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.

A very interesting post for sure. I particularly appreciate the approach of combining technical details and the "feel". I would like to see more of this from other, valued real Airbus pilots on YT. It deepens the understanding of why certain aspects of product X "feel" realistic or unrealistic. However, I would have appreciated it more if the beta tester involved in the FSL development had limited his comments to the positive aspects of "his own" product, without branding the competitor's product as "sterile and characterless". I have no doubt that this reflects his honest impressions, but for me it leaves the impression of a certain bias. I enjoyed "my" FSL in P3d just as much as I now enjoy the Fenix, even if I sometimes struggle with the handling, especially on the immediate final approach. With the PMDG737 - and after my faded memory of FSL in P3d - I actually have/had a better feeling about their flight models, so I can understand the comments well. However, I also believe that just as the author described for the real model, the character of the simulated counterpart becomes just as habitual, and so I remain unsure whether I should venture out of my comfort zone with the Fenix. I will certainly follow the further development of both and ask myself this question from time to time.

FCR! You can use the controls in the program window or - as I use it - run it minimzed in the background and then use the ingame panel. However, it will not do what you expect. FCR is a replay tool, meaning it records only certain parameters needed in for a visually convincing replay. It does not record the state of the avionics, and certainly not your flightplan entries. While you can use the "Take Control" function and resume a flight you have recorded, those entries will be missing. If you have been told it will do so, than I think the person who told you so was referring to more basic aircraft, where it could work that way to some extent.

Yeah, count me in. I'm one of those who have this otherwise great aircraft sitting in the hangar as unflyable. There are many who believe "being a handful" to fly is an indicator for a realistic flight model, I'm just not one of them. However, I don't know if you are aware that there's another patch imminent, where they claim to have solved the issues. Maybe you'd want to wait for that, before turning to Carenado. Here's from their Discord reagrding the incoming upate: The flight model hits the numbers, responds well, feels right The autopilot has been re-tuned for GNS/PMS and TDS in accordance with the reworked flight model Some minor quirks in the engine have been improved New seats are now in the cockpit. An upgrade to the cabin is planned and may still make it for Christmas. Reported bugs with the EFIS have been corrected The altitude selector has been improved under-the-hood and will come with new keybinds for improved functionality. On that one, we are running a poll on our Discord, to select the method you prefer us to use. While the list seems short, the flight model has undergone a pretty extensive rework. While some compromises were made, the overall feel is vastly improved and lacks most problems we had in the past versions. The entire flight modelling process for the PC-12 has been a long, painful learning experience, allowing us to gain a very deep knowledge of the MSFS flight model and work around most of its limitations. We believed -and still do- that the PC-12 was our best and most complex development, but such things come with teething pains. Now it's over that.

You need to run the main program first in order for the toolbar extension to work as intended. After starting it from your Windows Menu just minimze it and then you can use the ingame dialogue. However, I think you will need to use it creatively to achiever your goal, because imho it is more a recording tool and therefore has limitations for your intended purpose, for which I think FSiPanel would probaly be more suitable.

deleted

The paid version of FCR by Fabi Merlo, developer of the ingame tool, is somehow tailored to certain payware aircraft. This may be missing in the in-game version (can't tell because I'm not on 2024 yet). With the payware however, it is important for the Fenix to first switch to the main menu after recording and then start a fresh flight with the engines running before playing the replay. Not doing so leads to strange effects. Perhaps this also helps with the in-game version. It is admittedly then more suitable for video production, not so much as an instant replay.

The improvements are welcome and I am looking forward to them, especially the expanded ground features. I chose that massive upgrade to make my actual point clear: MS is making great efforts in all possible areas, often involving third parties. I would like to see the same commitment and openness in the weather simulation as well.

I have been following the weather development in MSFS from the beginning, and I am always amazed that the weather is obviously given special treatment. At the beginning there were grandiose promises (all types of clouds...), but then the limitations quickly became apparent. SU7 was supposed to provide a remedy, and Jorg Neumann even promised another "awesome" weather update. From then things went into snail mode and the topic was largely ignored ("we need to talk to Meteoblue"). Yes, some will rightly object that there have been improvements and that MSFS2024 represents another step forward. On the whole, that may be true. I can't judge 2024 yet, but I'm relatively happy with 2020 itself. But then I ask myself: "Why is the ground in a flight simulator improved 4000 times, while the weather only makes very hesitant, isolated improvements, even though the community has pointed out the need for improvement in countless reports - often with the "bug logged" tag. Discussions about Live Weather are often limited to the appearance, while there is actually so much more that is important in connection with the weather: Are there convincing stratus layers? Are thunderstorms really convincing? Are thunderstorms with lightning still coincidental and rarerely depicted (at least in Europe, that is)? Does the visibility and fog simulation provide an accurate representation of RVR values? Does the cloud display match the respective atmospheric situation? Can the sim display more than one cloud layer from METAR reports? What about high overcast layers? Are METAR bubbles avoidable? I therefore hope that MS will take up the issue again at some point and rethink the seemingly set-in-stone dogma of an untouchable weather simulation. After all, this was also possible in many other areas of the simulator (aircraft, avionics, scenery, replay tool).

I think that's a legal question that can't be answered without knowing the details of the contract. After all, the delivered "aircraft" (software package) is probably a precisely described contractual item and, depending on the contract, may also have become the property of MS. I believe that if there was a corresponding wishlist item with enough votes in the official forum, MS would have no problem commissioning the "wiping wipers", even at their own expense. Jorg Neumann can be accused of many things, but he is certainly not petty in such matters. In the end, something like this shouldn't play a big role in the grand scheme of things.

Well, in my opinion there is a certain standard, and that certainly includes implementing basic functions in the best possible way. We can certainly spend hours discussing whether wiping wipers actually belong to such a standard, but at some point these discussions become silly.