weaklink

Definitely won't say no to a Super Cub -- but what I like about the Taylorcraft is how it makes you slip it. That (relatively) good glide ratio combined with the lack of flaps means you have to slip it in just about all the time -- and how nicely does it slip! Big fat slip on the approach gives at least a somewhat decent rate of descent, plus, I actually have a chance of seeing the runway out the side window. Here's the ground coming up but keep the slip in, keep the slip in, and finally straighten it out as close to the ground as I dare. So satisfying when you get it right, which for me is just about never, but that's the perfect reason for another lap around the pattern and another big stonkin' slip at the end of it. I'd love to get a chance to fly a Taylorcraft for real -- it'll probably never happen, but if it does, I'll have that rudder pinned on final.

That's not what this is about. What Pete is asking about is the perfectly black frame, with sharp corners, surrounding the dark-grey of the CRT background on three sides. This is pretty obviously a bug (look at the screenshot Pete posted and compare it against official screenshots and videos).

Bluebird have said that the 2024 version as well as the 757-300 will be free. The freighter will be a paid upgrade.

At over 6000 feet, the runway is certainly (just) long enough for an A320 or 737. And as recently as 2025, JSX operated Embraer regional jets out of there, though not as a scheduled airline service. What aircraft type did you see? And did you have multiplayer turned on? If so, all bets are off, because in multiplayer you'll see people operating airliners out of Lukla... 😜

Beech build 'em good! 🤪

I assumed it was MSFS, or it wouldn't be in this forum? I would think it was either another player (in multiplayer), or one of the JSX Embraers that operated there until recently (and may still be represented in some traffic schedules).

What are your traffic and multiplayer settings? It could just have been another player?

Nothing more concrete than the "next week" was stated in the video, and I don't think a date has been announced elsewhere.

16:45 local maybe? (It's not 1645Z yet.) In any case, the METAR does look interesting: ENTC 191550Z 22035KT 3200 DZRA SCT019 BKN047 10/07 Q1008 TEMPO 20036G46KT 8000 -RADZ RMK WIND 2600FT 22036KT= Thanks for the tip - I love flying in Norway in any weather, but this looks like a challenge!

What a great, in-depth video with loads of details on technical details and quirks. The video alone is almost worth the price of the update to me. Oh wait - the update is free! I'm amazed at the scope of what's new in v3. There's the VNAV update of course, but then there's also an improved flight model, FBW, flight director and autopilot, better ground handling, a completely rewritten FWC and ECAM, more realistic FADEC, the CIDS, FAP and virtual purser, QRH added in the EFB, sound and art improvements, and new immersion features (cockpit panels shake when you hit a bump). And I'm probably forgetting something...

I suspect it's not so much the flight model as the fact that that MSFS's modelling of orographic turbulence and wind gradient is - pardon the pun - overblown. I've had similar experiences in similar wind conditions where, descending towards the runway, the nose suddenly dropped away and I was barely able to save it by applying full power and going around. What is your turbulence setting set to? I've lowered mine in hopes that it will help.

I think it may be not so much about competing with GTA as poking fun at themselves for v3 having been in development almost as long as GTA VI. 😁

Can't watch the video right now - is there a summary somewhere of what's new?

There's a simple reason why I think it doesn't have anything to do with METARs: METARs only report cloud bases, not cloud tops, and what were seeing here is an area where the cloud tops are changing.

I've only taken a quick look so far, but this does look very good. The manual gives not just the "what" but also the "how" and the "why". There are "Advice From The Line" boxes dotted throughout the manual. Really looking forward to this, and if the aircraft itself is anywhere near as good as the manual, I'll be very happy. Ah, that brings back fond memories! ATP was a revelation - and I've still got that manual tucked away somewhere.

The easiest way: Pull the speed knob to get "selected speed" mode, then adjust the speed to 250 knots. Once you want to accelerate, push the speed knob to get "managed speed" mode. The "fully automated" way: On the F-PLN page, press the right-hand line select key (LSK) next to any waypoint in the climb phase. This takes you to the VERT REV page. Among other things, this contains the CLB SPD LIM (climb speed limit). By default, this is set to 250/10000, and you can adjust it to your liking - say 250/15000 if you want to restrict speed to at most 250 knots below 15,000 feet.

That sounds about right. From an article in Aviation Consumer: And that's the approach speed. If you're doing a three-point landing, you'll be touching down quite a bit slower. I find for a three-point landing I'll touch down under 40 mph -- maybe as low as 35 mph. Also, it likes to float -- from comparing to videos of real-world landings, it seems to me the tendency to float might be a bit too pronounced, but what do I really know.

I don't know how you make your pancakes, but there are some major mountain ranges in Poland, with the highest peak, the Rysy, rising to almost 2.500 metres, or over 8.000 feet. But in any case, why should flat geography disqualify a region from receiving a World Update? Poland and the Baltic states have beautiful coastlines, vibrant cities, culturally significant architecture and a significant aviation history. All of these are great reasons for a World Update, and likely contribute to this being one of the most requested regions. And before you ask, no, I'm not from this region myself, but I look forward to seeing it updated in MSFS! If it's not of interest to you, I fully understand that - I just don't understand the dismissive attitude.

That's what a 120 knot Vref will do for you... Of course, takeoff performance tends to be more limiting than landing performance, except that the 757 is ridiculously overpowered too. I suspect it climbs better on one than an A340-300 does on all four... Gotta love the 75. Hope it won't be too long now...

An update to the 3D model is in the works according to this Facebook post.

I think there's one thing in particular that makes braking in flight simulators harder to judge and control than in real life: The brakes on most flight simulator rudder pedals respond quite a bit differently than brakes on real aircraft, at least the light aircraft with which I have experience. Real brakes have a very characteristic response. You can depress them a fair bit without getting any braking because you're initially taking up the "slack" in the system by closing the air gap between the brake pad and the brake disc. Once the pad is in positive contact with the disc, the resistance in the pedal increases noticeably. From this point on, the amount of braking you get is proportional to the amount of force you apply to the pedal, without a lot of additional travel. A significant force is required to achieve maximum braking. This characteristic makes it easy to control the amount of braking because we can sense pretty accurately how much pressure we're applying with our feet. On most flight sim rudder pedals, the brakes work differently. As soon as you start depressing the pedal, you start applying brakes, and the amount of braking is proportional to the amount of travel. The maximum travel is often higher than on real brakes, while the force required is significantly lower. This makes it harder to control the brakes because the main feedback we're getting is how far we're depressing the pedals, and it's harder to judge accurately how "deep" into the total amount of travel you've pressed the pedal than it is to judge force. There are some rudder pedals where the brake axes measure force rather than deflection. These are typically referred to as "load cell" pedals, after the sensor that is used to measure force. However, all of the load cell flight simulator pedals I'm aware of are really expensive. One example are the VirtualFly RUDDO+ pedals, which sell for over 1000 Euros. Interestingly, there are much more affordable options in the sim racing space, with load cell sim racing pedals available for under 150 Euros. I guess the reason is that brake feel is super important in sim racing, so there's an impetus for manufacturers to make load cells brakes available even in their more affordable products. I've been thinking of retrofitting my MFG Crosswind pedals with load cell sensors, but I know this would be a pretty involved project, particularly to get things working mechanically in a way that's sturdy enough to hold up over time. If anyone's aware of affordable rudder pedals that are available with load cell brakes, or even of plans for a DIY build, I'd be interested!

Agreed that airline pilots would not typically have an operational need for a topographic map. Where I can still see them being used is in the announcements that you sometimes get in cruise: "For those seated on the left of the aircraft, you will have a good view of [some notable geographic feature]". Assuming, of course, that the pilots haven't flown the route enough times to be familiar with these features already. I'd be curious to hear from airline pilots whether they do in fact refer to topographic maps to identify these kinds of features.

As the saying amongst real-world pilots goes: How many planes do you need? Just one more than you've currently got... Seems like we've gotten as real as it gets on this. 😃👍

Not sure what you mean - the fact sheet does include the item I mentioned above. It's not featured very prominently because - I assume - it's not very high on the list of priorities for airlines.

Got it. I don't have any first-hand knowledge of airline EFBs - hopefully an airline pilot will be able to comment - but a lot of airlines use FliteDeck Pro, and I found a fact sheet that includes "limited support of VFR operations with VFR and cultural data layer". I assume this shows the kind of information you're wondering about (roads, railways, cities etc.), so I think referring to a topographic map should be reasonably realistic.