FDEdev

Which parts of the aircraft.cfg are you talking about?

Not very much. The basic FDE is still the same and some of the serious flaws can't be eliminated with this ancient FDE. It's that simple. I don't know why you believe that Level-D simulator are so super realistic. Ever heard about 737 Max Level-D simulators and their 'realism'? Level-D simulators are very expensive procedure trainers, and the can be noticeable wrong at various parts of the envelope.

Ich hab' die D18S nicht installiert, aber zumindest bei den anderen Fliegern bewegt sich der HDG bug um einiges schneller als der Flieger den Kurs ändert. Ebenfalls frohe Ostern 🙂

That's perfect! 🙂

Impressive. 👍 I've never even looked at these files, let alone worked with them. Stupid question, does the ignition switch move to ON in this case in the cold & dark setup?

Thank you for taking your time for this extensive explanation. 🙂 A few notes nevertheless 1. The correct climb speed is 225kts/M0.60. The crossover altitude where you should switch from kts to mach is ~FL295. 2. The pitch oscillations usually only occur due to changes in wind speed/direction and turbulence. It's the same IRL and the reason why pitch modes which are based on speed can be rather uncomfortable. This has nothing to do with FADEC. The only thing FADEC basically does is to keep the engine within its limits. You should always climb at max climb thrust and adjust pitch or VS to keep IAS within e.g. + 5kts. That way you avoid the pitch oscillations if the air isn't totally smooth. 🙂 In totally smooth air FLC should work nicely. 3. Since the climb speed above FL295 is Mach, IAS starts to continuously reduce below 225kts once you are above FL295. You maintain Mach not indicated airspeed. One more note: If you have to do an intermediate level off at e.g. FL300 and you are cleared to FL410 you trade kinetic energy for potential energy. Since you already going much faster than M0.6, you select a higher VS than your aircraft is capable to maintain when you start climbing at max climb thrust. As the Mach number decreases from e.g. M0.76 towards the optimum M0.60, you either reduce the VS so that the Mach numbers stays at 0.6, or enable FLC to maintain M0.60. Not sure but AFAIR there's a bug in the Carenado version and if you switch to Mach, the Mach number starts reducing, which it definitely shouldn't do!

mousewheel?

Mediocre because I'm referring to the most important part of any FLIGHT simulator as well, the FLIGHT model (which you left out in your quote). There are zero improvements in this area. Still the ancient FSX FDE with all its basic bugs.

No changes to the almost 20 years old flight model, barely noticeable graphic improvements, looks more like v4.6 to me. I can't imagine that there are many people who are going to buy a rather mediocre P3D improvement and to pay again for updated old addons.

Even without MSFS on the horizon I doubt that many simmers would be exited about v5. Reading the changelog it looks more like a version 4.6 or maybe 4.9.

Not a single FDE improvement. 😦 They still sell this as a 'training tool' with all the almost 20 year old basic bugs. It's quite obvious that the 'classic' flight sim community isn't the target group. Well, at least I don't need to think about 'upgrading' to v5 anymore.

No reason to be confused. That's in inaccuracy in the sim. IRL the ignition is only switched ON in heavy precipitation.

Slight correction. The correct term for 'side wind' is crosswind.

What's your default situation and aircraft? Just for testing I suggest to load a situation with a default aircraft with the engine running and switch to the PC-12. Then select the cold & dark option.

Sorry, no idea. Never used the FMC and I don't have any nav equipment add-on.

Another one is the fuel. Depending on the previous loaded aircraft/situation it's possible the fuel valve is still closed.

I like it because it's the polite form to tell someone something that would be most likely changed automatically into (one or more) 'word not allowed' by the Avsim forum software. 🤣

I don't know if you have newer than the 550 Carenado aircraft and/or glass cockpit equipped ones. They are usually more framerate heavy than the older non-glass versions like the 550.

Climb and Max continues thrust have the identical RPM limit. AFAIR even identical ITT limits but I'm not sure about that. If you click on CLB or CON it displays the current thrust limit and I don't know if the FADEC on the real aircraft automatically limits the thrust according to the indicators or if you have to adjust the thrust levers on your own. The displayed thrust limit increases with altitude in the real aircraft, but I don't think that it does in the Carenado version.

Here a few valid for ISA conditions and S.L: Flaps UP weight_____V1___VR___V2 12500_____114__118__132 10500_____100__106__121 8500_______94__105__121 Flaps 10 weight_____V1___VR___V2 12500_____108__112__125 10500______94__101__116 8500_______91__100__116 VREF 12500______121 11000______114 10000______109 9000______104 8000_______98 Climb speed 220/.62 or 240/.64 Hope this helps 🙂

The correct climb speed is 225kias/M0.60. The crossover altitude is FL295. If the aircraft doesn't automatically switch over, you must do that (don't know if the Carenado version has an IAS/M switch). If you climb at a constant Mach number, the IAS constantly decreases. Not sure if the Carenado version has the correct N1 limit indications but AFAIR above 14000ft you can always firewall the thrust levers to achieve the correct max cont./climb thrust.

If you would have actually read my last reply, then you would know that I did provide an example. Good idea to drop it. Over and out.

I don't know why you are so fixated on the F/A-18. As mentioned before numerous aircraft still are having bugs, some so ridiculous that they don't occur in any other sim, like the inverse ground effect and the head/tailwind bug. After so many years you still don't know who the F/A-18 pilots in the ED forums are?

Seriously? Did you notice that I replied before you edited your post?

No. It simply makes no sense to me to discuss or explain the various flight model problems in the Avsim hangar chat forum. That's what the ED forums are for, were talking about these problems makes sense and RW F/A-18 pilots are involved as well.