gunther

There's a long standing bug that, if you make changes to your aircraft/livery selection the sim will ignore your gate/parking/runway selection and place you at the default runway. The work-around is to always make you aircraft/livery changes before selecting your starting location.

A word of caution/concern: I do a bit of freeware scenery development from time to time, and for my latest project (continental U.S.) decided to use the new Bing maps "enhancement", since it offers much better imagery for the area I was interested in. When I went back to test my newly developed airport with the default MSFS imagery I noticed to my consternation that my entire airport was 2-3 metres offset against that default imagery. Not a good look! I have not tested this anywhere else yet, so maybe it's a local aberration, but if this applies more generally it could affect a lot of existing add-on scenery, especially when looking towards 2024.

Browser timed out. Sorry for the double post

A word of caution/concern: I do bit of freeware scenery development from time to time, and for my latest project decided

One possible cause for such issues are broken liveries. Make sure you don't have any liveries installed that didn't come with the installer. 3rd party liveries need to be updated whenever a new version of the aircraft is released. FSW tend to fiddle with the behind the scenes logic on most releases. Happens with the Lear 35 too.

Runway and taxi lights in MSFS aren't individually placed. They are programatically generated, based on: A. when drawn as part of taxi lines, placed depending on the number of the vertices (segments) of the drawn line, meaning irregularly spaced, especially in turns; (AI uses this method) B. drawn as "light rows", evenly spaced, but unless the rows are broken at intersections (lots of work for scenery devs) they will still be placed in the middle of taxiways With AI generated airports, they would have to find a much better logic to resolve this. I hope they do, I always cringe when I have to run over them. With human-developed airports, it's pure laziness. Plenty of "payware" that use either or both of the above methods.

What happened to the 737-200?

As someone who spent a good couple of hundred hours creating one of those "annoying addons", here's my take on the issue. It all boils down to one word: DATA (or lack thereof). Plus the way MS/Asobo interpret some of that data. From my observations, the hydrological dataset in MSFS is largely derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM). The fidelity of that dataset varies significantly from region to region: from water details that have meter-accuracy to rivers and lakes that have kilometer-long zig-zag segments. I have no idea where MSFS gets its terrain model(s) from, but again, it varies in detail from region to region. Not surprisingly, hydrology and terrain in MSFS don't always match … let me rephrase that … almost never match! One additional complaint I have is the way MS/Asobo interpret some of the hydrology. The OSM dataset differentiates permanent from non-permanent water bodies (eg. salt lakes). MSFS appears not to take this into account. To answer your question(s). Until MS/Asobo find a common/matching dataset, the problem will persist. I have not much hope that 2024 will be any different, but I'll be ecstatic if it is!

He has relocated to Montenegro.

BS = ? BlackSquare?

(installation folder)Official\Steam

Medium. Mostly because I can't stand the baked-in behavior of most (if not all) MSFS aircraft so far. Might have to re-evaluate that setting. But I just did a flight across the alps with segments of moderate chop and a fairly tranquil descent into Bavaria, before hitting a line of squalls, and a 12 kt crosswind on landing and it felt VERY realistic.

Ok, definitely not imagining things! A work of art!

Might be imagining things, but turbulence feels way more natural than in any other sim aircraft I've flow. None of this nauseating pitching/rolling/yawing around the CG. Different parts of the airframe seem to be affected differently, as in real life. I'm linking it 🙂

There was already a noticeable decrease in new uploads following their handling of the "premium" debacle earlier this year. This "word not allowed" won't help improve things.