I had not flown the Archers in a while, but just updated the Archer III and TurboArcher IV to the current level.

What I found was that the GPS is fighting with the built in NAV/GPS switch in the panel.

The CDI indication on the GPS flashes between VLOC and GPS, until the switch is flipped repeatedly.

The problem comes back as soon as I try to switch the GPS CDI.

I have tried this with the WT GNS530 and TDS 750Xi, same problem.

Has anyone encountered this, and is there a fix/workaround?

I have encountered this too. I don't have a fix but if you keep on clicking the CDI eventually stops the flipping and it is usable. One extra click starts that flipping again though.

There's an comment in the Justflight forums on updates for all the PA238's: Update for the best GA in the works? | Just Flight Community
THis is from 13 days ago:

Quote

Yes, all of our PA28s will be receiving an update in the next week or two. That will include some flight model tweaks, compatibility with the latest versions of the Working Title GNS, PMS-50 GTN and TDS GTNXi, and other general fixes for any issues reported since the last round of updates.

 

Edited February 8, 20233 yr by orchestra_nl

Arrow, not Archer 

10 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

Arrow, not Archer 

I made the same mistake but since they are all PA28'anyway and most Piper's are basically the same model with tweaks we can be both forgiven.
In any case, that comment was 13 days ago so I am hoping we will get that update before the weekend.

With regard to JF updates ... this is what one of the devs had to say on the main forums yesterday:

Quote

GrimPhoenix9349 (Verified Forum 3rd Party Dev)

Frustratingly, the reason for that is not that we aren’t trying (I have spent the last year, unpaid and in my spare time doing that) but that we made the most of everything that was available within the Flight_Model.cfg prior to initial release, much of which (the coefficients, the tables v speed) have been switched off by Asobo during successive Sim Updates.

We currently do not have the ability to take the flight model to the same depth aerodynamically without a massive amount of guesswork. The flight model as it currently stands is geometrically correct (the priority for MSFS) yet certain behaviours are incorrect. All the elements we used to make adjustments to what the core flight model decides is right have been removed, and the result is what you see.

The February update suggested that there will be further changes to the ‘legacy’ flight model in SU12, so there’s no point in further changes until once more we can actually see what these undocumented changes are. Why don’t we use CFD etc? If you saw how far from reality it takes the PA38, you’d not even ask. I know that there is a lot of movement behind the scenes on the core flight model, when Asobo give us a stable core flight model that gives us some long-term stability and allows the 3rd party devs proper control there may be a chance to get somewhere.

 

Edited February 8, 20233 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

Regarding the comment from the JF developer (above in Glenn's post), as frustrating as the changes are, all other developers seem to cope.
I have not been happy with the JF Arrow flight models for a while (I have them all, including the Warrior), to the point where I actually prefer to fly other 3rd party GA a lot more, and they don't come out of the hangar now.
Graphically and systems wise they are great, but they just don't seem to be rewarding to fly.  

Also, why is he talking about changes to the legacy flight model?  I thought all native MSFS aircraft used the modern flight model now, or should be.

All I know is that it would be great to get these aircraft flying right - I spent a fair bit of money on them, along with a lot of other people.

8 hours ago, Rimshot said:

Arrow, not Archer 

Sorry, my bad...

7 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

all other developers seem to cope.

... all of them ????

2 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

... all of them ????

OK then Glenn I will change it to 'a lot of them' if you want to be picky about it.
Certainly I have no complaints about other stuff I have bought over the last few months, and certainly the developers haven't whinged about how difficult they find it.
Inibuilds P-40, GotFriends Wilga, Carenado Archer, H-Jet, Cirrus Jet - all good.

Edited February 9, 20233 yr by bobcat999

7 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

Sorry, my bad...

Hey Berte.

Don't know if you have TDS GTN ... which you should ( ! ) but an update for it was released a few days ago.

Hopefully JF will be testing this with their addons, and Blak Square too, and things will improve. But ....  keeping an eye on this thread.

Edited February 9, 20233 yr by Gabe777

7 hours ago, Gabe777 said:

Don't know if you have TDS GTN

Sure do, and use it in the Turbo Arrow.  For the regular Arrow, I use the WT 530.

Both are good, and neither work well in the Arrow right now..

On 2/9/2023 at 12:35 AM, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

With regard to JF updates ... this is what one of the devs had to say on the main forums yesterday:

 

That's perfectly understandable to me. Some developers spend a lot of work fine-tuning the flight model to make sure you can fly by the numbers, but if the flight model changes with every update, you have to do it over and over again. This can be particularly frustrating if you make use of smart tricks to do things that aren't officially supported by the flight model, and they simply stop working after an update. Then you have to find new tricks and workarounds, which can be incredibly frustrating - especially if the details aren't well-documented.

One way to prevent this would be to keep older versions of the flight model in MSFS, and let the 3rd party developers specify in the aircraft files which version to use. This has been done to a certain extent with the addition of the propeller and soft-body simulation (it's opt-in for each aircraft), but this doesn't cover all the changes to the flight model. 

It's extremely hard to develop for a rapidly moving target. Give the developers some stability, if you want them to create high-quality aircraft that fly by the numbers.

I guess we're getting there one way or another once we see some effects of Andrey - An.Petrovich -  Solomykin bringing his experience to the team (longtime IL-2 Sturmovik lead engineer hired by Asobo in Sept 2022).

 

1 hour ago, pstrub said:

That's perfectly understandable to me. Some developers spend a lot of work fine-tuning the flight model to make sure you can fly by the numbers, but if the flight model changes with every update, you have to do it over and over again. This can be particularly frustrating if you make use of smart tricks to do things that aren't officially supported by the flight model, and they simply stop working after an update. Then you have to find new tricks and workarounds, which can be incredibly frustrating - especially if the details aren't well-documented.

One way to prevent this would be to keep older versions of the flight model in MSFS, and let the 3rd party developers specify in the aircraft files which version to use. This has been done to a certain extent with the addition of the propeller and soft-body simulation (it's opt-in for each aircraft), but this doesn't cover all the changes to the flight model. 

It's extremely hard to develop for a rapidly moving target. Give the developers some stability, if you want them to create high-quality aircraft that fly by the numbers.

I guess we can't have our cake and eat it too. Most developers that also developed for Prepar3D should know the drill though: new version means updating ones products.

I like your suggestion for versioning flightmodels. It might give developers more time to update their catalog after a new version is added but it also enables lazy developers to stop bothering with updates altogether. At least products of the latter will keep working mostly. It might increase the complexity of the sim enormously though because how does the sim cope with non-player aircraft (AI and multiplayer) in the sim: do these use the same flightmodel  as the player or does the sim have to simulate multiple flightmodels at the same time?

It all depends on how things are coded but some from a number of issues in the past it seems like some data is shared between several aircraft that are simulated in the sim at the same time. One option might be to have a (simplified) default flightmodel for all non-player aircraft. Perhaps that's already the case.

The issue is mainly with the more sophisticated early products, The DC6 seems to be in an even worse state than the JF PA28s.

Though there are also things like the Carenado Mooney that was almost unflyable for a year until a recent patch.

21 hours ago, orchestra_nl said:

I guess we can't have our cake and eat it too. Most developers that also developed for Prepar3D should know the drill though: new version means updating ones products.

I like your suggestion for versioning flightmodels. It might give developers more time to update their catalog after a new version is added but it also enables lazy developers to stop bothering with updates altogether. At least products of the latter will keep working mostly. It might increase the complexity of the sim enormously though because how does the sim cope with non-player aircraft (AI and multiplayer) in the sim: do these use the same flightmodel  as the player or does the sim have to simulate multiple flightmodels at the same time?

It all depends on how things are coded but some from a number of issues in the past it seems like some data is shared between several aircraft that are simulated in the sim at the same time. One option might be to have a (simplified) default flightmodel for all non-player aircraft. Perhaps that's already the case.

Yes ok, but with P3D breaking changes only come with the major updates every few years, right? Not with every Sim Update. I guess as the release frequency of the Sim Updates is slowing down, it's getting better already for 3PD aircraft. 

I do think the weather model can and should be kept separate from the flight model: The former describes how the air behaves without the interaction of the aircraft, the latter models the interaction of an aircraft with the surroundings. So I don't see a problem using different flight models at the same time, so the AI traffic could keep using the latest default flight model. Ok, I'm not even sure if AI traffic in fact uses a real flight model or just shows aircraft at a predefined position, attitude, and velocity, without modelling the aircraft's aerodynamics. 

Anyway, I'm fully aware that there probably are many details to be solved that I don't oversee right now, but I do see that it's hard for developers to keep up with repeated fundamental changes to the flight model, especially if they work worse than before in certain situations (such as entering a stall).

Probably the best thing to hope for is that the base flight-model gets to a point where it remains relatively stable, and parameters that define the aerodynamic behaviour can get added but never removed, so that existing aircraft usually don't really change their well-tuned flight model in the future with SU12, SU13... As of now, it looks to me as if the active development (soft-body, prop physics) is already opt-in, so we might be getting close to more stability in terms of the flight model for 3PDs.