whamil77

Being relatively new to MSFS, I was wondering if there is fix for this issue or if it has already been discovered and discussed. I couldn't find any reference to it on the MSFS Official forums. There seems to be a gross conceptual error in the sim regarding condition levers in free turbine turboprops. Interesting in that it was correct in previous MS based simulators. In MSFS the condition levers add to the power already selected by the throttles (power levers). The condition levers are only supposed to set the idle N1. For most King Airs there is a low idle (~62%) and a high idle (~70%) set by the condition levers. If the power levers are set to a level such that the N1 is above 70%, the condition levers are taken out of the equation and serve no purpose other the setting the idle when the power levers are retarded. In MSFS if you set the power levers at say, 80% with the condition levers at low idle then move the condition levers to high idle, the N1 accelerates to ~90% when it should do nothing because the power lever setting is above the condition lever setting.

No. A2A has his own. We’re talking P-51 Mustang not Cessna Citation Mustang.

I got the Aerostar. Awesome. I pretty much had everything of his in P3D. Really wish he would port over the Mustang. I haven't done much with XPlane. Maybe get into it after I retire in a couple of months. Thanks for the recommendations.

In a recent rant about poor flying qualities and file encryption, I called out several developers. I swore off MSFS and was heading back to P3D. As I was poking around to see if anything could be salvaged from my foray into MSFS I discovered the Black Square stuff is NOT encrypted. So I made some adjustments and tried MSFS again. They flew very nicely as I tuned them to my hardware and my own perception (I have flown roughly half of them IRL). I even got the Analog King Air to work with help from this forum. Soooooo.... I'm back into MSFS 24, or should I say Black Square Flight Simulator 2024? Their products are very good, and with a little tuning the flying qualities can be made superb. I'll end up owning everything they make as long as they stay unencrypted. I wrote an email to Carenado pleading for them to readopt their own business model, the one Black Square is now using. Haven't heard back and really don't expect to. In my mind they are riding off into the sunset as Black Square takes over and dominates the GA market. Again, my apologies Black Square. Keep up the great work!

That's my chief complaint. I guess I'm too old or too stupid to understand why. It costs the developers nothing. It wouldn't eat into profits. It would only serve to improve the product. That is already going on at Flightsim.to in every other part of the sim. Liveries, addons, addons that emulate features that were included in past sims, pop-ups, libraries, scenery, paintkits, you name it. But the aircraft internals, the most important things in the simulator (or game as Asobo calls it) are the flying qualities of the aircraft and the operation of their systems. For whatever reason, that territory is forbidden. Maybe it's an "Intellectual Property" thing. Maybe they value their IP more than the value quality in the product. Oh, what this sim could be!

There is no stated goal. It was a lament. If I had a goal it would be that Asobo and the developers would open the architecture to the point users had the same access to the product as we had in P3D and could therefore make corrections to bad and marginal products such that they become pleasing to use.

I have been inactive for the last few years due to my wife's health problems. Some of you may remember me for mods I made primarily for Carenado products. As they say, life is what happens to you when you were planning for something else. Anyway..... Before I start, I want to do a brief credibility check. I have been flying for 51 years. Civilian, corporate, and US Navy Strike Fighters. I am a US Navy trained test pilot. I don't tell you any of that to impress, only to suggest that I may know what I'm talking about occasionally. Since LM basically abandoned us and everybody else not willing to spend taxpayer money with the introduction of P3Dv6, I decided to give MSFS a try. My opinions are mixed good, bad, and totally unacceptable. THE GOOD The graphics are breathtaking. The world is real. Eventually someone will figure out how to filter out the photogrammetry trees automatically. The scenery SDK is awesome, harkening back to the old "Instant Scenery" days of FSX. The terraforming is far superior to anything in FS9, FSX, or any P3D. The falloff function removes the razor sharp lines between different colors and textures. I can do a very accurate and pleasing to the eye airport in no time. Helicopter flying is very nice compared to FSX/P3D. Although there is no way to mechanize it like the real world, force trim actually works. Anti-torque and translational lift are nicely modeled. My favorite is the TAOG Hangar Lama SA315B. The sim runs smooth as silk on my machine with pretty much everything set on ULTRA. It's a $7K home build so it is very powerful. I don't know how well the sim runs on something more average. THE BAD Where is my tower camera? I got an addon to emulate it but the lowest altitude I can get the viewpoint is the approximate orbit of the moon. And it wont zoom any farther than a 50x binocular. Really miss the camera that was in every other MS sim. THE TOTALLY UNACCEPTBALE The airplanes fly like (enter bad word here) and the systems suck. All of them including Black Square, A2A, FLYSIMWARE, and Blackbird. The Asobo ones are a complete joke. Carenado may be the worst. I could live with that if we could get into them and fix them like we could in P3D. But everything is locked down for whatever reason and we can't. We're stuck with whatever horrendous flying qualities and bad systems came with the software and most of these if not all will become expensive hangar queens because they bear no resemblance to an actual airplane with an airworthiness certificate. I just don't understand the business model. These developers want to publish and move on. They do not want to publish and continue to support, support, support. We were the shock absorber for them. I can't begin to count how many hours we all spent modifying bad product into good product at no cost to the publisher. And the publisher sold more units because of our mods. We are now removed from the equation and the products are inferior...far inferior to the P3D products we all corrected in terms of flying qualities and systems. Just a guess, but I also think the sim itself has some bad code (or lack of code). Every airplane I have purchased, including the A2A Aerostar, exhibits extreme trim changes with speed and power/thrust and microscopic trim rates to correct those extreme changes. Not even A2A could get that out of their models. Makes me believe that many of the almost limitless aerodynamic coefficients present in FSX/P3D may not be modeled in MSFS. There is no .air file. It's all hidden away somewhere if it exists at all. Asobo seems to be of the opinion that can all be corrected by simply changing flight control curves. Flight control response curves are totally independent from mass properties, aerodynamic damping, and aerodynamic coefficients. It's a band aid, and not a good one. MY CONCLUSION MSFS is a child's toy to be played on XBox by kids that should be doing their homework. It is an intro to pretty graphics and has nothing to do with flying actual airplanes. It does not cater to us. I suppose we're not enough of the market share. I went and looked a XPlane12 briefly. It looks like a comic book. No thanks. We lost our simulator when LM went to P3DV6 , turned the lights out in the cockpit, and negated every aircraft addon we had. For me, I will fly the occasional helicopter in MSFS but he airplanes are just too awful. It's back to P3Dv5.3 until something better comes along.

The way FLC seems to work for me is this. It is just another way of looking at climb and descent rates. Selecting 250KTS will result in whatever pitch attitude will hold 250KTS. If you are at a relatively low altitude and a relatively high power setting, the plane will pitch up to maintain the 250KTS. If you are at a relatively high altitude and a relatively low power setting, the plane will pitch down to maintain 250KTS. I think of it like VS mode, only instead of FPM of climb or descent, you are adjusting the climb or descent to maintain the selected speed. In the case you proposed, 10000ft and 250KTS and steady at a constant power setting, selecting FL280 and FLC set at 250KTS will do nothing unless you increase power such that the airplane can sustain a climb at 250KTS. The more power you add, the higher climb rate you will get. But the airspeed should stay at 250, regardless. Essentially, FLC Mode turns your throttles into vertical speed controllers. To go up, push throttles forward. To go down, pull throttles back.

It's been my experience that simply deleting the .wav file will cause problems. When I run into a problem with .wav files I don't like, I simply replace the file with one of the same name that has only silence. It can easily be done using a sound application like GoldWave.

Wrong forum. However......my Carenado B200 works just fine in v3. :smile:

I have noticed this with many aircraft and I wonder if it is a problem with FSX/P3D. The RealAir Turbine Duke is the only one that I have seen fly a "bullseye" approach, so I'm guessing they did something to fix the sim problem. Every Carenado aircraft I own falls below the glideslope on an ILS/LPV approach. They also search, sometimes wildly, for the selected altitude at level-off after a climb.

I would only say that you did such a good job on the click-spots, the AP pop-up really isn't needed. I have programmed the AP/YD function to a button. Everything else is right in front of you in the VC, either on the AP panel above the PFD or in the new PFD click-spots. The only things missing are the roll control twist knob and the TURB botton, which I never use anyway. Personally, I would rather see a correction to the "ALTSEL" indication logic. It seems to be the only thing that doesn't work quite right. Contrary to others, I am having good luck with the FLC. The "ALTSEL" problem manifests itself by being present when it should not be, and by not being present when it should. The white ALTSEL indication should never be present if the green ALT indication is on (you don't need to have an altitude selected because you are already holding the selected altitude). The white ALTSEL indication should never be present if the green GS indication is on. The vertical path is defined by GS indications and does not try to capture an altitude. The white ALTSEL indication should always be present if the green VS, FLC, or PIT indication is active. The vertical path modes require an endpoint. Note: The above logic comes from the G1000 operators manual, but I would expect the PL21 logic is no different. I'm going to look at the XML logic for the ALTSEL indication. I am not nearly as expert as others here, but maybe I can find something.