tttocs

Nor mine - not even close. @ryanbatc, I know we run different res screens, but that can't account for the kind of difference I see here. Scott

Yep, that's what I get pretty much every time. And yes, I've often wondered why I don't just get direct xxx rather than a vector and direct xxx when able. Have you used the in-app reporting feature? That's what I use rather than trying to hash things out on Discord. Several advantages here, including the fact that your flight details are logged so they can be reviewed. You can submit one of two ways - ask for a response, or simply log the issue and not request a response ticket be opened. I do the latter, and will continue to do things this way unless I truly run into an issue which keeps me from flying and requires some sort of response. Yep, that sounds more like my typical experience. Scott

From my perspective, it doesn't even need to be a full on tutorial. If the manual just offered a few real world flying techniques and tips, especially pointing out areas where the plane is unique or different, from some of the RW pilots who helped in development, I'd be happy. Doesn't need to be overly long or detailed. And yep, if I could offer one tip to folks doing YouTube sim videos, especially review or tuturial vids, it would absolutely be - get to the POINT! Why do so many of these things have to start with endless panning around the aircraft while the 'tuber tells us what she/he is going to tell us. Yes, I can FF through the fluff, but why? Just keep the fluff to a minimum and the content level high, please, and I'll watch to the end - which is, from my understanding, what YouTube's algorithms favor. Scott

That does look like a really nice freeware airport. Very well done. Having spent many happy hours in the beautiful town of Nelson, however, it's not quite what I'd call bush flying. 😆 Definitely a challenging airport, though. Scott

I do favor the US inter-mountain west where I spent most of my adult (and flying) life, but I fly all over the US and Canada these days, including a lot of flights in and out of my new home in Florida which is about as flat as it gets, so it's a mix. Scott

This is bizarre! I've been flying it for just short of a month now - GA exclusively of course - and I've never gotten anything like this. My clearance (if not flying a SID) is pretty much always radar vectors --> first approach fix, then as filed and that's how the flight has gone from there - every single time unless I request a deviation. And this is the second major difference between our experiences. I've yet to be left high for an IAP. My biggest complaint has been exactly the opposite, as I'm often given descents too soon and too low. And while I almost never file direct, my FPs similarly will often contain only 1 or two intermediate fixes, and those are often a LONG way from the destination airport. As for vectors, I've run the gamut from brilliant, to "why are you vectoring me directly to the FAP?", to "what the...?" though the first two have dominated. But if a vector seems off to me, I can at least usually request and receive something better. All of which begs the question - what are we doing differently to get such different results? Scott

Thanks. That looks simply amazing! Scott

Would love to go that route someday. If you don't mind me asking, what do you use? Scott

There is an option, it just may not be to your tastes as it's done using an LVar - L:bksq_TabletVisible to be specific. If you use any of the popular hardware control software (SPAD.neXt, AxisAndOhs, FSUIPC,...) it's trivial to set up. And again - I realize that's not to everyone's liking, just pointing out that an option does exist. Scott

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels this way. Most (probably all) planes developed at this level work with RW pilots with experience in type. Sure, you can sometimes dig through someone's Discord and find some of these pilots offering advice and RW techniques but why not just put that stuff in the original documentation? I know I'd sure appreciate it. Scott

Ah, yes - I recall that now and remember being in the skeptical camp on the roadmap as well, but it did turn out to be real. I'd forgotten about the turbo Aerostar comments. Sounds like a definite maybe for now, but if they do it I'll probably be one of the first in line! I know A2A would join the very short list of MSFS developers who model turbo-charged pistons properly. Scott

I hadn't seen that, but good news if they do. Scott

Well, except for the *&$#! wonky colors in most of the TIN areas. Scott

Wow. Just, WOW. That is, indeed, unacceptable. I've submitted more than my share of bug reports since I've been using SI but I've never requested a response and I've also yet to interact with their Discord so this does NOT fill me with confidence for my first direct interactions. There do seems to be some inconsistencies in how things operate that I don't yet understand. For example, while I haven't tried flying the Phenom VFR in SI, I have flown turbine planes (both the Duke and the TBM 850) and haven't gotten the (cough) "GA runway" (where's the eye roll emoji when you need one - cough) yet, even though I have flown into towered airports with shorter runways available. As you might know, the whole GA means VFR AND low and slow, misconception is a pet peeve of mine, so I'm pretty sensitive to this. Also, in your first report you mention being left high for an approach. I don't think I've had that happen once yet - in fact my biggest issue on descents have all been of the "too low, too soon" variety. And it's really odd that they can't figure the whole appropriate runway for aircraft type thing out anyway since they are very insistent on you getting the ICAO type set up accurately in configuration. And I agree, SI needs to do a better job of understanding "Unable" and reacting appropriately. I've given up using that word, instead simply requesting my preferred alternative. So far that's MOSTLY worked, but SI simply understanding that unable means UNABLE and offering an alternative would really help. Anyway, thanks much for your thoughts and insights. I've been looking forward to your reactions from a professional controller's perspective. Oh, and one other thing... You mentioned the AI not keeping up with your rapid radio cadence. You also mentioned them enabling the trial for the higher tier. From a practical perspective - at least for my use - the main advantage is that higher tier gives you access to the "iris" AI, which in theory is better/faster at the speech recognition thing. You can specifically set "iris" as the default AI in the Pilot Portal under Settings-->Misc. You might try that and see if it helps. With my more - ahem -measured radio technique it's not been necessary and "iris" seems about the same as the other two AI's to me, but YMMV. Scott

Similarly, the Legacy will be my first A2A plane in MSFS, despite loving A2A's work and owning 3 of their planes back in the P3D days. I've never been a fan of the Comanche IRL (for no real good reasons that I can articulate) and while the Aerostar was of interest to me, the fact that they only did the normally aspirated, no anti-ice version kept me on the sidelines as it doesn't fit my use model for twins - and yes, I understand they modeled the aircraft that they had. While their Legacy will also be normally aspirated, the plane has so much power to spare that it almost doesn't matter. And it fills a different role for me than does a twin. Scott

The glass comes later. See @St Mawgan shots above as this is what the initial release will look like. And your English is exceptional. It's the local cultural stuff that's creating the mystery. Scott

@Christopher Low and @Paul K if you guys are gonna turn your steak into shoe leather anyway, I hope you're not buying expensive cuts like Rib Eye! 😆 Scott

Well that IS frustrating. The normal 24 hour trial does start with your first transmission. I point this out for anyone wanting to try it as once you register it's REALLY IMPORTANT to take the time to configure things properly and to your liking. In particular, there are a number of "realism" settings you'll want to look at and set according to your region. The time you take to set things properly will not count against your trial time. I expect in your case the difference was because it was a "special" extended trial taking you out of the normal flow of things. Hope you can get it sorted. Don't know if you'll like it or not. If you've kept up with this thread you already know that my initial rose colored glasses have been removed - yet on balance, I still like it more than I don't for the flying I do. Scott

Well, to be honest I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "cumulonimbus" tower. I used the generic "tower" quite intentionally. But it was a build-up, and I did "need" to dodge it. 😉 Scott

That pretty much mirrors my reactions. When it's good, it's so good that it sucks you in... and then there's a glitch and it feels all the more jarring. I remind myself not to take things TOO seriously, to keep expectations reasonable and to remember that it's still fun, even when it throws you for a loop. And I can usually negotiate my way out of any glitches and stay "in the system" without having to just go my own way. For example - yesterday I was given a clearance from about 30 miles out to descend and proceed direct to the FAP (Final Approach Point) on an RNAV LPV approach and was cleared for that approach, all from pretty much the opposite direction. No bueno, and not a proper clearance. So, I requested clearance to the most reasonable IAF (Initial Approach Fix) instead and was granted that clearance. Things proceeded normally from there. And even this has an element of reality, as you can always at least ask to do things differently IRL when you don't think things are working out. Sure you'd never get a clearance like this IRL in the first place, but... And at the end of it all, I submit a bug report in the hope that it will help with steady improvements. Scott

I was on an IFR flight and requested a deviation 10 degrees left for wx. I received a "deviation 10 degrees left approved". Once headed back to the next waypoint on my FP, I simply stated so. No issues. Now, in reality what you'd typically get would be, "deviation(s) left (or 10 left or whatever) approved, advise when direct xxx", where xxx is generally going to be a fix on my FP. So I did have to "help" a bit, but not too badly. Causes no issues that I've found. I do similar for flight plan shortcuts on occasion when they make sense - such as shortcutting an obstacle clearance SID when I've already at sufficient altitude. If receiving VFR flight following, there's really no requirement to request or even inform ATC of minor deviations unless you have been given a clearance, such as inside a Bravo or specific instructions for traffic avoidance or similar. And to the OP, apologies for the slight divergence from the topic - and welcome to Avsim! Scott

Interesting. I often see buildups that I avoid. As recently as a couple of days ago, I had to request a deviation (Say Intentions) to avoid a significant tower on climbout from KEYW. I would definitely agree that they're not particularly well depicted, and that the penalty for punching through one isn't what it should be, but I treat them as though they were more consequential anyway. Scott

Yes, I missed the context. My mistake and I already apologized. Scott

Yep, I missed the context. My apologies! Scott

It certainly helps, but sufficient to keep the servers running? Scott