Orlaam

🤦‍♂️

Not that I really posted much or needed the help, but I noticed the Just Flight Black Square sub-forum is gone. 🤔🤔

24 hours? 🤣

It simply isn't possible. If you are asking which runway will be allocated to you for landing, then it can only be determined when within range of the tower. If you are using an IFR flight plan you will be directed to a runway that won't always make sense. Once that runway assignment is given, the runway for AI traffic will change if the weather changes. The problem is not just ATC/AI. The weather for arrival is not injected until about approximately 20 miles out. For example, I will tune an ATIS for an airport to see when it comes alive. Approaching KSEA, tune in 118.00 and keep the frequency active on approach. Looking at weather I will predict runway 16 L/R/C. Yet, when the ATIS starts reporting at around 70 miles, it'll say a METAR that's invalid and often reporting "heavy rain" with runways 34 active. Then on final I will hear the ATIS change to an accurate METAR and sometimes allow the proper runway assignment for the wind. One example of improper active runway assignments is FlyTampa KLAS. It makes no difference what the wind is doing, it'll give me runway 26 for landing or takeoff. It could be 190/15 for wind, but it will not give you runway 19. My assumption is that it falls on the scenery/AFCAD data. There are many dynamic reasons why the active runway won't make sense. In the real world, often times the runways for takeoff and landing are not wind specific. Other times the winds change while on final. Unfortunately, the sim is not able to correct for certain issues to maintain a consistent runway assignment for traffic and the end-user. We hope add-on programs can correct for this, your only other choice is online with Vatsim/IVAO/PilotEdge. For myself, I look at the likeliest winds forecast in the METAR and TAF and program accordingly. If the winds are low, then I choose the most straight-in approach so I'm not eating up more time going downwind to a base. At the end of the day, you simply cannot force this sim in its current state to abide by wind direction, traffic flow, or consistency. I have had this program give me a runway assignment 20 miles out, only to tell AI to takeoff in the opposite direction.

I don't believe avoiding conflict with AI using opposing runways is possible. MS assigns runways based on winds, but not always. I use ForeFlight and check the best wind runway, however, many times that stupid MS ATC/AI system uses a runway that's wrong with a significant tailwind. Now, landing with a tailwind of like 7 knots is not unrealistic though. You really have to just choose what you want to land on and go from there. MS ATC, and even online services, are not 100% favoring the winds. For example, KBUR is often favoring runway 15, yet, runway 15 is not used very often over runway 8. Runway 15 is a visual approach only with a somewhat difficult approach, whereas runway 8 is an ILS straight in approach. There are many services online that will give you METAR data and wind/runway selections. A handful of larger airports have D-ATIS and that tells you the active runway. Unfortunately, I have had stock MS ATC tell me to land on one runway and allow AI to takeoff the opposite direction. It's just a very buggy system. Hopefully Beyond ATC or others like it can change that.

I don't understand this thread at all. Yes, you have to use a plug-in, but ForeFlight works just like it should. You get traffic, runway alerts, airspace warnings, and anything you would in a plane. vbazillio mentioned getting runway alerts, but, just as your video shows, I get those runway alerts in ForeFlight in MSFS2020. 🤔 I use fs2ff.exe and it works perfectly. Its a 1,016 byte file. Certainly not using memory.

The reason I try and perform all landings with full flaps is because I've looked around online, and Comanche owners seem to say they always land full flaps. The V-Tail B-36 that A2A developed on the other hand was a different story; A large number of owners of the V-Tail said they land without any flaps, or maybe one notch.

I believe it's easier to land at higher speeds in the sim, whereas I am pretty sure you come in really slow and stall onto the runway. If I try to achieve a stall during landing, which is realistic, it's bopping up and down the whole time.

I have adjusted this as well. I just feel there's a tipping point with the trim. You push the trim down and three clicks (partial rotation of the crank on the roof) and nothing, then that fourth click and same animation on the roof crank sends you down about -500 fpm. It's not linear. And it's confounded by the fact that as you descend, you have to decrease the manifold pressure. My last flight I managed to keep the descent profile pretty consistent, but it was a delicate dance between power and trim and isn't easy to replicate. The landing was, however, still a bit "porpoisey". It's not like I can't perform a good flight and land well, but trying to achieve that nice stable flare without a level off or whatever is almost impossible. The Black Square I can kill the power and pull back on the yoke to gently nose up and touchdown with ease. As JF have said here about the upcoming Duke, the flight model is always contested by users. It's important to keep in mind the fact that hardware really impairs the ability to be accurate for every user. When I dumped the CH Yoke in FSX and bought the TM Boeing Yoke, it was night and day. I could bank a plane and still maintain a descent pitch. With the CH Yoke any aircraft I banked in would jump all over the place. The ability to control and keep stable in the air was so much easier with the TM Yoke. This is reflected in the Fenix A320. Most people are using the TCA Airbus sidestick, or similar design. On B2 releasing, real world A320 pilots with better hardware, like V1 Simulations, said it was good. Those of us with the TCA were floating like we were on the moon. So unfortunately it's all relative. I can manage with the Comanche, but I do feel the pitch is too sensitive.

The Duke in FSX was probably the best "in-air" flight model. You could bank in a climb or descent and not deviate too much from your pitch. The problem with a lot of aircraft in FSX/FS9 was that making a turn resulted in a dramatic loss of altitude. Yes, banking results in a loss of pitch, thus you need to add power or trim, but you don't just drop 1000 FPM. The difference between stability and instability, which is how previous MS versions handled flight dynamics - unstable. So it seems MSFS2020 manages to give you better stability in the air, better gliding dynamics, and better lift in turns. The Duke was very unstable, in my opinion, once your wheels were on the ground. Rollout on touchdown was always a sloppy ordeal. It's hit or miss with MSFS2020 and the various add-ons I have. Ground handling has always been a weak spot in MSFS.

I don't feel like the A2A flight dynamics are that great, in a general sense. The trim is way too aggressive and it porpoises when trying to flare. One or two clicks of trim and you go from -500 FPM to -800 or more. Very difficult to hold a vertical pitch attitude in descent. And once you cross the threshold to flare, the slightest pull of the yoke really cuts the pitch too much. I've dialed back my reactivity to like 5% and same for sensitivity, down very low. In some of my other aircraft, like the Black Square TBM, when you are on approach to the runway, you aren't aggressively trying to trim an angle every second. It'll hold very well, as does the Caravan from Black Square. The Black Square aircraft in general are much more "stable" in the air. Yes, the Bonanza and Baron are a bit too sensitive, but I can manage them better than the Comanche.

I've noticed it more lately too

I know, I have to chuckle at the EFB comments. I mean, stow the EFB and don't use it. You don't need to open the EFB to have a full-featured flight or failures. It's an extra level of detail you can use to learn from. And I find the latest TBM beta range to be fine. 🤷‍♂️

I use fs2ff. Shows traffic and it just a tiny little execute file. Works fine. https://github.com/astenlund/fs2ff/releases/tag/v0.1.14 It's on the ForeFLight list of approved apps. https://support.foreflight.com/hc/en-us/articles/204115275-How-do-I-connect-Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-2020-MSFS2020-to-ForeFlight

I would imagine it's due to electrical connection. If one switch on a bus fails you'd lose that light essentially. If all landing lights are on a single switch, you'd lose all landing lights. The outboard landing lights provide more lateral angled lighting, so it's probably not necessary to use them for landing. Most operators I've seen online seem to use all of the landing lights for landing however. It speaks to the nuance of SOPs in each country. In the US, icing/wing lights are used with landing lights to provide more visibility to other aircraft. In Europe, the practice in to not use icing/wing lights unless you are actually looking for ice or a wing/engine problem. I have also heard that some European operators switch off landing lights soon after takeoff, whereas the US practice is on below 10,000. In regards to the 737 Alaska lights, Alaska, Qantas, and probably some other operators have pulse lights installed for enhanced awareness for birds and other aircraft. I do think I've seen a Southwest 737 with them in the past. A good number of business jets have pulse lighting as well. I don't believe anyone knows if they provide any enhanced safety, they're just an option.