On 11/2/2025 at 6:06 AM, nippa said:

I totally agree  with the unreal ground friction but he's quite wrong about the ILS range.

ILS systems have a protected range which is given in the National Aeronautical Publication usually 15 miles or so. You may receive a signal but it is not protected or calibrated.

ATC in the UK should not clear an aircraft to establish on to the Localizer outside that range although you might be cleared to intercept the final approach track prior to an ILS approach.

 

He explains this in the video rather well. 

On 11/2/2025 at 5:30 AM, lwt1971 said:

On the topic of ground physics, what aircraft is the YT creator using? A 777 (PMDG?) and MD11 looks like? Other 3rd party or default ones? He seems to be making sweeping statements but as well known the ground handling (as well as flight dynamics) ultimately comes down each aircraft implementation, and what features/etc they make use of in the core sim platform and its FDE toolkit. I've always felt that aircraft like the Fenix, iniBuild's big birds like the A340, the default Cessna 172, etc all make good use of the 2024's ground physics features and provide for a much better/realistic experience than various other default aircraft (that Asobo haven't really properly updated for 2024 yet unfortunately), and some 3rd party aircraft too. Not sure how PMDG implemented ground physics on their 777.

Also, it is it clear if he's using 2020 or 2024? Or both? Would've been good if he stated exactly what sim is being shown and the aircraft.
 

He’s an A320 pilot dying the Fenix. 👍

the clouds he shows remind me of 2020, but IDK for sure. 

20 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

If you are using default XP12 graphics I will agree with you. Personally I use the Map Enhancement tool to stream the same Bing imagery as in MSFS.

ME (plus Sim Heaven) is great once you’re up at altitude, and certainly a significant improvement over Default ground scenery

but MSFS scenery is objectively superior, and it’s free with the sim - no messing about. 

the only way to get very close to MSFS scenery is with Orbx True Earth. 

20 hours ago, Antipodeslonghaul said:

Anyway, I liked the video, especially the look of that combat simulator. 

Try DCS World for free, and pair it with an excellent free mod like the A4 Skyhawk.

Better graphics, etc. 

The DCS F-16, similar to what was shown, (and most of the others) are also available on free trial. 

My PMDG 737 moves and turns in MSFS 2020 as smoothly as the A320 in Noel's video, although I definitely do not taxi that fast!

While I'm not a pilot, I am into ham radio (have my licenses in two countries, extra in the US for those who are into ham), and it's very plausible that a ~20watt signal can travel 100+ miles in the right conditions. One of the fun things in ham radio is to go to a hill or mountain, and then use a 5 watt handheld (walkie-talkie style) to see how far you can go. You'd be surprised how far 5 watts can go with the right conditions.  

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

You gotta watch the video…?

And let’s not forget that ground handling has only recently improved, and only for a subset of aircraft. 

Don't need to watch the video--I watch my own screen and have no issues w/ BOTH controlled taxi and landings as well.  But as mentioned in my post above I'm aware of what the issues are and I'm also quite convinced my rudder/ground steering solution is probably playing a big role in this.

And, I also did watch the video and lost interest pretty quickly when I noticed his graphics/coloration was poorly setup when he complained about the 'smoke' clouds.

Edited November 3, 2025Nov 3 by Noel

The ILS issue is mostly an issue with what range data is available in the AIRAC, and that's very little.

There is not really a field in the AIRAC that provides range data other than some guaranteed ranges (there's some extremely new fields but they're not really used by most AIPs yet), which are usually the 15NM class. Other sim navdata providers may add some extra percentage on top of this but that isn't really necessarily going to be accurate either IMO.

The stance we've taken is that you will receive the ILS by the time it is guaranteed that you should be able to based on the data in the AIRAC, which will then also by definition correspond to any published procedures. Anything else is really just a guess.

Edited November 3, 2025Nov 3 by MattNischan

2 hours ago, MattNischan said:

The ILS issue is mostly an issue with what range data is available in the AIRAC, and that's very little.

There is not really a field in the AIRAC that provides range data other than some guaranteed ranges (there's some extremely new fields but they're not really used by most AIPs yet), which are usually the 15NM class. Other sim navdata providers may add some extra percentage on top of this but that isn't really necessarily going to be accurate either IMO.

The stance we've taken is that you will receive the ILS by the time it is guaranteed that you should be able to based on the data in the AIRAC, which will then also by definition correspond to any published procedures. Anything else is really just a guess.

I don't want to start anything unproductive here. 

My approach to this is as follows:

If the data provider for AIRAC is NAVIGRAPF, they claim that since MSFS2020, they have implemented real-world LOC ranges. If that's the case, inbound LAX ILS 24 L from a transition to LOC/ILS shortly before PHILA, we should be receiving the LOC and DME (37 NM out, based on the certification for this approach), but right after passing SALWA, we get the LOC and DME signal at about 30 NM. Very unrealistic. Unfortunately, there are many cases of issues like that caused by a poor signal in MSFS.

Perhaps it's time to revisit this arbitrary, bad decision —it shows.

1 hour ago, LRBS said:

(37 NM out, based on the certification for this approach), but right after passing SALWA, we get the LOC and DME signal at about 30 NM. Very unrealistic.

In the perfect world, yes! LOL However, DME out of service very realistic . Unreliable signal is also very realistic. Unreliable GPS is also very realistic. 

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

In the perfect world, yes! LOL However, DME out of service very realistic . Unreliable signal is also very realistic. Unreliable GPS is also very realistic. 

Instead of unnecessary arguments, you should be able to see the issues in this particular example. Also, note that, across the board, we have this issue regarding the ILS signals. We are not talking about simulating unreliable signals. This is a perfect example of an extended, approved, and certified approach where LOC and DME are mandatory, yet this sim is not performing correctly, and you choose to spin it in the wrong direction. 

Also, MSFS2020/2024 has ILS approaches at many airports where you don't get a proper signal, not even at 15 NM inbound. Why don't you use your experience in helping ASOBO and the SIM community with this matter? 

If you want failures of this nature, you should suggest that ASOBO implement these scenarios and fix what needs fixing. Very disappointing.

2 hours ago, LRBS said:

Instead of unnecessary arguments, you should be able to see the issues in this particular example. Also, note that, across the board, we have this issue regarding the ILS signals. We are not talking about simulating unreliable signals. This is a perfect example of an extended, approved, and certified approach where LOC and DME are mandatory, yet this sim is not performing correctly, and you choose to spin it in the wrong direction. 

 

 

I don't know why you make everything so dramatic LOL

Lets look at your example of LAX runway  ILS 24L it states DME or RADAR required. So DME is not mandatory but optional. In fact, GPS can be used in lieu DME with some limitation which I doubt would affect modern airliners. 

I'm not sure how wide  localizer beam really gets at  37 miles. I assume RNAV equipment will be still required for LNAV separation during simultaneous  approaches like SIPIA or SDPIA. FAF for ILS or LOC 24L is starts 8.3 DME. So you can still shoot it safely with MSFS limitations.

Finally, you do realize you won't be flying ILS approach 37 miles out. Otherwise your FAF and glideslope intercept would be 37 miles out, which clearly not the case!

 

Funny when a kid flying a 747 in a sim calls an ILS range of 30 instead of 37 NM unrealistic …

1 hour ago, Mark1616 said:

Funny when a kid flying a 747 in a sim calls an ILS range of 30 instead of 37 NM unrealistic …

I don't know whether to laugh or cry after reading that 

17 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Try DCS World for free, and pair it with an excellent free mod like the A4 Skyhawk.

Better graphics, etc. 

The DCS F-16, similar to what was shown, (and most of the others) are also available on free trial. 

Ah, I remember having some good times flying some air to air combat missions (PC! not real) back in the day. I wouldn't mind getting a military flight sim, but I guess nowadays I'd still be more into boring flight planning and long haul transport scenarios, maybe flying BK containers and frozen Whopper patties half way around the world.