American 833 Heavy

Gerald, Not saying your slamming, far from it. I am glad you enjoy our product, and we sincerely appreciate your support and purchase. I was just simply pointing out to you that what you are doing is not standard for the 787. We have had the great fortune of having real world 787 pilots working with us and have verified our performance data, our Flight Dynamics developer is also an airline pilot. And it's "on the numbers' as they say. .82 is just ever so slightly slower than a typical cruise, actually a tad closer to a typical LRC Cruise speed on the airplane, but it's perfectly fine especially with a large tail wind as you noted. But there is really no fuel penalty to cruising at typical .84-.85 range, and you get there faster. It is not uncommon to reach the climb mach speed fairly close to the cruise altitude on the airplane. A unique combination of the aerodynamics, performance and typical cruise levels and speed for the airplane. It is also normal for there not to be a large gap in the difference between the VNAV MACH CLB speed and VNAV MACH CRZ speeds and is usually either the same or within .01 to .005 Mach. Most cruises on this airplane are in the .830 to .860 range. It can even do .860 - .870 no problem but that is faster than what is normally used. It's a fast airplane, one of its benefits and strongsuits. Just Planes has wonderful series of DVDs on the 787 where they occasionally show the PFD and FMCs, where you get a great sneak peak at 787 perf. The 787s target Mach speed above the Mach crossover point or when in a mach hold situation should not be less than .800 mach for standard flight. Anything less is definitely outside the ideal envelope. As I mentioned above its speeds are not too dissimilar than what a 744/748 uses, which is awesome. 311/.85 is not asking a lot, it's perfectly normal for the 787. It was the ideal lift over drag speed at the weight and cost index that was used. Lower than normal speeds in the climb segment cause higher drag due to a higher AoA and thus greater fuel burn. This is what the flight envelope is. The 787 sips fuel and has incredible wings and aero, it's truly unique. I am pleased that works for you and gives you the experience you prefer and enjoy. But consider letting it fly on the numbers. If you are heavy its normal for it to take 17 to 22 minutes to cruise. While on the topic of performance, another perf feature you also may find interesting incase you or others are unsure or confused about is the following : High Speed Climb, under 10,000ft 250+ KTS climb. If heavy enough the calculated the minimum clean climb speed by the FMC and VNAV will be greater than 250 kts. Heavy jets' maneuvering speed is often over 250kts. If the maneuvering speed is less than 250kts, VNAV will use 250kts for the climb under 10K and can comply with 250/10000. The 787 for its upper 3rd of its weight range's clean speed is slightly greater than 250kts and tops out in the high 260s kts for a MTOW climb. Those are the slowest possible "minimum clean" climb speeds under 10K. Once 10K is passed VNAV goes up to the full CLB Econ speed. This is all related to the ideal lift over drag speed. You often hear pilots at major international airports where these planes fly from once airborne request a High Speed for weight and performance reasons, as their FMC calculates this in the preflight. it is all but a formality and virtually always given for safety. Often times the controllers tell these airplanes "free speed" as they are aware of their performance needs being unable to climb at 250kts cleaned up. So just another little item I figured I'd mentioned related to performance for those unsure about it.

The 787 is not a 737CL. Using 737CL has a marker of expectation of 787 performance doesn't really make much sense. That's apples and oranges. The engines are far from max thrust. They are digitally controlled by a limiting system. VNAV climbs out at the CLB Thrust Ref. This is what our airplane does and is not different than say a 757/767 or 777/747. The 787 is a transonic airplane, not subsonic like a much slower 737CL. Our speeds are from real world 787 data we accumulated over a few years. It's much closer to B747/748 speeds than any other Boeing in the Climb/Cruise/Descent regime. Flying at those speeds puts you FAR outside of the 787s designed flight envelope. Do not modify the speeds unless you have a clear understanding of the 787's performance. That is correct you hit the Mach in the low FL300s as the 787 is cruising in the high 300s low 400s 90% of the time. The 737CL was probably if not the slowest jet commercial airliners of its size in the last 40 years. So that isn't a recommended baseline comparison to use as you noted you were close to the stall range.

That is so odd, in my humble opinion... judging by the fact the command sector on the EICAS well exceeded the max N1 ref position it's entirely possible that there may have been a stuck joystick axis input or interference of some kind with the USB axis' which can get easily bungled in Windows when you have lots of peripherals connected. When the A/T is in control on ours and on the real thing it will not, and should not command a throttle position beyond that of the N1 ref. Based on passed experience, it leads me to believe it was likely noise from the joystick axis due to a configuration conflict. Because when he switched to FLCH the FMA commanded HOLD during which should have idled the engines and pitched for the MCP window speed. We never ever encountered that type of FLCH anomaly in our very thorough testing of this update. In my judgment it looks like a controller conflict, which admittingly the gauge and FSUIPC should have ignored the axis when the A/T is on, but since the A/T was in a passive mode like FLCH idle it may have left it more vulnerable to a conflicting full throttle joystick axis position and it's likely what caused the issue. We'll certainty take a look things going in that area to tidy up any possible controller induced interference of the A/Ts function. Thanks for posting that. But it remains to be said he was far too fast for the stage of the approach he was on, I noted 260kts. Not only 10kts over the limit for an arrival but 20kts over the SOP default VNAV speed in the descent under 10K. At such a late stage in the approach it was well beyond the point of bleeding off speed with pitch given how close the airplane was to intersecting the extended centerline and IAF. The airplane does need speedbrake intervention under 10K when clean in certain weight configs and can be quite a slippery airplane. If you transition properly at 10K VNAV A/T will have you at 238-246ish at idle or just above it with the target speed being 240 until the constraints of the STAR further specify speed step downs or the approach fix speeds themselves and eventually the manual IAS is controlled when in a vertical approach mode like G/S or G/P. Approach planning, judgement and speed management is key. And since we don't yet model the very complex dotted speed/flap step down point marker algorithm, which dynamically displays and adjusts along the magenta track roughly between a few NM prior to the IAF and the FAF at the present time, pre configuring 10kts IAS step downs in the CDU between the IAF and the last fix of the STAR for VNAV is recommended or to do so manually via VNAV SPD intervene mode as appropriate on approach. Besides the real thing needs intervention from the crew all the time to keep the automation honest and be one or two steps ahead of it. It's never 100% bang on perfect in the real world either. And while our A/P is still being enhanced, the A/P and airplane is only as good as the knowledge of the person operating it on which modes to be in when and how to use them correctly.

In our next update we plan on having a feature that scans for your livery entries and gives you the option to save them if you are chosing the update method rather than clean install. But it's been this way since day 1. We apologize not being able to get it done in time for this update. In the interim I personally recommend backing up your aircraft cfg for the -8 and -9 before the update, then carefully simply ONLY add the livery entries of your old cfg into the new cfg. As Ben noted there have been quite a few changes so copying over the entire thing will erase part of the new FDE. Technically we wouldn't openly suggest what I'm saying but I'll put my customer hat here on and it's what I would do to save the liveries, especially if not all the liveries come from us. Doing so will work perfectly fine as long as none of the aircraft related entries are overwritten and just the FLTSIM entries are updated. If you don't want to edit the cfg or aren't comfortable (perfectly understandable) you have to reinstall via dispatcher but it can be batched all at once and can be done in moments as long as you have the original qwl files. I personally don't keep mine so I carefully do the manual copy and paste into the new cfg.

The only thing you are waiting for is another thread to libel us. Nice try. 1) The 787 has not been out for "years"... such would imply that the product has been around for a very very long time. More disinformation on your part, the P3Dv4 edition of the 787 is not even a year old. 2) They are not one of many attempted fixes, they are commitments from us as the developer to continue improving the product based on our development scope and from the wonderful and very helpful feedback of our customers. This is hardly unique to QW and holding that against us is absurd. 3) It's completely disingenuous to compare the 787 and 757 products and doing so is "fake news". The 757 was our FIRST product, was released in 2009 as an FS9 Product, development started on it in Late 2007 more than a decade ago... and was a upper lite level to mid level product with really top notch visuals for the era. It was never intended to be a "systems trainer" and the scope of that product and price point reflected this, we never hid from this and were VERY open about it. Development of the 757 ended long ago. So actually yes, you are being ridiculous. If you look at FS Addon history 90% of the time of product of this age has run its course and then some, but we are still bringing a P3Dv4 port as there are many people who enjoy something that looks good and is easy to get in and just fly. And even though that isn't our development philosophy anymore there are still those who enjoy a product like that. So instead of letting it die we chose a different approach. I sincerely think out an abundance of fairness to the community, particularly to those who may not be regulars and are less informed you should really think about recusing yourself from QW threads since it's very obvious how biased and unreasonable you are. You nitpick every thing to death and hold us to an impossible standard for what we charge. You continue to libel us spreading misinformation about things that aren't true, were intended to be a certain way and about things you have no clue about and aren't privy to. It's patently unfair that you continue to do this, as you continue to be outed by more members of the community everytime. Throwing in a little half hearted compliment at the end isn't fooling anybody. The act is up. Be an adult and give it a rest.

That is correct straight in GPS RNAV approaches and the associated IAN mode are modeled. RNP is not at this time. We are looking into adding RNP functionality in the future. Regarding EWR RW29 as a Northern NJ native and semi frequent listener to Newark tower over the last 10+ years I am very familiar with their ops. The KEWR RWY29 approaches, in real life they do NOT use any of the 29 RNP approaches because they go too far east and would make a mess of VFR corridor, they were overly optimistic approaches made by the FAA. So an RNAV visual approach was created about 6 years ago to replace the old ILS22L circle to 29 approach that is closer pattern. When the wind is strong out of the NW in the winter months, usually once or even twice a week, the Stadium Visual approach is performed out of the north which is an RNAV aided visual approach which is much tighter non RNP pattern. Once in awhile 1 or 2 crews will "accidently" deliberately fly the RNP Y for A/P guidance all the way down when the RNAV Visual is in use but the tower notices it everytime as they are much wider than normal and they tell them to go "direct to the numbers" you can hear the A/P disconnecting as the pilot acknowledges. On very rare occasions the "Bridge Visual" has been used from the south. The RNP Z has never been used at EWR. There as also a former Morris Ave Visual approach in which aircraft flew over head from the west over the Runway 4 numbers at 2500' and made a descending left hand circle for 29. It was used maybe only a handful of times in 8+ years it existed. They phased it out with the Stadium Approach. And lastly on calm clear days when EWR is landing 4R with a modest westerly wind they will also simultaneously land on Runway 29 via the GPS X-Ray approach only for southern arrivals to reduce congestion and bring in more planes between 1PM and 4PM local time. So as you can see, all of the real life approaches used are the non-RNP ones. RNP is a vert important navigational feature, I agree, but it remains a niche approach around the world reserved for only the most necessary and challenging environments like Alaska for example. BTW BA 787s fly the stadium approach all the time into EWR when its in use. Try it it's much more fun than the boring and elongated RNP procedure.

Wow tough crowd. I normally don't like to do this while the community is doing their thing, but I felt I needed to address a few items. Couple of things : - We are not a 1 one man outfit, it's a little insulting (at least to me) that anyone can think one single person can put out a product remotely anywhere close to the feature set of the Ultimate 787. Especially considering how hard we have worked on this product and continue to do so. - Since we are a team, we all work on our respective areas, with lots of coordination of course. Now just because we are announcing PBR and putting out an update that includes it, doesn't mean everything else not related to PBR (A/P, Aircraft Systems, FDE etc etc) comes to a screeching halt and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. - This is NOT a PBR only update, I think many of you will be pleasantly surprised some of the things we are including in this update. - We have decided against less frequent larger updates, and are pursuing more frequent smaller updates to move things forward to improve the end user experience, especially for some items that require addressing as quickly as we can. - There are lots of things we are working on and continue to work on with the 787, namely areas that are repeated over and over again in this thread in the Product Improvement Pack (PIP) as well as the 787-10 - Developing complex addons is NOT easy, it takes thousands of hours and years of development, research, debugging and just plain hard work - We think the 787 is an incredible value for what is offered. Especially considering you have literally nothing to lose with a 30 day no questions asked refund policy. - There are some of you on here that do not own our product, yet go out of the way everytime somebody brings up our product on threads here to tell them how bad you think it is. Give it a rest already, we get it you don't like our product and that's fine, we aren't perfect nor do we claim to be. But don't engage in misinformation or going off an tangents about things you have no idea about regarding who we are, how we operate as a group or what are or aren't our priorities. I'll bet 99 out of 100 items we already know about behind the scenes. - Everyone take a deep breath it is not all doom and gloom over at QW lol. If you own our product we thank you, there are lots of new and exciting things coming including many improvements and optimizations. So stay tuned.

Great news! I really enjoyed this one and was always thought it was a shame it hasn't been updated to v4. Thanks for sharing that workaround temporary fix to make it usable in the meantime! 😎

We are glad that you enjoy them.

The 757 is being ported over to P3Dv4. Right now we are working on an update for another product and prior to that we were working on getting the 146 update out the door. It is on the to do list and we'll get it out as soon as we are able to.

The keyboard input was designed for US Standard keyboards. AVSIM is not a QW support forum, for product support please visit our forum.\ Thanks.

QualityWings products do not use TSS sounds. They are custom made in house for every product we make.

The VNAV approach the ARJ airplanes can fly are of the former standard used up until recently, without IAN or LPV type capability. And no RNP/ANP for lateral nav. Basically the same capability 1980s era Boeing had up until they were very recently retrofitted with newer FMCs. So VNAV approaches are flown as a VNAV/LNAV coupled approach on the ARJ aircraft aka a GPS RNAV Approach. Ensure/verify that the altitude constraints are correctly set in the FMC after selecting the approach and set the MCP for Minimums or the FAF altitude. This will give you vertical guidance from the STAR, IAF and down to the Final Approach Fix. At the FAF VNAV should be disconnected as there is no Map Waypoint to follow the 3 degree angle down to the runway automatically and the ARJ is not IAN capable like a modern Boeing or Airbus, so the minimum will be higher. These are 1980s era airplanes through and through. Ignore the GPS button, that button has no function (Only for Beginners) unless the airplane is changed from the default realistic mode to lite mode which allows less proficient users to do things such as use the default gps/flightplanner for lateral navigation instead of the FMC. The legacy BAe models, including the Hybrid -300 model only have an advisory VNAV provided by the FMS (if the perf data is configured) and the descent rate has to be controlled manually by the A/P pitch datum or a fixed V/S rate hold... the full VNAV and full authority A/T is only available on the ARJ models. So BAe can't fly VNAV or a VNAV approach automatically all the way down without precise manual planning and control, a lot more fun if you as me 🙂

There is nothing lacking about his 2700x infact the single threaded performance is comparable if not on par with 7th gen i7s. And overclocked with SMT off even better performance can be attained. The Ryzen 3000s middle high tier line will equal the 9900k in IPC. They showed off at CES a mid tier model that equaled the 9900k in single threaded benchmarking. The 16 core version will be even faster. OP, I use Threadripper (2990WX) but same tweaks for both platforms work nearly the same. Ryzen likes fast and tight ram. Make sure your ram is running at the fastest possible and tighest possible timings. Make sure you have the latest BIOS as well so you have the latest AGESA updates. I highly recommend trying to run the XMP profile for your ram. If it doesn't post you can almost always get it manually. Also set your Windows power settings to high performance.

Looks very nice. I'll definitely be buying this. Welcomed upgrade to the FSX portover of the long defunct AMS MMUN I had been using. Was the previous best Cancun and for some reason was only on sale for a very short period of time. The night lighting of the runways and taxiways doesn't look particularly great on this one, perhaps that's something that can be improved in an update. It's great to have devs like Fsimstudios around to cover these often overlooked airports. I've purchased all of them over the years, really glad I did as some of their works like Portland (Maine), Ottawa and Easter Island aren't available anymore!!

I don't think there is any elevation of the runways simulated in the imaginesim KATL scenery at all. Definitely not in the 2016 version I have. And judging by the screenshots of the newer V4 2018 version on their website, even in that version the whole airport is all flat including the runways. Hopefully FT can pull this off, it is a very distinctive feature of ATL, not just the elevated runways relative to the taxiways on the terminal side of the airport but ATL has some distinctive slope and gradient to those runways and taxiways. I am no fan of XPlane for various reasons, but one feature about it that I wish was present in the ESP platform is the sloped airport elevations and runways/taxiways. At an airport like ATL and CLT where the runway is elevated above the taxiways and there is a slope on the runway taxiway turnoffs can be implemented faithfully in XP using native development methods. In the past custom sloped airports in FSX/P3D like Sucre Bolivia by LatinVFR were certainly welcomed and good attempts but were always glitchy and clunky in operation with surface not being 100% aligned with the contact points of the simobjects.

Very nicely done!

Lots of misinformation being thrown around.... So taking off my developers hat here for a second, and from a purely personal perspective : iFly makes a darn good product. They are a very talented outfit. If you take your f.a.n. b.o.y. glasses off for a split second, you'll be able to see that. FWIW iFly properly simulates RNP with actual Radius to Fix legs with their L/R Arc and distance. It doesn't use fake placeholder wpts to draw RNP arcs. That is an impressive development feat. They also simulate GLS and GBAS as well on the 737 too. Not sure about the -8 but I know the real thing, like the 787 is GBAS capable. Kudos to iFly on putting out another spectacular product.

If you add up the percentages of people that use the core ESP platform, FSX, FSX Steam and P3D. Where mind you, there is lots of addon interchangability. It still enjoys a healthy lead in share over XP. So I think it's a little misleading to say XP is even. I think it's good that there is truly now more than ever legitimate competition out there. For P3DV4 XP11 head to head, I agree it seems to be close to even, but P3D is still ahead a bit for core frequent users. XP still seems to have less of that core loyal following. But it's clear that pretty soon it will be 50/50. And that is fantastic for a vibrant and strong community. Now, not to turn this into a XP debate but just a few of my thoughts on the sim in general. As someone who has simmed 20+ years and developed for last 15. I have tried X-Plane a few times starting v5 (awful) and v10 and a little bit in v11. It has REALLY come a long way. But this is my PERSONAL opinion. P3D properly configured just blows it away in look and feel, completeness of scenery and the overall shaders and graphics. XP still has this very fakish look to it for me. Many of its airplane addons this is especially prevalent in VCs just the look of gauges, LCD panels just look "off" compared to a comparable addon VC in ESP engine. And for me they need to figure out the whole global scenery thing better. To have an integrated solution like P3D and FSX do with full coverage without needing 1+ TB and buying all those DVDs or extras. While it does have some nice customization with flight models. Some stuff is outrageous even on large jetliners like the absurd soft shocks bouncing up and down on runways and exaggerated tipping side to side movement that looks like you are in a lowrider with hydraulics or an NYC Taxi Crownvic with 20 year old shocks! I have seen this behavior constantly in XP and XP airplanes in general. How people think that is realistic, I don't know, obviously that doesn't bother them. But to me it's a deal breaker in the realism factor. Large jets don't move around like that. While P3Ds ground physics (or lack there of honestly) is certaintly on the stiff side, it portrays something closer to reality as far as stability than XPs behavior in this area is like IMHO. Other things though like the wonderful native implementation of sloped airports and runway and Taxiway surfaces in XP is simply FANTASTIC. Just the physics and bouncing on these surfaces, not so much lol. I really hope we see something similar with native slopes in P3Dv5. That sloped feature is a BIG deal and it's features like that will continue to draw folks to XP. A big part of many airports around the world is there unique slopes on surfaces. Like Atlanta or CLT with it's raised taxiways and slopes on runways turns offs. Or famous elongated slopes like at Zurich. That is really cool stuff and major component missing in P3D. Now the look of autogen, vegetation and especially in urban areas in particular looks more realistic and believable in P3D than in XP. XP though can look quite good in mountainous or desert areas. It's just the urban areas or suburbs that arent very compelling even with vector landclass. Night lighting out the box stock sim with airports does look a little nicer in XP11 than P3D. But with proper addons with nice DL and improved lighting effects... not to mention airports like Latin VFR KMIA or DD EBBR this lighting effect is available in P3D now. And lastly the lack of a NATIVE truly dynamic sound engine is also a downside. XP needs to use custom software for each airplane i.e. FMOD to get FSX/P3D style fully dynamic engine sounds. XP sound engine only allowed 1 engine sound each for inside and 1 for outside. With no control SDK. The XP sound engine would just take that 1 sound and modulate the pitch over engine rpm. On the scientific front of utilizing the latest hardware potential and overall optimisation I think XP enjoys a big lead here. Partly due to the very inefficient and poor coding LM has had to slowly tear away over the years of the base FSX engine. That still to this day does not properly utilize hardware like modern games do. I have high hopes for P3Dv5 and ideally DX12 that is not so single threaded dependent and greatly shifts that workload to use the GPU and multithreading on CPUs. Especially important as thanks to AMD Ryzen, Intel reacting to this, the main stream is now 4 to 8 cores and increasing fast. Soon over 10 cores will be normal for most. So DX12 is important to work with this properly. In the end this great for our hobby. For us P3D developers and users alike. It will push LM to innovate and put out the best possible product. I think in 2-3 years as XP matures more and works out some of the grievances I have with it, it will be extremely compelling to try again on a personal level. But as veteran long term MSFS and P3D user/developer, I will always wait and see what my beloved and familiar platform has to offer first. Thanks to Navigraph for conducting this survey. They did a great service to all.

In No particular order. Quite simply : Visuals, Flight Dynamics and System Fidelity. All of which are vastly superior on this Diamond than the Carenado by all accounts. Looks like a really nice plane. I'm just a little surprised myself how much attention it's getting. I didn't know there were that many folks into GA. Congrats to Vertex, looks like a real work of art. I will likely pick it up soon.

That is a great chip Jim! Lucky you! I'm surprised you had issues with that. The high ipc of that chip and really all the i7 Intel K series' are so well optimized for P3D.

For all you Ryzen and Threadripper guys out there... On my current TR 2990WX I have seen virtually no difference between SMT (HT on AMD) On or Off in P3D. Maybe slightly less pauses in Heavy Duty scenery areas with SMT off but this might be a placebo. Personally I keep SMT off to keep the workload from being spread over too much but also since I OC it less power draw OCing to 4.1GHZ with SMT off as well. Works well. Ryzen 7 and lesser core TR's SMT off way to go as well. Ryzen 5s I'd leave SMT on to not bog down the cores as there are far less cores on the 5s. Biggest thing though is due to the nature of AMD's Infinity Fabric is ensuring an adequate RAM speed. Sweet spot is around 3200mhz with tight timings. Higher speed at higher latency is virtually a wash on the Ryzen/TR's above 3200. Unless you can manage 3466/3600 at CL15/CL16 then it is worth it. But the latter is very hard to achieve on the x399 chipset. For you Intel i7/i9 7th to 9th K series guys (vast majority of users) seems like the consensus is definitely HT Off for the most part. I wonder if any of you that are running 18+ Core Extreme Edition chips. You may have a similar experience to me that HT On/Off there is basically no difference.

Yes I am using Active Sky but weather in my tests has been clear and little to no wind all. In the same situation testing in same weather post FDE update I was able to keep the airplane on the runway with the rudder. I have done 3 uninstall/reinstalls of this thing already. Restarting my PC in between each time and ensuring no residual files were left over post uninstall prior to reinstalling. It's just the lateral control. The vertical A/P control works fine. I don't have this issue with any other aircraft and also do not have this issue with any of the other Carenado/Alabeo aircraft either. People have reported similar issues regarding this. So it's not just me. I'm on W10 and also have a registered version of FSUIPC installed, but use default P3D for setting controller axis'. I use SPAD for my Saitek Multipanels which work flawlessly with any airplane that uses the default autopilot like Carenado planes. I even disconnected my multipanels to ensure it wasn't any interference and it made no difference. I always control the A/P using the MCP in the VC. I just don't get it. Totally stumped on this one.

Thanks Bert! So I updated to the new FDE and installed your mod and it is slightly improved but still completely unusable sadly. I have no such issues with any of my other Carenado and GTN equipped aircraft. None of them have this issue with the A/P Lateral Axis. Even in heading select mode it has the same issue. It weaves back and forth hunting the heading and eventually it just flys in circles and rolls completely over and goes into a dive. It will do the same thing in Nav mode from the GTN and it doesn't seem to follow the F/D at all. When heading mode or nav mode is off, the vertical control of the A/P such as V/S, Alt Capture and other modes work perfectly. It's just the A/P lateral tracking is completely shot and totally disfunctional. The airplane now hand flies beautifully however with the FDE update. And the rudder authority issue and torque issue on the takeoff roll is fixed. The AoA and flap lift/drag scalars seem much more realistic and the engine start ITT and Torque spiking is eliminated as well. It's a shame because this is actually a really nice rendition of the PC12 with the mods and FDE update. But I can't get the A/P lateral control to function at all. Frames during these occurrences have always been well above 40-50 fps. I have tried uninstalling and reinstalling and it doesn't seem to fix the issue unfortunately. I'll keep trying. Others that have this issue seem that they just gave up on it. It's probably a fault in the PC12s A/P code interacting with the default A/P is probably out of whack. Shame as I was looking forward to flying this bird during my spare time. Anything else anyone is aware of that could fix this issue?

Just tried doing a quick flight in this bird from 5B2 to KCDW. I have the F1 GTN installed. When I engaged Nav mode the airplane just started weaving left and right hunting the track with no logic. Bank reached 35 degrees and I'd have to disconnect the A/P. Tried conitinuing the flight the HDG select mode only and the same thing it just weaves and hunts the course badly. Even if I turn it manually and line up the heading and engage heading mode it starts veering off course and banking very steeply. I did a clean install with the latest installer from simmarket and still does this odd behavior. Another thing I noticed is the rudder doesn't have enough authority to overcome the torque steer from the engine on takeoff. It veers left everytime past 60kts and full right rudder does nothing, it just prevents it from veering off more. Just wondering if there are fixes available for any of these issues. Thanks guys.