flyforever

I think the modes work only with CH software that comes with the Eclipse. So, if you use the CH software, you can program the same button for 3 different events by simply switching the mode knob. I am not sure if you can also use Axis and Oh's , but you can start by downloading the software and see how the two programs interact. I have a CH eclipse yoke, but no longer use the modes.

With a 7800X3d and a rtx 3600 ti, msfs 2020 and BAT work great for me. I have the traffic set at 4, which gives plenty of aircraft activity. Great program. Mostly fly with the FSS B727 or the flysimware c414.

Just purchased this beautiful aircraft but, for some reason, I can't seem to get the gps to follow the flight plan. It does not matter with model gps I have. My procedure is to hit the nav button once the gns has been set to gps. Of course, the AP button is on. What I am missing?

Fantastic. I should have asked this question a long time ago. Thank you!

I use the x-touch for the autopilot function for all aircrafts, including the gns 540. Is there a way to copy and paste specific or a batch of "assigned buttons" from one aircraft to another? While lvars or other commands for the autopilot change for each aircrafts, the gns540 do not. It would be great, therefore, to be able to copy and paste all the gns540 button assignments without having to reprogram them for each aircraft. Perhaps there's another method, in which case I'd like to see it.

Since I purchased the FSS B727, I've been extremely pleased about their regular updates on this aircraft. I wish that they had done the B707 as well. I have quite a few add ons, and FSS has distinguished itself on this particular aircraft. I know that with regard to another of their aircrafts, they have been criticized for long delays and less than acceptable results. I do, however, want to give credit when credit is due. Good job, FSS!

What is clear in these type of conversations is the fact that some of us come from businesses that required a very strong PM experience to complex projects. Building a rocket ship that does not blow up on take off is one example of a complex project. This is due to the fact that complex projects, such as building airplanes, rockets and other types of complex systems require the best of the best in experience , competence, and true and tried practices. Good leadership is essential, too. I want MSFS2024 to succeed because I am a long time simmer. We will never know how decisions and choices were made through out the new sim project, but the laws of complex projects do not change. If these laws or rules are violated, the project will be partially successful or fail outright.

One more thing: I was executive VP of manufacturing during the Y2K scare. Many manufacturers decided to switch to new "enterprise" or ERP computer software systems to manage all company's businesses-- from supplier to customers. With insufficient funds, time, skilled personnel, etc, etc, many companies trusted their entire business to consultants who tried to fit a company's unique businesses practices into their erp's "best business practices". The end result was a disaster for many companies. Business literally stopped cold. Classic case of not understand how to manage very complex systems. In my company, as the lead executive for our erp implementation, I would report to the board once a month. It took us two years to get some parts of the ERP implementation done, and when the board asked me how the transition went, I said: "the lights flickered, but the plant did not go dark". They smiled and I kept my job. We'll see if this Asobo- MS experiment represents a flickering of the lights or the building going dark. Some reviewers feel that things will only improve. Let's hope so.

This is clearly a marketing vs factory tug of war inside MS. Marketing always over promises and wants things delivered faster and before the factory approves it. In most cases, if the damage is minimal, ie, isolated bugs and ctd, it's manageable and the money keeps rolling in. MSFS 2020 was a good example of it. In the 2024 roll out case, there was a gross miscalculation: the building structure, while not totally collapsed, turned into the leaning tower of Pisa. The best idea came from someone who suggested that MS provide users with two options: mostly downloaded and installed on the pc, or on the cloud.

I have not yet purchased msfs 2024 mostly because I like to wait until the dust settles on any new product. However, what is apparent to me is the fact that actual download speed is never mentioned during these conversations. My experience with internet speed is that when I do a speed test I get one number. Yet when I am downloading something, my actual download speed is always lower. It's rare the time that I see both speeds being the same. My point in all of this is that perhaps MS misjudged greatly how individual internet speed determines how msfs 2024 performs. I understand that there's a cache to mitigate this, but a flight sim is not Netflix. I hope this does not turn into what some old timers may still remember, MS Flight, which failed on terribly and forced MS to abandon its flight sim.

I miss the days of a flight sim coming either as a digital download, or a physical buy. The internet is like traffic in a city: sometimes the traffic crawls and sometimes the traffic moves. I hope our new sim provides us with a less "congested" experience.

Fair to say that no system is perfect. My fear is that as this early access become the norm, so will scammers come along and sell us a half backed product that they don't care if it's never completed. They made their money and move on. Microsoft has a reputation to uphold, and a bit of pressure on less than honest developers is not unreasonable. I hope that the "rental" option coming in 2024 will sort this out.

Perhaps we need a new method for early access. It could be rated according to approximate time to completion. So, for example, an EA12 would mean at least 12 months before stable, and an EA1 would mean one month before stable release. This would provide potential users with a more granular view of where a project stands.

One would think that, from a public relations standpoint, there would be some folks from both MS and AH watching the forums and reviews, and respond quickly. It's common sense. I know that they want to record as much as possible before commenting, but a few lines tha awknowledge their presence is always appreciated.

Perhaps a compromise strategy for MS is to make all "light" aircrafts user moddable. This would allow many tools for users to constantly improve systems and flight modeling. I somewhat miss those wonderful tools that helped many fs 2004 aircrafts become great, high fidelity air crafts Robert Young's Bonanza and Beech twin come to mind.