martinboehme

This is implied by the title of the post quoted in the OP: "Are cloud bases in new METAR system in AGL or MSL?"

To clarify: The specific issue here that Asobo has acknowledged is that cloud heights in METARs are wrongly being interpreted as MSL instead of AGL. At higher-elevation airports, this has the effect of showing the clouds at a lower altitude than they should be.

It knows your heading and your track as well as TAS and GS. From that, it can compute wind direction and velocity -- this is essentially the inverse of the computation you would do when flight planning to compute your wind correction angle from the desired track and the wind.

Oh yes, ATP! Card carrying member of the brown book club here. Flew it all across the US on the career missions and loved it. And a few years later AS2 - I was absolutely blown away by that. It kept me away from the FS franchise for a long time... only got back into that with FS 2004. Edit: Umberto, guess I should say thanks again for your part in AS2!

I've done just one race in the T6 so far but had a blast. Only thing is -- I'm sloooow! Any tips on the best line to take through the corners?

There are two really good examples in the video of how the glass cockpit can be of particular value to bush pilots: The pilot sets the G1000 baro minimums -- which of course are really intended for IFR flying -- to alert him when he descends below 500 feet (IIRC) above the airfield. He explains that he does this because it's really easy in the mountains to lose situational awareness of how high you are relative to the airfield and descend too low. On final approach, he is continually monitoring the tailwind component displayed on the PFD and using this to evaluate whether to continue the approach or go around (which he does on the first attempt). Again, this is particularly valuable in a bush environment because the kind of fields that he flies into in PNG don't have a tower that could give a wind check.

Wow that's really beautiful...didn't know that plane was so fast. It's got the old Collins clunkers I see hehe! I might have to partake and purchase this beauty. edit: Ope, that's kmh not knots on the outer scale lol. This modern panel is the one that Lufthansa fitted to the one they restored. Had the privilege of flying on it once as well as sharing the pattern with it on a couple of occasions. Having tried both the modern version and the "1939" version, I think the engine sounds are different too -- which makes sense, given that Lufthansa fitted Pratt & Whitney Wasp engines as part of the restoration instead of the original BMW engines, which I believe the Ju-Air aircraft still have.

As I understand it, the controller voices unfortunately can't be modded because the speech synthesis happens on an Azure server.

Very cool to see the engine pages implemented. This was the last bit of missing functionality from the "old" WT G1000 mod that I was waiting for.

The FAA is keeping a so-called Minimum Operational Network of VORs in service indefinitely as a backup for GPS outages: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gbng/vormon/

It doesn't appear in the Content Manager. You need to download it from the Marketplace.

Or, if you just want to assign specific controls with FSUIPC, you can edit an existing assignment and delete the assigned control.

I have FSUIPC 7 and can confirm that this works the same way it did in FSX.

The author of the mod just announced that a fix for this is supposed to be coming later today: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/da62x-improvement-mod-su5-v0-4-5-1-aug-16/294584/1922

Without, obviously, actually knowing what the code looks like, here's my interpretation, as a software engineer, of what I've read. The vast majority of the code is going to be the same across PC and Xbox. Small parts of the code, however, have to differ because the platforms are different. As you mention, Xbox uses DX12 while PC uses DX11. That's only going to affect the lowest level of the graphics code, though... there will likely be a layer that "abstracts away" this difference, and everything that builds on top of that will be the same. Another area where you'll see differences would be some of the UI, but again, those differences will be confined to small parts of the code. Finally, some internal configuration "knobs" will likely be set to different values on Xbox and PC.

I believe these may be used by the "skip to" feature -- I'm probably not remembering the real name, but I mean the feature that allows you to skip forward to significant points in your flight, including the top of climb and top of descent. I believe MSFS uses these pseudo-waypoints internally so that it knows where to place you when you skip to these points in the flight. Edit: Of course, there's no reason these "internal pseudo-waypoints" should appear in GPSs and the like; I guess Asobo just doesn't have a way of marking them as "internal".

Correct, missed approaches are not yet implemented.

You should break out above minimums if the conditions don't become worse, but you should check the TAF too and plan for an alternate.

There is a visibility measurement in the METAR: 9999, meaning greater than 10 km.

Cloud bases in the ATIS are AGL (or more precisely, AAL - above aerodrome level), just like METARs.

Additional considerations: A taildragger has more prop clearance, which again is a benefit on grass and dirt strips A tailwheel weighs less than a nosewheel and produces less drag

Thanks -- learned something there. The taildragger version does look fun!

A taildragger 172 -- isn't that called a 170?

A Dash 8 would be great, but given that this is the France and Benelux update, an ATR or a Fokker would be more fitting... Or for a real vintage MSFS throwback, how about a Sopwith Camel? 😉

At any rate, wherever you see "validate", it's supposed to mean "confirm". "Confirm" is "valider" in French, which is a "false friend" for "validate".