roadrabbit149

Thank you for a very interesting reply. Regarding your first point - what do you mean by "non-linearity setting"? Is this what I read on my settings as "Control Response"? I suspect it is, and will try your recommendations of zero .stability augmentation and 100% on control response. Question: am I right in thinking you do not modify the Response Curves at all? My brakes problem seems to have disapeared and, like you, can now apply full power with park brake set and with no forward movement. What I noticed on my last flight is what appears to be an exaggerated adverse yaw (up to 5 degrees) when applying aileron. Also, when flying 'hands off' (literally), my aircraft yaws continuously left/right up to 5 degrees according to the compass, and pitches up/down up to 3 degrees. It'slike fying in turbulent weather. Regarding the turn & slip indicator - it works fine when flying as single pilot. However, when using SmartCopilot, and my student is flying, my turn & slip indicator moves completely randomly. I cannot then assess the results of my student's rudder inputs. rr

Regarding control sensitivity, XPlane themselves say: "In reality, aircraft controls have near infinite resolution, high displacement force, and the plane imparts G on you when you pull back (in fact G is imparted as a result of any acceleration in all 6 axes - ed). To help make up for the lack of these things in the sim, you can slide these sliders up a bit to add "auto-control" displacements to stabilize the plane. It isn't realistic, but may make the plane feel more realistic". That last sentence is the key. We can therefore adjust these to our own preferences. The truly critical problems for me are (a) the lack of a fuel control panel, and (b) the non-working turn & slip indicator when using SmartCopilot. rr

Whilst the default Baron is improved by the Enhanced Flight Model, it still does not meet my requirements. IMHO the controls, particularly near the ground (i.e. on take-off and on landing) are far too sensitive and there is a lot of 'porpoising' both in pitch and yaw. There is a known problem with both toe brakes (again, too sensitive) and the park brake (does not hold above 1900 rpm). Yes, I have tried adjusting both the control sensitivity and stability augmentation, as well as 'shaping' the response curves - without success. There is no fuel control panel to select fuel tanks, or even to switch off the fuel to engine supply. This is, for me, a critical fault. I am trying to teach others to fly twins, so need well-reproduced single engine handling and these models do not give it. Another critical problem is when using SmartCopilot to share cockpit, the turn and slip indicator displays completely randomly - so useless. I am now looking at the Carenado Baron BE58. Has anyone got experience of this model in XPlane? If so, I would like to hear it. From what I can see it has a version with basic 'clockwork' instruments - is this correct? Most important - how does it handle compared with the real-life aircraft? I have been a flight instructor on light aircraft real-world, as well as on airliners and have 17,000 hours plus. My real-world experience on light twins has been PA23 Apache and Aztec aircraft, as well as PA31 Navajo (unpressurized). Any constructive assistance much appreciated. rr

In both my Cessna 172 SP and in the default Baron BE58 the nosewheel steering is far too sensitive on the take-off roll. Just small rudder inputs give excessive turn rates with accompanying tire squealing. At taxy speed everything works just fine. Is there a way I can adjust this steering sensitivity? I have tried varying the rudder sensitivity and this has some effect. However I am then concerned that rudder sensitivity in flight is then reduced too much ( I am teaching single engine operation in the Baron and need a realistic flight rudder response). Any help much appreciated, rr

Problem solved! Unlike my Cessna 172SP set-up, the Baron Be58 was recognising multiple joysticks. When I set the parameters in the second joystick to zero, the joystick indicator showed only for my Logitech/Saitek Pro Yoke. Full flight controls were then available. Thanks for the responses.

I have been flying a Cessna 172SP on XPlane 11.55 without any technical problems regarding set up. However, when I try and load the default Beech Baron Be58, neither the elevator nor the aileron controls connect. I use a Logitech/Saitek Pro Flight Yoke System. The rudder system, and all throttle quadrants work (I use two quadrants) as do all othe buttons and switches. I have gone through calibration and control assigments according to the XPlane Manual but without successful resoltion of the problem. I tried the section "My Joystick or Yoke Isn't Working" and found that, unlike when using the C172 SP and XPlane 11.55, there is no data ouput for elevator or aileron when the controls are moved. The section concludes that this means a problem with my hardware. I don't agree, because it works correctly with everything else - on XPlane, MSFS and with P3D (I run all three to match my students' systems). I feel there is smething not quite right with the default Baron. Has anyone else experienced this, and is there a solution?

I have been using LLBG Mega Airport from Aerosoft without any problem - until today. Approaching LLBG in the PMDG B772 it would not show any runways available. Eventually closed the flight. Checking afterwards, my Scenery Library shows Ben Gurion (Tel Aviv City) as available, but greyed out. Other greyed out airports (eg EGLL) work fine. When I try to load a DEP or ARR via the FMC it comes up with "LLBG ERROR: 03 RWY N/A". It also shows the "NAV DATA Out of Date" message (when it isn't - but I guess, if it's unavailable, that will be the resulting message). I have tried re-installing LLBG 'clean' but with the same result. Further tests show the problem is with the PMDG B777 (all variants), because the DEP and ARR pages work correctly in the FSLabs A320 and QW B787.

No - the number reported was way lower - around 23 tonnes, about 1/3rd of the fuel on board. By comparison the PMDG B777 records the correct fuel figure over any waypoint. I will record allfigures on my next B787 flight 🙂

Er, the fuel figure on the Upper DU was 41.9 tonnes as stated (fuel on board). Hence my question. 😉

When I access the POS REPORT page on the Lower CDU it gives a figure. This figure is a mystery as it appears to bear no relation to fuel required to destination, fuel remainng in tanks or any fuel to alternate calculation. As example I am currently over the North Atlantic just west of 20 degs West where fuel to destination is 36.6 tonnes, fuel loaded pre-flight was 53.9 tonnes, and fuel on board was 41.9 tonnes. Answers on a postcard to ...........

As an addition to my post above, here are: 1. the photo (unprocessed) from the top of Chinnor Hill (+/- 500 ft above terrain) 2. a map showing the relative positions of relevant places From Chinnor Hill to Thame (small blue tower structure) is 7 kms (3.8 nms) and from Chinnor Hill to Long Crendon (wooded hill immediately above industrial buildings at upper centre of photo) is 11 kms (6 nms). The gradation in visibility with distance is clearly seen. This is the result I have been trying to achieve with my three simulation platforms as described previously, and is exactly what I saw with the naked eye. My actual sim platform results are now reasonably accurate and details can be identified as in the photo.

Here is my own personal take on this issue: perhaps I might clear some of the foggy thinking 😉 I use all three platforms (don't ask!) so I don't have any axe to grind, but I did find the reported haziness on XPlane 11. I have an NVidia Graphics card, so have the NVidia Control Panel app. I opened it up and by 'playing' with the five controls [brightness, contrast, gamma, digital vibrance and hue] I was able to reproduce what I think reflects real-world visuals on all three platforms. Not only did I remove the excessive haze on my XPlane11 platform, but I also was able to radically improve the P3Dv5 visuals [no more 'electric' blues and greens!]. It does mean using slightly different settings for each platform. The biggest difference maker was the brightness control. I was then able to take a digital photo from a nereby hilltop. I then flew each platform and navigated to the defined hill and took screen shots from each platform. I am really pleased with the results and all four pictures look remarkably similar with 'aerosol haziness' increasing realistically with distance from viewpoint. What this suggests to me is that each platform developer has set slightly differing default values for the above parameters. There is also the individual users own monitor characteristics and set up. Combine all these factors and you will get differing results [so different folk will get different results using the same platform, never mind comparing different platforms!]. I think it is then up to the user to adjust her system to obtain the picture they prefer. There is no point in me giving you my own settings unless you have exactly the same set-up and monitor that I use, but I was able to radically change my visuals for the better without recourse to LUA scripts or other third party apps.

I am getting odd mouse control function behaviour. In FSLabs A320 the wheel function is now permanently attached to seat movement (the seat - not eye position) and the cursor changes to a pointing finger. This results in no controllability in 3D panel buttons/switches. If I move pointer to ancillary programs (not within P3Dv5.1) mouse works correctly. I have tried using a different mouse, but problem persists. Any help much appreciated.

Hi, Using P3Dv4.5 I was able to get the Avsim Library Avro York up to a reasonable running state a couple of years back. Revisiting the aircraft now I have run itno a problem: the textures are rendered in bmp image format. I am now unable to open these images at all with the various apps and keep getting the message "Error: unable to open this format" or similar. I think this is because the format used is no longer supported under Windows 10 because even Microsoft Photos cannot open these files. Is there a way to convert these bmp images into another, usable, format? I have searched online, but the only app I tried gave the message: "Error encounterd - unable to continue". I have a feeling I am chasing shadows here, but would be grateful for any advice.

Default scenery - sorry, should have said.