MattNischan

Hey all, Don't be alarmed by the graphics driver message. It's related to the following information: This is only a recommendation, not a mandatory downgrade. Performance issues and increased video driver related crashes have been seen with the above drivers. The team is working with nVidia regarding the issues, but right now the range in the popup message is the recommended best range. EDIT: Just to be clear, this is not a newer requirement for AAU2, the current sim version has been observed to be the same range as the best drivers. So while the popup message is new, it was only added due to the additional crash data in general, not due to anything specific about AAU2. If you aren't having any issues, no need to do anything about it at this time.

Indeed there is! The G5000 suite is much more complex. 🙂 I only say this partially tongue in cheek: modern high end GA systems really do outclass with some ease even the latest commercial aviation systems, due to wanting to keep retraining costs low for new types, certification and development time scales compared to the GA sector, etc. Besides, that really gives short shrift to the Longitude systems complexity. For example, did you know that when you first power on the airplane and engage the parking brake, the PTCU will automatically pressurize the HYD B, then HYD A systems, in succession? Or that the ground spoiler accumulators use both the real fluid volumes and transfer rates of the exact real life part as well as the correct physical equations to determine how much fluid exits the accumulator on each use? Or that upon gear up the brakes will automatically spool down the wheels for you so you don't have to tap the brakes? All simulated. 😉 While I don't think the aircraft systems will quite go there this time (we expect it will be more in depth than the CJ4 but less than the Longitude), we certainly don't think anyone will complain about the avionics, VNAV, AP, or navigation. All that is up to the standard folks expect from us, for sure.

This keeps getting repeated, and it continues to be incorrect. 🙂 The sim weather radar is fully 3D and intersects a conical volume with the clouds and returns precip. You can even see in the screenshot from the stream that I'm far enough above the weather layer that the returns don't start until the radar beam hits the precip some distance away from the plane. Presently it does not support manual tilt, but that is being looked into by the SDK team.

This is not even remotely the scenario in question for aircraft manufacturers. The real scenario is airplane has a minor incident, makes the news, media has plane "expert" on some news segment flying the plane with the failure active saying, "see, here's how these can break, isn't that dangerous", public doesn't understand routine failures, public doesn't want to fly on said plane, analysis shows ticket sales down for said plane amid controversy, airline CEO cancels orders. The fact that any commercial aircraft gets licensed at all always strikes me as extremely magnanimous on the part of manufacturers. There's almost zero upside, simmers don't buy ATRs nor do they control who buys them. Brand awareness is not nothing, certainly, but I don't think it's so strange for manufacturers not to want to highlight failures if that's their prerogative.

As has been mentioned a few times in the developer Q&As (and Martial did a while presentation about it at a streamed MS game dev conference, if I recall), the team receives every CTD plus stack frame data (if able to be gathered) as long as the user doesn't cancel it or have the setting off in Windows, and this data is aggregated and can be digested in various ways. Even armed with this data (which is still immensely insightful, many times), that doesn't make it automatically magically possible to understand how the error occurred. The sim may crash due to a missing pointer to an AI aircraft, for example, but simply having the crash (which is a small snapshot of the time of the crash) may not give you sufficient information to know why the aircraft pointer was missing; in a piece of software this complex the initial issue may have happened ages ago when the data was downloaded and maybe doesn't manifest until several hours into the flight. TLDR: software is hard.

The process is the same as before the updates, you simply make a plan on the world map and it will load automatically into the plane when you start the flight. It's possible the plan you are picking has some vectors legs or discontinuities which the world map does not represent.

That may be so, but the explanation provided is why we (Working Title) did not include it with the new Longitude updates.

@ndts is correct here. The HUD in the C700 is not yet certified by any aviation governing bodies and is unavailable for use by pilots (nor is there any documentation for us). After it is certified and we have documentation we can start to look at making it available.

We are forced to have them different versions due to how the package system works. The list of officially supported planes is in the AAU1 release notes. All other planes are not officially supported. If a second or third party aircraft has done the work to properly integrate the new GNS then it will be the default and not require the Marketplace redirect, but you would need to contact the developers to see, as we don't have a list of everyone who has finished integration.

A few things to check: Are you selecting the VECTORS transition for your approach? If so, you will need to have a hard altitude constraint set prior to the approach in order to receive guidance. Altitudes in the approach will not be targeted (even if the system will compute the advisory altitudes for legs) until you are in the approach segment or the approach is activated (direct to the IAF) Does your arrival end in a MANSEQ? Similar to the above, the system will not compute a path through the manual sequence leg, so there must be hard constraints prior to the MANSEQ

This is already the case. The pixel resolution of the displays matches their real life counterparts. Gotta disagree with Robert here. I stare at avionics YouTube videos every day and rarely are they something I would call "clear" or "readable" (my life would be so much easier if they were). This is just a simple case of not having sufficient pixels in the view. In a 1080p screen at a normal seating position you might only have 400px or less of screen. Of course, you can still set your view like the old FS 2D panel views and smash your virtual face up against the screens with a sliver of windscreen at the top, and then I think you'll find they're just as clear as the old days. 😉

Envelope protection cannot be disabled, nor can it in the real aircraft. If you cancel AT while MIN SPD is active, you can cancel that one instance, but once you're out of the MIN SPD range and go back into it, you will need to cancel AT again.

The flight model was adjusted using feedback from a number of real world CJ4 pilots. One thing that was consistent in their feedback was how light the plane feels on the controls. If you were to smack the control wheel all the way over you'd get a pretty serious roll rate. It's a fly with two fingers kind of plane, with very direct controls and an immediate cessation of roll when input is removed. The mod flight model was not super accurate in a number of ways, certainly had much more of an airliner feel which the RL pilots found to be very unrealistic. However, when dealing with sim controls it's always a case of balancing various compromises, and so we're always looking for more ways to stay faithful to what the RL pilot testers ask for and what the greater sim community perceives from a feel perspective. I'm certain there will be continuous refinements as more sim updates occur.

The flight model that ships in AAU1 was already tuned in conjunction with manufacturer flight data and real C700 pilots, and flies more or less on the book. What additional flight model enhancements would be necessary, in your opinion?

The Operators Guide updated for AAU1 is available on the MSFS website (Media -> Aircraft Manuals).

No, the G1000 NXi (in the sim and in real life) does not have any support for following restrictions during the climb phase.

Hey now, there's no need for that. Folks are entitled to think a plane doesn't suit their preferences; that's nothing to judge anyone about.

It definitely can. The green trim range is static and covers the entire takeoff trim range for all valid CGs. As such just being in green trim doesn't mean you're in the best trim for the CG. For example if you load it at max aft CG and then stick it at the bottom of the green band you're going to have a very strong nose up moment.

No, traffic that is actually sitting on the ground is never displayed on the Garmins (nor in real life, either).

This is accurate to the airframe. There is no way to change the units display on the EIS, even by maintenance. All airframes delivered worldwide will still display in these units on the EIS.

Presently there is a bug in the sim where injected traffic that starts on the ground only is sent to the instruments. Additionally, the default traffic setting will only show traffic that is +/-2700ft of your current pressure altitude.

All of our avionics systems so far run on the HTML/JS stack, upon which we've built a source-available framework (it's on GitHub) called the MSFS Avionics Framework. We used standard sim systems where available, and then built on those with a huge swath of custom code. We have some general explanations of what and how things are simulated at the beginning of each of the 12 or so systems chapters in the Operators Guide. Here's the description from the Pneumatics System chapter: And from the Fuel System chapter:

They are not used during normal operations. They control the reversionary modes of the displays, so you can display alternate data in case of a screen failure. AHRS modes (the other buttons) are not modeled, as the sim more or less always has a good magnetic reference, and you would only potentially use those during polar operations.

As of right now, yes, by a country mile. I'm not aware of any payware G3000 or G5000 purpose-built from the ground up for their aircraft. The closest would be Marwan's exceptional work on the HJet, which built on top of the WT G3000 mod with some extensive customizations. The awesome folks at FFX plan to also port their aircraft specific parts to the new AAU1 versions of the G3000/5000. Additionally, it's quite safe to say that the Longitude is now the most complex business jet delivered as a default aircraft in a consumer flight simulator, both in terms of aircraft systems depth and avionics fidelity. I'm not aware of another where you can do something like switch off both hydraulics pumps, observe the reduced roll authority as the roll spoilers run out of power and you go to ailerons only, then switch the PTCU to AUX A to power the hydraulic system A from the hydraulic motor-generator, all accompanied by the proper CAS messages with the exact debounce times straight from the manufacturer, fluid sim that matches real flight log data in temps, pressure curves, and times, hydraulic accumulators that use real fluid dynamics equations to store fluid forces for backup systems, etc. Yes, I'm tooting my own horn here and I apologize, but it's our biggest release and we're really proud of it, and I hope everyone that flies it enjoys it too!

They will not change. Both of those planes ship with their own built-in custom versions of the original WT G3000 mod.