1 hour ago, jfv said:

I did my PPL training in 2016, after turning 60 btw, you certainly do have to know how VOR's work, I believe the written will have questions, and yes my instructor actually had me use it during flight once or twice, but it certainly did NOT come up at all in the actual practical/flight exam. 

I did my training in 2015 and I absolutely agree that knowledge about older navigation methods was necessary. I was solely talking about the gentleman who stated that in the present general avation world, pilots don't need modern GPS-based avionics, as they will be using VOR to VOR navigation.  

6 hours ago, Claudius_ said:

a "snap" rolling is not a real thing, not for the lighter Comanche, with those wings and profiles

I agree.  Perhaps it is a MS2020 vs MS2024 consideration.

1 hour ago, Claudius_ said:

Not to mention that the GPS toys are often more expensive than the airplane itself, where do you think to go with a not pressurized, no turbo and no antiice airplane? My trips with the Comanche are about 120/80nm range at 3000/8000ft. If considering to go in France from Italy, crossing the Alps is a real challenge, GPS toys or not.

Never flown in Florida, then…? 😉

On 12/25/2025 at 1:47 AM, Claudius_ said:

Tried today the "new" native FS24 Comache, sincerely I can't see substantial improvements from the previous version, the prop texture is something like grainy and it's very annoying because you have it just in front your eyes all the time. Maybe something is improved with the flight model but the rolling is snapping like an acrobatic airplane, it's flying on rails. Is it possible to see the complete list of improvements from the previous version? 

I just did a few laps around the pattern.

I ran an extended downwind, kept the speed up and everything retracted. Roll response seemed fine and carried good inertia/momentum. I was only running half gas and myself, so perhaps a bit sprightly  

It feels as realistic as ever, and AFAICT, pretty much unchanged

as to prop visibility, we’ve got a lot of heavy intermittent rainshowers here today, so lots of high contrast lighting with “god rays” and such  

I could barely see it until I got to very low speeds, and then just a reasonable throbbing blur. 

if anything, I’d like it to be a bit more visible as it’s hard to see where the prop disk ends  

Suggest you take a look at antialiasimg settings, perhaps…?
 

 

Edited December 28, 2025Dec 28 by UrgentSiesta

14 hours ago, JYW said:

As a real world pilot, I have never seen a fellow GA pilot navigating in this way in 10 years.  By far the most common method of VFR navigation I see, is with a tablet in the cockpit (not integrated into the plane and not interfaced with other avionics or autopilot), that uses one of the amazing VFR moving map softwares;  primarily Sky Demon or ForeFlight.

Don't folks still tune to the closet VOR as a backup to the tablet? It's been 20 years for me (and I may fall out of my chair if anyone remembers Anywhere Map for Pocket PC), but I would trust an iPad/iPhone today as much as I trusted that Pocket PC 20 years ago (never had any issues with it but it's still a consumer device). Looking at the rental fleet at my old FBO, the cheap 152's and Warriors still lack GPS, but they all have NAV radios.

 

To add some relevance to the topic, I'll be happily re-purchasing the Comanche on the Marketplace once it's released there (and judging from Asobo's latest metrics, they have been approving marketplace content in days instead of months, so hopefully this comes shortly after the holidays!)

18 hours ago, Claudius_ said:

Not to mention that the GPS toys are often more expensive than the airplane itself, where do you think to go with a not pressurized, no turbo and no antiice airplane? My trips with the Comanche are about 120/80nm range at 3000/8000ft. If considering to go in France from Italy, crossing the Alps is a real challenge, GPS toys or not.

Again with the toys.  Don't want 'em?  Not appropriate for your missions?  No worries - don't use them, but that doesn't change what others are doing in the real world in many situations.  Such "toys" have become common in this class of aircraft so it is neither unrealistic nor unreasonable to have them available in the sim, nor to use them.  Available, not required.

I based my real world airplane out of Colorado.  Believe me, I understand the realities of flying a non-deiced, piston single in serious mountain terrain (though my plane was turbo-charged).  Of course you don't fly a plane like the Comanche in instrument conditions in such areas, but the whole world isn't the Alps or the high peaks of the Rockies.  People commonly fly non-turbo, non-FIKI, non-pressurized piston singles IFR in the real world.  Commonly.  No, they don't fly them in icing conditions, or when the MEAs are 15,000' or more, but that still leaves a lot of missions where it's both safe and practical.

Again, nobody's trying to convince YOU to do anything different.  Fly the sim the way you enjoy and the way that's appropriate for your circumstances.  But this "I don't use them, so they're unrealistic toys" argument doesn't serve you well.  Choice is good, choice based on reality is even better.  Enjoy flights using nothing but pilotage.  Enjoy flights solely using ground-based navaids.  Seriously.  I do too!  But I also enjoy the challenges of an IFR flight as its typically done in today's airspace - yes, even in normally aspirated piston singles - which includes things like GPS and G5s.  And yes, again, even in planes like the Comanche, as these are the planes these tools are actually designed for.  If they weren't practical in this class of aircraft, companies like Garmin and Avidyne wouldn't even be making them.

 

Scott  

Edited December 28, 2025Dec 28 by tttocs

2 hours ago, tttocs said:

Again with the toys.  Don't want 'em?  Not appropriate for your missions?  No worries - don't use them, but that doesn't change what others are doing in the real world in many situations.  Such "toys" have become common in this class of aircraft so it is neither unrealistic nor unreasonable to have them available in the sim, nor to use them.  Available, not required.

 

 

Dear Sir, I wanted to clarify the points I raised in my earlier messages. Upon reviewing them more carefully, you’ll note that I am not advocating for anyone to fly the Comanche exclusively using VOR-to-VOR navigation under VFR. Rather, my comments are observations about fitting an older aircraft with what I consider anachronistic and frankly, somewhat ridiculous, modern gadgets.

If you appreciate such features, that is entirely your choice. However, I feel free to express my criticism regarding this approach to “flying” a classic airplane with GPS systems that can sometimes cost more than the aircraft itself. In my view, this detracts from the authenticity of the simulation experience.

My passion lies in flight simulation, not in what I would call “flight dreaming". It is my opinion that developers, as often seen in the flight simulation community, sometimes prioritize financially driven, unrealistic options over genuine realism (improving the flight model, could be the right thing, but it requires more time than to add the GPS toys).

Thank you for your understanding.

 

19 minutes ago, Claudius_ said:

GPS systems that can sometimes cost more than the aircraft itself

Yet this happens. Every day!

Old GA aircraft are updated with modern avionics to bring them into usefullness in the 21st Century.  Without modern GPS systems, these otherwise amazing aircraft platforms would be unable to access the hugely growing number of GPS-based approaches (that provide greater versatility and safety).

You say that you respect other simmers' choices to use modern avionics but then say that you wish developers would not spend their time and resources on these - that would mean they were not available for simmers to use (despite your respect of their preferences and choices).

Is it not a more equitable situation that developers do provide these avionics (which most certainly are realistic in many cases), and you just choose not to use them?

You are desiring that something is removed because you choose not to use it. 

30 minutes ago, Claudius_ said:

My passion lies in flight simulation, not in what I would call “flight dreaming". It is my opinion that developers, as often seen in the flight simulation community, sometimes prioritize financially driven, unrealistic options over genuine realism (improving the flight model, could be the right thing, but it requires more time than to add the GPS toys).

Just to illustrate that a GTN 750 and dual G5s in a Comanche are in no way unrealistic or "dreaming", take a look at this panel of a real-world Comanche:

(Edit: On a personal note, I think that the carbon-fiber look is just gross, but there's no accounting for taste.)

Edited December 28, 2025Dec 28 by martinboehme

20 hours ago, 177B said:

Yes as posted above, I used Loran a lot flying IFR until GPS came out.

I used to fly single CDI dialing back and force getting cross radials then during one approach my attitude indicator spilled in IMC. I requested no gyro approach...Good old days, I don't miss them at all LOL Now I have two G5, IFD400 and foreflight. Each G5 come with own battery you can switch attitude indicator and HSI on either one. ILS out of service? No problem! LPV minimum same as ILS! IFR never feel so safer.  

34 minutes ago, Claudius_ said:

Dear Sir, I wanted to clarify the points I raised in my earlier messages. Upon reviewing them more carefully, you’ll note that I am not advocating for anyone to fly the Comanche exclusively using VOR-to-VOR navigation under VFR. Rather, my comments are observations about fitting an older aircraft with what I consider anachronistic and frankly, somewhat ridiculous, modern gadgets.

 

 

Jeez! Stick a piece of paper on anything you don't want to see . Enjoy your partial panel LOL

30 minutes ago, Claudius_ said:

unrealistic options over genuine realism (improving the flight model, could be the right thing, but it requires more time than to add the GPS toys)

A. We’ve incontrovertibly established that it’s highly realistic to offer modern avionics options in classic airframes.

B. We’ve also incontrovertibly established that the addon continues to fly realistically, at least when set up and flown properly.

So what we’ve therefore also established and can safely conclude is that your various opinions do not match up to reality, even when it comes to simulacrums thereof. 

In cases such as these, you might want to consider whether reality has left you, or whether you’ve left reality. 

it’s a useful skill for pilots to continually hone. 😎🤙

 

34 minutes ago, martinboehme said:

the carbon-fiber look is just gross

It’s only gross if it isn’t actually carbon fiber 😁

Using modern equipment for navigation and anything else in an aircraft is primarily for safety.  

Some of GA engine technology (not all) is from 1904 … pushrod!  For example, I was looking at a Cessna 172S Skyhawks SP 2018 (or was it 2019) … at an asking price of $449,000.  It was well equipment with Garmin 1000, but still uses a Lycoming IO-360-L2 pushrod engine … yes circa 1904 engine design … output is rather pathetic at 160-180 HP.

$449,000 … it was in good condition but the argument that old tech is better than new tech is frankly rubbish with ZERO supporting evidence … more urban legend.  The engine itself is around $100,000 but at least it had direct injection (phew) and not a carburetor.

You’d think $449,000 would get you a better fuel delivery system … nope, still gravity feed.  Does Lycoming have any design or R&D department or do they just keep staring at the same technology from 1904 and say “good enough”?  The pretense that old and reliable can’t be made more reliable, more fuel efficient, more output, more compact, much lighter … yes it can, even more so when one forks out $100,000 for a new motor or $60,000 for a rebuilt.  Before anyone says “it’s a small market” … 330,000 Lycoming engines power many GA aircraft … it ain’t that small of a market, more than enough to come up with a much improved and modern technology engine.

But I guess on a simulated side note, I guess it gives A2A some additional implementation details to help keep this 1904’s engine alive in the 250.  Adding the maintenance realism is most appreciated in the “simulated” world … not so much for one’s wallet in the real world.

Edited December 28, 2025Dec 28 by SayAgain

1 hour ago, martinboehme said:

a look at this panel of a real-world Comanche

And, interestingly, still has airspeed indicator in mph, and an autopilot that has basically the same capabilities as A2A Comanche (manual trim, alt hold only, no gs, etc.) 🙂