Thanks but I think we're at cross purposes.  I was trying to use the Seneca's G500 (https://buy.garmin.com/en-GB/GB/p/63598) not the GPS500.  The former isn't in FSX although the latter is.

5 hours ago, DTG_Aimee said:

Dovetail Live is fully implemented - Are you having trouble registering in-game or did you register via browser? 

I MAY have registered for the service when I was using FSX SE a couple of years ago - I can't recall.

If I try to register, it says that I cannot register (which makes me think I did indeed do so before) - but If I ask for a password reminder it does accept my email address - but I never receive an email. My email service has Spam filtering disabled, so it appears that no email is being sent.

Of course if I did NOT register before, then I would not expect to receive a reminder email...

Are new features or addons going to be announced at the convention? 

On ‎5‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 10:23 AM, DTG_Aimee said:

That is all the documentation we have at the moment. Because we are in Early Access, we didn't want to release anything too comprehensive in case it changes. Additionally, we are in the process of expanding on a lot of the features in Flight Sim World (mostly in video format), 

Please be aware that not all of us can watch TwitchTV videos.  Please make them available on your youtube channel.

On 5/26/2017 at 11:25 PM, DTG_Aimee said:

Dovetail Live is fully implemented - Are you having trouble registering in-game or did you register via browser? 

I couldn't register in FSW and kept getting an error.  I had to register through the dovetail live site using a browser, then I was able to use the account details to successfully login in FSW.

I've already reported this as a bug (even though it is actually more of an annoying program parameter tolerance setting than a bug), but I figured I'd note it here too. Can you please sort out the preposterously poor way in which the flying lesson for the Light Aircraft License parameters are read by the sim? The amount of times I've taken off on the runway heading (070 degrees) and not turned so much as a single degree off course, yet still had the lesson triggering the examiner to keep saying: 'can you maintain 070 degrees please?' finally ending the mission because I'm supposedly not doing so. I've not turned the nose of the aircraft a millimeter off the initial take off heading, it's nothing short of ridiculous,

As anyone who has ever done a real flight test knows, an examiner doesn't expect you to be able to roll out millimeter perfect on an exact to the degree heading for turns on the test like you are some kind of human autopilot, they want you to come smoothly out of the turn, demonstrating good coordination on the rudder and aileron, whilst maintaining altitude, as close as is reasonable to the requested heading, and will then allow you to make a minor correction if it is a little bit off, in the same way that if they ask you to set the rpm to 1,000 on a flight test, and you set it to 998.5 rpm, they don't start badgering you to increase it by 1.5 rpm. If you want FSW to encourage people to take an interest in aviation, this lesson is not gonna help; frankly it would leave them supposing you have to be some kind of superhuman cyborg to be able to pass a flying test lol.

Moreover, whilst undeniably well maintained if the info I have is correct, G-PUDL (the aircraft simulated in that lesson) is nevertheless, still a 58 year-old Piper PA-18-150 Super Cub being flown on a sunny day, when it would be bounced around all over the place, not a 787 being controlled by an FMC and ring laser gyroscopes. To expect such an old light VFR aircraft such as a Cub to maintain any heading perfectly to within a degree when it is nearly sixty years old, where the instrument panel is likely shaking akin to a washing machine going onto spin cycle, making the miniscule DI hard to read anyway, is like expecting Robert Plant to still be able to hit all the high notes in A Whole Lotta Love at a gig next week lol.

Sure, make the missions and lessons tough, I've no problem with that as it is challenging and fun for users, but at least make them possible to complete.

Further to the above post, I also checked the PPL test in the PA-28. This too has fundamental errors which prevent it from being completed easily:

The voice over of the examiner asks you to perform certain tasks which do not tally with the text log. By way of example: During the test, the examiner says he wants you to fly 'straight and level at 60 knots', but the moment you reduce throttle from the 90 knots he previously had you flying at, he starts complaining that you are flying slow and ends the lesson, and if one notices the text log of what he says, on that it says he want you to fly at 90 knots, so there is a discrepancy in the voice over which causes one to fail the lesson despite adhering to what the voice over asks you to do.

Another problem: The airfield where this takes place is Ernest A. Love (KPRC Prescott Municipal, Arizona), which is 5,045 feel above sea level. Since you fly the test at circuit height, we add another 1,000 feet to the altitude at which the test is flown. Not only does this require you to lean off the mixture since you are hot and high, which doesn't help matters, the height above sea level presents a problem with how the test reads the parameters of performance, this is because the airspeed indicator will have an approximately 12 percent variance from true airspeed (going off the rule of thumb of 2 percent difference from indicated airspeed per 1,000 feet of altitude, where we are 6,000 feet above sea level). True airspeed appears to be what the test is triggering off, so unless one happens to be great at calculating true airspeed on the fly, which isn't covered in any of the preceding lessons which lead to this test, then it is unlikely anyone doing those lessons would either be able to do so, or, be able to figure out why the examiner keeps failing them for flying at the requested speeds when using the ASI.

In short, the parameters of the test need some serious correcting to make it properly comprehensible. It's not impossible to pass it when one understands what is wrong, but it still needs correcting.