23 minutes ago, tttocs said:

Well that just about convinced me so I went to his discord, and...  I felt like the new kid in school who doesn't know all the inside jokes.  Looks like I have to go to his patreon and join, which is fine as it's inexpensive enough, but that channel is, um... chaotic?  Or maybe I'm just old and not of that culture.  Or something.

Thanks, as always Bert.  That may actually convince me get the F33.  I badly miss the A2A V35B, and while not a V35 (and DEFINITELY not A2A), it would fill a bit of that void with the older style panel.

Will have to think on this a bit, as I swore to myself that I wouldn't go down the Carenado rabbit hole again.  You guys are bad influences! 🙂

 

Scott

The F33 isn't bad at all.  Great visuals, decent flight model, Tim and I did a few paints for it as well.  Sounds could be better.  But it's Carenado lol.  And Bert's fixes worked for the LPV GP for me!

About the CCM discord... it's a little bit of everything but you're looking for CCM mods (I think its shown once you subscribe via patreon or twitch)

Then you can fly the C210 in peace!

 

Or maybe the F33 🙂

 

 

Edited February 3Feb 3 by ryanbatc

3 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

we musnt delude ourselves that a desktop 2D screen sitting entirely stationary on terra firma is any sort of “96%” accurate experience. 

as a real pilot, I had always had a suspicion deep inside that simulation somehow wasn't the real reality, but only simulated reality. but now that you confirmed it ...

 

Edited February 3Feb 3 by turbomax

40 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

About the CCM discord... it's a little bit of everything but you're looking for CCM mods (I think its shown once you subscribe via patreon or twitch)

Oh, I figured it out.  It was just... an amusing adventure treasure hunt.

 

40 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

Then you can fly the C210 in peace!

Now you're just being mean!

 

Thanks again,

 

Scott

2 hours ago, P_7878 said:

Indeed, some of us (yours truly included) sometimes tend to delude ourselves…in our virtual world …🙂…

As I was watching today the video of a RW PC-12 NGX flight (in another thread here), it made me realize (again):

Forget about actually having ever flown the real thing, just watching the video, brought me to (harsh) reality, despite the fact that I’ve flown the PC-12 NGX many times in  the MSFS world.

Oh, yes! All I've ever flown are piston singles (and it's been a good while since...). And after a flight - even on a good weather day - I always feel like I've had both an outdoors hike in the mountains AND taken a school test all in the same session 🤣

I normally go home and take a NAP 😁

 

1 hour ago, turbomax said:

as a real pilot, I had always had a suspicion deep inside that simulation somehow wasn't the real reality, but only simulated reality. but now that you confirmed it ...

 

Well then, as a fellow real pilot, we should know better than to talk about an addon being within "3% of reality". We both know there's a ton more to the experience of IRL flying than what we could ever get at home 😎👍

15 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

I normally go home and take a NAP 😁

 

Or an urgent siesta?  😉

 

3 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

being within "3% of reality"

please quote correctly: Matt Nishan/Workingtitle said about the CJ4 flight model "2% within book value"

Edited February 4Feb 4 by turbomax

14 hours ago, turbomax said:

please quote correctly: Matt Nishan/Workingtitle said about the CJ4 flight model "2% within book value"

Sorry, not sorry: pedantry can’t save your argument.

Edited February 4Feb 4 by UrgentSiesta

56 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Sorry, not sorry: pedantry can’t save your argument.

I have the highest regard for the work done in MSFS by Matt/WT, no questions about it…

However, 2% or 3% or even identical to the Book Values, does not make our virtual flying experience any more real.

There is a whole lot more going on with real pilotage of an a/c. Here is someone who had e.g., taken recourse to the (FSX) version of the ButtKicker Gamer transducer to introduce additional physical feedback to simulate RW (flight) sensations, but, as I recall, that didn’t pan out well in my (home) pilot environment, and had to be discontinued…🙂…after a short trial…

On 2/2/2026 at 10:38 AM, The Flight Level said:

Carenado will always have a place in the flight sim hobby. A good percentage of folks still place the visuals over features of system depth and accuracy.

The best logic before going into any Carenado purchase right here!🍻

58 minutes ago, blueshark747 said:

The best logic before going into any Carenado purchase right here!🍻

Fair point.

Some of us do prefer both visuals and systems depth, but sometimes just not in the same SIM aircraft…🙂…

1 hour ago, P_7878 said:

I have the highest regard for the work done in MSFS by Matt/WT, no questions about it…

Me, too!

the Longitude is honestly one of my most frequently flown addons. 

i absolutely love the IRL relative simplicity of the cockpit combined with the WT G5000. And knowing all the work WT has put into ancillary systems such as modeling hydraulic pressure AND temperature, esp as of v2024, makes it my first choice for so many flights. 

while I really like the Hi Fi airliners, the truth is they’re just more work than I want to do for a flight* 

whereas with the Longitude (and TBM, and FSR 500), the focus is a lot more on flying and piloting rather than systems management. 

The icing on the cake is that the Longitude is as fast, as high, and as far as a 737!

*I have to save my limited brain power for the very complicated DCS Hornet and DCS Apache 😂

2 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

can’t save your argument.

it's not about 2% or 3%, he was talking about a flight model, not about overall realism of a flight simulator vs. real flight, the difference it seems you didn't understand. 

Edited February 4Feb 4 by turbomax

1 hour ago, P_7878 said:

2% or 3% or even identical to the Book Values, does not make our virtual flying experience any more real.

There is a whole lot more going on with real pilotage of an a/c

nobody ever questioned that for a second (2% or 3% is irrelevant), otherwise it would not be called flight SIMULATOR (latin: to make something similar, likewise) but flight IDENTICATOR. Matt Nishan was only referring to the impressive precision of their flight model, nothing else. I only mentioned that to point out that flight modelling close to reality IS possible, obviously not for Carenado and many others, but for capable knowledgeable mathematicians/programmers. but Urgentsiesta obviously missed that fine difference.

34 minutes ago, turbomax said:

nobody ever questioned that for a second (2% or 3% is irrelevant), otherwise it would not be called flight SIMULATOR (latin: to make something similar, likewise) but flight IDENTICATOR. Matt Nishan was only referring to the impressive precision of their flight model, nothing else. I only mentioned that to point out that flight modelling close to reality IS possible, obviously not for Carenado and many others, but for capable knowledgeable mathematicians/programmers. but Urgentsiesta obviously missed that fine difference.

Yes, are we comparing:

The flight model of simulated a/c X with the flight model of the real a/c X

or

The realism of simulated a/c X with the realism of the real a/c X…?

The former can get pretty close to each other at the hands of a competent developer, if not exactly.

However, there will be always a big gap between the overall realism of the simulation vs. that of the real thing. We cannot do much about it, really, in spite of all kinds of supplementary additions, one of which I cited above, as having tried myself, unsuccessfully.

Understood.