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...)

Yup. (Well, it's really just the circling minima.) It's the rule, rather than the exception, for an approach to have circling minima. Pull up a random approach at a random airport, and the chances are it will have circling minima. Also, you don't necessarily need to circle to the opposite runway end. At Teterboro KTEB (to take just one example), it's pretty common to fly the ILS approach to runway 6, then circle to runway 1. (Runway 1 doesn't have an ILS because it would conflict with Newark's airspace.)

The approaches to runway 32 have circle-to-land minima (the NDB A obviously does too), so circling is definitely an option. There just isn't a prescribed flight track for the circling, so you'll have to work out for yourself how you want to perform the circling to remain within the protected circling airspace (and bearing in mind that circling is prohibited northeast of the airport).

Are you sure? I tested the 172 not too long ago, in zero wind, and as I recall, I didn't see any left-turning tendencies - it went practically straight.

Sure! I'd be happy to take you under my wing and show you how I read pigeon droppings. 🤪

Great. This is how standards get lowered. Maybe pigeon droppings don't matter to YOU. Just understand that there are serious simmers for whom this is essential because they know and follow real-world procedures. I assess pigeon droppings prior to every takeoff per the SOPs. Taking off on 9L and I see droppings at the main terminal? No sweat. If I get a bird strike, it's likely to happen at low speed, an easily managed RTO. Recent droppings at Concourse E? Now you've got my attention. Any bird strike is likely going to be near V1, and I'm looking at a high-speed abort or taking a surging powerplant into the air. I go straight to FORDEC. How can I mitigate the risk? Ask for a runway change to one of the outer runways? Request a tailwind departure? Call in Wildlife Management? Some devs get this right and accurately model DABSR (dropping-associated bird strike risk). Maybe you don't aspire to this level of realism. Fine. But here you are, peddling your ignorance and professing to represent the community as you push the dev to release a clearly unfinished product. It's people like you who are actively destroying this hobby. Shame.

But that's the thing - an application should be able to use every last bit of performance the GPU has to give without the GPU overheating. You paid for the whole GPU, so you should be able to use the whole GPU. Maybe another point: You're saying it's "almost blowing up the GPU", but as long as the temperature is within limits, we'll, it's within limits. It's really just an indication that you're running your GPU hard, but not too hard. A lot of the focus in SU5 was on performance, so it's not surprising to me that some people are seeing MSFS utilize their GPU better and, hence, running it hotter.

Then I would guess that previously MSFS wasn't always able to hit those 30 fps. It's now able to do so more often, causing it to run hotter in those situations. One thing you could look at is if you can improve the cooling in your case - and maybe just check if lint has accumulated, blocking airflow. A well built system should be able to run at maximum performance without exceeding temperature limits.

If you're getting higher GPU temperatures after SU5, I don't think that means there's anything wrong with your install - it just means that SU5 is making better use of your GPU (it's "pushing" it harder). I would expect this is giving you higher framerates - but if the GPU is getting too hot for your liking, you can limit the framrate in the settings, which should also bring the GPU temperatures back down.

Yup, as noted earlier, wheel landings are not for short fields. Yes, that's inevitable. Think about it - when you touch down, the wing is still producing almost enough lift to support the weight of the plane. If you now pull back, you increase angle of attack, increasing lift, and the plane will inevitably lift off again. So on a wheel landing, you actually want to push slightly after touchdown to reduce the amount of lift produced by the wing and ensure the airplane doesn't lift off again. And then you patiently and slowly fly the tail down onto the ground, as you've described. When the tail is on the ground, you'll automatically get aerodynamic braking - another reason that three-point landings are preferable on short fields. I would put that in the realm of fiction. Keeping the tail down will increase drag and therefore actually hinder acceleration. One scenario in which you want to keep the tail low (though off the ground) is on a soft-field takeoff. The increased lift from the wing takes weight off the main gear. Yes, tailwheel should be unlocked for taxi, and locked for takeoff and landing.

Let's take these one at a time: Short takeoffs and landings: Not really - there's nothing that would make a tailwheel aircraft inherently better at these. Bush flying: Definitely - the tailwheel is more forgiving of soft and rough fields than a nosewheel, which can "dig in". The nose-high attitude can also help by increasing prop clearance. That said, there are some excellent tricycle gear bush airplanes. Aerobatics: Really, the only advantage that a tailwheel offers here is that it has less drag than a nosewheel. Tricycle gear for distance and speed: If anything, this is more of an indirect effect. Many tailwheel airplanes are designed for short grass strips, so they are also designed for low approach speeds - and that means they're not speed demons. All other things being equal, though, a tailwheel aircraft has less drag than an equivalent tricycle gear aircraft, so it should cruise slightly faster. Retractable gear makes all of this a moot point, of course. That's pretty much landing a tailwheel in a nutshell... Yes, most tailwheel aircraft are typically landed in the so called three-point attitude. It's also possible to do so-called wheel landings, where you touch down only on the main gear. These will typically consume more runway though. If you find you're using a lot of runway, your approach speed is probably too high. Not really - after all, the nose has to go up for the tail to go down. Most tailwheel aircraft have relatively bad visibility in the touchdown attitude (and when taxing). That's just how it is. They are also inherently unstable on the ground, requiring deft rudder work to keep straight. The tail has an inherent tendency to want to overtake the nose which, if unchecked, will result in a so-called "ground loop". But the challenge of controlling a tailwheel aircraft on the ground is, for many, what makes up the appeal. It takes practice, so keep at it!