barrel_owl

Right. Seems they do operate three 200 at the moment. Here is one: https://youtu.be/2gfTwg_9B3g?t=20

OK Ed, I'll give a try very late tonight or tomorrow and let you know. Bye

Yes, the aircraft definitely needs a target altitude to "chase". Using VNAV of VS is a pilot's option. I suggest you to repeat the same flight and to set a target altitude this time, for example 25,000 (which I believe is your cruise altititude), without any VS. Now, if VNAV works, the aircraft should reach 25,000 exactly at LEGGT and cross the previous waypoints at the altitude you set on your FMS (following your screenshot, SZW at 12,000 and HEVVN at 18,000). Setting a VS should overide VNAV. So do not set any VS or just set it right after the takeoff until you are cleared by the ATC, then climb with VNAV and see what happens.

Yes, I can see that you set a target altitude of 12,000 for the waypoint SWZ on your FMS. But, which target altitude did you set on your altitude selector? It is just on the right of your MFD 640. That's a key question and I can't see this information on your screenshots. Sorry if (as usual) I did not make myself clear. I hope you appreciate my non-native English speaker efforts. :-)

Hi Ed, it seems to me that you have not ALT SEL selected on your AP. Other question. Which is your target altitude?

I will test again too. Not 100% sure, but when I tried VNAV, it seemed to work this way.

Well, as I explained in another thread, according to Carenado, it should also follow vertical navigation, which it does here. VNAV is not officially implemented (the VNAV button is inoperative), however, setting altitudes in the FMS and then activating NAV on the AP makes the aircraft climb/descent in VNAV mode. Another possible explanation is that you set a VS. If you did so, VS overrides VNAV. Try again. Set a target altitude, click on ALT SEL, set altitudes on the FMS and see what happens.

Do you have NAV activated on your AP?

They did. The installer available few hours after the release was not identical to the original one (different size, different creation time). They suggested themselves to people complaining about the pop-up to download again.

I reported it twice and they confirm they will. Let's wait and see.

The key turning point for Aerofly FS2 will be if and when a major and respected developer will decide to create a quality addon. This itself might boost sales and probably convince the most skeptical minds. If and when, of course.

That's very easy. Either use your F1 GTN Config tool and deactivate "GTN 750 U2" (or GTN 750 U1, according to your taste) or simply remove one of the appropriate GTN lines in the panel.cfg file: Window06=Flight1 Garmin GTN750 U1 - DO NOT MODIFY Window08=Flight1 Garmin GTN750 U2 - DO NOT MODIFY

I do not have P3D, but I can confirm that NL2000 sceneries are extremely heavy on frames. I had installed some in the past when I ran FSX classic, but I eventually removed them since my performance had dropped to an unacceptably low level in that area. Other photosceneries appear to have a much lower footprint on VAS and FPS. However, the combination of photoscenery + Orbx regions and Orbx global products affects performance significantly in some cases. Both FSX Steam and P3D made an excellent work in optimizing VAS, yet we should never forget that we're talking about 32-bit software and that there are severe limitations when using several addons at the same time. Needless to say, whenever you use such sceneries, you should keep your sliders not too far right.

Oil temp is a confirmed bug. Synchrophaser is also completely inoperative. I already reported it to Carenado and they acknowledged.

No, there isn't. You can have both panels ready for use (I described the procedure in another thread), but not GTN and FMS at the same time. Moreover, I have no recollection of any mod, for example by Bert Pieké, where the GTN does not cut the functionality of the FMC/FMS or whatever it is called on the appropriate aircraft. Either you choose the default configuration and the default navigation system or you opt for the GTN. On a different note. Can you open the FMS window correctly? I have serious problems with it. While all other windows popup and are shown correctly, the FMS window is shown distorted here. Also, the FMS appears to correctly load your sim flight plan, which is good. However, while I could enter altitudes in the FPL page, I was so far unable to enter waypoints or procedures. Has anybody of you tried this?

Amazing shots, Bernd.

You can see a lot of nice buildings in US downtown areas, such as San Diego, Los Angeles etc., or around airports in Switzerland like Zürich, although the area covered by autogen is still pretty limited. However, whenever you find one, believe me if I say that it is a totally immersive experience. If you mean popping, as we know it from ESP, I can assure you that I never saw anything like that so far. I am running Aerofly FS 2 on two different machines, one of them being a laptop with a far less powerful configuration than Rob's and I never ever saw any sign of popping or delay in texture loading. The sim runs smooth in any circumstance with resolution maxed out. The only real shortcoming, in my view, is that the aircraft are still lacking basic functions (such as mixture in the Baron, there is not yet an option to control the mixture lever in the Settings even). It is not yet a simulator, but at the moment it is by far the most promising.

Thank you very much, Rob!

I am not questioning this. I watched hundreds of VR videos and read tons of reports and I fully agree with you: VR is the future of flight simulation. This is also is one of the several reasons why I am supporting Aerofly FS 2. If I had the money, be sure it would on the top of my to-buy list today. I hope this technology will become available for about 500 Euros/dollars and several optimizations in a matter of 2-3 years. Given the price it is being offered today, especially outside US, it is well beyond my reach.

Except that I can't afford it, especially here in Brazil, I fully agree with you.

I am afraid I did not make myself clear given to my inappropriate formulation. Therefore, I will rephrase the statement. Taking into account that Microsoft jumped off (abandoned) flight simulation years ago and LM never actually jumped on (did not develop any real brand new flight simulator so far), I seriously doubt that any other big investor of that size will ever show up and risk so much money. DTG sat on the fence for a long while listening to the market feedback and eventually they ended up opting for a conservative approach. Reason being, many simmers are not ready to switch to a new platform and give up their addon investment. Of course, I will be very glad to be proven wrong.

Why should any big investor risk so much money to develop a new flight simulator, when the expected return is so low, due to our very small share in the gaming market? If Microsoft jumped off the bandwagon and Lockheed Martin never seriously jumped on, why should any other attempt to do this? Obviously, no new flight simulator, no matter how advanced and graphically compelling, will ever reach 65 million copies like GTA V or similar market winners. Or even 20 or 10 million copies. On the other side, I understand your point and share your concern. Competition brings fragmentation. A possible solution is a future with several flight simulators focused on different segments. For example, P3D focused on liners, Aerofly focused on GA and business jets, DCS still focused on military planes and so on. Every platform focused on a different subsegment. Not sure this is going to happen, though.

Based on Carenado's record, I'd dare to say that their Dornier Do 228, which is very close to release according to their latest announcements, may also be another good candidate to the to-buy list. But obviously we'll only now after it will have been released.

Actually I said complex, non complicated :-) Maybe I should have said "too complex for Carenado" to make myself clearer, but this would maybe sound harsh and I always refrain from everything that may be considered as bashing. Such avionics are not complicated themselves, provided they worked by the book. Point is, they do not. Carenado versions of these systems are not only simplified, which is OK to a certain extent, they always also have several bugs. Specifically on the Phenom 300, I remember I created a video for their support to show a bug in the FMC programming. They acknowledged and promised they would fix it in their next release. That was October 2015, I am still waiting. In general, Carenado released a lot of nice GA and turboprop aircraft. But I would definitely not recommend any of their latest business jets or turboprops with Proline21 and Prodigy G1000 to avoid any frustration. I know many of you are using a mod with GTN750 and are happy with it, I tested and do not like it. If the OP is seeking for a good business jet (while the Milviz King Air is still under production), I would recommend Flysimware's Lear 35A.

Obviously my very personal review: 1. Carenado - Aero Commander 500S Shrike HD 10/10 2. Caranado Cessna/Reims F406 Caravan II 9/10 3. Alabeo PA23 AZTEC F 250 8/10 These models are actually very good and enjoyable, in my opinion they are really worth every penny. Stay away from everything with complex avionics like Prodigy G1000 or Proline21, therefore Phenom 100/300, Hawker, King Airs etc.