Tom_L

The video was prepared though, so there has been some preparation going into answering that particular question. Therefore, I believe that your accusation that I am disingineous stems from an unrealistic assessment.

Since SU7 they are evasive of any question regarding Live Weather, the standard answer being "we'll have to talk to Meteoblue", so I was curious how they would circumvent the issue this time, as one question (0:35:10) was: "With night lighting being adressed by the team in SU4 beta, are there any improvements we can expect in terms of the atmosphere and clouds next?" Seb then asks to play a video showcasing the improvements they made for the night lighting. I guess it's their way to make clear that weather, clouds and atmosphere remain a sideshow in their flight simulator.

This thread—which actually started with the weather radar and now revolves around the visual aspects of weather rendering, which can be highly subjective and certainly depends on the specific situation (such as a spectacular sunset)— misses the point once again. The standard aircraft were mediocre at best initially, and MS responded by bringing in third-party developers. The avionics were mediocre, and MS responded by bringing in the Working Title team. The autogen scenery was basically okay, yet MS is striving for improvements with the move away from Blackshark. The scenery received a significant boost with the improved 3D terrain features. The walk-around feature as an introduction to first-person view suggests further development plans. I could list many more examples, but the text is getting already too long... What about Live Weather? It was a key feature at the launch of MSFS 2020, and Jorg Neumann couldn't promise enough fantastic developments in this area. That changed radically with SU7. No more visions in this direction, just tweaks. Yes, it looks spectacular at times, but it still carries many known shortcomings, not least the unfulfilled promise of being able to render all types of clouds. A thread like this would be an opportunity to address an imbalance in development effort, but instead, mediocrity is being celebrated. TL;DR: A first step in the right direction would be to acknowledge that weather and atmosphere should be a core focus in a flight simulator, and that this has no longer been the case in MSFS since SU7. Everything else would probably follow from that.

I think it says more about the community. Although the weather representation has been tweaked for years (some say there is development—but that's wishful thinking), there is still a lack of credible implementation of cloud formations in different atmospheric conditions. This may even be advantageous, as some flights would otherwise have to be canceled due to the lack of a convincing weather radar - but let's not open that can of worms. But that can't be the standard for a modern flight simulator, in which many areas (aircraft, avionics, scenery) see active development while the atmosphere will have to make do with tweaks to an apparently inadequate engine from the early days. And yet, weather related Bug reports or Wishlist threads seldom reach more than 250 votes. And I cannot but notice that many discussions about deficiencies in weather simulation are often stifled early on with mere subjective impressions ("looks good enough for me") instead of supporting efforts to improve the sim. The reasons for this behavior are a mystery to me, but it is striking that there is also resistance from the user base to improvements in weather and atmosphere simulation.

It is quite obvious what happened here: you are absolutely right, at some point they really improved the night lighting in MSFS 2020 reacting to a HUGE and longstanding thread in their forums and a catastrophic first attempt to calm the community which made the sim look more like TRON at night. That must have been the time when they decided to fork the code in order to develop MSFS 2024, and that's why the "new" one has so many flaws that have been ironed out in the "old" one. The sepia mask is another hint, as it was dialled down at some point in MSFS 2020. They are aware of the sepia issue as it played a major role in the above mentioned HUGE thread for MSFS 2020 already, and Seb has hinted at a solution in a recent Q&A. But why they weren't able to implement all the updates for MSFS2020 in the forked code in the first place will remain their secret.

And there are some misaligned textures at parking positions as well. I reported it via their own Zendesk reporting tool - if I remember correctly - and got a fairly quick response with an acknowledgement. Fixes never materialized though. Thankfully their gorgeous LIRQ doesn't have such massive issues. Their customer support is a shame, and although I love their work I probably would only purchase another Gaya product after I have seen a thorough review that proves there are no major issues. In general, I think it is not so much an issue of the communication method but the willingness of developers to invest time and money into an already paid product. My impression is also that the expectations of us customers play a major role. No manufacturer of aircraft add-ons can afford to ignore customers in the long run, regardless of the price tag. Scenery developers, on the other hand, generally seem unwilling to release more than one service package – if at all. I don't even want to start talking about adjustments to the current development status, which is very annoying for airports where construction is essentially constant. And they seem to be getting away with it, perhaps because the development time for a scenery is shorter than that for an aircraft, and they can therefore generate fresh cash more quickly and are therefore less dependant on customeer satisfaction.

During a recent sale, I initially purchased the Sim Wings version of LEBL, but my now low-end system struggled to generate a sufficient frame rate when paired with the FENIX. So I also purchased the MK version during the same sale, and the performance is better on my system. I imagine the differences might not be that significant on more powerful systems. In my opinion, both versions are of equal quality; I personally prefer the way the Sim Wings version blends into the surrounding standard scenery, but that's definitely a matter of taste. I am still on 2020, so '24 might be different in that regard.

I was very critical of the "unique" yawing characteristics of the PC-12 and had pushed the plane into the hangar despite the otherwise great quality. It's now coming out again!

It wouldn't matter if you'd had. I own their ENCN payware scenery and reported (years ago, via their website) misaligned ground textures. I got an acknowledgement, but to my knowledge no fix ever surfaced. There is one on fs.to adressing these problems, but Gaya didn't care. Considering their treatment of paying customers, I wouldn't expect anything regarding their contractual work for MS. I had a good laugh when I just checked their actual website where their contact form says "We're always keen to hear anything from you. Let's start talking!". 🤣

I can't comment on every airport, but as far as developers are concerned I am not enthusiastic of Thessaloniki, so I have avoided other MXI airports. I don't know anything about Salvuz or Fly2High, but I have several airports from all the other developers on your list and would recommend them in general.

1. RNP-AR is basically the most sophisticated category of LPV approaches (LPV on steroids), insofar it is also satellite based. RNAV and RNP are subcategories of PBN and are defined in specifications by the ICAO. The extent to which crew and equipment comply with these specifications determines the type and minimum of possible approaches. Depending on whether only lateral navigation (LNAV), additional barometrically supported vertical navigation (VNAV) or on-board performance monitoring and alerting (Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance, LPV) is possible, RNAV (GPS) or RNP approaches are defined with a minimum "down to" LNAV, LNAV/VNAV or LPV. And as FENIX and the PMDG can even fly RNP approaches with curved RF legs, they are LPV capable per se. Many more MSFS aircraft are (see below 3.1). 2. In the A320 family - (without the new SLS option) the autopilot mode for RNP(-AR) as well as LPV would be FINAL APP, the Boeing equivalent would be indeed LNAV/VNAV PATH. But those are simply differing mode announciations based on the manufacturers operating philosophy. The real differences are technical, legal and licensing-related requirements (see above). Keeping these separate is what causes the much-described confusion surrounding these approaches. 3. The same technical, legal and licensing-related requirements determine the kind of approach you would use if the initial approach has to be aborted. In case of your example RNP Rwy28 in LSZH that would mean: I haven't tried, but I am 100% sure every aircraft with the G1000, G3000, WT GNS 430/530 and all modern airliners in MSFS can fly this approach, including PMDG and FENIX. The minimum depends on the installed version, in case of Garmin e.g. the G100Nxi can go down to LPV CAT1, whereas an older G1000 without SBAS is limited to the LNAV minimum. Every pilot would have to check the aircraft POH and GPS manual to make sure the required criteria are met. As for the Airbus, this is what I take from an irl A320 Capt.: In case of the Airbus showing GPS PRIMARY LOST on one Navigation Display or NAV ACCUR DOWNGRAD on one FMGS, I could continue down to LNAV/VNAV minimum using the remaining Flight Director/Autopilot, in case of those messages on both devices or XTK > 0.3 NM or NAV FM/GPS POS DISAGREE on ECAM I would have to abort the landing. I assume it is dependant on the POH and airline SOP's.

What an interesting thread! Count me in, and I am pretty sure 75% of irl pilots using their shiny avionics suites on a daily basis feel the same. Airline pilots are probably better off in this regard, as they can often refer to their company SOP and don't have to bother with all the layers, that make this so complicated: regulations, equipment capabilty, equipment certification, pilot certification...... Had to look this up, as I wasn't aware of that. Obviously this is standard in the newer A350 and A380 and nowadays available (airline option?) for the A320 family as well. However, in older A320 family aircraft, LPV approaches can be flown in FINAL APP, and I recently flew the RNP Z Rwy05 (AR) at LPMA (Madeira Funchal) in the FENIX, which followed the lateral and vertical path perfectly down to (RNP)minimums. The PMDG 737 does that as well (not sure about the PFD indications), although there was some deviation from the lateral path and I had to take over manually before reaching minimums, as the aircraft turned brutally towards the terrain. As a rule of thumb I would think that the navigation equipment only lists those approaches that it is able to handle from a technical standpoint. Regulations and certification however may be a different matter.

Won't happen, as Nvidia seems to have stopped production: https://www.pcgamer.com/hardware/processors/nvidia-has-reportedly-killed-production-of-all-rtx-40-gpus-apart-from-the-4050-and-4060-as-affordable-50-series-gpus-could-arrive-earlier-than-expected/

Great freeware quality, for sure! I'd like to reccommend EDMV, located in Bavaria/Germany, from this developer. Although I'm biased because I did quite some irl flying into the Alps from there, it might be a nice location for anyone, as it is located directly on the northern bank of the Danube river opposite the picturesque old town, which is depicted as photogrammetry. The runway is long enough to accommodate small bizjets, and the occasional Transall was seen there too when they were still in use with the german air force. As the residents are very sensitive for noise, the approach and departure are quite challenging, as described on the airports homepage.

Agreed. Whether someone wants to report positive or negative experiences, these are legitimate expressions of opinion that naturally not everyone shares, so it is to be expected that opposing opinions will be expressed. Completely normal so far. Unfortunately, it often does not stop at expressing opposing opinions, but the other view gets delegitimized and the originator defamed. But that too must unfortunately be classified as normal in these times. I see the real problem when this behavior is too often not limited to pure opinion threads - of which there are too many redundant ones - but also applies where specific defects, shortcomings or bugs are addressed. Instead of working together with the aim of making the shared hobby better, too many of these possibilities are destroyed by the behavior described. In the spirit of the hobby, it would therefore be desirable if users would reflect on the actual purpose and possible added value of a forum like this. That would be my wish for the new year.