11 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

I hope you are right, since I have more faith in Asobo than in Carenado to fix this..

Why.. I do not know..😉

Bert. Asobo has to do the fixing, IMO, in the logic and core code.

Carenado only uses simple Autopilot Variables from the SDK in their smaller planes (Bonanza, Baron, Commanders, etc.) No special coding, except on some of their "advanced" planes (like the FA50, Embraer, etc. that use the CarenadoAutopilot dll)

And of course Carenado has to get their air file and config files right; which by the way Asobo also didn't, at least for their Citation Jets, and Bonanza.
 

Edited September 22, 20205 yr by RamonB

2 minutes ago, RamonB said:

 

Carenado only uses simple Autopilot Variables from the SDK in their smaller planes (Bonanza, Baron, Commanders, etc.) No special coding, except on some of their "advanced" planes (like the FA50, Embraer, etc.)

 

This is P3D, right?

Do you know if this is the case for MSFS??

6 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

This is P3D, right?

Do you know if this is the case for MSFS??

Yes. P3D.
Don't know what the case is in MSFS. But the autopilot problem in MSFS affects all airplanes for some users, so I believe it is an MSFS bug or bugs.
You know Carenado as well as I do, even more in Your case. I highly doubt Carenado changed their ways for MSFS, I would be amazed if Carenado went out of their way and not use SDK vars only.
 

Edited September 22, 20205 yr by RamonB

4 minutes ago, RamonB said:

You know Carenado as well as I do, even more in Your case. I highly doubt Carenado changed their ways for MSFS.
 

I do not know what the MSFS SDK offers to 3rd party developers.. the HTML / Java coding is all "greek" to me..

The fact that only Carenado's planes exhibit the plus minus 10 degrees NAV course tracking problem, makes me suspicious that not all is well at their end..

Edited September 22, 20205 yr by Bert Pieke

44 minutes ago, RamonB said:

I'll take Your word for the default C172.
But the zig zag and porpoising have been there since long ago, for some airplanes.
(From the Twitch talk, perhaps since after they decided to make unique AP's for each airplane)

I have dozens of hours in both MSFS 172s....Nav tracks straight as an arrow for me without having to do the "workaround" in flight to track the DTK exactly before engaging Nav.  This is not a default issue as far as I'm concerned.  Someone commented earlier that it may be an issue with "Coarse" and "Fine" tracking setting (if there is such a thing)...that somehow there is a 1 or 0 that needs to be flipped in some cfg, fde, etc to fix this.  Again...why can't the dev we paid money to for this aircraft, pony up "some" responsibility and spare us simmers from becoming basement coders just to repair their product?🙄

 

EDIT:  The behavior I will admit is happening to all Nav engagements is if your on a high intercept angle to the DTK, the AP will overshoot both ways a bit before it settles down.  I haven't tested if there is a certain angle threshold that activates this behavior, but 45 degrees more...you can almost expect it....less than 30, maybe a little...20 or less...I feel it should roll onto course smoothly when it intercepts the magenta line.   Just my opinion...maybe there is an official spec out there in the real world that documents a proper intercept procedure? 

Edited September 22, 20205 yr by Steve Dra

So this thing comes with not a slither of documentation?  Can't see anything in the "official" folders....its a good job I'm relatively competent.  There are also no checklists available from within the sim either?  Seems rather sloppy.  Even a basic manual to dictate power settings etc would have been useful.  

2 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Are you able to decrypt any file you choose? 

All premium/deluxe aircraft and the mooney.

2 hours ago, fppilot said:

How are you getting there?  Most of Tools menu on my system is greyed out, Including Aircraft Editor.

Start a new project first - under the upper left [devmode]

No way to change to HPA instead of inches??  

41 minutes ago, sidfadc said:

So this thing comes with not a slither of documentation?  Can't see anything in the "official" folders....its a good job I'm relatively competent.  There are also no checklists available from within the sim either?  Seems rather sloppy.  Even a basic manual to dictate power settings etc would have been useful.  

Documentation is provided.  You will find it in the official packages folder for this aircraft.  Power and fuel settings can also be found on the backside of the windshield visor in game.

Why is GMT on the chronometer 24 hour clock but LT (local time) is 12 hours?  

Quite a few annoying things in this plane so far.

 

3 minutes ago, Gilandred said:

Documentation is provided.  You will find it in the official packages folder for this aircraft.  Power and fuel settings can also be found on the backside of the windshield visor in game.

Lol who hid them there!  🙂  Let me go look in the official folders again.....

I retract my statement!  Found them....

Edited September 22, 20205 yr by sidfadc

5 hours ago, sidfadc said:

Maybe I’m missing something here but if I buy an add on I would expect the official developer to make any fixes not some random joe off the internet???

Look at the fixes being made already by freeware authors to the default aircraft. Outstanding. They do it because they love the aircraft and want realism.  👍

Carenado have already moved on the next product they want to "flog". 👎

If the aircraft wasn't encrypted we would already have fixes, which I'm sure Carenado could happily encorporate back into the base product, for little effort. 🤷‍♂️

You think "random Joe" is a moron? 🤦‍♂️ Probably "random Joe" is a (software) engineer anyway, with more aptitude to fix systems than the "jack of all trades" Carenado dev who has to split his time between systems, modelling, textures, sound etc.

 

4 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

Look at the fixes being made already by freeware authors to the default aircraft. Outstanding. They do it because they love the aircraft and want realism.  👍

Carenado have already moved on the next product they want to "flog". 👎

If the aircraft wasn't encrypted we would already have fixes, which I'm sure Carenado could happily encorporate back into the base product, for little effort. 🤷‍♂️

You think "random Joe" is a moron? 🤦‍♂️ Probably "random Joe" is a (software) engineer anyway, with more aptitude to fix systems than the "jack of all trades" Carenado dev who has to split his time between systems, modelling, textures, sound etc.

 

Nice how you cut off my comment I made about the default aircraft.....way to frame your argument.  

Default aircraft are one thing but I would expect patches from the developer of the payware aircraft, scenery provider etc providing they are still in business.  I would not buy a brand new car, have the exhaust fall off and ask my mate to fix it.  I would take it back to where I bought it and ask for it to be fixed!

EDIT: Apologies you didn't cut off my comment, I made this comment further down the thread which isn't what you quoted "Long culture of fixing broken planes when the developer has shut up shop yes, not a brand new sim when the developer should be very much active.  I think the mods to the default aircraft of MSFS fall outside this rule personally."  

Edited September 22, 20205 yr by sidfadc

6 minutes ago, sidfadc said:

Default aircraft are one thing but I would expect patches from the developer of the payware aircraft, scenery provider etc providing they are still in business.  I would not buy a brand new car, have the exhaust fall off and ask my mate to fix it.  I would take it back to where I bought it and ask for it to be fixed!

Yeah, I used to believe in the tooth fairy too. 🧚‍♀️

Encrypt files and we are at the mercy of the payware devs. 🤷‍♂️

19 minutes ago, MatthewS said:

Yeah, I used to believe in the tooth fairy too. 🧚‍♀️

Encrypt files and we are at the mercy of the payware devs. 🤷‍♂️

Ok so you buy a £140 aircraft from PMDG.  It needs fixing, who would you expect to fix it with an official patch?  PMDG or Random Joe?