Jump to content

Tom_L

Donor
  • Content Count

    81
  • Donations

    $25.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tom_L

  1. Unfortunately the "community manager" doesn't seem to be up to her task: Apart from the poorly structured "interview" there were very specific questions for "AI" and "Live weather", very well summarized and condensed by the OP's in the top posts of the respective threads in the Q&A forum - and it seemed as if she hadn't understood them at all. To me it seemed more improvised than prepared - and a wasted opportunity sadly.
  2. The third-most voted topic for the upcoming Developers Q&A is "Live weather questions". Let's see if they dig into it....
  3. It states on it's front page: THIS INFORMATION MANUAL IS A NON-OFFICIAL COPY OF THE PILOT'S OPERATING HANDBOOK. It's non official for legal reasons as it is not amended. In don't think you'll find anything much different as it has everything one would expect from a POH.
  4. Ok, let's keep this thread positive: I have logged the most hours by far in MSFS with the TBM, and it is fun. The model is gorgeous, the cockpit is best when it comes to ergonomics and readability. I LOVE the animation of the deicing boots. And because I like this plane so much I sincerely hope it will still get some more love frome the devs. Anyone who feels the same and hasn't done so yet should therefore vote in this threat in order to keep it where it belongs: at the top of the To-do-list for ASOBO.
  5. Well, payware quality? Yes, if you take the majority of MSFS scenery that is available on simmarket.com, for sure. Otherwise I would say, this is honest, appreciable freeware. I remember the old days, when payware was the exception rather than the norm. So i appreciate any developer sharing his work for free, because that is a spirit that seems to be lost in the last two decades (on second thought - make it three decades!).
  6. Yeah, I remembered that part, alright. But the rest - guess i'm back to my PPL-books. Thx a lot!
  7. I don't know about your experience, but from your posting I guess it's vanilla MSFS for quite some time. Maybe you wanna have a look at Squirrel's video here if you'd like to get a feeling what VFR-flying is about. What's special is that he's done this flight in MSFS an IRL and you can find the other one if you look at his channel....
  8. Not to criticise, but out of interest: Wouldn't that be true only for a sailplane? A powereed airplane is moving by itself through the moving airmass. And some FMC's will show head- and crosswind components in flight. It's been a while since I have drawn my last wind-triangle though....😁
  9. I wonder what your difficulties are. Flying VFR means comparing what you see on your aeronautical chart with what you see out of the windows of your airplane. So the more realistic the outside view, the more realistic your VFR flying. But maybe that's what's bothering you. Tbh, flying (the navigation part at least) became much easier since GPS has found the way into our cockpits and using Foreflight, SkyDemon and the like is a huge step towards situational awarenes in VFR flying. Finding VFR reporting points - and even airports- in unknown areas is a challenge without these little helpers. FSX made that part easier, because runways used to stick out of the scenery more than in reality. That has changed in MSFS - luckily. To answer your question. It depends on the developer and the surrounding scenery. I think with MSFS we will see less airports where the surrounding scenery is altered, especially in photogrammetry regions. FSDT have pointed that out for their Key West airport scenery: if they were to mess with the surrounding area it includes the high risk that any update/upgrade of the underlying photogrammetry scenery would render their work useless. Neverless they created some POI's around the airport. So you will have to check for every product if it will meet your requirements.
  10. Here's what the POH has to say: After Start section Adjust the indicator in green range TO (TAKEOFF) Before Takeoff section: Yaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adjusted Adjust abeam ”TO” index. Climb section Only when flaps are confirmed UP : - Trims (Pitch, Roll and Yaw) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adjusted And you're right about the crab, therefore the POH doesn't mention any Trim related topics for Descent/Before Landing/Landing. Trimming for coordinated flight goes without saying though.
  11. Nice, but the interior is prone to staining I would guess?
  12. No autoland in the TBM, let alone in the C172 - but tbh I haven't tried yet. Give it a shot and you'll see. Nobody will care in the sim. As @Jeff Nielsen has pointed out, it's more about how "real" you want to keep your simulation and how far you are willing to get to terms with all the technical and legal details of the different approaches. In real life your company's SOP will tell you what you can or can't do, or being a privat pilot with a capable aircraft you would need an extensive knowledge of your POH and equipment and at least a good idea of the whole legal stuff. And when it comes to the legal aspects of RNAV/RNP/GPS approaches in Europe - a law degree will certainly help.
  13. I can't remember that I deleted any mappings when I mapped the rudder axis in the sim. As long as you don't run into problems.....
  14. Impressive, but no wonder with your SEP background 🙂. The POH for the TBM 930 calls for Flaps TO (1) when speed < 178 KIAS (that's VFE, the maximum allowed speed for Flaps extended). Flaps LDG (2) is permissable with speed <122 KIAS. Approach speed with Flaps LDG is 85 KIAS. However there is no procedure for landing with Flaps TO, even with strong crosswinds (max xwind is 20 kts btw.). Here's what the POH says: It is not desirable to adopt configuration with flaps TO. Lateral control is not improved, and flare phase is lengthened in time and in distance, with increase of piloting difficulties and landing performance. To the OP: Being a beginner it is no mistake to stick with Graham's procedure as it will make for a stabilized approach and is therefore key for a succesful landing. When you feel more confident you might want to try to keep the speed high on the approach when flying into busy airports. At my home airport it is expected by ATC to keep 170 KIAS until the outer marker as long as it is operational practicable. In the TBM, that would mean handflying as the POH states: However, when autopilot is engaged, in APR mode, with coupled GS, flaps must be extended in landing position before crossing the OUTER MARKER. And that would mean <122 KIAS and a tad more spacing for the following traffic.... And just to clarify: I'm also only a piston jockey.
  15. Here's the European regulation regarding aircraft lighting. Sometimes a flightsim is more relaxing than being a pilot irl 🙂. However: The strobe lights meet the requirements for both: indication for running engine on the ground and anti collision light in flight. SERA.3215 Lights to be displayed by aircraftRegulation (EU) 2016/1185 (a)Except as provided by (e), at night all aircraft in flight shall display: (1)anti-collision lights intended to attract attention to the aircraft; and (2)except for balloons, navigation lights intended to indicate the relative path of the aircraft to an observer. Other lights shall not be displayed if they are likely to be mistaken for these lights. (b)Except as provided by (e), at night: (1)all aircraft moving on the movement area of an aerodrome shall display navigation lights intended to indicate the relative path of the aircraft to an observer and other lights shall not be displayed if they are likely to be mistaken for these lights; (2)unless stationary and otherwise adequately illuminated, all aircraft on the movement area of an aerodrome shall display lights intended to indicate the extremities of their structure, as far as practicable; (3)all aircraft taxiing or being towed on the movement area of an aerodrome shall display lights intended to attract attention to the aircraft; and (4)all aircraft on the movement area of an aerodrome whose engines are running shall display lights which indicate that fact. (c)Except as provided by (e), all aircraft in flight and fitted with anti-collision lights to meet the requirement of (a) (1) shall display such lights also during day. (d)Except as provided by (e), all aircraft: (1)taxiing or being towed on the movement area of an aerodrome and fitted with anti-collision lights, to meet the requirement of (b)(3); or (2)on the movement area of an aerodrome and fitted with lights to meet the requirement of (b)(4);shall display such lights also during day. (e)A pilot shall be permitted to switch off or reduce the intensity of any flashing lights fitted to meet the requirements of (a), (b), (c) and (d) if they do or are likely to: (1)adversely affect the satisfactory performance of duties; or(2)subject an outside observer to harmful dazzle
  16. Here's a summary of what's working for me (to summarize Bert and Colonel X essentially): 1. In MSFS VSync is off, therefore no fps limit 2. No fps limit in Nvidia CP (or inspector), try default profile if necessary 3. For my 60 Hz monitor I have setup a MSFS profile by holding >AltGr< (that's the right ALT key) and hitting the green >Add< Button in RTSS while MSFS is running. This will select the "flightsimulator.exe". Then I am clicking on the "x" (or whatever you have listed there) behind >scanline sync< in RTSS until it shows "X/2" and set a value of -10 by using the blue arrows in the box behind that (you may try other values but I found no difference here) 4. RTSS runs in the background while MSFS is running. You might try to set >scanline sync< to "x" instead of "x/2" if (and only if) your sim can deliver very stable 60+ frames/sec. The key is not to let the framerate drop below 30 ("x/2") /60 ("x") fps under all circumstances.
  17. That: "this plane really likes to oscillate.....up and down with the pitch...when on ILS down and low" (18:05 in video) and he's therefore handflying from 500 ft. down. It's a great find and shows that real world autopilots have their flaws too. While I think there's defintely room for improvement with the MSFS autopilot I never had the OP problems with pitch oscillation on approach in the TBM. I had pitch oscillation during one whole flight once, and that vanished after deleting a mod I was using at that time. Power/speed/config matter a lot, be it in sim or in the real airplane. Then there's wind and turbulence, control sensitivity and -quality (spikes?) to be considered. However, I noticed that the AP in the TBM tends to sway left and right by up to 5 degrees enroute before "settling" on a new track of the flightplan, so maybe the programming in general has it's part in the problem some are seeing and others are not.
  18. There’s a lot of topics every day, even in The “Bugs” section of the official forum- I get it. But it took me not 5 minutes to figure out that there’s more than on threat dealing with “lightning” with fairly high vote counts as well: Too much Thunder and Lightning (293) Lightning in mostly sunny skies (252) Everywhere Thunderstorms ?!?!? (124) Live weather = Clear, I get thunder (59) That’s 728 votes at the time of this post and would put in on #2 instead of #9 in the Top Bugs list. So “Backlog” might not be appropriate here.
  19. Don't remember, googled it - and you're right. I had it for sure, but I can't remember as well as the awful performance and graphics of FS95.
  20. First of all - I feel with you. I was sceptical about MSFS, had issues with installation and struggled with the UI that I found anything but intuitive. Three days later I had 90% of the functionality I was used to in P3D restored - without any addon - and started to enjoy weather and scenery. After another few days I noticed the well known bugs and limitations of the sim and started „zendesking“ eagerly, driven by the desire to get the best and most complete sim I ever had, immediately! Well, then came 1.8.3.0, 1.9.3.0 - you know what happened. And RSR over at PMDG announced a 1-year delay for the 737NG. And I realized, that I will have to wait longer than anticipated for the sim that I felt was promised to me. It’s just what it is. 200 developers, just working to fulfil my wishes? No! 200 developers, divided into teams, dealing with small portions of a very complex simulation. Autopilot issues, Lightning in clear skies, Garmin deficits,Turboprop logic and more - all duly noted and scheduled, to our liking or not. But there are other issues not mentioned: Two photosceneries in relative vicinity to each other lead to the sim not loading, Navaids are missing in 3rd party scenery and many more. 3rd party developers - not unimportant for MS/ASOBO and us - have requests and requirements that need to be taken care of, without the community taking notice. So yes, I am disappointed! MS/ASOBO have their share in that because I feel they promised me something that wasn’t there - yet! But I still have an inkling that behind all of that marketing stuff (yes MS/ASOBO, I realize that!) there’s an honest will to deliver. And what’s the alternative? Back to P3D? Well, I recently installed the P3D-scenery of my home airport. And despite it being extraordinary well modelled, I spent several hours of troubleshooting because I thought my autogen of the surrounding Orbx region was flawed by the installation. No, it wasn‘t. It just looks so bad, compared to MSFS (base) scenery. Conclusion: I appreciate your effort concerning the autopilot issues and will upvote for sure. But on the other hand I would like to give you an advice: keep calm. The history of MS Flightsimulator shows a lot of failure and success: while FS4 was a widely respected and stable platform, FS95 - it successor - was not. And FSX became really usable only after service pack 1, nearly half a year after release. So we are pretty much on schedule. Just kidding 🙂
  21. Yes, it's a known issue, not sure if it has been "zendesked" yet 🤔
  22. To make things even more complicated: there's also Guilherme Farias' mod. They seem to overlap to some degree, but anyway: you can check for the actual version here. Edit: Don't use both at the same time, many files will exclude each other.
  23. Yes, i am a bit frustrated too but I have come to the conclusion that this Sim and its developers will need some time (more as expectet anyway). Look at PMDG, they were optimistic in the beginning and have now settled for a one-year-delay for their first complex aircraft- at least. And seeing MS/ASOBO is having the Turpoprop issue still on #5 of the Top Bugs List I am confident we will see improvement - just not tomorrow. So don't stop voting - it would be counterproductive.
  24. It's a bug, You can avoid it by moving the throttle into flight idle instead. It seems the flightmodel doesn't provide a mechanism to unfeather the prop in both low or high idle thus causing the turbine to overheat. Quite expensive IRL. As much as I like the TBM, it's one of those quirks I don't get with MS/ASOBO: you provide a checklist, and the simulation doesn't behave accordingly. The whole Turboprop simulation is to be overhauled, and that may take some time as it is in their Backlog according to todays update notices. You can support the issue by upvotimng here if you haven't done so already.
  25. Do we really need about 30+ posts regarding the latest patch (1.9.3.0 that is) like "downloading now" ,"nice background picture" or of similar importance? Why not download it, fly, and if needed post something substantial? And what is the point in pasting release notes everyone using the sim will see inevitably during the update? Maybe I'm just getting old.....
×
×
  • Create New...