tttocs

I did not know the backstory. I assumed since credit was given (at least by the time I downloaded it) that it was either a collaboration or done with permission. I use it because I like the interior. Re-thinking that now. Scott

Following up on this in case anyone else runs across this issue. The problem was due to a missing panel file in a custom livery. For a detailed explanation, scroll down to the end of this thread on Just Flight's forums. https://community.justflight.com/topic/10914/gns-530-2-is-mirroring-nav-com-1/10 The livery in question has been updated with the fix, and thanks to the developer of this for investigating and finding the issue. Scott

Oh, there are definitely glitches and quirks. However, though it's early days for me, so far vectors and descents have been solid on arrival. Haven't had anything blocking me on taxi either - at least so far. But we may not be using the same kinds of fields. See below. Can't personally speak to the copilot stuff. I only fly planes that are single pilot certified and definitely prefer to handle my own comms. To me, that's one of the biggest attractions to the program. On my initial flight in the Commander 114, my "copilot" (who I didn't realize I had) started doing callouts and such annoying the &)(*% out of me. I immediately went in and disabled any and all remaining interactions with she/he. Just not my thing, I'm afraid, though I completely understand the value for folks flying bigger iron requiring two pilots. As noted earlier, my focus for this topic is very much for those flying smaller GA, mostly IFR and occasionally VFR and in my case, primarily in North America. Also focusing on smaller uncontrolled GA fields, up to larger GA reliever airports like today's flight to KBJC. I (very!) rarely fly into larger international airports, preferring places that private GA flyers frequent. There are lots of folks using this with big iron, flying into major airports - as is reflected in their monitoring program. I mostly wanted to let the smaller guys know that there's value here for us as well. Scott

One more quick report since I mentioned I was going to do a flight with SIDs and STARs in the TBM 850. Couldn't fly for a few days, but finally got that flight in. Once again, impressive results. One minor surprise - not even sure I would call it a glitch - I was coming into KBJC on the PINNR 4 arrival (really a jet arrival, rather than a turbo prop, but I wanted to, so... shoot me. I might have been a bit slow on some of the speed restrictions 😉). I was informed early that KBJC was landing east, and as I got closer, I was told to expect the Red Rocks Visual RWY 12L/R. Uhh... That's intended for traffic from the south. I was coming from the north on the STAR. I have no idea how I would have been vectored to set this up - heck it might even have been fun - but I knew I didn't want to wander way south before coming back, so I requested the RNAV 12L which has an IF corresponding to the last fix on the STAR for BJC. Request was granted, and all went smoothly from there, but definitely seemed a bit odd. Not having flown in the area is some years, for all I know this is normal. Maybe. I'm still really enjoying this package. No, not perfect, but it continues to mostly exceed my expectations with just the occasional issue popping up. Scott

That works, thanks! I'm thinking the AIG stuff is all big iron which I'm less concerned with while MTL from IVAO has at least some GA. I only see 2020 stuff listed there, but I assume this is still 2024 compatible, yes? Thanks for your help! Understood. I've not yet tried making any mods in TaxiTuner, but I have changed my default TT files on some airports based on customization for a particular 3rd party. Yet more stuff to play with! Scott

Indeed. The GA means VFR mindset is strong here. Scott

Would you mind elaborating on this a bit? I'm just using default MSFS models to start and it's worked fine, but I have noticed a few anomalies. The other day I had a Cessna taxi past me with the prop not turning, for example. Not having previously used any 3rd party traffic injection I'm a bit behind the curve on what and where to find GA models. Scott

Meant to add... Be aware that the default starting setting for GA traffic is 2 on a scale of 1-11. If you're interested in GA traffic as I believe you are, you'll want to bump that up quite a bit. Haven't settled on the right setting yet. I want noticeable traffic, but I don't want - first nice Saturday in two months at the busy GA airport and I can't even find a break to take off - levels. Scott

Excellent! Glad you'll at least be giving it a shot. So far, vectors and descents have been good for me, but I haven't really thrown a super difficult situation at it yet. Scott

Much of the point of SI is in being able to interact live with ATC using voice in open ended conversations. As you've noted, you can assign a copilot to handle comms, but that may not suit you for GA use - though while not generally the norm in smaller planes, it's also not unrealistic. Even in light GA aircraft, two pilots flying together will often handle comms this way. You can interact with ATC by typing your comms rather than using voice in the SI app, but because this is not a scripted application, drop downs with canned responses wouldn't really work. Scott

Similarly, I've not previously used any of the available apps because I know what should happen and I've been flying listening to my personal inner controller. I've mostly been satisfied with that compared with the significant compromises of existing packages, particularly for a GA pilot. And keep in mind, we come from different perspectives - yours as controller and pilot, mine as pilot. Because of that, the inconsistencies (and there are some) may bother you more than they do me. As previously noted however, what got me headed in this direction was the potential to actually see reasonable GA traffic, especially at smaller airports and that's no small thing. Like you I fly mostly in North America and, at least so far, the ATC parts from a North American perspective and somewhat flawed though they may be, have been good enough to be engaging and immersive. And, yes, that has been a bit of a surprise. You may well fall on the other side of the equation as the faults may bother you more. But so far, I'm liking it. BTW, I agree that the 1 day trial just isn't sufficient. But for $19 I was willing to try it for a month. The jury is definitely still out on what will happen after that month has passed, but so far the enjoyment has significantly out-weighed the negatives. Perhaps that's just because it's a new toy, and YMMV, especially given your skill set. Will be interested to hear you thoughts. Scott

Indeed there are. In the US, the concept of VFR flight following seemed to be pretty well implemented, at least based on the one VFR flight I've done, but I won't pretend I know how that would translate to other countries' rules, nor how much SI has implemented regional differences, especially as they relate to VFR flights. Scott

🤣 Indeed, you're partly responsible for this! And hey, at least they make reporting simple, automatically attaching flight data and all that. Makes submitting a report pretty easy! As an aside, I decided to post this when I took a look at Say Intentions Flight Tracker https://tracker.sayintentions.ai/#list-page and saw very few GA flights. Thought there might be a few GA folks out there making the same assumptions I was. Scott

Looking forward to this. One of my other hobbies revolves around heritage railroads and photography and Ely is home to one of the best and most complete heritage RRs in the US, the Nevada Northern Ry, a place I've visited often both in real life, and the sim. It will be great to have an updated field here! Scott

In another topic, several folks mentioned using Say Intentions AI in large part because of its GA traffic injection. As a GA only pilot that peaked my interest but I reacted basically saying it was too pricey for me for GA traffic injection, given that I'd never use their ATC as (I thought) it's just not useful for the kind of flying I do. I really do try to keep an open mind about things, and after a couple of posts on the subject I got to thinking that it's been a while since I took a look. I quickly discovered that they now offer a monthly sub so I figured it was worth the US $19 to give it a shot for a month. My goal was to try it for the kind of flying I normally do - about 70/30 IFR/VFR in a variety of piston aircraft, mixed in with a couple of light turbo-props and one jet (the Phenom 300). I started with a simple VFR flight from a smaller towered field with approach control to a non-towered field so I could see how it handles normal tower ops and VFR flight following. I included a planned transit through a Bravo to add to the mix. And... It went well. Ground and tower interactions were smooth and realistic, as was the handoff to approach, center and back through several approach controllers. I asked for and received a clearance through the Bravo, continued on and ultimately got the final - "Airport at 2 O'clock and 5 miles, radar service terminated, squawk VFR, change to advisory frequency". Very nice! And there was traffic at the field I landed at - Mena Arkansas at the edge of the Ozarks! Wow, real traffic at a small GA field. What a novel concept! 😄 Second flight was a typical (for me) IFR flight from another smaller towered field to another uncontrolled field with RNAV (GPS) approaches available. Again, a smooth experience with realistic interactions throughout. This time, however, there was a somewhat significant glitch. Flying over Oklahoma City at 4000', I expected a handoff from KC Center to OKC approach and then subsequently a handoff to Fort Worth Center. No handoff to approach and as I moved into FW Center's airspace the radio went silent. A quick call to FW got me back on track, and I submitted a bug report at the end of the flight. The rest of the flight went very well. I asked for and received one of the RNAV approaches and got descents and vectors to the final approach course which were both appropriate. I was concerned since I was flying to the final approach course at a significant angle in the opposite direction, but SI did a perfect job with the vectors. Again, the flight was a very smooth and most importantly realistic experience, minus the glitch over OKC. So yeah - I was more favorably impressed than I expected to be. Sure, there was a glitch in my second flight, but I probably should've queried KC Center when it became obvious that something was amiss rather than wait until the radio went silent. But beyond that there were a lot of positives and the overall impression I got was one of immersion and realism. The voices are good, if not perfect, but it's still easy to forget you're talking to an AI rather than a real controller. Nothing feels particularly canned or scripted, I never had an issue with a controller not understanding my phraseology and while there are occasional small discrepancies, by and large the interactions and procedures are as they should be. Oh, and having real aircraft and traffic at small GA fields is very nice. TLDR - Say Intentions AI is waay better for a GA pilot like me than I expected. It's not perfect, but it is pretty danged good and a lot of fun. So, will I stay with it after my first month is up? Dunno yet. It's only been two flights and my opinion could change dramatically before the month is over, but I've enjoyed it so far. It is pricey, no doubt, but these two flights have really upped the immersion level, so... maybe it will be worth it for me. Next up is a flight between two towered airports with SIDs and STARs, in the TBM 850. This should be right in SI's wheelhouse, so expectations are pretty high. Scott

Assuming you meant the TBM 930, the warning sounds in that plane are ridiculously low in volume. Have you noticed the issue with any other planes? Scott

You're misunderstanding what I wrote. Dawg knows I spend my share of money on simming. It's not the cost, it's the value - and I do have other hobbies to consider. 😆 Given that I won't use their ATC, spending that much per month for a GA traffic injector just doesn't make the cut in my personal value/dollar analysis. If the ATC side met my needs I might feel differently. It's a personal thing, not a general indictment of their pricing model or of others' value analyses or uses. Scott

The biggest drawback for me is the cost. At this stage of their development I couldn't (OK, wouldn't) use their ATC, so the only use I'd get would be as a traffic injector and for that limited use the value gained wouldn't justify the steep price. I wish there was a viable, cost effective, GA traffic solution out there for the small to medium fields I fly from but given the current situation - thank you for including quality static aircraft at your most excellent airports. With you new options to remove, it serves everyone;s needs. Scott

"The Cloud" brings far more advantages than disadvantages, but some do seem to enjoy focusing on the negative, no matter how minor - in this case an authentication outage that was both rare and only lasted a few hours. By all means, criticize MS for their mess ups, but keep some perspective in doing so. "Why, back in my day we didn't need this 'electricity' thing. We weren't at the mercy of these stinking power outages for our games, no siree!" Scott

This has not been my experience. The only time I get significant shimmy is when I aggressively brake. Light to moderate braking is fine. Don't know if you're using hardware for brakes, but if so perhaps a less aggressive curve? Scott

Um... yeah. Sound is EXTREMELY important to me as well, so no that's NOT what this discussion comes down to. I flew the TBM less and less as time went on because I simply couldn't get "into it" between the mediocre sounds and the constant prop buzz at cruise. This sound set has brought this plane back towards the front of the hangar for me, so pretty good value as far as I'm concerned. This headset sim thing you speak of really has me confused, but perhaps you flew with different aviation headsets than I did. As you know (but others reading may not) the average GA plane is an UNBELIEVABLY NOISY place, and that's not a good thing for either focus or fatigue. Good noise attenuating aviation headsets do a remarkable job of killing the highs and mid-tones and a rather poor job with the low frequency stuff. Active cancellation ups the game and adds extremely good low frequency attenuation. I dunno about you, but the only time I'd hear switch clicks in my plane while wearing my headset (David Clarks and then Bose) was if I did something that broke squelch on the intercom while flicking said switch. I don't want that in sim, because without all of the other physical cues we had while flying for real, taking the sound away to that level would kill immersion. I don't have have either of the COWS planes as I'm not a fan of the G1000 in the sim - RW is a whole 'nother thing, of course - so I can't speak to their sounds, though I read nothing but good things about them. But it sure seems like they've simply done something you subjectively like in their headset sim. Fair enough and maybe I'd like it too, but I do know what a good headset does IRL, and I know I don't want that in sim. Bottom line is I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Scott

I guess I'd like to understand @JYW 's "ambient layers" part a bit more. None of the headset modes I've used in the sim go very far (or at all) in reducing most general cockpit sounds - switch clicks and other cockpit environmental sounds - and I like it that way! Emulating active (or even passive) noise cancellation as it really works in a plane IRL would make for some pretty dull sounds for a sim. All I really want in a sim headset emulation is to cut back the more obnoxious noisy bits (basically engine/prop noise) to avoid fatigue in cruise. Taking things too far would take the fun away! Scott

Wouldn't matter to me, as it's not the textures that bug me so much (though they're not great) as it is the completely inappropriate types of buildings on so many fields. Buildings that often make no logical sense for an airport. Scott

That is most excellent news and will be simply awesome! Can't come soon enough, but great to know there's an optimal solution on the horizon. Scott

Unfortunately, the TBM 850 has probably the most limited options of all Black Square's current lineup. Primary choices are: KX 155B - GNS 530 - GTN 750 (either TDS or PMS). Secondary choices are: KX 155B - GNS 530. No option to use the GTN 650 (which I'd definitely prefer) or the GNS 430 as secondary. The thing is, I swear it used to work fine. But it doesn't matter what I use as primary, if I use the 530 as secondary it acts as com1/nav1 anyway. I'm almost beginning to think I fantasized it working right. The obvious solution, of course, is to simply use the KX 155B as secondary. As a sim solution, that works OK, I guess. Kinda. Sorta. RW, I wouldn't file an IFR flight plan using RNAV (GPS) waypoints without a backup unit. Funny thing is, a few weeks back I actually had the primary GPS fail in the BS Baron (in IMC no less!) and had to complete the flight on the secondary 650. Easy, since the TDS units support crossfill and the FP was available in either. Would've been a real mess in the TBM with the KX 155 and only slighty less a mess with the GNS 530 unless I'd manually loaded a duplicate FP there and manually loading longer FPs into the GNS units is SO much fun! Scott