Tom_L

What I see with MSFS is a change in paradigms when it comes to weather: In the old days we had Metars and developers built the weather around them. Now we have weather and are in need for Metars. But I am pretty sure there is an interface within MSFS that maybe is not documented as of now. But on the flight planning page you can see that the sim fetches some information from within its systems as at least the wind on the ground is shown to determine the departure runway. I'm pretty sure the other information is there as well, it just needs to be extracted. And imho that is clearly the preferred way. Yes, the weather ist not exactly as I can see out of my window, but mostly it resembles the conditions quite well. And consider this: You can have a solid overcast in several layers and pretty bad visibilty while your Metar reads CAVOK simply because only clouds below 5000 ft. or below the MSA are reported and a visibility of 11km against the sun is pretty bad IRL. Programs based on Metars can't interpret such conditions.

Nice review, thank you very much. As i have the P3Dv4 version of the airport and very much enjoyed the trains running beneath the short final to rwy 22L I noticed they are static in this version and the railway lines are pretty low resolution. As Jo Erlend made a moving train in his ENVA scenery I know it would have been possible. On the other hand ENVA is lacking the moving jetways, even with standard animations. Seems like even expierienced developers have a bit of a learning curve. I'm sure there will be some feature updates once the SDK and developer skills are on par. I don't very much care for details not to be seen from the airside of airports 'cause it's a flight simulator after all, but as the trains were a nice feature during the approach I had to notice.

I think we'll see some diversity in the FS market as I don't think the majority of MSFS users will become hardcore simmers. For most of them it will be just another, hopefully enjoyable game for occasional entertainment, which is fine. I think you can see already how the momentum in freeware has shifted from the "traditional" sources like the Avsim library to gamers modding sites. That will imho become the resource for most of the MSFS customers, maybe with the occasional purchase from the ingame store. Remember the times before FSX? It was mostly freeware addons, downloadable from mainly two sites. The price of the product will of course play a major roll. It will be interesting to see if a larger effort in development for creating quality-addons will be honored with the corresponding sales and thus how the quality standard especially in scenery addons will develop. While the products published so far are ranging from nice to very good they are lacking the "wow-i-haven't-seen-that-before-factor" I have hoped to see with a new platform. Mostly they seem like portovers with less detail than in P3D (not moving gates in Aerosofts ENVA or missing animated trains in FlyTampa's EKCH for example). Granted, the SDK isn't fully ready and partially updates are promised, but it seems like the trend goes to faster and cheaper in an effort to conquer the mass market. When it comes to Aircraft, I think PMDG and FSLabs will still be products for the minority of gamers if the pricing remains the same. Maybe products like Aerosoft's Airbus, which is quite nice imho, is better suited for the majority of the new clientele. Let's put the crystal ball at rest and check back in a year or so.

Bump! 140 votes and counting.....Keep up, guys, we'll get there!

Went from around 62 votes yesterday to 110 votes today and made it into the "top voted issues" in todays development-update: https://www.flightsimulator.com/september-3rd-2020-development-update/ Keep voting!

The behaviour of the PT-6 turboprop engine in MSFS isn't accurate (Torque rises with altitude while ITT remains stable, no Beta Range simulation, no propeller effects simulated) and that is a shame because there's a lot to like about the TBM 930 for example, which seems to be pretty popular amongst simmers. But it's not only about the standard planes, it's about the basics for modeling Addon Turboprop aircraft by third party developers. As MS has started a voting system over at their support-forums, it would help if a lot of you would participate. It's a bit of a hassle 'cause you have to log in, but we could be rewarded with a lot better simulation than before. The more votes, the better the chances. And I wouldn't mind if there's a TP-ZIBO out there.... Here's the link: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/turboprop-engine-logic-issues-up-voting/245144 The thread over at MS forums is about Turboprops, so go vote weather you want a PT-6, a TPE331 or PW150A...

Upps, this ist the post I was referring to

I get your point and by reason fully support it. But I had to restrain myself not to comment on a TUTORIAL of some bloke just knowing how to start the game (sic.) and feeling the urge to teach others how to fly an ILS (getting nearly everythin wrong of course) . Wouldn't have come to my mind when I started flightsimming (oh yes, we had internet back then - I clearly remember the sound of my 14.400 bit/s modem).

Yes, hold CTRL and point with the mouse onto the instrument until it shows a symbol (a magnifier i think) and then left klick opens the screen in a separate window. So a second monitor it is? :-))

Yes, hold CTRL and point with the mouse onto the instrument until it shows a symbol (a magnifier i think) and then left klick opens the screen in a separate window. So a second monitor it is? :-))

Yes, high and low views and custom cameras are an option (I think the camera system is great btw., I nearly have reached the same functionality as in P3D with EZCA), but you need one fairly realistic view for takeoff and landing, where you can see the runway ahead and your critical engine values.

I am 6'7'' tall and therefore accustomed to a fairly high viewpoint in real planes- but you can be a lot shorter and nevertheless notice that the standard viewpoints of the standard cockpit camera a far too low - you can't see the runway in most of the planes when lining up, let alone on final with nose up attitude. And when you "tune" the camera to a realistic viewpoint, the cockpit geometry in a lot of planes prevents you from looking at crucial instruments. Have a look at this guy here. He has set up a fairly realistic point of view, and look at the MFD - you can't even see essential information as torque and ITT on the MFD. Even if you set your POV a little bit lower, you can't see vital information. If you feel this needs to be changed, I urge you to report the issue to MS/Asobo via Zendesk.

Did that a few hours ago. Really?

I'm reading that a lot. And it doesn't make me very optimistic as to "we listen to the community" and other obviously marketing driven statements. If it was "only" the turboprop model, but other than the Cessna 150/172 all planes seem to have serious issues. What is the point in Alpha/Beta for a Flightsim if reports to the inaccuracy of the flightmodel are ignored?

While there is a lot to like about the TBM in MSFS, it still suffers from the shortcomings of turboprop behaviour of the old days. Torque rises with altitude, ITT remains in lower ranges, Beta range doesn't seem to work. Does anybody know, if the SDK will allow for 3rd party developers to fix this or will our only hope be Majestic with the Q400 - provided their external simulation is possible in MSFS? Oh - and on a side note: the startup procedure is broken too: put the lever in taxi position prior to start in order to avoid a hot start.