18 minutes ago, hangar said:

this is the main reason why you'll see people commenting that the flight dynamics on the sovereign are better than the phenom...the takeoff/landing dynamics of the phenom are simply not going to be compatible with all desktop pilots (😉), nor all the different hardware used for rudder control. It's a true to life effect about the aircraft, but it was over-done a bit in the sim.

Maybe to an extent, but I do think something is still not quite right with how it handles the landing and rollout. More frustrating is they (at least one vocal real-world pilot on the team) are totally dismissive of this and believe it was fixed in the last update and claim everything is by the numbers and there are no issues. Fair enough, but SWS did this with the PC-12 and it was basically unflyable due to the fact they were intent on being strictly on the numbers and refused to fix anything. Not sure if they ever fixed it as I had to hangar that aircraft long ago. I think you have to adapt some of these quirks to the sim and make some exceptions. I'm using rudder pedals with a -48% curve yet they are blaming hardware and curves. I can't imagine this on a joystick or XB controller! I do not experience the issue in any other similar aircraft (H-jet, Lear-35, C680, C750, etc) Numerous other IRL pilot on Discord are saying the same. An actual plane would never act like this on rollout and I have the behavior even with zero X-wind component. It is not every landing, maybe3 out of 4. The only workaround I have found as of now is to use 'AutoRudder' in the MSFS settings so I do believe the issue is still with the rudder dynamics. The Phenom is solid in every other aspect of flight...

33 minutes ago, Keirtt said:

1) The sensitivity, even after the update is still too much. It seems if you land firm in a crosswind, it has the tendency to throw you side to side, even if it's a light crosswind.

I don't have issues with light crosswinds, but there's no doubt that this plane is a handful after touchdown when they're strong. And yes, I see this even when I appropriately de-crab and I'm absolutely tracking straight down the runway.

35 minutes ago, Keirtt said:

2) I've read all the literature surrounding the AC system, but I still for the life of me don't understand how I'm up at cruise, with the shades closed, and still can't cool the back down lower than 76F with everything on high and the AC set low. I've verified all of the maintenance is good to go and I've seen several others complain of this.

I've heard others complain about this as well, but I'm not seeing it. I typically set the both cabin and cockpit to about 68f, which usually nets me about 72f when the dust has settled. That's with fans set to medium to cool things initially and low once temps stabilize. I do find it odd that it only seems to come within a few degrees of setting, but it's not extreme for me and I have no problems keeping things in a comfortable range.

40 minutes ago, Keirtt said:

3) Passengers... with the M500, it was pretty straight forward to please the passengers, but with this new system, it's frustrating to see some pax with a 100% satisfaction and two others at 35% because of how their coffee was handed to them... something I can't change. The M500, if a pax wasn't satisfied, it was clear what the problem is, but with this new system, it's almost impossible sometimes and you just have to give up.

I like having to manage things like environmentals to keep myself and my passengers comfortable but, to be blunt, this passenger system as implemented is not for me either. I wouldn't mind gripes about things the pilot can control, like the temps as above or pressurization issues or rapid descents, as they're things that are my responsibility. But passengers dinging me for stuff I wouldn't deal with as the pilot flying like snacks and coffee? Nonsense. And yes, too many of the passengers are just ridiculously picky. I had one VIP's rating drop all the way to 1% on a perfectly normal flight with no issues and a solid landing rating. At that point, the whole system becomes pretty pointless.

Fortunately, the solution is simple. I put passengers in the plane and then never look at that page in the EFB.

Scott

8 hours ago, Farlis said:

Can we please stop using AI .....

WE ?

Me, myself and I

1 hour ago, turbomax said:

WE ?

Me, myself and I

It was a collective call for ALL of us. We are heading headlong into the abyss if we don't stop relying on AI for knowledge.

17 hours ago, Farlis said:

this machine more often then not makes stuff up and the answer will be wrong in many cases.

to err is human

19 hours ago, Farlis said:

Can we please stop using AI to give answers to questions?

Not only is it a complete waste of resources, it is also pretty rude to not even take the time to write an answer oneself and instead simply copy what a machine has said.

Not to mention that this machine more often then not makes stuff up and the answer will be wrong in many cases.

I find AI to be really helpful in some cases. Ethical use demands a reality check though, just like journalists don't publish without having two independent sources to verify information. Doesnt mean you have to check EVERYTHING, but a sense check really helps. I've learned this the hard way, using AI to generate flight sim related procedures, then finding out afterwards that it was only half right and needed a little correction!

31 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

I find AI to be really helpful in some cases. Ethical use demands a reality check though, just like journalists don't publish without having two independent sources to verify information. Doesnt mean you have to check EVERYTHING, but a sense check really helps. I've learned this the hard way, using AI to generate flight sim related procedures, then finding out afterwards that it was only half right and needed a little correction!

Yep.

It’s kinda like a hammer. Great for pounding nails, but ya really gotta watch your thumbs!👍

20 hours ago, Flic1 said:

More frustrating is they (at least one vocal real-world pilot on the team) are totally dismissive of this and believe it was fixed in the last update and claim everything is by the numbers and there are no issues. Fair enough, but SWS did this with the PC-12 and it was basically unflyable due to the fact they were intent on being strictly on the numbers

Exactly. This is why the 'we have a type-rated pilot on the team' doesn't really hold much weight of any substance. Such experience will be good for procedural aspects. But such a pilot is experienced in the real aircraft. Pixels moving on a screen is an entirely different proposition, and there's a lot of subjectivity on whether those moving pixels interpret the real aircraft's behavious and feel appropriately.

Great example about the SWS PC-12. The pilot in that case was adamant that the simulation - as it was - was perfect. Meanwhile, we were floating down to the runway almost wing first, like a helium-filled London bus balloon!

Edited Thursday at 05:08 PM4 days by JYW

1 minute ago, JYW said:

Pixels moving on a screen is an entirely different proposition and there's a lot of subjectivity on whether those moving pixels interpret the real aircraft's behavious and feel or not.

Indeed. Making allowances for being in a sim environment can make more sense than standing on the RW pulpit.

I was quickly told "no" when I requested detents for the various throttle positions with a quiet "click" added to clue the sim pilot that a detent had been reached. There is no detent sound in the real plane was the gist of the response. I can well imagine that the detents are so quiet that you can't hear them in the RW cockpit, but you can feel them. Adding the sound would allow me to fly in a more realistic fashion rather than having to stare at the readouts on the MFD to figure out where I'm at, rather than using the display to simply verify.

There's no "Simbrief" icon on the real world GTC either, but we make some sim allowances when they make sense.

Scott

26 minutes ago, tttocs said:

Indeed. Making allowances for being in a sim environment can make more sense than standing on the RW pulpit.

I was quickly told "no" when I requested detents for the various throttle positions with a quiet "click" added to clue the sim pilot that a detent had been reached. There is no detent sound in the real plane was the gist of the response. I can well imagine that the detents are so quiet that you can't hear them in the RW cockpit, but you can feel them.

Yes, I recall you mentioning the (lack of) detents when the aircraft released, and it's something that stood out to me with the model too. When you can see the detent labels but immediately find that there are no detents modelled it detracts from the immersion (quite unnecessarily - as I imagine placing functional detents wouldn't be a huge change. They're used in plenty of other 'FADEC type' addon aircraft).

For me, it's also that I have a small amount of 'potentiometer noise' on my throttle axes. In planes with detents, the modelled levers in the cockpit sit nicely and don't move. In the Phenom they jitter around and, as I use TrackIR, are often in my view. That's a non-operational reason why I would have liked to see proper detents. But mostly, I think they should be there because they are in the real plane! If you're aiming for fidelity and realism, why would you omit something as fundamental as that?

Edited Thursday at 05:53 PM4 days by JYW

@tttocs @JYW

I agree with you guys how certain real world aircraft attributes don't or won't necessarily translate over to a desktop sim environment too well. I also think that the examples you give are good ones. I also tried, on their Discord forum, to explain how not everything should be translated 1:1 from RL to sim as it just doesn't work well in some cases... but they are adamant when it comes to how it wobbles crosswind landings.

I personally feel that while it's a good idea to implement, that they just went over-board with it and it's an exaggerated attribute in the sim now. I know most people don't fly with real weather much of the time and don't or won't care too much about it, but it's a pet peeve for me since I only fly with real weather and I often look for flights to do based upon strong crosswinds for practice.

I find that I can no longer use my twisty stick for a rudder with this airplane and instead I'm forced to break out my aviation pedals and move my car/truck pedals away whenever I want to fly the Phenom crosswinds.

I feel that in order to suit a wider range of hardware and desktop piloting skills that they should have made the wobble physics an on/off checkbox option in their EFB, which other developers have done over the years with certain physics based attributes of their craft.

Edited Thursday at 07:31 PM3 days by hangar

2 hours ago, JYW said:

Exactly. This is why the 'we have a type-rated pilot on the team' doesn't really hold much weight of any substance. Such experience will be good for procedural aspects. But such a pilot is experienced in the real aircraft. Pixels moving on a screen is an entirely different proposition, and there's a lot of subjectivity on whether those moving pixels interpret the real aircraft's behavious and feel appropriately.

Great example about the SWS PC-12. The pilot in that case was adamant that the simulation - as it was - was perfect. Meanwhile, we were floating down to the runway almost wing first, like a helium-filled London bus balloon!

Yeah - I moved the PC-12 to the boneyard during that period and haven’t bothered with it since.

I get to ride on one of these a couple times a year, so I guess I should try it out again to see. But that just left such a bad taste in my mouth that I always opt for the FSR500 or Turbine Duke instead.

3 hours ago, tttocs said:

There is no detent sound in the real plane was the gist of the response.

To that I would always answer: Make them a toggable option then.

3 hours ago, hangar said:

agree with you guys how certain real world aircraft attributes don't or won't necessarily translate over to a desktop sim environment too well. I also think that the examples you give are good ones. I also tried, on their Discord forum, to explain how not everything should be translated 1:1 from RL to sim as it just doesn't work well in some cases... but they are adamant when it comes to how it wobbles crosswind landings.

Having a foot in both camps I totally agree with all that’s being discussed here.

I refer to my simming more as digital aviation , and as such a digital aircraft has a validity of its own, it has to feel and fly right in its own right, not just be an exact replica of the real world counterpart if that replication would make the aircraft feel wrong in the sim, with flight simulation controllers .

A digital aircraft should have its own identity to some degree, very close to but seperate from its real world counterpart . The PC12 mentioned being a major case in point. Because rigging sim controls up to a real aircraft and flying using those controls the same aircraft would feel completely different.

Edited Thursday at 10:48 PM3 days by jon b

Slightly off topic but since it's been brought up; the PC12 is excellent these days...