Dutch727

As the project manager and systems coder on the 310, I'm happy to comment on this. We're now getting to the final stages of testing to release SP2 for the 310 so I'm glad to see this before it goes out. I'll take a look at the HP percentage to see about adjusting it on the display. We're *not* re-doing the engine parameters. They took months to get "on the numbers" and we're not upsetting that applecart for this change. It's noteworthy that the airplane has been released for nearly 14 months now and this is the first time I've seen anyone address the HP number. Is it possible that only a small percentage of simmers who fly the 310 actually use the EDMs for engine management? For many it's just eye candy with its bar graphs. For previous implementations of the airplane in earlier sims and for most of the other MSFS EDMs I've looked at it's exactly that, just a random display of cylinder temps. The exception is Black Square and hats off to them for the deep implementation of the EDM-800. The 310's EDM is not "eye candy" -- it's quite practical to use it to monitor engine health and spot engine problems as they develop. Some philosophy if you're interested. All developers are faced with decisions involving time and money. Time is a very limited resource. For the 310 I chose what I'd like to call a "practical" implementation of the EDM - enough commonly-used functionality to make to useful in engine management, but without spending the extra month(s) required to do all the pilot programming and other deep stuff. I'd loved to have plunged in and do it 100%, but the demand for the 310 was high and the schedule relentless. It's always possible to add that later, but those 14 months may tell a story. Is it really worth it to spend that much time to include functions that will be enjoyed by only a tiny fraction of those that purchase it? It's a philosophical thing. If we all had unlimited time and no pressure I'd love to do *everything* 100%. But time spent on one thing is time away from another. Every minute I spend on the 310 right now is another minute of delay for the SR-71. At least a minute, because the two airplanes are so dramatically different I have to re-orient when I switch "modes". As you can see from this and other currently in-development projects, many buyers want incredibly deep systems and fantastically detailed and accurate artwork, and they want it *now*. But there's a tension between those two desires. Developers have to make choices that reach a compromise between those two opposites. Time is money and that affects pricing. Enjoy your flying, where ever and however that may be. Dutch

https://flightsim.to/file/21201/radio-range-navigation Check that out. It's the same database that the 247D uses. I fly it on all my 1930s flights with the Redwing 1935 airports.

It seems to me that Asobo started with the standard FSX ATC code and enhanced it somewhat. For example, it sometimes give speed instructions which FSX never did, and it's aware of SIDs and STARs which FSX ATC knew nothing about. Other small additions and improvements were made, but it has the feel of a project not completed. Still lots of bugs and missing pieces. I'm using Pilot2ATC for IFR stuff, the bog standard ATC works ok for VFR GA flying. I hope one day Asobo will take up the challenge and finish what they started. Dutch

Agreed and for the most part RC does everything I want. But I live in a part of the country where "revenue" flights to KDCA and KATL are not uncommon and I'd like to be able to fly those realistically, which is simply not possible with RC. At KDCA it will vector me over restricted airspace most of the time. At KATL I get vectored right into the path of traffic landing at other runways. I can put in "Alt Restrictions" so as to be able to fly pre-programmed procedures at both those airports, but...what if the runway assignments have changed and I'm forced into unrealistic vectors or head-on runway collisions? I know we can't have everything. In a perfect world I'd have RC for most of my flights and FSHud or P2A for the more complex ones. That would be lovely.

So, so true. Radar Contact does this so well. I always feel comfortable following its vectors. Dutch

It's the story of my life, friend. I just go on my own path rather than adopt the easier path the mainstream often follows. I realize it's not the smoothest way, but I'm not interested in the Longitude or the G5000. I love flying and testing the 310R (working on testing an improved flight model during these flights with the ATC programs). I love the DC-3. The DC-6. I rarely fly a jet or even a turboprop, although I kind of like the new ATR a bit. It's just my taste in airplanes. Dutch

What I mean is that while RC 4.3 does what it does very well, it has minimal support for SID/STAR and would likely never make 2023's Airbus drivers happy. I myself would prefer an ATC system that would assign departures and arrivals which is what happens in the real world. RC allows you to pre-program one and fly it, but it offers no guidance and no re-assignment. In that sense it's outdated. But it's stable, reliable, and helpful and doesn't get in the way. It has options no current ATC program has (short final request, emergencies where ATC actually helps you out). I would take it over anything we have now for MSFS, but I realize for the mainstream of simmers it's not really adequate. I look forward to improved ATC options in the future. Dutch

This is an interesting discussion, because I'm looking for the best ATC/AI combination for MSFS that fits my style of flying, which often involves GA or small airliners flying from or to uncontrolled fields. This is kind of a mini-review of what I've tried so far. Live online services like VATSIM don't work for my style. It can be hard enough to find ATC staffed at major airports much less smaller ones and uncontrolled fields. The places I like to fly are usually far away from airports with a VATSIM staff online. What I want is an offline ATC solution that's a helpful, reliable, and practical tool to assist me in IMC conditions and an AI that's at least plausible (with airliner and GA traffic) without much management from me. In past years Radar Contact 4.3 with default AI worked well, but it's outdated and won't work with MSFS. I tried Pro-ATC with FSX and P3D and was often frustrated by it and gave up on it. I haven't tried the MSFS version for that reason. Right now I'm bouncing between FSHud and Pilot2ATC for ATC, and FSLTL and FSTraffic for AI. All of these are frustrating and limited in their own unique ways. FSHud with FSLTL seems to have a lot of potential (the voices are quite good) but right now it feels limited and buggy. It works best flying an FMS-equipped airliner between major airports so long as you fly the flight plan without any deviations. In-flight special requests are very basic - mostly change in altitude. It doesn't support uncontrolled fields and can be difficult to use - I always have to edit the route before it will accept it and that can be quite difficult. It's also quite hard to get a matching flight plan into the GPS unless you can directly import it from SimBrief and even then FSHud likes to switch SIDs and STARs from the original SimBrief plan (which is realistic) but adapting the GNS530 or 750 to these changes successfully is a major PITA involving lots of manual changes. Get one waypoint wrong and fly off course with FSHud and it seems to often just stop talking to you. Taxiing is also difficult and sometimes involves going in circles to hit the exact spot in order to move to the next waypoint - I spend most of my time heads down in the cockpit staring at the little arrow on the ground. It's difficult to complete a flight without a struggle. I've given up on most of them. I want ATC to help me, not make my flights more difficult. Pilot2ATC has many more in-flight options and is somewhat less frustrating in my experience so far, but it too fails to handle uncontrolled fields gracefully either on departure or arrival. Unlike FSHud it "supports" VFR but in reality it's just traffic advisories. Sometimes it will vector me in on a VFR flight plan, but sometimes not. The vectoring on both FSHud and Pilot2ATC leaves a lot to be desired. Both often give intercept instructions so late you cross the centerline before you can intercept the ILS and have to zigzag back to capture it. The vectoring in P2A is also ridiculously buggy in my experience - I have been given nonsense vectors repeated endlessly until I was miles away from the airport, requiring me to shut down P2A to shut it up. I have also been given correct vectors but the voice repeated the same instruction multiple times in rapid succession in a loop, followed eventually (after maybe 20-30 repetitions) by my copilot acknowledging an instruction I never heard to contact tower. But there was no option I could find to actually contact the tower and he wouldn't do it. I was on my own. These kinds of things happen with alarming frequency. Eventually if I work at it long enough I might work out a decent flow that avoids some of these frustrations. But right now I'm spending most of my flying time heads down fighting with ATC and nav equipment. It looks like we still have a ways to go to get practical usable ATC and AI in MSFS for anything other than MCDU-equipped airliner flights between major airports. If RC 4.3 would work for MSFS it would still be preferable for me. I hope that changes with time. Dutch

See if this works. I use it. https://flightsim.to/file/45930/dc-3-knots-airspeed-indicator-and-placards

Thank you! The idea that it would feel real and "breathe" was a conscious decision from the start. I'm sure I speak for the entire C310 team when I say it feels good to read that the effort and passion that went into this project is felt by the ones who bought and enjoy it. That's what it's all about for me personally. Immersion is the goal and I feel we got to some of it here.

There are no external programs. Just fly it from MSFS like any other plane. All internal logic is in the WASM module.

These changes and much more will be in the forthcoming SP1, which will be released when it's ready and tested.

The MSFS version has much sharper textures and modelling (of course) and it contains many options not available in the FSX/P3D/XP11 versions of the MV 310 - such as owned mode with state saving and maintenance, rental mode, failures, and multiple avionics suites from old school radios to the dual 750s, and more. The flight model was crafted with the guidance of real world 310 pilots.

The in-game checklists are slightly simplified compared to the more comprehensive official manufacturer printed checklists to save space...but nothing essential is missing from the in-game ones. You won't go wrong with them, and they will show you where components are until you get used to the layout.

Here's a new and very useful and informative 310 ops video from one of our primary pilot advisors on the project: