TrafficPilot

Sorry I don't get it. Surely it would work out cheaper to do the real thing. And save his marriage 😉 You can hire aircraft and experience the real joy of flying even if you're not a qualified Pilot. MS2024 is a game. With pretty pictures.

I bought the basic package. From previous experience I had suspected that many of the default aircraft would be pants. And I was correct. The Cirrus flies nicely and appears to have correct V/Stall speeds but still has some minor bugs. The Cessna 172 also works much like the real one and the handling is "OK" for a flight simulator game. I also liked flying the DHC-6 (?). Great STOL performance with reverse prop! Other than that I think many of the others have unusual handling responses and/or other bugs. I do like the freeware Cessna 152 available for MS2024 - that is very good but obviously not a "default" aircraft. Hopefully at some point there will payware aircraft modelled using the MS2024 architecture rather than just being "port-overs" from a previous version of MSFS.

I think that the night lighting is better in MS2024 although I have noticed shimmering on objects (trees, mountains) during dusk in misty or cloudy weather which kills the realism somewhat. But overall, to me at least "proper" night has improved in the latest version of the sim. I haven't flown much at night in real-life. During winter months when I was broadcasting traffic news from an aircraft we used to leave in the dark for the morning shift and return in the dark following our evening jaunts across the U.K so I only really experienced it at low to mid levels. Maybe "high flyers" feel differently about it but at the kind of altitudes I'm used to flying at I'm pretty impressed. Hope this helps!

I'm running my Flight Sim PC into a 38" 4K TV at 60hz (see my pic on the left) and it provides excellent performance. I'm using a similar graphics card to you. I was going to buy a new large monitor but I don't think I'll bother now as I like the extra screen height with the TV. I run it at 4k most of the time with MS2024 on high or ultra depending on my flying location. So I think you'd be just fine saving your money and using a 60hz refresh rate monitor unless you think it will provide additional performance benefits on your system. I get 120 fps+ most of the time and haven't noticed any visual issues. MS2024 is (for now..) smooth as butter on my PC. Re the comment on VR - I've tried it in the past with other games but am fine using Smooth Tracker via the app and camera on my phone. VR made me feel nauseous for some reason! Maybe it needs to be set up more precisely on my system.

I agree with you - I find the current MS2024 Caravan is pretty rubbish to fly - a real handful. I consigned it to my virtual waste bin.

But you must admit it's quite a stylish design Bob?

Love this aircraft. Beautiful design. Think I'll wait for a native MS2024 version that takes advantage of the new flight dynamics coding.

The C-42 is a light aircraft made by Ikarus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikarus_C42 Re TCAS I think you may have misunderstood my post. I know what TCAS is and how it works but in relationship to this collision TCAS alerts would have been inhibited at this stage of approach. I believe they may have received a "TRAFFIC TRAFFIC" VISUAL alert but no VERBAL alert as they were below 500ft. We'll find out when they recover the "black boxes".

Yup. If you weren't blown down into the water I think you'd be very lucky. But that's not really relevant to this incident. Swiss cheese theory.. 1: Heli comms on UHF not VHF so neither aircraft can hear each other. Not good for situational awareness. 2: CRJ accepts a late "circle to land" request from controller. Challenging approach made even MORE challenging with late RW change. 3: TCAS alerts inhibited on final approach so CRJ does not hear a warning. 4: Heli climbs above the height restriction of 200 FT Any others? EDIT: Should add 5: Heli accepts visual separation with incorrect traffic identified (which is ANOTHER CRJ on approach further back).

You would think that but a twin-engined jet in that configuration (full flaps, undercarriage down, landing thrust) can cause a whole lot of issues for anyone behind and slightly below it. I've been there. On my first solo in 2006 I had to "go around" due to turbulence from a helicopter that had departed 2 mins before I approached. Not nice.

Well it does if you're landing at one. TCAS alerts are inhibited below a certain altitude. On approach to an Airport. (At least it does in my C-42 - maybe it's different in an airliner...;)

Or reinforcing my point🙂 Even if the heli hadn't hit the aircraft can you imagine the potential wake turbulence as it passed behind the landing traffic. It all seems very dodgy to me. An accident waiting to happen. And it did sadly.

They were on a heli-route and should have remained at or below 200 FT ASL as per the chart restriction. For whatever reason they climbed above 200 FT and hit the landing aircraft. A really quite stupid idea to have a heli corridor right underneath the final approach to a civil airport with a heli operating on another frequency and flying in Night VFR. Mad.

Night VFR and on a published heli route underneath the final approach path. It wouldn't happen here in the U.K but is quite common in the U.S.

Good old Martin-Baker saved the day again! Glad all safe. Apparently those aircraft cost $88 million. Each.

For those that want to go more "in-depth" on this collision there is a useful discussion ongoing on the Professional Pilots Forum. Hope mods don't mind me posting the link to that discussion. If they do please remove! https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/663888-aa5342-down-dca.html

Hence why I was deliberately vague about her🤫

The Islander is a very dependable "workhorse" and still in production after nearly 60 years. A great British export. I think the Islander is a "functional" looking aircraft whereas the Trislander just looks wrong😁

Thanks for reviews guys. Think I'll wait until there is a native MS2024 version with updated textures and flight dynamics.

I used to have the Flight1 Islander many moons ago. Is this version any better? Does it take advantage of the new MS2024 flight dynamics coding I wonder? Tempted to buy for MS2024 when it becomes available in the marketplace but not if it's just a simple "port-over". Would appreciate your thoughts if you own the Islander and are running it in MS2024.

Personally - I prefer it. Looks good and quite natural and allows a safe distance between the scrub tops and the landing zone. My landing was much shorter in the default 172 in this version. Nil wind custom preset. Thanks for spending time on this. It is an excellent airfield for practising touch and goes with fantastic scenery. Word of warning to anyone using a piston aircraft at this airfield. Make sure to lean your mixture for max RPM before taking off - it's around 2500 ASL.

Downloading now..👍

Same here. There are still WAY too many trees everywhere but it runs very smoothly with nay a stutter at Ultra on my machine. Impressive.

I think the whole idea is a pointless exercise. When Concorde was around there was no Internet so it was very popular with business travellers who had to get to meetings. You can do that for free online nowadays. I think most countries that care about their populations will ban it overflying at supersonic speeds. Much as they did with Concorde. Concorde made most of its money (eventually) through corporate and sightseeing flights. I can see a couple of these aircraft being sold for that but not for scheduled airline operation. Also Concorde is the most beautiful looking aircraft ever. But then I'm biased😉

+1 looks terrible. The developers try and make it look "as real as it gets" and then someone comes along and makes it look like we're viewing everything on LSD😁