following my third approach I managed to plant it and stop by the end of the runway. drat that runway seems to end fast! And my Honeycomb Alpha, originally scheduled for delivery around the 18th, has cleared customs and is now scheduled to arrive Monday. So, lots of good news.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2021 15:27
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Ya, a real DA62 has AE300s, which are FADEC diesels. You set power with the load percentage, and the computer does the rest. FS2020 doesn’t really simulate most engines properly, and FADEC is one of those things it doesn’t do well. Well, the odd thing is that it appears to be simulating the power properly if I set power based on fuel flow -- I end up getting the corresponding airspeed, etc., so it's more like a panel bug than an aircraft bug. Overall not a huge problem, it still flies very nice and I would not object, at all, to flying one in real life. What a nice little plane...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
Rot posted:This guy's DA62 mod will get you FADEC: Sweet, I'll definitely check both of these out.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
slidebite posted:^^ Are those mirrors? Do they function? There is a monthly subscription option, no free trial as far as I can tell. I think it's like 8EUR for the month, so if you don't like it, it's hardly the end of the world. Spoiler alert: you will like it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
Are there any weather add-ons I should know about? I have to say, although there are aspects of the weather system I really like, it would be nice to have more fine-grained control over things like visibility.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2021 23:26
|
|
|
Rot posted:The Working Title folks, makers of the essential (imo) G1000/3000 mods, are now employed by Microsoft/Asobo to do their thing full time. I think this is pretty positive news, but watching it is going to reveal a lot about Asobo and what we can expect in the future. If this integration goes well and is productive, I think we can be very enthusiastic about future potential with other groups as well. If not, I don't think it represents a huge loss over what we have now, but definitely a huge loss over what might have been.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2021 04:40
|
|
|
I got mine from Gulf Coast Avionics on eBay. Totally worth it, IMHO. And the logitech throttle quadrants are fine for the time being.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
Anime Store Adventure posted:Just a quick FYI too, though, that the honeycomb stuff has switches that are “always on” which currently creates a bug in MSFS where you can only adjust autopilot knobs by 10 for heading and 1000 for altitude. Is that a bug with the Honeycomb though? I know with the TBM, it's just like "gently caress you, heading in increments of 10" and with the Baron, it seems to be perfectly fine to adjust one degree at a time using the mousewheel. It's a mixed blessing because gently caress me does it take forever to rotate the heading bug through 180 degrees, and you'll zoom absurdly far out 17 times in the process. And speaking of "workarounds for flawed peripherals and/or simulators", to use the logitech throttle quadrants and have reverse thrust, what you must do is map the "click backward" (it functions as a button) to "decrease throttle". It's not perfect but it's probably the best you'll get.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2021 00:32
|
|
|
Anime Store Adventure posted:I think it’s not specific to the honeycomb but any peripherals that use that same sort of control where it’s always “held” or whatever. I saw some posts reporting it with I think the new Thrustmaster stuff? I forget. In regards to the autopilot setting, which is what I assume you're talking about, my question is: does it depend on the aircraft? Because different aircraft, even among the default set, behave differently regardless of whether you're using a peripheral or not.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2021 05:05
|
|
|
Everyone: hey it'd be swell if the GPSs worked properly for IFR flight. Asobo: Here's some scenery for England!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2021 23:01
|
|
|
They were clearly more interested in making a visually impressive game than one that actually simulates planes. Like, there's heat blur from turbine exhaust, and you can see the sunset reflecting off the wing just so as you look out to the side, but the GPS is like "missed approach??? how about gently caress YOU!" There's so much incredible attention to detail in so many aspects that it makes the shortcomings seem especially weird, not unlike uncanny valley.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 00:14
|
|
|
Yeah, I think that's fair, but on the other hand, that makes it a really bizarre choice to go for 99% glass cockpit stuff and especially to hide a lot of non-glass stuff in the premium version. EDIT: On the plus side, all the non-GPS IFR stuff seems to be reasonably accurately simulated, so it's a good opportunity to practice NDB holds and DME arcs and such, which is honestly more fun and challenging than just shooting ANOTHER loving RNAV. And to be fair, the ALSIM at work was like "gently caress simulating a GPS, you buy a GPS and we'll figure out how to send simulated signals to it so it works." It's by no means a trivial job, I would just like if the functions or lack thereof were properly documented with workarounds and poo poo. PT6A fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 01:01
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Also I agree that they put in way too many planes with glass cockpits. Steam gauges are easy to model and I'm with PT6A. Who gives a poo poo about flying RNAV into JFK? I want to take a 737-200 on an NDB approach to Mexico City in August in a thunderstorm Let's be friends!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 01:50
|
|
|
In extremely Uncle Monty voice: "I think the 737-200 infinitely more fascinating than the 787. Glass cockpits are essentially tarts. Prostitutes for the pilots. There is, you'll agree, a certain 'je ne sais pas' oh so very special about an NDB approach." EDIT: And similarly to the glass cockpit issue, wow they chose to simulate a lot of aircraft with FADECs for a simulator that's pretty poo poo at simulating them. I mean, what would be wrong with a steam-gauge Seneca II or a Beechcraft Duke (the only chance you'll have to fly one without paying for its bullshit!)? PT6A fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 01:56
|
|
|
Is the G1000/430 in Prepar3d custom done or was it based on the the FSX codebase? Because that thing, despite its foibles, still works more or less properly compared to FS2020.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2021 04:04
|
|
|
After some testing, traditional radionav works better than the GPS, but there's still some weird poo poo. How am I getting a signal from a VOR that's further away than an NDB I can't receive from 30nm away with line of sight? Obviously there has to be some kind of distance calculation going on, it's just... a really illogical one. Oh well. I've been playing around with the Working Title CJ4 and it seems very good, even if I'm not yet an expert on the FMS.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2021 00:22
|
|
|
The Working Title CJ4 is, uh, very good. Check it out if you haven't already. I mean, it's not 100% perfect/complete, but it mostly seems right and at no point does it make me go "oh cock, why's it done THAT?" At least everything that's simulated seems to work as intended.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2021 02:55
|
|
|
Re: the Working Title CJ4: should VNAV mode be, uh, doing something provided the departure I enter has no specific restrictions? I've programmed a cruising altitude, but it's just like "no, you'll stay at 5800' and love it! Our next crossing restriction is B13000A12000 three waypoints from now, I don't see any problems here." I mean, it's no big deal to just climb to cruising altitude without VNAV active, it just seems a bit unintuitive.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2021 22:43
|
|
|
i am kiss u now posted:VNAV is a constant struggle as there are so many facets to it and it's not nearly as good with climbs as it is with descents. They should be doing a bit of an overhaul on it this week or next but it probably won't hit the public until next month though. That said, VNAV on the CJ4 isn't really used for climbs anyway unless you need to obey several restrictions. You can also VS or FLC and then use the altitude range "banana" to make sure it complies. Cool, I took a look at the docs but it didn't seem to address it directly in terms of "what is normally done" vs. "what is possible." It makes sense to just go without VNAV for the climb in the absence of any restrictions (and it works a treat in the descent, no question), I was mainly curious whether I was misunderstanding how it should work and/or how it should be used. And it seems, maybe, it's a bit of both. Either way, what a great mod overall. My only mistake was not trusting the VNAV in the descent the first time, due to the uncertainties I had during the climb. Once I tried just the descent using VNAV... perfection. And LPV sensitivity on the approach... you love to see it! Does the G1000 mod have that as well?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
So, I gather some of you have probably run into the same problem I'm having: what is a good chair to get without wheels so that, when you press rudder pedals, you don't simply gently caress off backward across the room? I'm using a dining chair at the moment, but I don't love it compared to my office chair, which would be fantastic but for the wheels.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2021 02:41
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:The wheels probably come off of your office chair. You can get “bell glides” for it that pop in where the wheels do, and the chair will stay put. Used to use them for sim-racing before I built a rig for that. Cool, I will take a look at that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2021 03:05
|
|
|
Live Weather has frequent disagreements with both reality and its own ATIS. I was doing a flight into Springbank, which was reporting overcast at 1000 feet in real life. The ATIS in the sim claimed few at 1000 feet, few at 4600 feet. Had to go missed at ILS minimums, which are 250' AGL because I couldn't see a goddamn thing. I don't mind the disagreement between Live Weather and reality, to an extent, but I mean the least the ATIS could do is report what the sim thinks should actually be happening because there's no other way to get information about what Flight Simulator thinks the weather conditions are.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
soggybagel posted:In my little experience using live weather it frequently seems very buggy/finicky or whatever you want to call it. Very very hit or miss. Honestly, what would be cooler than live weather or the presets is random weather. Flying the approach not knowing if I'd have to go missed was pretty fun, and something I've never been able to do in a sim other than when I had someone else controlling the weather. I'd like to do that regularly, where I don't know 100% what I'm flying into.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
I try not to go *too* hard on the realism thing, but man the GPS bothers me. Direct-To should work from the flight plan page, you should be able to load an approach without it activating, and when you do activate it, it should sequence from present position. If you fixed those three things, it would be 10 times more useable. If you also had the proper switching of GPS sensitivity for approaches and a glideslope that actually worked, that would be gravy, but not having direct-to implemented properly makes it nearly impossible to simulate an IFR flight. Perfect procedures and stuff, though? Who gives a poo poo? It's a game, it's supposed to be fun.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
I've got an idea: how about they don't add a single new point of interest until they have Direct-To working properly on the GPS?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
Carenado released a Seneca V for FS2020. I haven't flown it a lot, but if you like the Seneca is general, it seems quite nice. GPS is still afflicted as with every plane, but the other instrumentation is quite nice especially if you want something that's well-equipped but not full-glass. It's a bit expensive for an addon, like most of their stuff, but so far I really like it.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
Known issues: GPS is a gently caress and we don’t plan to do poo poo all.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2021 16:52
|
|
|
Lord Stimperor posted:Can you elaborate? Has it got to do with the update? I think you've repeatedly been mentioning GPS problems before. Yeah, basically my issue with the 530 and the G1000 is that they are essentially unusable to fly the way you would expect to fly in real life. There are some realism issues and missing features that would be nice, but aren't necessary, but the biggest practically game-breaking flaws are: 1) The direct-to button does not work from the flight plan screen. This is basically fundamental to IFR flight using the GPS, because, at times, you'll be instructed to proceed direct to a waypoint and then on course. In real life, you'd select that waypoint in the flight plan screen, hit the Direct-To button, and the GPS would give you a track from your present position to that waypoint, and then on the rest of your flight planned route. For example, the standard instrument departure from my home airport is "climb runway heading to 7000', wait for vectors" so in practice you'd never intercept the track from the airport to your first waypoint, at a certain point ATC will tell you to proceed direct to your first waypoint. 2) Approaches don't load properly. What should happen is you load an approach when you are told to expect a certain approach/transition, then at a certain point you will be told to fly directly to the initial approach waypoint. You select "activate", and it gives you a direct track from your present position to the IAWP. What happens in the sim is that, as soon as you load the approach, it sequences all the waypoints right away, and as far as I can tell, it gives you a course from your last waypoint to the IAWP. 3) Sequencing of the missed approach waypoint simply does not happen as far as I can tell. What should happen is: when you reach the missed approach point, SUSP displays above the OBS button, and then you hit the OBS button and the GPS sequences your missed approach according to the published procedure, you fly it, hold at the missed approach waypoint, etc. etc. What happens is (I think last time I tried) the GPS displays SUSP and... does nothing when you press the OBS button. These basically preclude the simulation of IFR flight using the GPS. It's essentially useless as a way to practice procedures, and there's not much in the way of workarounds. Smaller issues: 1) On GPS approaches with vertical guidance, the vertical guidance does not work. At some point the glideslope does something but I can't tell exactly what. What should happen typically is the glideslope indicator starts at the top, then as you hold altitude and intercept the glideslope, the indicator will center itself, then you follow it down. What happens in the sim is that it starts out at the bottom and then centers itself at... some point I'm not really clear about. I have no idea what it's trying to do. Interestingly, the correct behaviour is simulated for ILS glideslopes, so clearly someone knows what it ought to look like. You can still fly a GPS without vertical guidance, you just have to descend to LNAV minima instead of LNAV/VNAV or LPV minima. 2) GPS sensitivity does not change depending on approach mode. Full scale deflection means different things during different phases of flight, and as far as I can tell, there's none of that in the sim. Not a huge deal, but it'd be nice.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
My poor dear Seneca V might not work? Unacceptable.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2021 01:23
|
|
|
The NXi is out on marketplace according to the WT discord! Now I just need this poxy update to finish, and I can see if the NXi fixes any of my gripes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2021 02:03
|
|
|
NXi status report: it's got some really fascinating new bugs, but it does actually implement things like "Direct To" so overall I'm very optimistic even if it's not perfect. The weird bugs seem like things that just require a lot of testing and small fixes, not a complete misunderstanding of how the system is supposed to work like the original G1000.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2021 03:19
|
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:I think you have to completely clear and reconfigure all of your existing key bindings otherwise all sorts of bizarre poo poo will start happening. Yeah, the NXi is definitely not perfect yet, but both what they're saying and what's going on in the sim, suggests that it's actually going to work eventually -- like, they clearly understand how it should work and it's simply a matter of implementing things properly and correcting small errors.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I really like the new way to interact with controls with the mouse. It was annoying as hell trying to interact with knobs with the scroll wheel when you'd hit a bump of turbulence and then the mouse cursor comes off a knob and now I'm zoomed all the way in. Now you just click on the knob and move the mouse around. Really nice. Keyboard input on the NXi is also amazing for entering flight plans and such.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2021 20:18
|
|
|
Lord Stimperor posted:I'm getting CTDs Click the little keyboard icon next to the waypoint field, type, then click it again to stop it capturing all the controls. It's pretty drat great.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2021 05:20
|
|
Especially aggravating if it's right as you're stabilizing an approach.
|
Bigsteve posted:Are any of the small jets worth it is FS2020? I want somthing small and fast to whizz through mountain passes but don't want to pay 20 bux for a broken mess. Do you mean fighters, or what? The CJ4 (plus the mod from Working Title) is pretty great, and honestly if you want fast and fun in mountain passes, you can't go wrong with the Extra even though it's not a jet, although until the rudder authority issues are worked out, takeoffs can be interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2021 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 10:47 |
|
|
chainchompz posted:Whoa, wasn't expecting this much feedback. Thanks everyone. I'll pick up ms flight sim and check it out this weekend. Cool! And, you know, for all the things people say (including myself) about realism and this and that, you can still fly it casual and fun and do ridiculous poo poo without knowing a whole bunch. As a guy who flies real planes, sometimes I'll try to simulate a real flight to practice specific things and focus on speeds and procedures and minutiae (and that's where the realism and issues with details get me hot and bothered) and then other times I'll go full throttle in an Extra 330 and do an insane barrel roll over a mountain ridge and see if I can follow a highway upside down, and then land in the field near my house. The only hard-and-fast rule with flight sim is: enjoy yourself. Don't break that one and accidentally not have fun and you'll be fine.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2021 03:19
|
|