Stearmandriver

I would think not but I guess we'll see ;). But does it matter? The idea of not requiring a base package is that people can just buy the variant they want, so... it makes sense that everyone should pay a minimal amount for whichever variant of this long-term project that they want, right?

It's just odd that people think that a product that is the result of 2+ years of dev work is unreasonably priced at $69. I mean in terms of entertainment, that's NOTHING. A couple isn't going to dinner for that. A family isn't going to the movies for that. Many people spend more than that in a month for things like coffee. Not to mention the folks who like having a few beers with friends. But yeah... $69 for a product that's the result of 2+ years of work by an entire dev team... the horror. 😂

Not these days. 😉

Yeah see the FBW and Fenix busses, it makes sense to me that those are competitors... they're the same plane. Can't see a bus and 73 being considered competitors though...

Er? Didn't you pay something to purchase the sim to begin with? Why would you pay anything for a flight sim, using your rationale? Shouldn't it have been free?

From an airline's financial perspective, certainly. But from a pilot (or simmer) perspective, they're extremely different. There just must be something different about how I see this stuff. I can't see why someone who was interested in learning to fly a 737 would be dissuaded from that by learning to fly a Bus instead. The two things are just totally different. If they were both 737NGs, or both Airbuses, THEN they'd be competitors. But they're totally different types.

Fully agree with this.

I've been puzzled by all the comparisons between the PMDG 737 and this Fenix 320 that I've seen over the last weeks. I just don't understand why they're seen as "competitors"? They're entirely different aircraft. It's like considering the Kodiak, the 310, the 146, and the -80 to be competitors... they're all completely different airplanes. If I want a sim version of a 737, why would I consider a Bus, or vice versa? I'm sure they're both great products... I just don't see how they compete?

Autogen vegetation is pretty aggressive (should I say invasive? 😉 ) What I'd guess is happening is, when you turn off photogrammetry, there's slightly less space being occupied by a building there. If there is space for vegetation to exist, and no structure or polygon that excludes vegetation, it will exist. I've seen this kind of thing happen a lot on some scenery projects I've done. The simple answer is for the scenery dev (or anyone else) to throw a polygon around the entire airport area and set it to exclude vegetation. Otherwise, this will happen.

Naw. They're both single-pilot vehicles with wings that engage in powered flight. I'm telling you Manny, they're the same darn thing... and so that's all there is to it. ...Is what you sound like here. You're saying that because the significant differences that exist between these two aircraft (and the MORE significant differences that exist in the quality of their sim counterparts) elude you, no one else should understand them either. Sorry man... but some of us do. 😉

The Wright Flyer and the F-35 are pretty comparable too, eh? I mean they both have wings. Same basic thing.. 😁

Presumptuous? How so? Sounds like my assumption was rather correct: that you are not equipped to appreciate the difference between the two aircraft. It was demonstrated by the fact that you thought they were comparable. A Seneca is what happens when you just try to stick bigger engines on an airframe that was questionable to start with... 😁

Have you flown a Seminole? Have you flown a 310? How much time do you have in each? 😉 Comparing them is illogical. A Seminole is an underpowered crate with little useful load, no critical engine, and a bare ability to maintain altitude single-engine with 1 student, 1 instructor, half tanks and no baggage on a cool day. Maybe. If you're lucky. It's also not very fun to fly, with that undersized T tail. It was designed for no other purpose than to make multi-engine training as cheap and easy as possible. It's good at that, I guess. 😉 Of course, one could argue that "good" is a relative term when you've got multi-engine pilots for whom a critical engine is simply an academic concept... A 310, on the other hand, is simply the best light twin ever built. Plenty of power, plenty of room, plenty of useful load, fast, decent ability to maintain altitude single engine (not at max gross of course, but with a reasonable load). Makes you work when the left engine quits. Smooth, light, balanced controls. Simply a pleasure to fly. An airplane that's not designed to be a trainer, but rather designed to be an AIRPLANE. I can't speak to how much of that translates to the sim versions, but if they're even halfway decent, then some of it has to. These are VERY different aircraft.

There's no need to delete the Google mod, or to manually edit your hosts file. All you have to do is shut the mod down normally. When you do that, it cleans up after itself and deletes those entries... which are, btw, described in the mod documentation.

It's not just the spoilers; for Fabio it seemed to be the combination of flaps 40, autobrakes and spoilers deployed. My guess would be not as many testers were landing flaps 40, though it's also somehow dependent on user system or setup since PMDG says it's never been 100% reproducible. It's a complex one for sure, but sounds like they're making progress on it. Fabio was given a new build to test after they identified it last week, and was able to land successfully several times before triggering the bug by using flaps 40 / AB max. He then mentioned that the change implemented in the new build was not implemented for AB max, which might help verify the hypothesis about the cause / fix.

I didn't read this as PMDG needing anything from Asobo. Robert just said they forwarded some data along to Asobo for their input. I don't see that equaling PMDG needing some kind of "fix" from Asobo... it's just troubleshooting. You ask everyone what they think.

An excellent choice of airplane ;).

That's our (Alaska's) Portland Timbers -700. And it looks fantastic. 👍

Nothin' normal about any of us here, man... I suppose the good news is, you're in the right place! 😁

Eye adaptation is on (1) by default. I'd turned it off long ago and thought that was marginally better, but I'll try turning it on again and see if I can see a difference. Color grading definitely needs to be off (0) in my opinion; the sim is over-saturated and cartoonish looking when it's on. Of course a lot of these effects are probably dependent on graphics hardware (3070 here). I agree that the existence of this eye adaptation effect is ridiculous. There have been several discussions about it recently. The reality is, this is simulating the dynamic range of a camera, not a human being. There's a reason it's in the "post processing" graphics section with all the other camera effects after all... if you're really after the look of sitting in the cockpit YOURSELF (vs watching a YouTube video), this effect should not exist. Looking out the window at noon, the inside of the cockpit is still nicely illuminated / exposed to the human eye; it is not dark for some mysterious reason.

Yep I'm very familiar with using airborne weather radar in reality, that's why I was wondering if there's been any attempt to simulate it. It's never been done even close to correctly in previous sims. I might have to check out the CJ4 eventually, thanks.

I've wondered this too. The only radar display I've ever seen in MSFS is the nexrad datalink display, which doesn't have any of the limitations of airborne radar (as it shouldn't). But is there any (non-WASM) aircraft in the sim right now that actually simulates *airborne* weather radar?

I'll be doing some streaming with it when released. Thus far it looks pretty good. I'd love to see a streamer do an Aiii approach, but so far have only seen primary and IMC modes of the HGS.

I mean... ever? I'm obviously not going to be able to remember them all. But my simming takes two main forms: fun VFR flying, either light GA or bush flying; and vatsim IFR stuff. So I routinely see normal bush flying weather from clear skies to fair weather cu to low stratus layers in valleys to showery weather on the ridges... and then when IFR, I see some good stuff since I always look for the region with the messiest conditions around. Multiple layers with mixed precip, low overcast etc. Were you looking for a certain type?

There's an assistance setting that controls this. And yes, if you have it activated, it'll work on 3rd party aircraft too. I actually use it in 2d, it's nice to know you've got the correct switch or concentric knob hovered over before moving it haha. But you can turn it on or off at your preference.