Claudius_

After two GPS flights and two missed approaches, it seems the annoying GN430 GPS bugs are still present, not to mention the infamous orange WASM screen crash. VOR-to-VOR navigation, on the other hand, appears to be working well. Testing is still underway, but the DC-6 appears to be largely abandoned at this point.

Gliding is different by ditching 😃

It seems you are confusing a professional sim with a desktop one. And you are wrong: because you are ignoring the valuable input of the unreal world desktop pilots, yours is a typical closed beta vision. It's a sort of NTSB of the real world pilots version\corporation.

Yes, it was the infamous closed beta of real world pilots.

Yes, but the problem is that often you can't see how and why a simulated airplane is wrong. You're almost only interested in realistic procedures, but often you pilots fail when it comes to the flight model, to say the least. That's because many of you started your careers primarily as airliner pilots, just a little more than bus drivers. But flying is another business. In the famous Sully accident, it was his previous glider experience that saved their axxxx when ditching in the Hudson River. Paradoxically, in the famous Flight 447 accident, three pilots weren't capable of recognizing a stall of their A330. These accidents are very interesting for learning about pilots' experiences and backgrounds. At the same time, we can see real-world pilots who have no idea what a simulated flight model is, yet they can reproduce their MCDU from memory, simply because they are just a bit more than bus drivers. So, no more closed beta. Let's open up to different experiences to create better and more realistic simulated airplanes.

It's not the fault of desktop sim enthusiasts. The developers should open up their closed beta teams, diverse experiences make a better product. This is about letting real-world pilots dictate everything, though I do understand their frustration as pilots in real life.

As I have said many times, real pilots are not an absolute guarantee of "product" quality. While they are experts on real-life aircraft, which is a very good thing, they usually lack experience with home flight simulators, which are very different from professional flight sims. Moreover, there is a real conflict of interest: real-world pilots sometimes pretend not to see certain issues affecting the product. Additionally, developers often advertise real-world pilot beta teams purely for marketing purposes. The best compromise is to open the beta process, at least toward the end of the product's development. We have seen these closed beta team problems time and again, which is why MSFS opened up its beta process. If you want to sell your product, listen to your customers, and don't treat them as if they're dumb.

The problem with closed beta teams is the limited range of user experiences. I prefer the open beta concept, like what we’re seeing with MSFS 2024, because once the final version is released, it’s already about 95% bug-free. This Service Pack 1 is taking a long time, and I’m 90% sure something will go wrong, likely because someone on the closed beta team missed issues with the flight model, or with the flare/rollout phases during autoland, for example.

Viagra falls, where?

I used the GPS in my last flight and it worked well, and the ILS landing works well too.

Tried to fly vor to vor navigation, no gps?

Another vor to vor flight today eddf\lgss without problems, ils landing correct. No wasm crashed on my end.

I did a KBKF/KSAN vor to vor flight, she's flying well, but loosing the vor signal frequently back to gyropilot and localizer again solves the problem, but I don't know if it is a bug.

First thing to check: vor\ils navigation and approach. It was a nightmare in msfs20 because there wasn't any communication between pmdg and wt.

Hoping for an improved flight model, too.

So, is it possible to get FSR 4.1 just copying your file into the game directory, without using the optiscaler app?

RTX 5080 here and rebar off through nvidia inspector, in this way I can set it off just for MSFS24. With rebar on I have problem with vram because my graphics are almost all ultra, ray tracing and, DLSS, tdfi md11, complex airports, etc.

It's different here: BATC reads my flight plan, which I edited in Simbrief. I would be happy if BATC took full responsibility to plan the entire flight plan, not just the STAR. Anyway, I did a flight from LiRF to EDDF with the cargo TFDi MD-11, and it worked well. But I'm not a BATC enthusiast, sometimes this new BATC feels blind to me. At EDDF, on runway 7L, the altitude to intercept the ILS/GLS is 5,000 feet, so why is BATC telling me 4,000 feet? For now, though, I do like how it manages air traffic through FLTL.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm trying to explain, because your claimed transparency doesn't seem all that transparent. In simulated flight planning, we sometimes have to adjust the STAR to accommodate the aircraft's requirements as well as discrepancies between the simulator and Navigraph. That's why the older Pro-ATC was certainly more flexible in that regard. I’m also free to share my opinions here and ask for help if I need it. What you don't seem to realize is that I'm not asking for help—I'm simply sharing my experience as a new BATC user. Yes, I'm reading the tutorials, but they contain some errors, confusing the prerequisites for MSFS2000 and MSFS24, along with other small but substantial issues. These tutorials are typically not updated, and it seems the creators were more focused on making money quickly. Let see what happens in the future.

This morning I did an EDDM/LIRF flight in the Fenix A320, BATC followed the flightplan as filed. But it doesn't seem flexible like Pro-ATC was, because if you change something to the STAR and the approach from the original Simbrief flightplan, BATC seems to go crazy. I want try the experimental branch, I have the base package, is it possible?

I'm new at BATC, I bought it yesterday and it failed both the STARs and the approaches in the 2 flights. Good catch! Now I try to reduce the arrival density at 2 because I see a lot of traffic around me, the ATC is controling well the other flights except mine.

It's done for people that needs to manoveur their joysticks without worrying about energy retention. 😁

Youn can't compare combat sim vs. civilian sim, in my experience I see that the combat sim airplanes generally lack realism in landings, take off, engine management, and a flight model that consent you to have a lot of energy. Just compare the A2A and the DCS P-51: completely different airplanes. In MSFS24 I find a good without bullets compromise.

maybe I had a crosswind, more tests tomorrow.

Tried this thing just for few TO and landings, it's interesting. But landing is more difficult than the take off, it should be the contrary.