norman_99

I don't have a problem with your logic there, not trying to arguing that at all. But to state "if it has a pause function, it's not a sim" is just ridiculous, given every single $20M simulator has a pause function of it's own. They also have a function similar to the active pause being discussed. A function that is infinitely useful.

Hmmm, every Level-D simulator I’ve ever been in has a pause function. I guess they’re just a game too, not a sim.🤦‍♂️

Hmmmm...

Not much more to add than what cwburnett has already said. For some reason MSFS does need a slower than real life speed at touchdown to avoid floating down the runway. Whether this is due to the aircraft dynamics, or an overly strong ground effect I'm not sure. For reference, here is a card from one of our aircraft that shows takeoff and landing speeds, based on weight. (Kgs) Approach speed was held to 50', then reduced over the fence in the flare as power is brought off. Don't expect to hit these numbers correctly, but start from here and see if you need faster or slower. This was stuck onto the sun visor in each aircraft, and used for every takeoff and landing.

I can't believe I'm the only one receiving this message? I get it once a day, if I access the FS location C:\Users\***\AppData\Local\Packages\Microsoft.FlightSimulator_8wekyb3d8bbwe\LocalCache\Packages\... in windows explorer.

There definitely seems to be a concentrated effort to remove the “on rails” feel so many have previously complained about. The problem is the manner in which it has been implemented, as a generic, singular overall effect to the aircraft, rather than as a true, live aerodynamic simulation. I don’t care what you fly, if it’s a perfectly still morning, with no wind, everything feels like it’s on rails, from a 152 to a 777. This is because there’s simply nothing in the air to provide any disturbance to the airflow. In the past, the default turbulence model was so poor, that even with wind modelled, it was so steady that it felt on rails all the time unless you encountered a wind change or specifically set up turbulence. This was even more true if people only few with clear skies. Clear skies and no wind absolutely should feel on rails. It seems the fix now has been to make the aircraft more sensitive and twitchy, combined with a generic turbulence effect. Whilst there seems to be genuine improvements in turbulence modelling from things such as terrain, thermals, etc, these are really let down by the generic effect applies to all aircraft, regardless of the actual atmospheric conditions being simulated.

RW pilot with multiple 1000s of hours in C208s and B200s. In a nutshell, the turboprop simulation is the same poor model we have had for the last 15-20 years. Torque, ITT, Ng, RPM all responding incorrectly. They don’t have to hit real work figures, leave that for the 3rd party devs, but these values should at least move in response to the correct inputs, and in the right direction. At the moment they don’t. After 20 years, I was really expecting better here. The worst part is this severely hinders the ability of 3rd party devs to produce a realistic turboprop product. Unless they have the resources and skill to build a complete engine simulation external to MSFS 2020 (only 1 or 2 devs have this ability), they are stuck trying to fit their products into a broken system.

Real life level-d simulators have a position freeze function that allows the rest of the system to continue running in real time, without the aircrafts position moving. Particularly useful for when the crew are conducting non normal procedures, and when finished, receive vectors to begin an approach. This prevents unnecessary long diversions/vectors if a crew take longer to complete the relevant tasks than the instructor planed. Important when sim time is tightly scheduled. My guess is active pause was meant to simulate this ‘professional’ feature. Whether it does successfully I’m not sure.

And here I was thinking I’m the only person that favours analogue over glass. Firstly, it’s more challenging. Following the magenta line is easy. Teardrop NDB approaches and DME arc’s with nothing but an RMI actually test your skill level. I’d actually even prefer an old school GPS every now and then too. Maybe a KLN89B or the dreaded Trimble 2000. I’m probably an outlier her, as most people don’t even want 530s now the touch GTNs are available. Just as importantly, I want each aircraft to look and feel different. To almost have a personality if you will. When every aircraft I get in has a big Garmin PFD/MFD it takes the variety and fun out of having different aircraft. Analogue gauges inevitably have unique layouts, different brand/model instruments & radios. I remember absolutely loving the DA Cheyenne partly because they chose model some different models of instruments that hadn’t been seen before (including the Trimble). Once devs start porting over their products, I’m actually hoping Carenado make their B200 & C90 available. Sure, there’s newer and fancier (and arguably better) models around, with Pro Lines and big Garmins, but I just gotta have me some steam.

I’d bet the commercial interest in MSFS is more as an image generator incorporated into a larger system. It wouldn’t be used as the core system itself, just the fancy visual.

Also remember, it's widely acknowledged the sim was released 3-6 months before it was ready. Most of the really bad omissions/broken items will get fixed within this time frame.

Oh boy, this list could get big quick. I'll start with metric altimetry/weight/volume! How was this omitted? I'll leave the rest up to others.

No one else has seen this notification?

Ahh nice. I definitely never saw that GS indication. Must be user error.

Strange, at least that rules out some of the obvious causes.

Do you have failures enabled?

We'll need more info, like which aircraft. Sounds like you're running on the battery. You probably need to switch on an alternator or generator.

How far? Think earth and moon apart. There's literally no comparison other than the color of the flight deck.

Strange. I get the caution, but the autopilot never disconnects. Double check the PFD for "AP" after engaging the autopilot. This is the primary indication that it is engaged, not the light on the glare shield. I just ignore the caution for a few seconds whilst fine tuning the autopilot settings, then engage the yaw damper when I'm ready. The caution then extinguishes.

Yeah sounds good enough. I'm not familiar with the EX model so can't be too specific. Also, I'm not expecting default aircraft to hit book figures at all either.

I just replied in your other thread.

After engaging the autopilot (switch on the glareshield) look on your primary PFD, in the center, above the attitude indicator is your autopilot/flight director mode indicator. If it says AP, it's on. The yellow caution is most likely a Yaw Damper Off caution. Look on the central MFD, right hand side under CAS. All warnings and cautions are displayed here.

Yeah, the CDI was in LOC, but the course was backwards so there might have been something else going on too. I'd changed the loaded approach a number of times, this may have thrown too much at the GPS. I might give it a try again and see what happens.

1750 RPM and 1600-2000lbs, Keep ITT in the green. We had a cruise power table that referenced altitude and OAT, we set power off that. I'm not a precise in the sim, especially as the flight model is not that accurate in the first place.

Close, I use FSEconomy to load my aircraft for me, so I'm not exactly sure of the in sim payload. Just be careful with the flap retraction, as there is no flap 10 position, I recommend 85-95Kts up to 1000'. Make sure your at 95Kts before you raise the flaps, as they'll go from 20 to 0.