lzamm

The standard for MSFS is that all add-ons, indeed all content, goes to into the "Community" or "Official" folders. Orbx have a (fairly recent) history of using a "library" in FSX/P3D and ported that concept to MSFS. Most other devs will not have that infrastructure. That's where the Addons Linker comes in, letting you do it yourself, the way you want to. In fact in this context it's Orbx that's the outlier, as I hate having several systems messing about with my flight sim files.

You're missing the point. As I have said in a previous post, there's no doubt in my mind that X-Plane is a superior product to MSFS when it comes to aerodynamic fidelity (and on lots of other points, too). But that won't matter at all when it comes to the masses - it may to me, to you, and the Sullys of this world, but it won't to the multitudes who bring in the $$$. X-plane is an excellent, but niche product - to misquote Austin Meyer, it's not a flight simulator it's an engineering tool. For the past few years it has enjoyed great and perhaps unwarranted popularity even among the non-critical users (believe me, I've answered enough questions on the Zibo forums to know) because with MS leaving flight sims there was no alternative. Now there is, and it's more appealing to those users than ever.

Thank you for your non-answer. I wouldn't put Captain Sullenburger among the "non-critical (gamer) users" I was referring to, but, hey, for some people I suppose anything goes to try and make a point.

While this might be of interest to the small number of serious simmers who splash out loads of cash to the likes of FSLabs and Hotstart, the financial attraction of MSFS is the enormous number of less critical ("gamer") users who couldn't care less. Sorry I don't know the answer to your serious question, as although I don't class myself in the second group I always fly with failures turned off. An airline captain friend of mine jokingly says he thinks they're turned off in his A320, too.

deleted

And this is where a product like MSFS, which (hyperbolically) recreates every tree, bush and blade of grass, would truly shine. Where graphics capabilities would be more important than aerodynamic fidelity. I remember in the days of Asobo's weather preview (a preview not realised in the sim, unfortunately) thinking that their real-time weather simulations could be used to "game" responses to bushfires, for example. I can easily see LM or its competitor someday switching to MSFS rather than ESP. MSFS shares a disturbing amount of commonality (for a new sim) with the legacy simulations, from things like simconnect and the ability to port over old aircraft, and this could be a hidden, long-term, reason.

And this is where a product like MSFS, which (hyperbolically) recreates every tree, bush and blade of grass, would truly shine. Where graphics capabilities would be more important than aerodynamic fidelity. I remember in the days of Asobo's weather preview (a preview not realised in the sim, unfortunately) thinking that their real-time weather simulations could be used to "game" responses to bushfires, for example. I can easily see LM or its competitor someday switching to MSFS rather than ESP. MSFS shares a disturbing amount of commonality (for a new sim) with the legacy simulations, from things like simconnect and the ability to port over old aircraft, and this could be a hidden, long-term, reason.

And this is where a product like MSFS, which (hyperbolically) recreates every tree, bush and blade of grass, would truly shine. Where graphics capabilities would be more important than aerodynamic fidelity. I remember in the days of Asobo's weather preview (a preview not realised in the sim, unfortunately) thinking that their real-time weather simulations could be used to "game" responses to bushfires, for example. I can easily see LM or its competitor someday switching to MSFS rather than ESP. MSFS shares a disturbing amount of commonality (for a new sim) with the legacy simulations, from things like simconnect and the ability to port over old aircraft, and this could be a hidden, long-term, reason.

I'm not suggesting that would happen (beautiful aircraft, though I find tacking an RPG onto it rather ... tacky). Similarly I don't see ToLiss bringing their Airbuses to a platform that already has a surfeit of them and more in the pipeline. But it certainly be a consideration going forward on future projects, especially as I believe that (unfortunately) X-plane user numbers will dwindle towards what they were in the FSX era, and will not support the varied third-party ecosystem it has at present.

You, me, and how many others - that's the question. XP was a niche player in the heyday of FSX and only experienced its current explosion in numbers (and developers) when MS abandoned flight simulation. While I firmly believe that X-plane is technically a superior product to anything MS has produced to date, I don't think it has the mass appeal that is driving developers to the numbers (and $$$) of MSFS.

Right or wrong it's his company. I'm no rabid right-winger and a paid worker myself, but sometimes get the feeling that employees seem to forget that. But I agree with you. It's surprising how many new ideas hatch out in the coffee room.

As much as I love the Q400, I wouldn't recommend it as a starter aircraft for someone wanting to " get into commercial airliners". Quite apart from fighting the rudder trim all the way and requiring a particular technique to land successfully, it has a rather unusual FMS with a very rudimentary VNAV, which is hardly the "airliner" experience. I would go with a 737/A320 as the "classic" airliner with all the mod cons. There's no reason to be "afraid" of the PMDG, if you start with engines running you can leave out most of the fiddly stuff and concentrate on navigation and flying. The iFly 737 is a bit cheaper and almost as detailed. And although the Aerosoft buses get a lot of stick from the aficionados, they're fine for what they set out to do - give a simplified introduction to Airbus flying, which seems to be much what you want. Certainly off topic, but probably the cheapest way to see if you like airliner flying is X-plane and the freeware Zibo mod (you can even use the free demo in 30-minute chunks).

Quoting heights without a distance is meaningless. For a 3 degree glideslope you can use the "3x" approximation - 3000 feet 10 miles out. If you were at 3000 ft (above the runway, but that's usually a minor correction) less than 10 miles out you were definitely above the glideslope! Ideally you should be a bit below that altitude, in level flight or a slow descent, so as to capture the glideslope from below. Capturing from above means a rapid descent which could be uncomfortable and risky. Some older autopilots - not sure about the MD-80, even less sure about the LSH model - would not capture the glideslope from above for this reason. Modern electronics are more reliable, but it is still a usually undesirable practice.

There's a torrent option on this page: FreeMeshX Global 2.0 - Release Announcement - FreeMeshX Global Support Forum - The AVSIM Community which I believe will let you download just the components you need. I've no idea of the health of the torrent, hovever, as it's been a very long time since I downloaded it - the page itself is dated 2017.

If as you say you've had X-plane on an external hard drive before then that's the way to go - I wouldn't even think of running a Windows app like MSFS on a USB drive. 300GB will get you going with MSFS - the base install is about 170GB IIRC - but you might have to go easy on add-ons. As a temporary solution I'd say it's workable. .

Thanks for the info. I now realise my wording was ambiguous. This must be a real immersion-killer to the realism addicts 🙂.

So is the aircraft unusable without a functioning efb? Honest question, I'm away from home and don't have it yet.

Have to admit I'm not following this very closely - do you have a link to what's coming?

I believe the Zibo mod - my favourite aircraft in any simulator, bar none - does not even support the experimental flight model in xp11 far less any bells and whistles xp12 may bring. Otherwise, good try 😜.

Nothing stopping anyone delaying their purchase until they're satisfied with the state of the product. At the same time their expectations of perfection shouldn't obstruct the enjoyment of others who may be less exacting.

The real use of steam msfs? None whatever, as far as I'm concerned. The store version works fine for me😜.

Are you sure you have "show all variations" checked in the aircraft selection screen? It's off by default and I remember wondering why I have no liveries every time I reinstalled fsx.

The whole point about Unidentified Flying Objects is that they are, um, unidentified. The world would be a dull place if we could explain everything we see.

Did you run the Layout Generator to update the manifest.json file after modifying the aircraft.cfg? I haven't tried this particular change, but have had issues with the sim accepting a modified file if it wasn't correctly reported in the manifest..

They said this about computers too, but all I know is that I ended up making my own travel arrangements, producing formatted reports, preparing camera-ready papers, entering exam results into the database myself and so on. Not that the number of secretaries has been reduced - they do seem to like surfing the internet. All that this once new-fangled technology has done for me is increase the number of mundane tasks I have to do, and I don't expect that robots will end up being any different.