4 minutes ago, pmplayer said:

So if i read this thread i think i never go over for MSFS2024 !! 🤔

cheers 😉

Yes, stick with the out of date one. It suits you better. 

On 9/3/2025 at 3:26 PM, yvesamuel said:

time compression

Since recently, it has been working

A pause function

5 minutes ago, taiyang said:

A pause function

"P"

I tried westbound ad eastbound flights : time compression works now.

On 9/4/2025 at 11:49 AM, abrams_tank said:

The person you are defending has a history in the MSFS forum of posting in bad faith:

Well, you also have posting history on this forum, which, of course, you deliberately conceal. I'm just holding the mirror here.

Ok, now let's look into the real world out there and do a thought experiment:

1. Two planes start at the same time at the same location and weather conditions - icing. One plane falls from the sky, the other doesn't. WHY? Because the developer of one plane has (intentionally or unintentionally, out of laziness, to save costs, ...) forgotten to implement the feature of falling from the sky due to icing. Which plane would I buy? Of course the one that doesn't fall from the sky. Probably it's even cheaper due to saved development cost. Win, win.
    
2. Two planes start at the same time at the same location and conditions. One plane falls from the sky, the other doesn't. WHY? Because the developer of one plane has (intentionally or unintentionally, out of laziness, to save costs, ...) forgotten to implement the feature of failures. Which plane would I buy? Of course the one that doesn't have failures. Probably it's even cheaper due to saved development cost.  Win, win.
    
3. Two planes are landing at the same time at the same location and conditions - wet or even icy runway. One plane overruns the runway, the other doesn't. WHY? Because the developer of one plane has (intentionally or unintentionally, out of laziness, to save costs, ...) forgotten to implement the feature of tire friction. Which plane would I buy? Of course the one that has the same braking distance under all conditions and doesn't overrun the runway. Probably it's even cheaper due to saved development cost. Win, win.
    
4. Two planes ...
    
5. Two planes ...

Edited September 5, 2025Sep 5 by flying_carpet

42 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Well, you also have posting history on this forum, which, of course, you deliberately conceal.

Ok, now let's look into the real world out there and do a thought experiment:

1. Two planes start at the same time at the same location and weather conditions - icing. One plane falls from the sky, the other doesn't. WHY? Because the developer of one plane has (intentionally or unintentionally, out of laziness, to save costs, ...) forgotten to implement the feature of falling from the sky due to icing. Which plane would I buy? Of course the one that doesn't fall from the sky. Probably it's even cheaper due to saved development cost. Win, win.
    
2. Two planes start at the same time at the same location and conditions. One plane falls from the sky, the other doesn't. WHY? Because the developer of one plane has (intentionally or unintentionally, out of laziness, to save costs, ...) forgotten to implement the feature of failures. Which plane would I buy? Of course the one that doesn't have failures. Probably it's even cheaper due to saved development cost.  Win, win.
    
3. Two planes are landing at the same time at the same location and conditions - wet or even icy runway. One plane overruns the runway, the other doesn't. WHY? Because the developer of one plane has (intentionally or unintentionally, out of laziness, to save costs, ...) forgotten to implement the feature of tire friction. Which plane would I buy? Of course the one that has the same braking distance under all conditions and doesn't overrun the runway. Probably it's even cheaper due to saved development cost. Win, win.
    
4. Two planes ...
    
5. Two planes ...

I don't get the point of this post? What is it you're trying to say? What is the thought experiment?

6 minutes ago, FPVSteve said:

I don't get the point of this post? What is it you're trying to say? What is the thought experiment?

There isn't one, but they'll use it as some kind of gotcha. I read it maybe 5 times and it still lacks coherency. 

It certainly has nothing to do with the forum topic but it's par the course for carpet to derail threads.

Well, it is like this: it is said here about the MSFS that the developer of the aircraft has to care (e.g.) for implementing icing, failures, correct braking etc. first, so that the aircraft behaves correctly. In reality, however, the aircraft falls out of the sky “by itself” when icing occurs. You don't have to implement this. Easy as that.

In other words, the laws of physics simply exist and affect the aircraft. So it is not the case that you first have to build the airplane so that it behaves correctly with the laws of physics.

Edited September 5, 2025Sep 5 by flying_carpet

28 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Well, it is like this: it is said here about the MSFS that the developer of the aircraft has to care (e.g.) for implementing icing, failures, correct braking etc. first, so that the aircraft behaves correctly. In reality, however, the aircraft falls out of the sky “by itself” when icing occurs. You don't have to implement this. Easy as that.

In other words, the laws of physics simply exist and affect the aircraft. So it is not the case that you first have to build the airplane so that it behaves correctly with the laws of physics.

Do you think in X-plane, or any other sim for that matter, that if I just make a plane model and dump it in the sim it works exactly to it's real-life counterparts? Thats not how aircraft development works, you still need to build a flight model, this goes for literally any sim when creating a plane.

So.. yeah you do need to "implement" it. Why do you enjoy confidently spreading misinformation about stuff you quite literally have no experience with?

Edited September 5, 2025Sep 5 by Lucky38i

45 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

... stuff you quite literally have no experience with?

😂 How do you know? Do you have?

46 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

Do you think in X-plane, or any other sim for that matter, that if I just make a plane model and dump it in the sim it works exactly to it's real-life counterparts? Thats not how aircraft development works, you still need to build a flight model, this goes for literally any sim when creating a plane.

So.. yeah you do need to "implement" it.

As you bring up X-Plane: there you do NOT have to build a flight model, the planemaker does it for you. You enter contours and Planemaker calculates the flight model from them. That's the so called 'predictive' approach, or in other words, a simulation. It's kind of like putting a 3D model of a car in a virtual windtunnel, and the windtunnel program calculates the forces on the car. Not the other way round.

Alia has used (not only, but still ...) X-Plane for constructing their VTOL. Apart from that, XP is also used e.g. at Airbus for various simulations.

42 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

😂 How do you know? Do you have?

https://flybywiresim.com/ while I don't take credit for creating the FM as it is currently, I was privvy to its development.

43 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

You enter contours and Planemaker calculates the flight model from them

You just described creating a flight model, I think you're confusing flight physics of a given simulator and the flight model of an actual aircraft. Planemaker is the required program used by xplane developers to create a flight model, usually. In MSFS it's a little different where you create a flight model using a combination of the flight_model.cfg and the in-sim aircraft editor. Regardless, both approaches require defining a multitude of parameters of an aircraft with which the sim will then actualise on. If anything I'll give credit to planemaker being a much more beginner friendly approach (relatively speaking).

 

48 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Alia has used (not only, but still ...) X-Plane for constructing their VTOL. Apart from that, XP is also used e.g. at Airbus for various simulations.

How is any of this relevant?

Anyway I'll leave this here as you'll contort yourself as per usual to find a new tangent, ignore what I and many other developers, or find someone else to antagonise.

Until the next desperate attempt.

FS2020 like autopilot in the A320.

23 hours ago, St Mawgan said:

Yes, stick with the out of date one. It suits you better. 

Yes, much better, i have enough very good AC's to fly,  that is all i need !! 

Don't need a unstable Flightsimulator to fool around with anymore,  and that MSFS2024 is in a lot off things still, at least at the moment..

cheers 😊

19 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

https://flybywiresim.com/ while I don't take credit for creating the FM as it is currently, I was privvy to its development.

You just described creating a flight model, I think you're confusing flight physics of a given simulator and the flight model of an actual aircraft. Planemaker is the required program used by xplane developers to create a flight model, usually. In MSFS it's a little different where you create a flight model using a combination of the flight_model.cfg and the in-sim aircraft editor. Regardless, both approaches require defining a multitude of parameters of an aircraft with which the sim will then actualise on. If anything I'll give credit to planemaker being a much more beginner friendly approach (relatively speaking).

 

How is any of this relevant?

Anyway I'll leave this here as you'll contort yourself as per usual to find a new tangent, ignore what I and many other developers, or find someone else to antagonise.

Until the next desperate attempt.

It is completely irrelevant how you define/differentiate between flight physics and flight model. You missed the point. Interim remark (and just for the record 😄): YOU brought up X-Plane - just in case that anyone complains that we are talking about it in the MSFS forum.
In MSFS as developer you have 'to tell the plane': if there are icing conditions, plase fall from the sky. If you don't, it will fly forever like in sunshine. In X-Plane, as developer, you can't even tell the plane to fall from the sky. There is no switch (or whatever else) in planemaker, to do so. It is the The XP 'core engine' (which acts kind of like the laws of physics) and not the developer which tells the plane to fall from the sky. I could go even fuether with icing conditions and iced windshield, windshield heating, failure of windshield heating, but that would go too far for now.
Same (e.g.) for braking distance on contaminated runway. There's no switch (or whatever else) in planemaker to tell the plane 'please overrun the runway' if it is wet or icy. I.e. it is not the developer, who tells the plane what to do, but the the laws of physics (or, in this case the XP 'core engine').

Edited September 6, 2025Sep 6 by flying_carpet