Flysimware

I think there are more coming. This is the first wave based on community member votes. All votes and registrations from images can be viewed here. https://discord.com/channels/1142238375919747143/1378473427358453932

Thanks for the feedback.

Loving this one!

I agree that the flight dynamics since my fix do not represent the final flight dynamics we plan to release. It is really easy to break flight dynamics, and we had two parameters that caused major issues that I did not catch right away because I was allowing the real pilot to tweak the performance. Once I found those two bugs, all of his previous tuning settings were no longer valid. I spent a full 12 hours fixing the issues and creating a clean, generic base for tuning while still using real-world specs. Now the pilot and builder of the Starhawk has a solid foundation that is excellent for final tuning. He had an emergency come up, so he cannot start tuning again until this Friday. While I continue working through smaller bugs, he will be able to focus on the final performance tweaks. Working with the real pilot and builder is amazing, and it is going to allow us to deliver a much better product. At the same time, it does come with some risk because it is hard for me to micro-manage everyone helping on the project every single day. That is why I always like to start with a small beta and light advertising first. I truly think that within about two weeks, the Legacy will be rock solid. I really appreciate the feedback.

We only received your original email and nothing else. If it's not running in the taskbar or does briefly then shuts off then something on your pc is causing this as we have hundreds or thousands with no issues. So at this point we still have no answer. If you do solve why it closes please let us know as it seems you and the other two users all probably have something in common.

Discord was provided as one option when we asked you to open a bug report there, but that did not mean it was your only option. You could have replied back by email at any time to let us know you preferred not to use Discord, and we would have continued assisting you there or directed you to AVSIM. We offer three support channels: email through our store, AVSIM, and Discord. We do not provide only one support method. You were always free to reply by email if you preferred not to use Discord. Since you chose to come here to AVSIM, that is perfectly fine—this is exactly what this support channel is for. Also, Discord does not require installing an app. It can be used directly in a web browser, just like AVSIM, and does not require any more personal information than signing up for a typical forum account. Right now, we are working with two other users experiencing the same issue. What we are seeing so far is that the software is running in the background, but the window is not immediately visible. In some cases it may be minimized on the taskbar, and in others it may be in the system tray. Please check both the taskbar and the hidden icons area (bottom-right arrow) to see if it is there and restore the window. We are actively investigating why this is happening and will report back here on AVSIM once we have a confirmed answer and fix. Feel free to continue the conversation in this post.

It's only an app if you install it on your pc. You can just use Discord on your browser just like Avsim. Here is the link. Then once you report and I get notified I can direct message you so we can get more info on your issue. So far hundreds of users have no problems but you and one other. Interesting you got it to work by opening again while the first one loads. i have a few tests we can try and have you run a debugger tool. Hope we see you soon! https://discord.gg/kc2HhPay

FlySimWare – Lancair Legacy Project Announcement We’re excited to officially share that FlySimWare is nearing release of our long-in-development Lancair Legacy for MSFS. This project has been in development for quite some time and is now approaching the final stretch. Our goal from day one has been to deliver the most accurate and complete Legacy simulation possible, developed with direct real-world pilot involvement and extensive aircraft documentation. Our release will include multiple variants: • Lancair Legacy – Naturally Aspirated configuration • Lancair Legacy – Turbocharged configuration • Starhawk Legacy – Full glass cockpit configuration The Starhawk variant will feature full glass avionics integration, including support for both the PMS50 GTN 750 and the TDS GTN 750Xi, offering flexibility for users depending on their preferred ecosystem. From a systems standpoint, we are modeling the aircraft with full real-world electrical architecture and circuit fidelity. Every primary and secondary circuit is represented, with accurate system depth across analog and modern configurations. Both normally aspirated and turbocharged performance profiles are being developed to reflect their real-world operational characteristics. Performance targets: • Authentic piston flight modeling • Accurate turbo altitude performance retention • True-to-life handling characteristics of the Legacy airframe In addition, we are already developing a dedicated expansion pack planned for this summer: a Reno race-prepared Legacy variant. This race version is being created in direct collaboration with Andrew Findlay, who campaigns the aircraft in real-world competition. We have secured proper authorization to represent the aircraft, its markings, and logos, and are working closely to ensure it reflects the real race platform as accurately as possible. This expansion will allow sim pilots to experience a true race-configured Legacy suitable for Reno-style events and competitive flying scenarios. Visually, the aircraft has reached a level of fidelity where it closely mirrors the real airframe in materials, textures, and modeling precision. We will be sharing development images to showcase the current state of the project. We look forward to sharing more as we approach release. — FlySimWare

You’re not wrong — the existing 2020 version is a solid aircraft, and it does fly well in 2024. We’re proud of that. But the 2024 release isn’t a small patch or a “native checkbox” update. It’s essentially a ground-up rebuild that replaces a lot of the older system foundation with 2024-native systems and architecture. We didn’t just sprinkle new features on top — we pulled major parts of the old logic (electrical/pneumatics, etc.) and rebuilt them specifically around what the MSFS 2024 SDK enables. On the upgrade question: it’s also fair to assume this won’t be a free upgrade, because it’s effectively a new product with a lot more included (including what you’d normally think of as “expansion” content/variants). That said, we’re not leaving existing owners hanging — we’ve set it up so that prior owners get an upgrade credit (around $20) toward the new version (across the stores that support upgrades). That’s about as high as we can reasonably go without ending up in the situation where some customers would receive more credit than they originally paid (especially with sale purchases). And on “I’d need other improvements to pay extra”: totally reasonable — but the upgrade isn’t just one headline feature. The new version has a lot more going on than what was covered in a quick clip, including multiple variants/presets with extended tip tanks for longer-range flights, plus a V-tail variant designed for better stability and control at higher altitudes, and mission-focused setups (medevac/cargo/passenger) with their own career-style content and a broader feature set built around 2024 — and that’s not even everything; I’ve been deep in this since February 2025, so there are definitely more improvements I’m forgetting in the moment. So yes: the 2020 version is good. But once you put them side-by-side, the 2024 aircraft is going to make the older one feel like a different generation.

I get where you’re coming from, and I agree with part of it: doing failures well is hard, and if they’re handled poorly they absolutely can feel like “game mechanics.” On the minor failures point: you’re right that MSFS isn’t a maintenance simulator. But the value of minor faults (when done right) isn’t the “repair” animation — it’s the pilot-side workload and decision-making they create before you ever get to B. A lot of real-world “minor” issues aren’t dramatic emergencies — they’re things like degraded equipment, abnormal indications, systems that stop behaving normally, or limitations that force a change of plan. The realism comes from having to recognize it, run the checklist/flow, and manage the flight with restrictions, not from watching a mechanic fix it. That said, if someone personally doesn’t want that layer, I totally respect it — which is why we designed it so you can turn the whole system off, or keep it to specific categories. It shouldn’t intrude on people who want “normal ops only.” On the serious, life-threatening failures being “once or twice in a lifetime”: completely fair — and that’s exactly why we don’t treat major failures as something that should just randomly happen often for “realism.” For realism, we have MTBF so those events are truly rare over long time. Where it becomes valuable on a home sim isn’t “realism,” it’s training. In real training environments, you practice rare events on purpose (engine failure at V1, electrical failures, pressurization problems, etc.) precisely because you won’t see them often in real life. And MSFS 2024 removed scheduled failures, so we brought back the ability to set up planned scenario failures (Schedule) or speed up training time (Speed) so you can practice on a single flight instead of needing hundreds of hours. As for “it reminds me that it’s a game” — I think that’s mostly about presentation. If failures are random, frequent, or pop up like arcade events, I agree: it breaks immersion. Our goal is the opposite: optional, controlled, pilot-driven scenarios. If you never want failures, you can fly with them fully disabled and it stays out of your way. If you do want a “training day,” you can enable them, run a few structured scenarios, then turn them back off. And one other angle: we have real pilots (and pilots-in-training) who want this because real sims are expensive and access is limited. A home sim isn’t a replacement for certified training, but it’s still useful practice for recognition, procedures, and decision-making. So I don’t disagree with your point — I just think it depends on whether the system is built for random chaos, or for realistic workflow and deliberate practice, with the option to opt out entirely. See how well this was designed here.

We modeled the TPE331 engine Turboprop on our FSX/P3D Cessna 441 with a hack to seem real and it also included the prop lock system. I wonder in 2024 if we will be able to actually use the prop angle instead of the RPM to increase power. Will be nice to simulate a turboprop based on how it actually works.

Do to a limitation you need to set the rotary transmit knot to the com that you want to transmit and receive. But you also need to set the com receive switches to the same as the transmit. So for example if you want to receive on com 1: Rotary = com1 switch com1 = up or down for on. switch com2 = center for off. So for example if you want to receive on com 2: Rotary = com2 switch com1 = center for off. switch com2 = up or down for on.

Was reported on Discord and will be fixed in a future update. Thanks.

Since you also posted on Discord and we already replied I will lock this post. Conclusion: According to Les who developed the WT G3X custom logic for the C24R stated this is something WT would have to add or fix.

This issue has been resolved in Version 1.7 and will be released later today. 10-16-2024. FLYSIMWARE LEARJET 35A FMS Beta 1.7 ========================= UPDATES: 2. Added the ETP/PNR page. Press the MENU button from the PERF page. Then press the ETP/PNR LSK. The [M] symbol now displays when a particular page has a separate menu (ie Fuel, and Perf) all other times the normal menu displays on pressing 'Menu'. Bugs: 1. Loading a flight plan from the VANV for the first flight would not allow you to enter a new flight plan. Fixed. =========================

I send a message to the developer to join the conversation here on Avsim and hope to get some feedback soon. Thanks Eric for working with us to figure out why this bug happens.

We did you flight to SPJR then deleted the flight plan then added the reverse flight to SPJC. See images as the return flight loads on the HSI correctly. Not sure how you having an issue. Make sure you have the latest version.

Hi Eric, Where did you purchase the product? The coder also updated the product early this year. Make sure you have the latest version too from our store. Keep in mind the database is still older and you would have to get this updated yourself if it's missing current info. We did not write the code for the FMS. See manual page 26 to delete a flight plan. This will allow you to load new flight plans. Works for customers as no reports of bugs. Flying a route and landing at another airport would not change how you load a flight plan. Does this flight plan work on a first load? But not on a second load? Which method are you using to enter a flight plan? From the sims flight plan creator or entering it manually into the FMS? We do support this product so If there is any issues with his code the coder will fix it. But so far all is working as intended and there are no reports of bugs.

Why judge the texture work if the Early Access store says the textures are not complete. Noticed we have no released any images yet? So maybe it will be as good or better. We will find out on the final release.

We have an update coming soon as we are in testing phase now. Here is a list of the updates. The TO on the nav page causes waypoints to stack onto the same location. When selected 'DTO' the FR is sometimes incorrect (it should be (PPOS)); VNAV page and enter waypoint and desired altitude plane turns back to prev waypoint. CDI is reversed. So the CDI should be left when you are right of the track and right when you are left of the track Unable to select Power/Dim menu options (fuel page 2, FPL List Page, Fuel Options) Fuel page - Elapsed time not working Fuel Options Pax Weight doesn't match fuel (weight) page when in Kgs NAV > MNVR > HOLDING DEFN page, unable to scroll through the waypoints using the NEXT/PREV buttons. PPOS TO WPT page isn't currently measuring the distance and time from the aircraft to each waypoint. Fuel Options - Pax Weight doesn't carry over to fuel (weight) page Perf Page - Fuel onboard at dest show higher about than Fuel onboard now. Same for endurance at dest Perf page NM/LB label overlaps FF values FPL Page unable to enter Oceanic Waypoint as Coordinates (ex 6630N ) Wpt page from FPL page (return LSK R5 does not work ) Fuel Options Only Displays KG

We have an update coming soon as we are in testing phase now. Here is a list of the updates. The TO on the nav page causes waypoints to stack onto the same location. When selected 'DTO' the FR is sometimes incorrect (it should be (PPOS)); VNAV page and enter waypoint and desired altitude plane turns back to prev waypoint. CDI is reversed. So the CDI should be left when you are right of the track and right when you are left of the track Unable to select Power/Dim menu options (fuel page 2, FPL List Page, Fuel Options) Fuel page - Elapsed time not working Fuel Options Pax Weight doesn't match fuel (weight) page when in Kgs NAV > MNVR > HOLDING DEFN page, unable to scroll through the waypoints using the NEXT/PREV buttons. PPOS TO WPT page isn't currently measuring the distance and time from the aircraft to each waypoint. Fuel Options - Pax Weight doesn't carry over to fuel (weight) page Perf Page - Fuel onboard at dest show higher about than Fuel onboard now. Same for endurance at dest Perf page NM/LB label overlaps FF values FPL Page unable to enter Oceanic Waypoint as Coordinates (ex 6630N ) Wpt page from FPL page (return LSK R5 does not work ) Fuel Options Only Displays KG

We passed this info to the developer who wrote the code. Something like this may take time to resolve. So I know he is looking into the issue.

I have no idea I do not remember any of the stages but we did keep getting Ernie to improve the code. I also do not get reports of this bug for sure.

To speed up the solution I am on every day at our Discord server live. We can share screen and voice. Join our community then ping Momo#0007 https://discord.gg/tTRYuEFF I might have to upgrade my P3D V5 as well to match you.

I tried to create this exact route. I could not find TUVA3N or DCT. So maybe you are not using P3D or have some upgraded navigraph. I tested between 2 of these other VOR's and had no issues. https://flysimware.com/website/help/VNAV_TEST_2.mp4 https://flysimware.com/website/help/VNAV_TEST_3.mp4