BrianW

I'd look in the load manager config and see if there's an option to use "Navigraph charts" and deselect it. I just installed the Maddog a couple weeks ago and although I do have Navigraph I don't use the charts feature in the EFB since I have a separate iPad for that. Pretty sure I never logged in via the website and it's working fine. Brian Edit: Just took a look and the option is "Enable EFB charts app" it's the very last checkbox.

Correct, on a KAP-140 it's the top right button labeled BARO. From the KAP-140 manual: "11. BARO SET (BARO) BUTTON - When pushed and released, will change the display from the altitude alerter selected altitude to the baro setting display (either IN HG or HPA) for 3 seconds. If pushed and held for 2 seconds, will change the baro setting display from IN HG to HPA or vice versa. Once the baro setting display is visible the rotary knobs may be used to manually adjust the baro setting if automatic baro correction is not available." Automatic baro correction is only available if it was installed with the remote barometer input option, other wise you need to adjust the setting in the AP every time the altimeter setting is changed.

My comment was only that some real autopilots reference an internal barometer, not the altimeter. If the baro setting in the autopilot doesn't match the pressure setting on the altimeter the altitude captured will be different from the altimeter reading. I don't own MSFS yet so I don't know if they've simulated it or not, but maybe worth a check specifically on the analog 172.

With some autopilots like the KAP-140 using a remote baro reading is only an installation option. If it's not installed that way you're required to set it on the unit itself. If there's a baro button on the autopilot have you tried verifying or setting it there?

Try C :\ProgramData\12bPilot\SODE\xml Should have a filename with taxi2gate and KSEA in it if I remember correctly.

Did you used to have the Taxi2Gate version installed? If so you'll want to check if an XML file for it exists in your SODE directory (typically \ProgramData\12bPilot\SODE\xml), and either rename the extension or remove the file from that directory.

I've found that the Pipers with stabilators have a lot less pitch authority at low airspeeds than Cessnas, especially if you have a forward CG. All of the Pipers I've flown have had some sort of ballast in the baggage compartment to help move the CG back, and I still usually have to have the yoke all the way back during the flare to keep from making a three point landing. One of my instructors was also our clubs maintenance manager. He would always like me to keep the nose wheel off the ground as long as possible during landing in an effort to reduce the number of shimmy damper replacements he had to do. So I know even without propwash you can keep the nose up till you get pretty slow in a 172. Ironically not getting the nose down is the thing I get nagged about most whenever I get a chance to use the 747,777,787 full motion sims.

Don't forget weight is a very important part of the equation too. Every little bit impacts both performance and operating cost.

I hope that's true. Very much looking forward to that one, especially if it does everything it says it will on the tin.

This can't be emphasized enough. Sensitivity is a moving target, the amount of input needed decreases as airspeed increases. In real aircraft this is accompanied by a larger force needed on the controls. Since most people don't have force feedback there needs to be a compromise with how sensitive it gets, but there still needs to be a feel of more sensitivity with more airspeed. I used to use a force feedback yoke with P3D and XPL, but stopped because I could make the controls stiffen with speed, but the amount of control needed was very close to the same throughout the flight envelope. So it always felt like I had control problems at high speeds.

It looks pretty good to me. To complete the effect though they need to have the mouse cursor randomly jump up or down a bit when you reach for a button or switch. Has anyone seen if the precipitation changes from rain to snow as you climb above the freezing level? This is something that really bothers me in the current sims.

Yeah, seems overdone on the airframe too. Almost like someone googled "icing" and used the pictures of cakes as a reference. As a side note the A320 doesn't seem that bad in this video, at least not for a default AC. This is the first video I've seen where the FD was even used, so it's nice to know that it works.

Agreed, and that was my point about even real pilots don’t always agree about how good a flight model is in a simulator. The feel doesn’t translate well from the real thing to the simulator so some of those procedural memories we’ve formed become more noticeable in the simulator, and others less so. You’re right I should have said cruise. 110 knots had no bearing to the point I intended to make.

I probably could have worded that better. I was more referring to the subtle handling characteristics, not anything that has a value associated with it. For example if you took a 172 pilot with no floatplane experience and had them do steep turns in a float equipped 172 they probably wouldn't expect the aggressive yaw, but they wouldn't challenge it as being "unrealistic" since it's really happening. If it was in a simulator you'd have some people saying they're 172 pilots and the flight model is way off. Same with roll in cruise flight, I've seen a lot of posts where someone complains that the plane wants to roll slightly in cruise. The real thing can do that too. As real pilots we know that each aircraft of the same make/model can even handle slightly differently. You can't say a 172 will always fly straight and level in cruise because frequently they don't. If you're lucky enough to be in one of the models with rudder trim you can compensate, but in other cases you're stuck either holding manual input or finding power setting that works with what's set on the fixed trim tab.

Sometimes you’ll find even people with experience don’t always even agree on what feels correct. I think a lot of how we respond to what an aircraft does becomes subconscious. While flying the real thing you don’t ever challenge unexpected handling as being accurate or not. I remember a few posts when the 172 came out about how it reacted to certain config changes, trim settings, etc. I thought at the time that maybe these people were correct because I didn’t remember a real 172 doing what they mentioned. So I went out and tested it in a 172S while paying special attention to these things. Much to my surprise the A2A was more accurate then how remembered the real thing even though I had flown the real thing only a few weeks prior.

No, you said there's no need for PMDG "if the planes are just as good", and I'm saying that "just as good" depends on who you are and what you know. Same is true for the real thing. A 747 is a 747, the amount of detail isn't usually going to change the start procedure too much unless it's really simple version. You can skip quite a few things without consequences in the sim though that you'd never do in the real thing.

Your original post stated if the planes were just as good why go for the PMDG version. All we're saying is it depends on who you are. If you're just looking for a reasonable representation of a 747-8 without much depth then that's probably true. I'm not sure how P3D is involved either since PMDG has made it clear they're bringing the 747 to MSFS. Remember you don't know what you don't know. Where you see a reasonable simulation, others with more experience around a 747-8 will see glaring inaccuracies or omissions. This isn't anything against the MSFS team, it's simply that they just don't have time to put those details that only a fraction of users would notice when there's other more noticeable things that need their attention. This has been true of default aircraft in every version of past simulators. PMDG is for people who want to be able to take a deeper dive into an aircraft, so you are clearly not their primary customer.

Exactly this... ..and this:

What's happening August 18th? 😏

Do you mean while using LNAV? If so that may be a bug, the bank angle selector should only apply to heading select, and VOR tracking modes.

Does the Duke have recognition lights? That's what you'd use on some aircraft that have the landing lights on the landing gear like the King Air.

They probably just realized they could fleece more users by including the CF6 with the 200 so that anyone who wants a CF6 freighter will need to get that expansion too.

Isn't the base pack a 300ER? Why would they release a JT9D for an airframe that doesn't use that engine?

Not only that but gear and slats/flaps moved from the right in the 757 to the center system in the 767. The demand pump is also just that and should operate as needed when in the auto position (like during gear and flap use). The PMDG 777 does model demand pump operation correctly for each stage of flight (including abnormals), but probably not something many of its users noticed either. Exactly, this is one thing that’s always bothered me when someone asks about the detail level of an add-on. There’s always a range of responses from good to bad. It also seems many equate the autopilot being able to accurately fly LNAV and VNAV enough to qualify as detailed systems, even if things like electrical or hydraulics systems are wrong or even missing. Like you said it’s always better to have the detail and not notice it than the other way around.

He's more than likely doing a visual approach so neither the RNAV minimums or missed approach procedure would apply. There's also a tower here, so what he did could have been in response to an instruction from them. I've been told to do a 360 on final before, not that low but it does happen. The bank angle only looks to be around 20-30 degrees too which is pretty standard when flying a pattern, and although hard to read his airspeed looks fine for flaps 30 maneuvering speed which I think is around 145 knots at that weight.