9 hours ago, robert young said:

Agreed. It is a great shame. I too have re-installed both FSX and P3d and though the visual feast is a pale shadow of MSFS, at least I can get some satisfaction and pleasure accurately and usually flawlessly flying from A to B on autopilot without all this silly heading nonsense.

Not sure I agree with this take. The autopilots I've been flying with have been handling quite well. Turns are fairly predictable too. Granted, it would be nice if the A320 would bank to 30 degrees instead of 20, but I don't see any issues in repeatability or rate. That being said, I do use the FBW A320 mod and the Working Title Citation CJ4. The C172 and TBM930 don't have issues when I fly with them though.

Certainly never had the plane do a barrel roll on me.

What do you mean by "bypass" the autopilot? You mean have their own coded autopilot? Like the majority of addon developers in previous sims anyways? Because autopilots were never one-size-fits-all to begin with, I'm not sure what you're insinuating about this particular sim.

1 minute ago, amahran said:

Not sure I agree with this take. The autopilots I've been flying with have been handling quite well. Turns are fairly predictable too. Granted, it would be nice if the A320 would bank to 30 degrees instead of 20, but I don't see any issues in repeatability or rate. That being said, I do use the FBW A320 mod and the Working Title Citation CJ4. The C172 and TBM930 don't have issues when I fly with them though.

Certainly never had the plane do a barrel roll on me.

What do you mean by "bypass" the autopilot? You mean have their own coded autopilot? Like the majority of addon developers in previous sims anyways? Because autopilots were never one-size-fits-all to begin with, I'm not sure what you're insinuating about this particular sim.

I think the A320 is very different. Try a non-airliner and set up an ILS approach with more than 20 degrees offset, then 30 degrees, five miles out. See how many times it captures the centre line. Then do a heading change and watch how soon the bank rolls off to nearly level. Count how many seconds it takes to get from the last ten degrees to the designated heading. 

21 hours ago, Mikeingreen said:

Yes, I have it set for the G3000 and another profile for the G1000. LAAO in fact makes a separate profile for each aircraft. You can save a template to help setting up each one to save time. You don't really use and axis setting but the program makes MSFS think it is a rotary using the varient that Marsman mentioned. My X-Touch has 8 rotary knobs so you can set not only ALT, but also HDG, CRS and Nav & Comm radios as well. A good thread explaining it all is here: Axis and Ohs: Help and questions - Self-Service / Peripherals - Microsoft Flight Simulator Forums.

I don't think you understood what I was asking, but as it's off topic I posted my question in the thread you linked.

5 hours ago, robert young said:

I think the A320 is very different. Try a non-airliner and set up an ILS approach with more than 20 degrees offset, then 30 degrees, five miles out. See how many times it captures the centre line. Then do a heading change and watch how soon the bank rolls off to nearly level. Count how many seconds it takes to get from the last ten degrees to the designated heading. 

Done and done in the Citation CJ4 and in the Cessna 172.

Honestly, it feels no worse than their FSX counterparts, which similarly suffer tracking issues. My beef with the FSX autopilot is that it never actually captures the heading command, but rather slowly approaches it like an asymptote. I see no different behavior here.

The Cessna 172 G1000 autopilot is fairly reminiscent of my experience with an equivalent KFC225 autopilot installed in a C172SP G1000 I regularly fly IRL, with minor nuances I can live with.

Generally, these autopilots need work to get fleshed out, I do agree. However, I disagree with most people here saying that it's the end of the world, a core sim issue, an impenetrable problem, etc. etc.. They have quirks. They have limitations. If you want to be useful, you can tell Asobo where the short falls are, but there's nothing show-stopping; I can easily fly the Citation from Portugal to Norway on VATSIM, and adhere to ATC instruction the whole way. I can easily fly the TBM across Alaska on VATSIM, once again still adhering to ATC instruction. If you're creative enough, you can figure out a way to work around existing limitations.

The alternate, of course, is demanding 25 100%-true-to-life aircraft and a whole machine-learning generated world for the cheap price of $3.2 per plane, right on launch date with no flaws.

 

Also, just to get your position on a question I asked, that you never answered:

Quote

What do you mean by "bypass" the autopilot? You mean have their own coded autopilot? Like the majority of addon developers in previous sims anyways?

 

12 hours ago, bdwhittle64 said:

There is some confusion about the difference between the autopilot controls, radio controls, and the GPS unit controls. As of this moment, NOBODY -- not RealSimGear, and not RealityXP -- can do anything but model the Garmin GPS interface and call the exposed functions or key mappings present in MSFS. If the function doesn't have a key mapping, and isn't exposed via SimConnect and in the SDK, the interface cannot activate that code.

This post says otherwise.

Its weird because even a cursory glance at the SDK and development opportunities means you can develop you're own AP and flight model entirely independently from MS's default. At that point you can put custom table data in etc to get it right. Fly by wire are demonstrating this will be their custom FBW work, which is a huge leap ahead of the default they were using.

Changed? My C208 has NO AP function. Done with this.

34 minutes ago, amahran said:

Done and done in the Citation CJ4 and in the Cessna 172.

Honestly, it feels no worse than their FSX counterparts,

The Cessna 172 G1000 autopilot is fairly reminiscent of my experience with an equivalent KFC225 autopilot installed in a C172SP G1000 I regularly fly IRL, with minor nuances I can live with.

Generally, these autopilots need work to get fleshed out, I do agree. However, I disagree with most people here saying that it's the end of the world, a core sim issue, an impenetrable problem, etc. etc.. They have quirks. ........ If you're creative enough, you can figure out a way to work around existing limitations.

Also, just to get your position on a question I asked, that you never answered:

 

Well I don't know how much of this thread you've followed, but it has been contributed to by many pilots like yourself, including several airline captains, one of them a prominent Avsim member, who all agree that the a/ps have been changed for the worse in the last update. Very recently I tried the FSX C172 and it captured a heading almost exactly in a third of the equivalent time in MSFS. It captured it perfectly, and then flew a flawless ILS.

I get that in the real world a/ps have their quirks (and yes I have about 40 years flying experience as well as 20 or more years developing aircraft for sims) but if the heading capture is so slow (see Marsman2020's videos in this and other threads) it rather spoils the whole point of having all those a/ps and glass gauges in default MSFS aircraft. And yes there are workarounds, like flying manually, or setting a heading well ahead of the one you actually want, then changing the heading bug as you near the desired heading.

Did I mention "bypassing" something? If I did I probably meant creating a custom a/p through simconnect or another method using C++ or similar programming.

12 hours ago, Phantoms said:

This post says otherwise.

While I appreciate what you're trying to do, I don't find it useful and I think it is very disrespectful to Robert Young, especially in a thread he started. 

Jersey1985 is the author of the post you linked to, and with all due respect to Jersey1985, he describes himself as a student pilot just now doing ground work. That means he probably has around 5 hours of flight time with an instructor and a long way to go to get his license. 

He has 5 total posts and it's his considered opinion that "Its weird because even a cursory glance at the SDK and development opportunities means you can develop you're [sic] own AP and flight model entirely independently from MS's default. At that point you can put custom table data in etc to get it right. Fly by wire are demonstrating this will be their custom FBW work, which is a huge leap ahead of the default they were using."

Consider that concise and definitive statement while looking at what Aerosoft says in the same thread.

WHAT AEROSOFT SAYS ABOUT THEIR CRJ PROJECT

1. They still need Asobo to make some immediate code changes if they are going to make their Christmas deadline.

2. They have been working on it 14 hours a day, 7 days a week for a long time, now.

2. Even so, the product will not be feature-complete in that timeframe.

3. They've seen Robert Young's thread (which I contributed to), and said "he is going to be surprised" by their autopilot behavior.  I don't know what that means.

4. Aerosoft made comments about our conclusions being based only on the "published SDK", implying that they have access to an unpublished one and inside info about the upcoming patch?  This is undoubtedly true and we won't hear anything more about it because of NDAs.

WHAT I THINK

1. If Aerosoft says Asobo needs to make code changes before they can do whatever it is they can't do right now, then Robert Young, Working Title group, and FBW has the same limitation -- waiting on Asobo to change the AP code.

2. They say Robert -- and all of us -- are going to be surprised by the CRJ AP, and then shortly thereafter say that our conclusions are wrong because we don't have access to, or knowledge of, the inside information and unpublished SDK.

What I think is that there are very few positive influences in forums and a great many negative ones.  I would encourage you to decide which one you want to be -- maybe you already have.

If you want to be a good influence, I would reevaluate your post, the opinions you're couching as respectable and knowledgeable, and the source of those opinions.  Even the Aerosoft guy said in that same thread, The amount of misinformation is staggering.  (Or something to that effect.)

Robert Young is someone to be respected, especially for his tenacity.  He never gives up.  You can disagree with him, but if you argue a point he's not knowledgeable about, you know what he does?  He goes and educates himself.  If the subject is way out there, then he goes and finds an expert in the subject.

Think about what you did.  When you couldn't debate a point because it's out of your depth, you didn't educate yourself or find an expert, you quoted a noob and quoted Aerosoft out of context.  Some would describe a person like that as a troll.

I think we're going to get fixed AP logic in the next patch.  Given how hard Aerosoft is working on the CRJ -- and the Aerosoft guy said they are the guinea pig for the new SDK updates -- I think Asobo will make the changes Aerosoft needs and include them in the SDK in the next patch (Dec 22).

I think the next patch will have a lot of what the modder groups and third-party developers have been waiting for.  I think the GPS buttons and knobs will have key binds and the AP logic they call will be pretty useful.  You'll finally be able to map a key, button, or rotary knob to zoom the GPS map in and out (I hope!).

Robert and mod groups will be able to stop trying to find workarounds, and focus on adding features with decent Asobo implementations under them.

I think we'll have a good Christmas vacation flying some good planes again.  And there's that Aerosoft CRJ, too!!

B

5 hours ago, bdwhittle64 said:

While I appreciate what you're trying to do, I don't find it useful and I think it is very disrespectful to Robert Young, especially in a thread he started.

No disrespect was meant to Robert at all. I did not include the rest in that quote though. It was Mathijs replying to that post that I should of added. I do not know Jersey85 from a whole in the ground, but I have kept up with Mathijs post for quite some time. His reply to Jersey was that was available with just the available published SDK. To me that is him confirming that with the available published SDK, you can accomplish those things. It may be a lot of work and much more than some want to put in, but it is possible with what we have now.

 

EDIT: Part of the reason I linked that is I am trying to be positive (even though I'm not a lot of the time). I think a lot more is possible with the SDK than what people give it credit for. You constantly here that stuff is being held up because the SDK is not complete, when in actuality enough is in there to get what they want done (just maybe not in the way they want to do it).

Edited December 6, 20205 yr by Phantoms

4 hours ago, Phantoms said:

I think a lot more is possible with the SDK than what people give it credit for.

Well, it seems to me that if aircraft developers saw a workable and profitable way forward, they would have taken it. After all, they are in business to make money.  Simple as that. However, the fact is to date we have not seen third party study level aircraft for MSFS despite what would seem to be the lure of a huge and lucrative market for just such a product.

Al 

Edited December 6, 20205 yr by ark

It is totally and completely uncalled for for people to go cross-forum posting in Aerosoft's forum and putting words in Robert's mouth on another forum, given the 100s of hours he has spent bringing us the free Turbo Bonanza mod which is one of the best aircraft in MSFS right now.

Robert was looking for a way to adjust the behavior of the Asobo AP which all of the general aviation aircraft (as well as the add-on 182, Mooney, and PA-44) use to fix the slow heading change issue which I documented conclusively in my video several pages back.  The Working Title/Fly By Wire teams received direct info from Asobo that there is no simple way to do that, that the code change causing the problem is baked into the MSFS internal .exe file.  No statement was ever made indicating that one could not code a completely custom AP to bypass Asobo's messed up AP. 

Edited December 7, 20205 yr by marsman2020

On 12/6/2020 at 8:36 PM, marsman2020 said:

No statement was ever made indicating that one could not code a completely custom AP to bypass Asobo's messed up AP. 

My post had nothing to do with Robert, his mod or his work, but was simply a reply to "what I thought" was said by bdwhittle64. I took his post to mean that we were totally at the mercy of Asobo for AP and designing one outside of what they gave us was not possible, so I provided a counter view of that. Perhaps I misunderstood the reply and if so I sincerely apologize.

On 12/5/2020 at 7:53 AM, bdwhittle64 said:

There is some confusion about the difference between the autopilot controls, radio controls, and the GPS unit controls. As of this moment, NOBODY -- not RealSimGear, and not RealityXP -- can do anything but model the Garmin GPS interface and call the exposed functions or key mappings present in MSFS. If the function doesn't have a key mapping, and isn't exposed via SimConnect and in the SDK, the interface cannot activate that code.