cowpatz

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. The pop up seems to be a great solution. Using MTOW for all airfields would be quite limiting without it. Great news about the job prospects. Best of luck.

Out of interest what reference and factors are used to assess the Take off distance required? I looked at routes within an hour of EGFF (Cardiff) in the iFly738-8200 and it came up with insufficient take off distance. It seems fine using the Simbrief Take off performance tool. Loving this tool and thanks so much for creating and continually improving it. Any luck on the job front?

I'm patiently waiting for Sarah Conner to beam back from the future.....any day now 😊

To be honest I didn't even know that there is a military version of the Dash.

That is a shame. The Q400 is missed by many and there seems to be no comms from Majestic on whether or not this will actually be upgraded for MSFS. I can't see military version really filling that void. Limited liveries and scenarios. If Majestic are developing it, but slowly, then they run the risk of going the way Eaglesoft has with their Citation X750 development. It is taking soo long that they are at least 2 platforms behind with it being for FSX and P3D (I don't even think it's going to be compatible with P3Dv6). Technology changes have left them behind as well as their very odd choice of navdata provider.

Crosswind landing technique is one of those bar room topics and each have their own ideas. Turbo prop technique may be quite different to a jet with low underslung engines. Obviously the more time spent decrabbing prior to touchdown means more time spent possibly drifting off downwind and with “crossed controls” making corrections awkward . Technique does tend to vary with the degree of crosswind component. In a medium to heavy jet in light winds you can decrab and wing down (if needed) relatively easily, but when approaching the max demonstrated limit a lot more comes into play. To decrab at the last minute would required significant rudder input which would cause a rolling moment which would lift the into wind wing, which is undesirable. This would require aileron input to counter, as well as to lower the into wind wing slightly. This can be tricky to judge and end up with an undesirable attitude. The same goes for a wing down, no crab approach. Ok in light cross winds but just inviting trouble when near the max. Major cross controls with possible spoiler deployment to cope with as well. What worked well for me over the years, when faced with a strong crosswind, was to crab down the approach, and then when on quite a short final (just prior to the threshold) to take up to half of the crab angle off and hold the rudder there. Just prior to touchdown I’d review the situation ie steady or gusty crosswind and whether a wet, contaminated or dry runway. Wet I’d leave the crab angle, flare and either go wings level or up to 5 degrees wing down into wind. Contaminated, just land fully crabbed. It’s one thing touching down but a different ball game when trying to maintain the runway centreline afterwards. When landing crabbed, the gear geometry will assist in “yawing” the nose back toward the centreline. Different flap setting and non-normal aircraft configurations may require variations to the norm as well. This would certainly add a great deal of complexity to your modelling, so you may have to just settle on a compromise for all conditions.

Obsession or trickery? 🙂

I don't know whether or not you really need to go into that level of detail with an AI system, but that is your decision, I just raised it for awareness. It seems you have nailed the crosswind landings. Any particular reason the last couple of videos are at night?

Just to add to the complexity, those centreline lights leading out onto the runway are actually used for when vacating the runway and not for lining up on the runway. You can see how much runway is left behind by following them onto the runway.

Do you not think these points have already been made? Give it a rest and just see what happens. Who in their right mind would want to share initial product idea/developments on this forum? He's not asking for your cash. Poor show indeed chaps.

Mr Saturday's signature mark I'm guessing. I really enjoy the current rendition so this will be the icing on the cake. That detailing is just next level. My how flight sim has advanced over the years. I just hope that it's not too taxing on my system.

Can you elaborate on the statement "The aircraft is routed using the simulator’s own airport taxi graph. In this test, the airport graph contains more than 3500 nodes, and the route is calculated through that real taxiway network". Does this mean the airport AFCAD but that extra nodes are somehow added or did it already have 3500 nodes? One of the problems of past and current AI solutions, is that there is a large degree of difference in the quality of AFCADs. Some are dreadful. I noticed that at times the aircraft was quite a way off the taxiway lines. This may be a difference between the positioning of the marking textures and the taxiway AFCAD nodes so, I'm curious to know how you might deal with these vexing issues.

In fairness he said the WIP video was being released tonight (wherever in the world that might be). Can you really not wait that long? I'm sure that when, or if, the video is released it will be followed with the "when will the product be released" brigades' comments. If it's one thing with Avsim, it's predictable. He did prefix the post with [TEASER] after all, and it should be taken in that context.

Why not dial the negativity back a little and just see what comes? You're hardly encouraging this developer to try and improve on a much-needed ATC/AI/MSFS solution.

It might even reach cruise altitude 😊

Thanks very much for adding those. Not sure how I missed the C750 (other than just being old 🙂).

Could you please add the iFly 737 MAX, Flight FX C750 and the ATR 72-600 to the aircraft list please?

After sorting out my starting issues (one of which was not removing the engine covers etc, which I think has caught a few simmers out) the only real issues are a lack of cockpit lighting and unable to enter destination environmental data on VNAV approach 2/2). The panels are quite dark even in the daytime. Minor stuff and I'm really enjoying this rendition. A change from the heavy tin.

Fixed it by assigning "Toggle Feather Switch 1/2" to the Prop levers on my CH throttle quadrant. The viual position of the condition levers does not necessarily indicate what is actually commanded. Very tricky.

Update: Engines start with condition levers in the Fuel cutoff position??? Which makes it impossible to shut them down. Odd.

I'm having odd starting issues at the moment. I register NH rotation but I get no light off. Plenty of fuel, fuel pump is on and condition lever to FTR at 15% NH. I did get a random start earlier on but then on shutdown the ITT stayed at the same temp. No NH indicated but the prop was turning. Odd. Any ideas?

Would there happen to be a change log for the ATR update?

Even without the SP1 update the aircraft still flies extremely well and is a most enjoyable experience. Having been involved with the team in the past, in a minor consultancy role and beta tester, I can attest to their dedication and commitment to their products. As with all their past service packs it will be worth waiting for.

It doesn't seem to be a SID/STAR issue. After TO the aircraft climb slowly to about 200-300ft and stay there. Only testing out of Sydney YSSY at the moment.

After takeoff the aircraft seem to level off at a very low altitude and remain there. Could this be a SID/STAR issue, if the option to use them in the FSLTL options is enabled?