ha5mvo

All I can say at this point without braking NDA is that it looks really nice.

Yes, it's pretty much IFR oriented. Soon enough though, the navigraph webpage will offer some very compelling VFR options as well

That's what he's saying, if I read it correctly. Namely, if you want a "smooth landing" you'll need the airplane to fly incorrectly....

Well, reading the various quotes and links I was led to believe it's nothing short thereof! Seriously though, if it flies by the numbers, say accurate pitch/power per weight/altitude and can replicate "unreliable airspeed" procedure to a degree of fidelity then I don't see how it can provide a bad "feel". Besides, 'feel" the way I perceive it - in its literal sense, has a lot to do with subjective parameters like controller hardware and so on. Alternatively, if what you're saying is that the platform doesn't allow for reliable aerodynamic effects of the environment (which IMHO is the case) then this has more to do with MSFS shortcomings. Perhaps you and I interpret "feel" in a different manner.

Hi, Let me start off by wishing you speedy recovery and offer my sympathy to all those living in war zones and suffering its consequences. I personally had lived in war-ravaged areas and I know exactly how it feels. For sure, such issues should definitely take precedence over flight simulation.... One thing I didn't really understand from your post is your reference to "feel". If an airplane flies by the numbers, then that's how it should fly...or else, what do you mean by "feel" and why should realism be sacrificed for it?

I'd agree to an extent, however, I have noticed among some of my trainees who come with sim experience but little to no real experience some bad habits as well. Most notably is the tendency to have their head stuck in the instruments instead of looking outside. In the GA world it's like driving a car spending most of your time looking at the speedometer.

huh? care to explain? elaborate maybe?

ok, will it also provide info on convective weather at different altitudes?

Fenix for most part. Happy now? and yes, it does oscillate but this has nothing to do with the current thread....

Does it provide you with the situation at the altitude that you are at?

Indeed there's no level low enough for you to stoop to. a-propose "characters". Instead of the usual mish mash of cut/paste and links why don't you show some real knowledge of your own? and a friendly advice, go slower on the adjectives, they don't reflect on you in a civilized manner

The late captain Ernst had nothing to do with any 737, nor with Level-D (it was 767 PIC released for FS2k if memory serves me right)

I believe it's actually the xbox/gamer Crowd that believe that the gusts and turbulence as implemented in SU 10 is something to behold and even advocated against "dumbing it down" as if it could be...

Just wondering, how did you manage to reach this conclusion?

I wouldn't mind the vector if the plane would not oscillate around its vertical axis (yaw) from a 2 knot gust varying from side to side.

You might have missed my point. What I was talking about is the effect of even smaller amplitude variable winds have on a plane's behavior. Take your 737 and create a synthetic variable gust of merely a couple of knots oscillating from side to side and see what happens... Thing is, that if the flight model doesn't translate to a correct behavior, then the fidelity of the weather data is a rather moot point

Exactly that

@ryanbatc meteoblu or whatever data provider play little part in that. the issue is the effect of the data , wether or not it’s representative of the current live weather, on the way the plane flies. Take an airliner, say a reputable A320 , and let it fly at variable 2-3 knot gusts then see what happens…

.

Yes, the majestic q400 is a great example. problem is, that in comparison to p3d, msfs is very sandboxed, if that’s the right term. Just look at how clumsy is the integration of solutions like gsx or fs2crew. I honestly don’t know what it would take to pull a stunt like that of majestics in msfs, or if it’s really feasible to begin with. I would really like to make the switch to msfs as this is where all future development is going but the way planes fly on the Microsoft platform is a massive turnoff, at least for me.

Pilots aim at attitude, not rate.

The question is wether the core engine will allow for that OR that asobo had overcooked it with a million and one parameters with an end result of a blanket that’s just too short. Pull it to one end and you’ll expose another….

I think “reviews “ should be taken with a pinch of salt. Not to generalize but many portray an overly optimistic outlook on a product. Aerosoft is ok for the casual simmer who is only interested in flying A to B, engage AP at 400 feet and watch the magenta (or green) line up until 1000 feet above the destination. It’s light years behind FS Labs but as much as I am a fan of the latter, using it (or the fenix for that matter ) for standard operations only is a waste of money. At least in p3d the aerosoft bus can cater reasonably well for that crowd.

Yes, different story for gliders and military jets.

That’s the goal. From an airline perspective, technically, you can flunk a check-ride by not doing so; although, in practice, that has never happened as far as I know. In my experience, including the many people I have flown with over the years, hitting the centerline is pretty much a fait accompli. It is an expected outcome, and on the occasion when you miss - as long as it’s not a gross error - nothing much is said about it. Of course, the bigger the plane, the greater the need to adhere to this requirement. Strong cross-winds can play a part in touching down slightly upwind of the line to give yourself a greater margin for error, but generally speaking, its still SOP to land on the centerline. In the GA world, where a lot of people are still low-time pilots or students working toward an initial pilot certificate, any landing on the hard surface is a good thing, although I’m sure the instructor will hand out a verbal lashing while pointing out that the centerline is there for a reason! Oh, and take-offs too! You didn’t mention that in your question, but maintaining the centerline on TO is also a required technique, especially so for large transport category airplanes. Wandering away from the centerline prior to lift-off negates the parameters for terrain clearance for the TO segment of flight from the runway charts established for that purpose. These charts guarantee obstacle clearance (single engine) for the first segment of climb which includes the TO roll. In fact, for these large airplanes, maintaining the centerline on TO is more important than doing so for the landing. You can and will flunk a checkride for lack of centerline control on TO!