FDEdev

Why shouldn't they? All other Alabeo/Carenado aircraft are available at simmarket as well. I always buy from the developer if possible to support them.

One of the reasons for Concordes ogival wing shape was the need to create the necessary vortex lift to get the approach speed down to an acceptable level. Simulating vortex lift is one of the advantages of a table based sim and I assume that Asobo doesn't try to re-invent the wheel. An advanced version of what we have now for FDE design would be very good IMO. AFAIR (modified) P3D/FSX aircraft will work in the new sim and I can't imagine how this would be possible if they would switch to a totally different method of flight model simulation. Since FS2000 already had the Concorde included, I don't see any problems in a much more advanced sim. Slowing down of the air in the engine intake below M1 is required for all aircraft with turbofan engines but luckily the sim doesn't know that 😉

Bill wrote that the library restore isn't completed yet, maybe that's the reason.

Had the 500 and 504 errors for a few days now. Website seems to be as fast and reliable as usual since a few minutes 👍

Except that you should start the engines with the props in feather, not full forward.

With the condition levers at 100% the engines & props are operating at their maximum rpm, or 'full power' as you call it, which is correct.

I assume power levers at FLT IDLE and condition levers at LO. These numbers seem to be roughly correct AFAIR. Don't forget that since this is a fixed turbine turboprop, the propellers are also turning at 74% of their maximum RPM (~1600) which makes this aircraft very noisy, even at idle with the condition levers at LO.

Why are the condition levers at the lowest position? They should be at high (100%) during the approach. During climb and cruise they should be between 97-98%, so there's no significant change in sound during flight since it's mainly RPM that's responsible for the noise and not the power setting. That said, although the Garrett engines are very fuel efficient, they are extremely noisy on ground and in flight. Same in the sim.

I'm not in front of my PC so I can't tell right now. I'll check when I'm back home next week. @mikeymike not sure if I understand your question correctly. E.g. in the aircraft section I simply deleted most of the aircraft folders and e.g. the complete helo and animals folder.

No need to. Just look at the screenshot in the link I've posted.

Erm, that's the opposite, correct, in or pro spin bank angle.

Sure. Btw, that's a very good video since it's one of the few videos where you can see the horizon Notice that the roll attitude is almost level, just a few degrees 'in spin' bank angle due to the outboard, faster rotating wing (just a basic description). In the MSFS video the stable spin attitude has the 172 banking 40° to the outside of the spin, which is simply impossible in a conventional stable spin. https://files.fm/u/s4j4cqx5#/view/msfs_spin_att.jpg

Weird indeed since I've never seen an aircraft spin, or spun an aircraft myself, in an aerodynamically impossible attitude like in the video. That's the kind of unrealistic spin attitude you see in many FSX/P3D add-ons.

We have seen the spin video, which isn't exactly promising.

Couldn't be further from the truth, simply because there's not just a single wing that's being simulated, but multiple surfaces. Thanx for the link, but it's impossible to tell if this game has anything to do with something even remotely similar to a flight simulator.

link?

This wouldn't make any sense, since most likely at least 90% of the people who have applied for alpha are using P3D.

I deleted everything I don't need, missions, aircraft I don't fly etc... Initital boot time to the main screen 13sec and 5sec to get flying. Subsequent total boot time to get flying <10sec.

This non-linear view movement is necessary with TIR, but it takes a lot to get used to this weird panning speed change. I don't know how you are driving, but I never turn my head while keeping the eyes focusing straight ahead. Feels very awkward. Even after a month I didn't get used to it and a happily switched back to my old fashioned linear moving 360deg FOV.

That sounds a lot like x-planes blade element theory which will (luckily) not be the case from what we know until now. With all the computing power Boeing wasn't even able to precisely calculate the behavior of the 747-400 wing, so how should it be possible to make a whole aircraft to perform realistically? I don't think that it will be much different from what we have now, but to a much higher degree of precision, abilities and fine tuning. Hence much more time required for a high end flight model.

The problem for me is that if the movement is big enough so that you can look 90deg to the sides (which is btw. way too little during a visual approach), it is too sensitive/fast for small movements along the panels in the VC: If the movement is acceptable for panning in the VC, the left/right head turning is capability is even more restricted, which makes it even less useful. It's a crutch, but for most it's better than the normal view switching. I don't want to fly a visual approach without being able to look (at least) 45deg back.

Interesting info. Never had any problems with my T16000M, hence my wrong assumption.

If the aerodynamics will be improved the way ASOBO claims, I'd expect that FDE development will take at least double ot tripple the time that's required now, if we are strictly talking about staying within the SDK capabilities.

Do these problems occur without active sky?

I did use pedals for quite some time but I've switched back to the very precise T16000M twist grip joystick. Very fine rudder control due to its high resolution and the hall sensors.