Orlaam

It's the Premium version, made for 2024 only.

I didn't clean the WASM folder, but it was a fresh install because the latest version requires it. I'll try it again at some point. Hopefully I can get it to work.

How are you getting better performance? The iFly, Fenix and all my Black Square products are fine in 2024, even with add-on airports. The A300 will dip to 20 FPS when I switch from external to internal views and it's always very low in normal conditions. It's also buggy. You still can't use the COM for ATIS, and the AP would not work last night even though I had all the ATS switches on overhead. It worked well in 2020. I just removed it, it clearly isn't going to work for me in 24.

It's hit or miss. I'd say 50% of the time I can get an ATIS on the radio, but for the times it doesn't work I just use the tablet or another source for the METAR.

The A300 in 2024 is the worst product I've bought in ages. It was buggy in 2020 but functioned decently, however, performance and problems in 2024 make it worthy of nothing short of an uninstall. It was a cheap upgrade, but I'm still sorry I spent the money either way.

It's happened before. You can enter the data for takeoff into the EFB manually.

You can often accumulate a great bit of ice and not "fall out of the sky", lol. For me, in 2024, they need to fix the night lighting. It's way too bright. The bloom is so bad that a single light source lights up everything around it. Some cities are bright, yes, but I shouldn't be seeing mountains that look like they have a WWII search light pointed at them. Landing lights create a haze in front of you. It's ridiculous.

I feel like Nick said a TBM custom sound set would be created at some point, but I'm not sure. He is working on a lot of new titles at the moment and Boris is his sound guy. With the Cessna Caravan, Bonanza and Baron, it's a lot of create and update.

AIRAC database update

I like this little airport, but I was interrupted on my only flight in with a phone call. Annoying. I did notice the ILS for 30R never came alive. Has anyone else had this issue? I do get some stutters as assets load, so it's a bit heavy on performance, but it's usable.

You have just negated this video in the OP. How do you know he isn't the one posted inaccurate information based on his "experience"? Again, it boils down to my original point: Pilots are ultimately responsible for planning descents and not relying 100% on computed VNAV. Even A320 Pilot has said as much. People need to stop nitpicking and chiding Fenix as the top Airbus on the market. It's like a vocal minority want to punish Fenix for being the top Airbus in MSFS. Fenix have pushed out more significant updates and included more models than anyone else for no cost. 90% of the developers in this community would have charged for some of it and most certainly charged for the 2024 package. At least Fenix are continuing to improve their add-ons, while many others will just tell you you are wrong or ban you for suggesting the product was flawed. I've been in this hobby since 2002 and do my own research, as anyone should. I don't think several products that others claim are the best are good.

V1 Simulations says he doesn't feel like it's a problem. He has said many times the VNAV is terrible in real life. You have to plan ahead and be proficient at handling the plane. He has commented on this video. Yes, the Fenix is probably a bit deficient in calculating the path effectively, and Fenix is reworking the VNAV. However, abnormal conditions occur in all situations (vectors, steep descents via ATC, weather/wind). The same applies to the Boeing 737. I know pilots who have had to extend flaps on the STAR and even lower the gear beyond the IAF. Sim pilots tend to assume these aircraft are all perfect at predicting wind, ATC/FMC flight plan changes, or other factors that affect performance.

To the best of my knowledge Black Square is just waiting on SU3 to drop to release the newer 2024 compatible aircraft. It sounds like many of them are ready, but Asobo keeps breaking things in the code with their unpolished sim. So, once SU3 provides a stable coding, Nick will release new aircraft. This might break the Starship temporarily as well, so he'll have to tweak it as well.

The Starship has a tendency to roll quite a bit on takeoff. Nick didn't find that information in his production of the aircraft, so it isn't represented in the flight characteristics. He was presented this information by another user on the JF forums and if I had to guess, he might include some yaw changes in the an upcoming update. I'm not sure how that all works from the programming perspective, so I can't speak to whether or not he will include that yaw effect however. Normally, yes, you would dial that trim in to counter the yaw.

Quite a few things will help. Hardware. You don't realize how much hardware matters until you get something decent. Personally, I find a good yoke important, along with pedals. I can do the Airbus thing with a side stick, but it's not the same for some reason. Also, some aircraft are horrible with the flight dynamics. The A2A Comanche is a very difficult plane to land imo. I've only used it in 2020, but the wind effect is not easy to deal with, and speed must be dialed in perfectly. I don't find it too enjoyable because it is so difficult. Also, I find 2024 to be much better in terms of wind control and centerline tracking. Now the default Cessna 408 seemed to be decent for being forgiving. I've flown it once, I just dislike the G1000/3000 integrations. I like the Cessna 404 as well. The Cessna 152 is decent too, although I can tip over in turns (not exceedingly unrealistic). The Longitude and CJ4 are great. Haven't messed with anything else default to comment much. I know the C208 was a floating joke in 2020, so I doubt it's changed. I really like the Black Square flight dynamics, but they have only released the Starship in 2024. It is a slightly harder plane to land, as you can't kill power and not float forever or drop like a rock. I love the Starship myself. The Black Square developer is working on a new Baron and C208. Those will be great. Hopefully the Duke will be ported over to 2024 as an official update. It's a phenomenal add-on in 2020. His planes are more complicated though. I heard the COWS is a great add-on as well. Not sure if it's 2024 compatible yet. I also advise against land-rate monitor tools. They seem to be very unrealistic and set unrealistic expectations. Looking at an outside replay is a much more reliable way to just see how the landing appears.

It's the children of magenta effect that is so pervasive in aviation now. People want as much automation as possible. They don't want to put in the work for flight planning, hand-flying, older navigation methods, or accepting the realism they claim they desire. Folks are asking for metric units, but it seems the Starship was never fully made with metric units. They can't be bothered to convert from pounds to kilograms. They want flight plan importing, which is not realistic in a GA plane. They want GPS units that were never installed in the real aircraft. I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone ask for a HUD, lol. At the end of the day, the Starship is not hard to preflight or program for a flight. It is not hard to fly. It uses GPS to navigate from point to point. You are not obligated to use VOR, NDB, VLF, or any other method to get around. You can even create temporary waypoints with the joystick on the panel below the MFD while editing your flight plan. It is just a unique aircraft that attempted to break many barriers in a time when the aviation community was still stuck between old and newer technologies of navigating.

I watched V1 Simulations walk-through video with Nick, then used it as a guide along side with the aircraft to learn the various pre-flight steps. It only took about 3 flights before I figured out things enough to feel comfortable. Some aspects are strange. You start the engines in the feather position, not full forward on the props. But starting up is so easy. Also, you can program your flight plan in the FMS and switch off the avionics for the start-up then when you re-power the avionics, the flight planning will still be there. It also has a VNAV advisory in the FMS, so you pick a waypoint, place an altitude, and it'll give you the FPM required to end up there. I usually just put the FAF in and follow that as a guide down. The plane has weather radar and a customized terrain mode, so you select GND on the weather page, make sure auto-tilt is selected and it'll paint the terrain as you fly. I recommend watching V1's video with Nick to see how things are expected to be done. It's well worth it to get a video tutorial that speeds up your learning curve. I have flown maybe 15 times or something and I rarely need the checklist. Interestingly, the checklists are in the MFD as well, you just need the avionics on to view them.

The Starship is not something I would have had any interest in either, but it was a Black Square product and the cockpit looked so unique. It was a day one purchase for me and I have flown it quite a bit since. It seems daunting to learn in the beginning since it is so unlike many other aircraft, but once you learn the basics and flight plan entry, it becomes very easy. The FMS is rather simple. You just enter a departure airport, your desired waypoints and arrival airport. The difference is that if you pick an APP, it'll wipe your current flight plan and replace it with the APP. I just program the waypoints for the approach manually so I don't lose my plan to the IAF. There is probably a trick to activating the APP at the end of the flight plan, but I haven't attempted that yet. Also, you do not have SID/STAR support or Simbrief import. People have complained about that, but Nick at Black Square was trying to replicate the real aircraft, and you would not have a datalink on a GA aircraft, nor would you use SID/STARs. You must enter all the waypoints manually. You also do not have a TCAS. Again, this is a GA aircraft. The GNS430 is installed, by choice, and you can use it for TCAS and navigation, but that is not realistic IMO. Several parts of the Starship are similar to the King Air, since it was originally designed to replace the King Air. In some ways, the Starship is very modern and in other ways it's very dated. I love the CRT glass, FMS, aerodynamics, and other features. It handles very well hand-flying. The soundset is Boris Audioworks. If you can accept that it is a GA aircraft from the 80s and uses older technology to perform certain tasks, it will be a pleasant product to fly. I think the flight planning and FMS programming aspect is what people complain about the most. They want simply import of Airbus/Boeing flight plans and easy/fast pre-flighting. Just understand that you have to enter all waypoints (with your keyboard if you wish), and the plane is largely designed to fly ILS or visual only. It is not certified for RNAV approaches, but nothing prevents you from entering RNAV waypoints in and doing lower visibility approaches. Some quirks are that the Starship is very hard to slow down. Preferably descend 1,200 or less from TOD. You will build speed if you exceed ~1,200 FPM in a descent. You have one flap position you can select at 180 (gear at 200). Vapp is around 120. You also must get as close to the runway and gracefully fly it onto the runway. It reminds me of the Dash-8. If you cut the power at 50 feet or even 20 feet, you will just drop and slam down. If you keep too much power and speed you will float. I like to keep the speed around 100 knots over the threshold and slowly flare letting it settle down. It isn't hard to land well, but it isn't your typical gliding plane that requires cutting the power in the flare. It also eats a lot of runway during takeoff, so it isn't appropriate for short fields at all. Landing is a little better if you get down early and use reverse thrust.

Looks good. Does that plane have the extremely annoying woodpecker trim? lol ETA: Looks like it's just clicking sounds, nothing terrible. I'm excited for this.

It looked horrible on their stream a few weeks back. The user was having so many stutters. No sounds either. Seems a little suspect to be coming soon.

The Majestic developer had said a year or so ago that he no longer had a modeler. The systems were largely done, but his previous model person left the team. Kinda hard for them to push a product when no one can help them finish it. Hopefully now that we see a model in production they can complete it.

I love the iFly, even though some systems depth is missing. The only problem I have in general at the moment is with the AP. V/S does not follow your guidance at all. Dial in -2500 FPM and you're lucky if the plane will descend at -2000. The other problem I have is with the AP going to sleep. Last night I dialed in 8000 feet and let VNAV capture. A couple miles from the fix I dialed in 5000 feet. Crossing that fix with the 8000 restriction the plane just stayed level. ALT INV didn't force it to descend, reengaging VNAV didn't force it to descend. So I attempted to V/S to hurry to the next restriction. Dialed in -2000 and it just wobbled around then switched to LVL CHG by itself. It did not follow any instruction I gave it. I had the A/T once stopped responding too. The speed just kept bleeding off no matter what. Those are fundamental problems that shouldn't happen with any add on. I used the PMDG for years, along with dozens of add on aircraft from FS2002 forward. I've never had problems like that.

Ahh yes, under the airspeed white arrow (175), you can drop approach flaps and gear, then in the white line (135) you can extend full flaps. It is strange such a simple aircraft would prevent you from lowering the gear, but it does lol.

The problem with the complete cloud-based sim design is it excludes those with slower connections or data caps. It makes sense to have visual data needed for photogrammetry, 3D object placement, weather injection, traffic and so forth to be streamed. However, with MSFS2020, you could fly "offline" and despite looking bad, it worked. You also don't eat tons of data or worry about internet slowing. With 2024 they're forcing you to exceed data caps in some places and suffer image loss due to poor speeds. Some folks have said they simply can't obtain internet needed to run such a sim, so how is that okay? Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. There was no reason to force a new sim onto a cloud-based system. Anyone who complains about disk space for exchange is foolish. You are forced to have an expensive computer, but you wanna complain about disk space when SSDs are not expensive? That is attainable to anyone who has access to the game, but good internet is not ubiquitous.

That is pretty strange. I feel like MSFS is plagued with random bugs we never had before. Things just stop working or don't work correctly. I've seen a number of reports of people having aircraft just stop functioning and nothing fixes it, short of maybe a total reinstall.