MattNischan

Yeah, this is pretty spot on. The POH approach speed is listed as 80-85, and you don't really want to get under that until you cross the threshold. This feels a bit odd at first (at least it did to me), as you really expect to be closer to the low 70s coming from other small planes, so subjectively it felt like I was carrying too much power. Once you cross the threshold, slowly drop the throttle down to idle, and give it a gentle flare, but not nearly as much as you would in a 172. Just let it hold off until you get to the low 70s and let it fly itself to the runway. It's flatter than you think. After I got the hang of it, though, really a super satisfying plane to land, in my opinion. Definitely something a touch different!

Right now there is no specific indicator, you just trim by feel. The the real SR22T, there is no aero trim; instead, there is a control force bias introduced in the control stick when using the trim switch. Unfortunately, this doesn't really have any good sim analog as the sim doesn't support this style of trim, and also since user sticks cannot have their center point dynamically mechanically biased in one direction or another, which creates a number of bad mapping situations. Additionally, this can't just be applied as an animation adjustment since that would break the controls in VR. As such at the moment the control stick will not move when the trim is adjusted.

I believe if you change the sim units to metric in the options, ATC will begin using MB.

There were a lot of planes that were already developed with the original AS430 and AS530 and so replacing those wholesale would have broken a lot of products. Thus the avionics continue to live side by side.

It's not at all the same model. 🙂 The entirety of the art is completely new, from the ground up. Some great details in there, like all the new wingtip lighting fixtures and features. There is a bug presently for the description though, which we have logged.

All of the SR22T and Perspective+ manuals are available to the public, so we didn't include them in the package. Tons of checklists for the plane both in the plane and in-sim as well. POH: https://cirrusaircraft.com/technical-publications/?category=pilots-operating-handbook&model=sr22t POH Supplements (for FIKI/TKS): https://cirrusaircraft.com/technical-publications/?category=supplement-to-the-pilots-operating-handbook&model=sr22t Perspective+ Guides: https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?productID=600303&tab=manuals

This plane replaces the SR22 G5 with the SR22T G6 directly, Premium Deluxe is still required.

In order to do this, you must also arm NAV mode as well. I don't believe pressing APPR automatically arms NAV for capture, but only G/S in this case you are describing.

In order to press knob buttons in MSFS, you must either right click or hold left mouse button to lock the knob and then right click.

I'm not sure, from a technical perspective, it would be possible to create a generic add-on that would cover multiple aircraft. Most failures are not handled inside the sim, because every aircraft has a totally different set of equipment, electrical layout, systems, etc. So I can't really think of a way to make anything like that.

The plane will follow whichever units setting you have set in the sim options.

None of the current airliners have any code from their previous default state in them any longer (no shade at all to our amazing friends at Asobo). All the AAU planes were rebuilt from the ground up (just art and some cockpit XML that didn't need replacing still remain), the FBW is completely new now except art, the Ini A320 is entirely new including the art, etc. It's just that it takes massive time and resources to do. At one point in the stretch we had 15 people on the Boeings, and it was a massive 60+ person-month project. For smaller teams, this is a few years of work, easily.

No, the Ini A320 is completely new.

How many are there for XBox?

This is completely factually incorrect. Having recently finished developing a fly-by-wire system for a MSFS aircraft, the fly-by-wire laws and control loops are very difficult to develop, precisely because the control surfaces _are_ in the airflow and the root locus of the transfer function is affected by the sim flight model. Therefore you have to use both feed-forward and feedback in the control loop, correctly stage your gains, all the stuff you'd have to normally do for a real aircraft control loop. In fact, it's pretty trivial to go take a look at the FBW A32NX source to completely disprove this theory that somehow this is all faked. There's a ton of control loop theory in there, with zero table/pitch lookups or direct manipulation of the aircraft overriding the sim flight model.

It doesn't, it uses a custom version of the PL21 FMS from the old CJ4 mod. That FMS is actually pretty close in operation to the Collins FMS option. Of course, everyone is thinking of the UNS-1 option, which was what most ended up with. I would say from a pilot's perspective, yes, it is more primitive, but from a developer perspective if I was spec'ing dev time for that I'd say a good 30 person-months or so to build.

This field was omitted because it's not a standard field for the G1000 NXi. Aircraft that require this kind of thing can implement it using the plugin system that we have provided for aircraft developers if they like or by modifying the code, in the same way that Garmin or the avionics engineers at the respective manufacturers add specifics for their installations. My understanding, talking to @simbol, is that the pressurization behavior is being looked into. He's awesome (and the plane is stellar) so I'm sure this will be addressed down the road.

Please see https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/bing-maps-outage-2023-11-15/616905

The pilots felt that the aircraft was represented extremely faithfully within the limitations of the sim. I don't know that any of the type rated pilots tested crosswind runway performance well beyond Vr or a headwind that was miles beyond Vr (neither would be scenarios they would find themselves in IRL). If they do, I can certainly share the feedback.

We did not alter the TBM flight model in any way during any of the Aircraft and Avionics Updates; it remains in the same form it has for quite some time. The TBM was mostly just an avionics refresh.

This was addressed when the plane was overhauled in AAU1. The flight model is completely different than the mod was, and crosswind landings of very high values was tested. I see the nosewheel steering friction scalar was bumped to 50, but it was already 10, which is already super off scale in the realm of "this wheel can never skid", so I'm not sure the 50 has an effect. In general, we do not recommend any flight model mods as the existing flight model is extremely, extremely close to the book, and was tested in feel with type rated CJ4 pilots. But folks can of course come to their own opinions if they prefer something other than that.

WT are first party developers on MSFS, like Asobo, so I don't think you're liable to see independent releases from us. We're pretty happy with the featureset of the Boeings right now. Our objective for these projects is generally always the same: a great normal operations, navigation, and avionics experience. For something beyond that, third parties are more in that space. It's taken about 60 person-months to take it where we have it, and that already represents an extremely massive investment from the platform. So, it's hard to argue diverting our resources to that further with so much stuff to do in and around the sim.

@silentghostx has the correct answer here. The FO side is just a texture duplicate of the left side intentionally. The displays are very resource intensive and thus this display is just duplicated at this time and there is no separate FO display running. These displays and systems, despite heavy optimization, are pushing the limits of what the tech stack is capable of delivering, especially as far as CPU usage is concerned. We may offer an enhancement pack down the road like we do with the G3000/5000 aircraft for the same thing, if we find the resources to do that.

No, the source code cannot legally be released. Teams will have to work on the compiled JS code to add features, like we did with our original mod for the CJ4.

Should be fixed in the SU14 beta, for the 78X. Not sure when that stuff will get integrated back into the mods.