weaklink

IIUC, the key feature that motion vectors enable and that many are waiting for is DLSS.

Stopways need to fulfill a number of criteria. My guess is that this area doesn't fulfill all of them, so it's designated as a blast pad rather than a stopway (both are marked with yellow chevrons).

I have fond memories of the Tin Mouse too. Would love to see a good MSFS version! I remember Ryanair was still flying the 737-200 in the late 90s. I would sometimes go out to the local airport to see them take off and land. They weren't quiet!

Even more actually - 13! It's not that bad though once you break them down into related groups: Tanks 1 to 4 are the "feed" tanks that directly feed fuel to the four engines. Tanks 5 to 8 can be thought of as the "main" tanks that contain the majority of the fuel and, in turn, feed the feed tanks. This group also includes tanks 5a and 7a. These are smaller tanks in the wing tips whose contents are transferred to tanks 5 and 7 once enough fuel from these has been used. Tanks 9 to 11 are trim tanks. Of these, tanks 9 and 10 are forward of the CG, and tank 11 is aft of the CG, in the tail. So to move the CG forward, you transfer fuel to tanks 9 and 10; to move the CG aft, you transfer fuel to tank 11. There is obviously a lot more that can be said about the fuel system, but this overview should give you a mental framework that makes it easier to see how the many details fit into the whole. This page has a lot more information: https://www.heritageconcorde.com/fuelgeneral

Yes. How do you go from zero to 100 with a high def airliner? How do you get someone to fund that before you can sell it and make money off it? I think the simple answer is you don't. As I understand it, teams that form to develop flight sim addons typically self-fund -- because yes, "we're a team with no track record who want to spent years developing a high-def addon for MSFS" is not a business plan that I expect anyone would give you a loan for. In some cases, people start doing the work essentially as an unpaid second job, though they themselves would probably think of it simply as a hobby that they're super-passionate about. From what I've heard, Working Title essentially started this way. Or you have someone who is so passionate about wanting to see a project realized that they're willing to put up a significant amount of their own money to make it happen. (Obviously, they need to have the necessary financial means to do this.) Not because it's the best way they could invest the money, but because they really, really want the product to exist. My understanding is that this was the case with Aamir of Fenix. In all cases, the primary reason people do the work is because they have a burning desire to, say, create a high-def 787 for MSFS. This is a theme that comes up again and again in interviews with devs when they talk about their "origin story". As just one example, IIRC, Torsten of Toliss has said in interviews that he spent 15 years working on the A320, alongside his day job, before releasing his first addon. If it was merely about the money, the people with the kinds of skills that it takes to do this work would be doing something else that earns them more money -- and in many cases, they were before they decided they could justify taking a crazy leap and pursue their passion project.

I suspect that a number of people with prior experience got together and essentially "self-funded" the development (which could mean they lived off their savings, or did the work in their spare time, or even possibly put some of their own money towards paying others) From what I've heard, it sounds as if they've been doing this for a few years but only now announced it - and that's how a product like this can suddenly "materialize" seemingly out of thin air.

That sounds promising! Out of interest - what was broken about the trim settings before?

So not a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_dream then?

I know you're asking for missions, but I'm not familiar with any that are specific to complex airplanes. Instead, I would recommend a (free) real-world resource, the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook. Chapter 12 covers complex airplanes, and when you're ready to move on beyond that, subsequent chapters cover multiengine airplanes, turboprops, jets, and more.

Can you give some examples of what you mean by a complex aircraft? Do you mean the FAA definition of a complex airplane (i.e. retractable gear, constant speed prop, flaps)? Do you mean an aircraft with advanced avionics ("glass")? Do you mean a twin or turboprop?

Didn't see your message before I posted - that sounds awesome!

Same here! Something along the lines of the freeware C90B EVO for X-Plane (EFIS version) would be right up my alley (if people are familiar with that). And given that Black Square have done a lot of Beech airplanes, it's not implausible that they might do the King Air too - - fingers crossed.

Obviously a tribute to the BAe 146 which, as we all know, is the only airplane with 5 APUs.

In general, no. If circling minima are listed for the approach, you can fly a circle to land. Stay within the protected area for the circling, which will guarantee obstacle clearance if you're at or above the circling MDA. Here are two good articles on circling: Pilot InstituteCircle-to-Land: The Complete Pilot’s Guide - Pilot InstituteMaster every phase of the circling approach; planning, maneuvering, missed, and night ops. Succeed in your circle-to-land procedures. https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/1430.PDF

Bern does have straight-in approaches to both runway ends though, as far as I can tell? Plus I can't find any circling minima on the charts? Are you thinking of a different airport maybe? I'll definitely have to give that a try! I've only ever flown the straight-in to runway 01, in a King Air where the steep gradient is doable. (I still made a bit of a hack of it though...)