Nemo

There is a problem with the "mixture" at higher altitudes, which is not correctly modeled. I turned Auto Mixture on (in the Assistance menu). Since then I don't have any power/speed problems. Before, I could not even take off at some higher altitude airports with shorter runways. I know it is less realistic but it is not a study level a/c either. I guess I can live with this until the a2a models arrive in MSFS.

I supported MSFS with my wallet and I feel eligible to criticize things which I don't like.

There's a difference of "bashing" forum members or a technical product.

and the bashing of critics begins again ...

Let's focus on mesh again. It's not only aboute spikes here and then and I agree it is much better now. It's about mountainous areas in general. Many detailed mountain shapes are missing and mountains (peaks) are way too rounded in many areas. So yes imo, a 3'rd party mesh addon is really missing. If MSFS does not improve world wide mesh by its own terms, then they should allow others to to so.

Venice PG looks really good. Main problem I see, are modern cities with many skyscrapers which look ugly on approach. London seems to be be a positive exception.

very good, nominal 250 real 150-180 MBit.

Yeah, good idea, will check Venice (Italy). I'm only wondering why some PG renditions look so ugly while others do not.

Did you try the latest MSI AB beta version as I suggested?

Normally I have PG off. But after World Update III and UK update I wanted to give it another try. To my surprise London city looks absolutely stunning during my short trip from Wycombe to London City airport. So I tried another flight in Vancouver area. Flying from Pitt Meadows towards Vancouver City was again a big disappointment. Vancouver City popped up relatively late and then again those pyramid or tent like buildings until I was pretty close. Too bad. Is it normal to see such big differences when it comes to photogrammetry?

On your third picture I'm seeing that you don't have a P3D specific profile. Maybe that's important? I have a related setup and in my case MSIAB/RTSS is running fine but I'm using MSIAB v4.6.3 b5. I guess you've read the RTSS thread on the next side.

That's what I did too. Reducing both entries by 50% and my flight/landing experience is now like it was before WU3..

deleted

@ Mods Please, combine the two threads about the flight model issues?

I have changed both, and could perform a smooth landing approach with 90-86 kts (full flaps) with nose slightly up, landing with 84 knots with just a bit of flare necessary. I cannot judge how realistic this was because I came back to MSFS only some weeks ago and flying the TBM9300 just for one week before the new update arrived. But for me this is now close to what I experienced just before the MSFS update.

That's my question too.

For the unmodded TBM930 it means to set lift_coef_flaps = 1.03210 to 0.51605 in the [AERODYNAMICS] section lift_scalar = 1.64 to 0.82 in the [FLAPS.0] section ??

Which one? Where do I find those settings?

Will v 0.5.7 cure the reported floating issue during landings which arrived with the latest MSFS update?

Has there ever been an update which did not break something?

It's open again.

Friday Harbor (KFHR) which has been added with World Update II has now small issues after today update: Some of the blue taxi/runway lights are now placed in the middle of the taxi ways. Should not happen with an internal HQ airport. I wonder why an update for Europe could cause this. Or could it be because of new navdata?

No. ORBX would not touch it and layering occurs within P3D automatically.

... but it works with MSFS. That means Navconnect, Firewall, ... all good. What could be the problem or better to be asked, why does MSFS connect but P3D does not? Edit: Got it sorted. It seems to be mandatory to quit and to relaunch LittleNavmap Connect when one want to switch between the sims. Not sure this is the best way but it seems to work.