Stearmandriver

I'd take something approximating the correct amount of flap / prop drag and call that a win. Thankfully the community FM mod fixes that, but I struggle to understand why a mod should be needed. Anyone who's ever flown a turboprop knows that that at idle, full flaps and max RPM, it oughta come down a little better than 500fpm (and by a little better, I mean a lot)... can't understand how it was released like that. We'll see what the new release brings. Kind of important for a bush plane!

I saw that CCM released a new mod for the MV Porter a couple days ago... I just got home from a trip tonight and was looking forward to trying it since it incorporated the new prop physics. I see all his mods are gone now though. I understand why, after what happened, and am not complaining that he chose to suspend them. But... is there anyone who maybe happened to download it before they got pulled, who might want to DM me? 😁 Not a big deal as the stock Porter flies great as-is... but CCM does good work and it would be fun to try this. Thanks...

I was holding off on the Twotter based on reviews, but I absolutely intended to buy it once it matured a bit. Certainly not now.

Was this seriously a thing? That... is hilarious.

I think what would have worked would be to load the entire procedure first, and then select direct to SRN. The box should automatically cycle into the arrival upon reaching SRN. If you manually enter a direct-to SRN first, and then try to enter the arrival afterwards, you're going to have a disconnect at SRN. I imagine there's a way to clear a disco from the G1000, but I don't know what it is or if it's working yet on the NXi.

I had an interesting experience the other day, and posted about it at the official forum as that seems where most of the weather discussions take place. Thought some of you here might find this worth reading as well though: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/great-live-weather-transition-metar-blending/501594 Basically, it appears there have been significant improvements to weather blending. (Note that this is pre-SU8 and I'm not on the beta.)

I've been flying the Milviz Porter in PNG a lot in the sim, and the Kodiak has become my go-to IFR platform... but I don't guess that turboprop engines and glass count as "simple GA." For that, I'd have to say the DC Designs Stearman (with a 40% extremity dead zone applied to the aileron axis), on any pastoral grass strip.

Air tractors are turboprops; that is, a small turbine (jet) engine is being used to turn a propeller. They sound different because you're hearing the hum of the prop mixed with the hiss/whoosh of the turbine engine. I know there's a default TBM or PC-12 in MSFS... and a Cessna 208 Caravan, and a King Air I think? Those are all turboprops. Two excellent addon turboprop aircraft are the Milviz PC-6 Porter and SWS Kodiak, too.

All true and all good things, and you're likely right that many of them had a greater impact than the verbaige change. I could have been clearer - I wasn't meaning that the data was simply an overall reduction in incursion incidents. I mean we specifically see significantly fewer incursions caused or contributed to by miscommunication now (this is based on controller ASAP data).

No, the data indicating a safety enhancement is what makes it a better way. Data isn't interested in opinion or any individual's sacred cow... it just is what it is. The data indicated that the "pos and hold" verbiage was contributing to confusion, and seeing the expected change in the data after adopting the ICAO verbiage bears it out. Often though, if there is no clear data one way or the other about which way might be better, standardization means that doing it the way everyone else does IS better. Enhanced standardization in aviation is a safety benefit all by itself. The U.S. is slowly being dragged kicking and screaming, towards ICAO standards in many ways, and this is good for us even though we (like all humans) dislike change. 😉

But... that IS actually the point of standardization: there's intrinsic safety value in everyone doing something the same way. Sometimes it doesn't even matter which way that is, as long as we're all doing it the same. Standardization is the sole reason that any two of us at the airlines can be paired together and fly as an effective crew, despite never even having met before, for instance. The FAA doesn't set international standards for ATC phraseology; ICAO does. So no, the rest of the world shouldn't just "do it our way." We should get better at doing it the ICAO way. In this case, as other have explained, the old "position and hold" verbiage created confusion with "hold position," particularly for non-native English speakers. We've seen a decrease in runway incursions here since the change. Sounds like a good change to me.

Nope, the opposite. There's a reason "line up and wait" has been ICAO standard for years. That's what drove the change.

... That said, standardization is important (referring to the "pos and hold" vs "line up and wait" discussion.) We're very bad at ICAO standard phraseology in the US, and that was one example of a few where we have (correctly) changed to align ourselves better with ICAO. There's no downside, other than the natural human resistance to change, which is never a valid argument against it.

You will occasionally hear "decimal" used on the radio in the US, but it's not the norm. You'll also hear the reference to the decimal point omitted entirely, and that works fine too... "one two three seven five" can only be one freq.

There are more 737s currently in service than any other single type of commercial jet. 737s represent a full one-quarter of all airline jets flying worldwide ;). http://www.b737.org.uk/history.htm#:~:text=Over 9%2C300 737s have been,th 737 to Southwest Airlines.

I guess my system is not too comparable (I also don't sim in VR) but nothing about the Porter seems performance heavy to me. No worse than, say, the X Cub. But maybe someone has a better comparison. My system is an i9-9900k, RTX 3070, 32gb ram.

Most airplanes in MSFS feel twitchy, especially all the default planes (without mods). It's one thing they need to fix. Also this matter of trim not operating correctly, but starting, pausing for a second, and continuing. That's what struck me about the Porter. It and the Dc-6 are the two planes I've tried that didn't require the pitch axis to be toned down via extremity dead zone and reactivity. So many others feel like they have no inertia at all in pitch.

My thoughts are exactly the same. I'll add that for me, the Porter feels good right out of the box... the Kodiak is too twitchy in pitch until you add about a 30% extremity dead zone. It also won't descend realistically without the CCM flight model mod (though the upcoming update might fix that.) Then it feels pretty realistic. I agree about the speed... when I'm going somewhere on Vatsim, it's the Kodiak. When I'm bush bashing in New Guinea, it's the Porter. So much fun!

Yes it does. Bijan's has what seems like dozens of different tree models, used appropriately by region. Ironically, what finally convinced me to buy the mod was doing some simming back where I'm from in the midwest US... where the default trees aren't round *enough*. Looks much better there with true deciduous trees like oak and maple. Up in the northwest where I live, now trees are properly pointy fir and cedar. Jungles of New Guinea are now properly broadleaf, bright green tropical. I'm honestly surprised how much of a difference it makes.

Dead reckoning works great in the sim. I've done pure dead reckoning / celestial nav flights in the DC-6 across oceans, and it's very good.

When I see this question, I always encourage consideration of the Milviz Porter as well. It's slower than the Kodiak in cruise (comparable to the Twotter) but beats anything in short field performance. And, it flies more like an airplane - out of the box, without control sensitivity tuning - than anything I've flown yet in MSFS (ok, the DC-6 is up there too.) Might be worth a look.

Man, I'm surprised at the vitriol expressed towards the OP. He's right that default MSFS trees aren't great. It may not matter to you, but this is situational depending on the type of flying you're simulating. Airline or GA IFR stuff, yes. Trees are irrelevant. But if you like low and slow, and especially bush flying, this becomes more important. I've been spending a lot of time in bush strips in New Guinea recently, and when I load up a strip in the scenery editor (removing the Bijan trees and making things default) I'm amazed at how much worse it looks. Vegetation type makes a HUGE difference in a place like this. Happily, we DO have aftermarket veg that's better. Bijan's trees are great for me. I hear REX is good too. So I kind of agree that Asobo shouldn't be making default vegetation a priority, given that we've got good 3rd party options. But scoffing at the idea that accurate vegetation is important to realism for certain types of flight is... not cool.

Nice. I find his Kodiak mod pretty important too. Without it, at idle and full flaps with the prop all the way forward, you can come down at a whopping 400fpm. Yeahhhhhh... in a turboprop. 😁 Kodiak is great once his mod fixed this though.

Oliver is correct above. This effect is ridiculous; flying in reality is NOT like this. This is a camera effect; like sun glarec etc. It's simulating the behavior of a camera, not the human eye. A human eye has a much greater dynamic range. I'd like to see this effect go away, or at least be made optional, the same as all the other silly camera effects. I mean, are we simulating being in an airplane, or watching a movie from a camera in the airplane?

Well here's a bump: any news on MSFS progress? I can't find any recent news; apologies if I've missed something.