Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Good

1 Follower

About GentleGroove

  • Birthday 12/13/1980

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

3,091 profile views
  1. You were spot on, it worked and now they are showing correctly, thank you very much. They look great on the sim too, this developer is doing a great job with Morocco. Cheers
  2. Hi everyone I am using JouJou92's excellent GMME and GMMH freeware sceneries. However, both of them are now displaying a strange issue - both of them show a sort of "ghost" two-runway airport layout with taxiways and aprons: GMMH GMME The "ghost" layout has nothing to do with either airport (number of runways, orientation, layout, etc) and is exactly the same on both sceneries. And it's even stranger that I've had and used GMME for months and everything was normal until yesterday. Anyone has any idea on what causes this and how to fix it? Cheers
  3. You're right! I was thinking of UK2000, but they did Inverness, not Aberdeen. Oh had no idea there was one. Is it by superspud? Will check it out, thanks.
  4. Yes, Pyreegue are absolutely fabulous and the quality / performance relationship is amazing in their products. Once this is out, all the UK needs is a decent EGHH and EGJB... 🤞
  5. My bad, I was pretty sure it was, I stand corrected. Comparable resources? No. But since neither of us knows how much MS invested in this, it's pure speculation. But do I think Milviz as a company has enough resources to finish their ATR? Yes, absolutely, and it's not MS that's keeping them from doing it. Maybe when they finish the Turbo Otter, the Boeing 737-200, the A1-H, the C-130J, the F-100, F-15C, the F-4, the F-86, the T-38A, the SR-71, the T-6, the UH-1H and the UH-60 (or at least whatever doesn't end up as vaporware from this list) they can scrape a few pennies to finish the ATR.
  6. Let me point out a couple of things here: MSFS is a secondary market for Milviz. Their core business is professional simulation and (I'm quoting their own website here) their clients include: USAF, US Navy, USAF ROTC, NATO, Lockheed Martin, CAE, etc... Do you really think a company with these types of contracts does not have substantial resources? But of course, in this context it's more comfortable for them to paint themselves as poor semi-amateur developer who cannot compete with big bad Microsoft and their deep pockets. Second (and this is the third time I point this): Milviz were doing the -500 version while Asobo was doing the -600. They have totally different cockpits, different engines and different performance, so their logic makes as much sense as arguing they won't develop a 737-200 because other developer is doing the -300...
  7. Absolutely, yes! Still some things can be improved, but it's a really engaging and fun aircraft to fly. I am amazed at the mental gymnastics some people (and even more some that haven't even tried it) are doing to find every conceivable fault and dismiss this addon. Maybe if they put just half of that energy towards learning how the ATR really works they could have some enjoyment out of it...
  8. According to this thread you need to assign the "toggle switch feather" functions to cutoff.
  9. Yes, thanks for sharing the import tutorial, I will be using that from now on, since I don't own the CRJ I will configure the downloader for the ATR.
  10. Exactly. Even with P3D Milviz had a tradition of unfinished projects, which they have ported over to MSFS. And instead of focusing on one or two projects, they just keep adding on. They have no less than 11 (!) aircraft in development for MSFS right now. How many of these will actually be completed? And regarding the ATR cancellation, Milviz themselves admitted they had decided to rebuild the model halfway through development, which would add another 4-6 months. Is that Asobo's fault too? And something that is often overlooked - they were not even designing the same aircraft - Milviz was working on the earlier -500 variant, while Hans was doing the -600. Asobo killed the Milviz ATR? There was not enough room for both? Nope. Milviz just saw this as a convenient excuse to cancel their project which, more than anything else, was a victim of their own poor planning and execution.
  11. Probably some people are looking at this thread trying to decide whether to get the ATR or not, so here is my experience. Finally completed my first flight after a couple of days remembering the procedures and familiarizing myself with this version. For now, let's just say I'm quite happy, but I'll try to sum it a little better. PROS Flight dynamics - Handflying feels quite good, neither overresponsive nor sluggish, good control in all phases of flight and no unpleasant surprises. Landing it is a great experience. The tail clearance on the ATR is quite reduced, but the dynamics give you the right amount of responsiveness and inertia to make take-offs and landings comfortable and enjoyable. Ground handling - Hands down the best I've experienced in MSFS so far, and by this I mean it is way better than the Fenix or the PMDG, which have not fully overcome a certain "twitchiness" in turns while taxiing. The ATR is a joy to taxi with precise and smooth ground movements. Also, the steering tiller axis works, which is great. Autopilot & Navigation - LNAV, VNAV and power management are all properly simulated, including VNAV IAS mode and AUTO SPD TGT. You can tell these are custom and not using "default" systems. Again, so far no unpleasant surprises in use, building flight plans, using DIRECT-TO function, SIDs, STARs, etc. EFB - Besides performance calculation, it allows you to custom calibrate your throttle (important as you will need precise control, especially on approach), as well as controlling ground services. Performance - Excellent, no stutters at all even on heavier airports. CONS Flight plans - No import functionality yet (although it seems this may change). ATR routes tend to be short and the FMS allows you to input airways, so entering a route by hand does not take more than a couple of minutes. Nevertheless, import functionality would be great. Fuel / payload management - A bit surprisingly, the EFB does not allow you to manage fuel or payload. When you enter the weights on the FMS, they appear on the EFB, when you would expect the opposite. An important notice here - entering the fuel and payload weight in the FMS does not change them in the aircraft. In order to load the correct weights from your flight plan into the model, you must use the in-sim weight and balance menu before loading the aircraft. This is quite easy and quick to do, nevertheless, would be great if it could be done from the EFB like in other addons. Trim - the CG values shown on the EFB seem to be slightly mismatched from the actual loading. For instance, with the EFB indicating a trim of 1.1, the aircraft tended to rotate on its own at Vr. Reducing this value to 0.5 allowed for a normal take-off. Documentation - The biggest fault IMO. The ATR is a very particular aircraft, so at the very least a "user guide" or "quick start" manual should have been included, especially considering ATR's involvement. CONCLUSION Regardless of the cost, I feel this is a very solid aircraft with lots of potential. Yes, some things can be improved still, but out of the box as it is, it's already a great model with lots of interesting features that show you the little quirks of the ATR. For those coming from Boeing / Airbus, the learning curve may be a bit steep (and I noticed many "bugs" mentioned are really people just not knowing how the ATR systems work), but once you get to grips with it, it's certainly a very rewarding aircraft. It also fills a gap between jets and the smaller turboprops available until now, and for those who like to do commercial flights into smaller airfields, the ATR is the way to go.
  12. I would advise you to read the link that @bobcat999 posted. This is a quote from the designer: "This addon has been in development for over a year now, and there is no expected release date due to some mental health issues that prevent me from working regularly." Before ranting without knowing anything about other people's circumstances, maybe it would be wiser to pause a bit and remember there's life outside simming.
  13. @Noel I have to thank you for sharing the original info on this thread. I have followed your advice, and it does make a huge difference. I have experimented with several V-Sync settings, frame caps, etc with fairly good results, but the smoothness you get from this RTSS + NCP setup is on another level, everything just feels more... fluid. With developer mode active, I noticed the CPU load is lower than it's ever been, even on Ultra (I normally use High-end) and it seems to work well either on TAA or DLSS/DLAA. Also, it does work on a Freesync monitor with a NVIDIA card + G-Sync enabled, as is my case. Thank you for sharing this!
  14. Nice results with @RALF9636 settings. On the rudder however I'm finding the extremity deadzone a bit too high. Taking off in stronger crosswinds, rudder lacks authority above 100 knots. A value of 30 seems to provide just enough control even in strong winds.
  15. No disrespect and I very much appreciate the time and effort of the freeware developers, but this addon is not particularly good looking or immersive. I wish Simwings would develop LEMG.
  • Create New...