Bernard Ducret

@Boeing_Driver OK understood. I tried the following scenario for you not using Simbrief: RJTT-RJOA I filled up my weight & balance manually on the relevant FMC page at Index>Settings>Weight & Balance as follows: PAX 312, Cargo 10900 Kg, Fuel 50750 KG, (computed by FMC) ZFW 166354, (Computed by FMC) CG 21.62. I filled up the Performance page, did not input any flight plan neither did I select a CI (the CI is computed by Simbrief), only selected a departure RJTT RWY 34R and a destination RJOA for the sake of trying the TO. On the EFB (Performance page), I copied automatically the FMC data with the button on the bottom left, input Wind 040/04, OAT 17C, QNH 1008, RTG > TO, MAX > ATM, 5 > Flaps, Engine Auto > A/I, clicked on Calculate: Results V1 154, VR 160, V2 166, clicked on Send Output (bottom left), on the FMC clicked on "Accept", the calculated CG remains 21 and the Trim 6.25 is set accordingly. Now, if you wish, try your VR with this scenario and see if there is a difference with your previous experiences (of course I assume you have the latest version of the HS 789).

So as to understand your take-off difficulty and help you out of it, could you @Boeing_Driver and @cavaricooper please explain how you load (weight and balance I mean) your B789 via Simbrief and the FMC, what you describe was indeed true upon release but has since then been corrected a long time ago, so there is most certainly a way to overcome your challenge.

Did any one in this thread try what @sd_flyer suggested in the second post? This is (most probably) the solution (except for windowed screen to be solved with SU15) but no one seems to pay attention very much as it may sound too simple...😎 We tend to forget these updates of Window Store and Xbox even if we don't use one. In some extreme cases, you may have to uninstall the Xbox App and reinstall it.

This is going to hurt the wallet a bit more soon! Jo Erlend never sleeps, his Oslo scenery hit the market today and here he goes with EDDF nearing completion!

This excellent ATCC software was developed 20 years ago and does not work anymore under Windows 11, but perhaps you could contact the developer (see contact page) and see if he can be of assistance for your project. Good luck! http://www.xavius.com/atcc.html

When in Simbrief, after selecting the "Aircraft Type" Boeing 787 (800 or 900), make sure you also select the proper profile in the next box called "Variant or Airframe", you do have two different profiles available for the Horizon 789 (RR and GE) and one for the Kuro 788 for Simbrief planning. The Coast Index (CI) will be computed automatically in Simbrief.

I had a similar issue when I came back from a four-month trip. Check in your Window Store Library what programmes need to be updated and you will likely find Xbox updates to be made. Once I did that, everything was back to normal.

@fluffyflops

I will settle for a weather system creating dangerous turbulences when flying in CBs, this is needed more often than tornadoes worldwide!... Along with a few cirrus clouds where appropriate. Beside this a working ATC that would keep away the prospect of having to pay for something that is marginally better. That would make it a month 6 purchase for me when -and if - the initial post-release dramas fade away, allowing me to - selfishly - sim when some will chase the bugs 👻.

Two suggestions to help you: Make sure you have the latest version of the Horizon 789, for that you can use the updater of the Airbus A339. The take-off issues were resolved a long time ago last year and there is no such problem now. In order to ensure you won't have a wrong CG, and thus a takeoff challenge, you need to follow a few points: DO NOT use the MSFS weight and balance window, but inport your Simbrief calculated weights into the FMC > Index > Settings > Weights and Balance > Set from OFP and wait for "Completed" Fill up all your FMC pages importing your Simbrief data, including flight plan, runways, SID and STAR, except the last Take Off page Go to your EFB Performance page and click on "Copy your FMC Data" into the EFB (button on bottom left), check each line and fill up when appropriate (wind, OAT and QNH), select Thrust and Flaps until you have the "Calculate" button on top right illuminated, click on it. Your performances is now available Click on "Send output" to the FMC Takeoff page, and click "Accept" on the FMC. Set your takeoff Trim to the indicated value in the FMC Your plane is ready and you shall not have a "sticky" takeoff.. These last two days, I flew it from OMAA to WSSS and WSSS to RJTT with not a single issue.

This is your opinion - which is respected - but not necessarily shared. Again a matter of opinion as to what a "serious" simmer is! According to your assessment, I am not among them.. Actually you are right, I only "sim" for my enjoyment, and although I had plenty of real world stick time world wide, it was again only for my pleasure and I never took it seriously!

Horizon and Working Title have done an excellent job to improve the 788/9/X, and it is doubtful that PMDG will venture into this knowing full well that these freeware will be further developed and improved. The same probably happened to FSLabs with the inflation of A320 in MSFS, what is left for them if they were to release an A320 line of aircraft? I had the QualityWing 787 in P3D but would not buy it for MSFS even if they released it tomorrow. Neither would I buy an FSLabs A320. FBW, Horizon have redefined what a freeware aircraft is in any flightsim, more to come (A380 among others). Healthy competition perhaps, but let's face it, we now have something we never had in the past, passionate, competent, organised and innovative freeware developers.

@KERNEL32 Let me try to explain what happen as clearly as my (old) brain allows... My MSFS is on my C drive, and AIM with OCI is on my E drive. It is linked to my Community folder via Addon-Linker (and it has been so for the past two years with no issue) Yesterday I updated the Models and the Flightplans in AIM. The flight plans were correctly updated and the red button became green. Models were shown in red too, so I run update, at the end of the process it said "Done", but the button remained red. When I started MSFS, I had no traffic at all at EGLL... I then checked my Community folder and saw a new OCI SimObjects folder in it containing a few airplanes (which was never there before since I am linking my OCI from my E drive to the Community folder with Addon-Linker). So I moved the content of this "new" OCI-SimObjects folder from the Community folder into my original OCI-SimObjects folder on my E drive. Problem solved, evidently the double OCI folder was the issue. I thought that perhaps, the same happened to you and your OCI-SimObjects folder was still intact but you had another rogue OCI-SimObjects folder in your Community folder? In which case AIM would have created it.

After further investigation this morning, it appears that AIM "could" have created an additional Airplane file into my Community folder. I certainly did not create that file myself since my OCI folder was always on a separate drive and linked to my MSFS Community through AddonLinker (from day 1 two years ago), so this is impossible, yet it was here hence a conflict having two OCI and no traffic at all in MSFS. Furthermore, when I moved that "new" Airplane file to my original OCI Airplane folder, nothing was overwritten meaning that those aircraft were not the same as the one of my original Airplane OCI folder, so clearly something went wrong with AIM during the update process. @KERNEL32 May i suggest you check this as well to see if my issue is similar to yours and then we could inform @Kaiii3 accordingly? In addition, the Simobjects and Models Update buttons relain red whatever I do. At least now I do have my AI traffic back to the fullest.

I too wish to express my gratefulness for the backup files sent to me by message, AVSIM never ceases to amaze me with the number of simmers willing to help each other.

Same here, did it yesterday evening, all gone...!`Dont run AIM!!!

I used AIG (full package) from day one, even with their old interface and never regretted it since then. I did try FSLTL for a while until I realised that an unrealistic number of parked airplanes could not be correct (for example four TAP planes on Geneva tarmac at the same time and same phenomenon at some other airports). So I stick to AIG to have a more realistic picture of what the probable traffic is at the time of my flight. This is especially useful if I fly out of a Far-East airport where the time difference is 7 to 9 hours, AIG will provide for that, FSLTL obviously can't.

This latest video convinced me that my swearing to not buy anymore twins for MSFS was superfluous... https://fselite.net/content/black-square-dukes-first-look-and-tablet-interface/ Amazing to see how MSFS made me switch almost entirely from tubeliners in previous sims to GA elaborate aircraft. BlackSquare and FSW certainly come on top of the list of culprits... Outstanding job!

I am not certain what the objective of this discussion is all about (laud MS one more time?) but, there is one item that raises old boys eyebrows and sounds very unfair: Where is Asobo mentioned in your discussion and where is there any credit(s) for those who created the sim that we are using? Granted, MS is the financial and marketing strength that made this sim achievable, along with the Bing imagery (but we know of other equally good if not better data sources...). MS hired Asobo, most likely, after intensively searching the market for a talented group of developers, and Asobo were chosen for a reason (actually many). So why not integrate into your brilliant demonstration some words of thanks to the people who for the past four years - and probably as many before the release - developed and improved this superb technological undertaking that we all enjoy? Yes, MS sells this product under its brand and financed research and pre-release expenses, and continues to do so today, but my old school of thoughts reminds me to give credit where credit is due.

After reading a number of lukewarm posts regarding GSX and its "complexity" in this thread, I wonder what is so difficult about it, I have been using it for years in P3D before and now in MSFS without even thinking about what I should do, it does the job very nicely while I start engines and get ready for taxi. I never spent one minute to configure one gate anywhere and regularly download on Flightsim.to airport profiles made available by fellow simmers who are patient and competent enough to share their full GSX airport configuration, push these files into the GSX MSFS folder and I'm ready to go. I rarely use the boarding of passengers - or only at small airports - to avoid hitting the object limit. Finally, GSX is updated very frequently by its developers.

It is indicated on the site on that page in small caps here: LAUNCH WEEKEND SPECIAL, OMAA + OMDB FOR ONLY£19.99 EXCL VAT (£23.99 APPROX PRICE WITH 20% UK VAT From the IniBuilds site after logging in, I put the two sceneries in my basket the total billing of 19,99 was indicated and charged.

For all the scenery deal chasers, these two great Inibuilds sceneries (OMDB + OMAA) are sold as a package for 19.99£ only for this week-end! More here.

Those stats simply cannot be true, I have been away from my sim PC for the past two months!...😎

We all have different perceptions about this restriction implemented by MS. Personally I fully support it and wish that it does not change. There are indeed enough specialised software and simulators for war lovers, probably a vast majority of games are about fights, wars, conflicts of one kind or another. This contributes to a particular mindset that war, after all, is not that bad and can be fun! MSFS should - in my opinion - remain purely a civil aviation simulation.

Because it will be a new line of products, it cant be a Boeing - unless they decide to go for old timers such as 742/1, 727, 707... That would be a brilliant idea by the way! Or perhaps they want to revive their previously announced Operation Centre (or something to that effect I forgot the exact name), initially scheduled for P3D and dropped when MSFS came out. There are simply too many Airbuses available and announced to squeeze yet another "line" which would compete head-on with too many other contenders (freeware and payware) and probably yet another one when FSL finally makes it to MSFS... if ever!