ha5mvo

The developer doesn't need to put it in any flightsim... they just need to include it with the scenery and it works just out of the box. That's what will happen....

Just like Umberto commented above. In due course, the developers themselves will put their own ini file in the scenery to make it GSX ready. Those who had been here long enough know that this was the standard with P3D and will be the standard in this platform as well

Not just a question of bored. MSFS does a rather poor job in replicating or even coming close to the way a real plane flies. Unlike tubeliners where the twitchy nature and the problematic controls of the sim can be partially ignored for being a "procedural" sim where dynamics may matter less for an everyday flight.

Most likely an MSFS issue. It had been shown that GSX has nothing to do with it.

Wouldn't say "massively". There are definitely bugs that need to be ironed out and very little in the way of integration a-la FSLabs. The latter will obviously depend on aircraft developers. Very likely Leonardo MD82 will "communicate" with GSX, almost certainly PMDG won't! As for the Fenix A320 remains to be seen.

Unless something had changed recently, AIG TC would spawn around 200 aircraft, FSHUD around 60 - that was my experience so far , anyway. Perhaps something had changed...

Yes, I understand that (and yes, we're talking p3d here). There's an option with AIG AIM not to use payware and install the freeware model instead. ALL models to the best of my knowledge have a freeware version and most liveries available for the payware models also exist for the freeware ones.

You don't really need to acquire the payware models. They are there mostly for those who prefer them for aesthetic reasons as there are freeware liveries that can be used in stead ( and honestly the model quality is not really inferior either). As you say, there's really no need to install each and every airline available. Installing the major airlines should suffice to provide plenty of traffic even for non major hubs.

it is actually, or other source of flightplan data that's encoded it the bgl files. The executables are not required though, as you said, since the injection is done by FSHUD. This allows the program to control AI which are otherwise handled by the MSFS ATC once they are spawned. The price for FSHUD controlling the AI is many cpu cycles. This is why traffic volumes under FSHUD are so small. While the idea of ATC that actually controls AI in addition to dispensing instructions to the user plane sounds neat on paper , I think its a clear case of diminishing returns especially when you're dealing with larger airports that look rather barren under FSHUD.

Surprised no one had mentioned blackbox711 thus far. his videos/streams are aimed at the more knowledgeable crowd in general but he’s a very decent and impartial fella and his streams are a source for a wealth of knowledge for those who are interested. He is an Airbus captain and a b747 / b737 FO in the past.

Lota of factors involved here. For example, on a B747, once the gear is down the aircraft is using the GS aerials on the nose gear doors which are about 25' below the pilot's eyes - and that makes a difference! Also more common in mountainous terrain. Sometimes it’s a simple matter of miscalibration.Can’t say if its common or not for as I said, it’s also a question of what you fly and where you fly. either way, I would trust my eyes first, then the GS and the papis!vasi last.

or better still, open it up for the likes of HiFi so they can do a better job at it than MS ever will! AND, you can have the most accurate weather BUT as long as it is poorly translated into a correct environmental effect on the aircraft the whole point is rather moot. But who cares about that?! As long as the masses have their nice visuals...

been out of the loop... can anyone fill me in on what new features it's going to bring over the 700?

Given the track record, I'm quite confident things will get ironed out pretty quickly. You can hold out for a couple of weeks until that happens, if you don't share that confidence... With time, custom configuration files will start popping up to cover custom airports - as is the case with p3d. just give them some time....

The scope and variety of users reporting CTDs suggests that in all likeliness the error is on Microsoft side.

It's everywhere. CYYZ, KMSY and LLBG. Never made it off the ground.

I honestly don't understand what is it that people find complex or complicated about it. It's as simple as filling a couple of boxes. The "tedious" bit is going through the list of available airlines and selecting which ones to install and which to leave out. I suppose that this is the stage that scares some people off but calling it complicated is a gross exaggeration.

I'd agree in principle, though to be fair, with each variant FSL brought a whole bunch of new features beyond the external model and flight dynamics. I'd gladly pay for an ACCURATE dynamic model, though the question remains how would you fairly price a new external + dynamic model given all other features remain the same?

A level-D sim is much more than 1500 for a make-believe airplane. a strange remark coming from a make believe captain...

Stuff like that: Hardware for flight simulation | Cockpit solutions | CPflight

Most definitely yes. There's a thing called track record. Your bank will use it when approving a loan and it will even determine the cost of your loan. While nobody, developer included, is interested in releasing a so-called "broken product", the track record of a given developer ( Umberto in this case) will show that when that does happen, it will eventually be fixed rather promptly. Developers with no previous record are more of an enigma and the burden of proof is on their shoulders.

He's just pointing out some of those glaring "imperfections". TBH, its well expected for it to take a long time to fix some of those issues. The platform itself with its glaring "imperfections" when it comes to the dynamics doesn't do them any favors either

What's The point of a weather system, be it even the most accurate if its EFFECT on the aircraft is misrepresented. If some choppiness that will tickle your stomach on a Cessna 152 in real life is enough to shake an Airbus A320 in-sim then the whole point in an accurate weather system is kind of moot. But hey, as long as there are those nice visuals, who really cares...

I believe this has more to do with the flight dynamics modelling (which I find extremely lacking in more than this aspect) than the weather engine per se.

That seems to be a shortcoming of MSFS. You cant just create a transparent window like you would in p3d. A possible workaround could be minimizing the window to a dot and vica versa. (I believe fs2crew does it like that. You can of course ask the developer for something like that, or better still ask Asobo to allow hooks into the floating menu system. Good luck on both accounts.