martinboehme

Yes, pretty sure the OP is talking about the localizer. @SquadronLeaderAt what angle are you intercepting the localizer? Standard intercept angle is 30 degrees. Larger angles can cause some aircraft to overshoot - not sure what would be realistic for the 737.

If this was the only effect in play, then the actual altitude would be _greater_ than the barometric altitude (referenced to the standard altimeter setting). Conversely, low pressure causes the actual altitude to be lower than the barometric altitude, hence the mnemonic "high to low, watch out below". The effect that is causing the actual altitude to be lower than the barometric altitude, despite the high pressure, is the temperatures that are significantly below ISA this time of year. This is also why cold temperature corrections need to be made to the altitudes on approaches to certain airports if the temperature is below a given specified value.

This 100%! A lot of simmers, me included, chase the ambition of making their simulated operations "as real as it gets" - and as long as that's fun, great! But gradually, and often unnoticed, the quest for realism can turn from an adventure of discovery into a burdensome duty. You feel like a flight doesn't "count" unless you're doing every little detail a real pilot would. Simming starts to feel like work. It's happened to me and I suspect many others too. So by all means, continue to chase reality and learn, but check yourself from time to time to make sure you're still having fun. Other thoughts: VATSIM: You'll never feel like you're ready. Just do it. It's the only way to really learn. A lot of Garmin installations do actually have the ability to upload your flight plan wirelessly from your tablet, so don't feel like you need to input it by hand. Turboprops like the Caravan are actually more challenging and rewarding than jets in some ways. You can't simply fly above the weather, and ice protection is usually less capable, so you need to think more about the weather and react en route if necessary. Have fun learning - it's a neverending journey!

Agreed - I'm also happy to see that MSFS gets this right!

@jcomm I think you misunderstood what the OP was saying. The altimeter in the aircraft does indeed indicate 6000 feet (see screenshot in the first post), but the actual (geometric) altitude shown in the debug screen is lower. As @Bob Scott explains, this is due to a temperature deviation from ISA.

Maybe they aren't aware that this option exists? Could be worth notifying their support about this.

Strange. BARO 843 is the correct setting as this is a CAT I approach, but this obviously doesn't have anything to do with the crash. Sounds like a strange one-time glitch...

Which approach were you flying exactly? I'm guessing the ILS Y 01? How far outbound did you fly? Anyway, the MSA is 2700 feet, so you shouldn't have hit anything unless you flew very far outbound. I'm guessing maybe you descended without realizing? (Maybe the autopilot wasn't doing what you expected it to?)

The maximum speed with the various stages of flaps extended is lower than the maximum speed with flaps retracted. For example, the maximum speed with CONF 1 (only slats, no flaps) is 230 knots, with CONF 2 200 knots, and so on. You need to make sure you're below the relevant maximum speed before extending flaps - otherwise, you'll get an overspeed warning, and on the real aircraft, you could potentially damage the slats or flaps. There's an orange "equals sign" on the speed tape that shows the maximum speed for the next stage of flaps after the one you have currently selected. So just make sure the speed is below the orange equals sign before extending the next stage of flaps.

My guess is that your route used Victor airways, which are only available below FL180. Edit: I've looked at this in SimBrief, and the first route that it suggests for PAKT to KSEA is DOOZI DWARF V311 ANN J502 YYJ MARNR7 This does indeed use a Victor airway, V311, so I'm guessing this is the route you used? I don't have the iniBuilds A310 profile, but if I use the default A310 profile, I get a cruise altitude of FL170, which is the highest altitude available on V311 for the direction of flight. After ANN, it gives me a step climb to FL350, so it's pretty obvious that the Victor airway is the reason for the initial FL170 restriction. This isn't actually so bad -- ANN is only 91 track miles from PAKT, and FL350 is available for the remainder of the flight. However, it seems a bit strange that the suggested routing uses both a Victor airway and a jet route (J502). Maybe this is a local convention that people use on this route for some reason? (I haven't checked FlightAware to see what real-world flights do.) The second route suggested by SimBrief seems more appropriate for a jet: CETK6 ANN J502 YYJ MARNR7 This replaces the initial routing to ANN with a SID, and SimBrief gives me a cruise altitude of FL370 for this flight. There's another difference: This second route would be appropriate for a departure from runway 11, while the first would be appropriate for a departure from runway 29 -- DOOZI is in fact the last waypoint on the SKOWL 2 SID. Maybe that route tries to essentially "hardcode" the SKOWL 2 SID? I don't know.

To do this, I believe the gear lever needs to be in the "off" (middle) position. IIRC, this was in the FAQ.

I didn't have those books, but I had the successor, Flight Simulator Co-Pilot (which still sits on my shelf). Reading what you wrote reminds me of some quotes from the book's preface. "Enhanced by our ability to imagine, their monotonous stretches of green and blue become the green of real earth and the blue of true sky." (The "their" refers to the various versions of Flight Simulator II for different computers.) "If we set time to a minute or so after dawn in the Editor, then exit to fly, it becomes early morning out there even though the scene is no different from noon. All we have to do is fantasize a little and we can smell the morning freshness. We can see the dew on that too-green grass. We can sense that the sun is somewhat new, even in that absolute and all-too-flawless blue." Those quotes seem quaint now, given what we have in in MSFS today, but they're still very relevant. No flight simulator will ever be perfect. Instead of becoming frustrated at the imperfections, Gulick's words are a reminder to use our imagination to transcend the imperfections and transport ourselves, in our minds, to the world we're simulating. That's what flight simulation is about, and it's true today just as much as when those words were written almost 40 years ago. Thanks for the trip down memory lane!

It might not exist any more in the real world, but it's definitely fitting for a 40th anniversary edition. I, for one, welcome this - I have fond memories of Meigs in FS3 and FS4, and it's a sign to me that Asobo understand their legacy.

Was the flight director centered? If it isn't, the autopilot won't engage.

Must resist urge to make a sarcastic comment. Must resist... 😉

They once said they would. But this was long ago and I never saw it mentioned recently. Historic weather is the first item on their roadmap here: https://rexsimulations.com/weatherforce.html (Scroll down to "continued and consistent development".)

IIUC, xEnviro uses the same cloud rendering that MSFS does but injects different cloud layers? The historical weather has me intrigued. This is a feature that I've been clamoring for. Looking forward to seeing some user reports once it gets into people's hands.

A "rar" file is a compressed archive, like a zip file, but Windows doesn't contain any support "out of the box" to open rar files. You'll need to get a decompressor that understands rar files, such as WinRAR or 7-Zip. IIUC, rar files are supposed to compress a bit better, but to me the relatively small gain has never seemed worth it given the downside that most OSs can't open rar files without installing additional tools.

That's true, but people are only discussing DLSS 3.0 and GPUs there, not the many other changes that SU11 will bring. Edit: Disregard, I see there is another thread here where people are discussing all of what is in the beta:

I noticed this in the WASM section of the release notes: It is now possible to make HTTP request through Wasm. See documentation for more information This is great to see. It means, for example, that PMDG should now be able to implement support for importing flight plans directly from Simbrief, without having to save them to a file first. (To be clear, this won't happen automatically with SU11 - PMDG would need to do something on their side to take advantage of the new capability.) For aircraft that use WASM, this should also open the door to all sorts of other integrations with external services.

I haven't seen the iniBuilds KLAX yet, but I would expect so. Asobo's handcrafted KLAX has some pretty basic issues, including jetways not connected to the terminal and wonky S turns in ramp taxilines that don't exist in reality. Given that people are saying that iniBuilds has raised the bar with their version, I would have to assume it's way better than Asobo's.

No, as the default has been permanently replaced with the G1000 nxi. The default was horrifically bad though if you're thinking of comparing it to the real standard G1000. I think you're thinking of the DA62 that's included with MSFS? I'm not aware of a DA42 for MSFS.

I think the problem may be that they simply don't realize that the weather radar API and other things are half-baked. The important question is then: Why don't they realize that these things are half-baked? I think this may have to do with the way they gather feedback and prioritize features. The voting system is great in that it allows people to give input on what's most important to the community, but a downside is that it can cause the feedback to get condensed down to a single bullet point: "500 people say we need a flux capacitor", so they build a flux capacitor, but they miss the all-important details, such as the fact that the flux capacitor needs to be connected to the time circuits or that it needs 1.21 jigawatts of power to function correctly. It's become a recurring theme in Q&As that they're surprised at the feedback they get: "Why are people still complaining about this? We fixed it in the last SU!" How do you solve this? Probably by creating a tighter feedback loop: Once you've realized you need a flux capacitor, explain to people what you're planning to build, then get feedback on that before you actually build it (and then realize too late that you've built something half-baked).

correct. General Options --> Accessibility and then Cockpit Interaction System which needs to be on Legacy Thanks! I believe there's also an option somewhere adjacent to that to turn the blue highlights off while still using "locked" interaction mode, if that's what @sonny147 is after -- I think it's one of the "tooltips" options.

Looks like that's this item from the changelog: "Added highlights to all clickspots when using locked interaction mode" I believe there's something in the MSFS settings to turn these off. I think it's under "accessibility".