DaveRuk

Noticed it a few hours back and wondered if issues were indeed remote, so I’m glad I found this thread. I’ll wait for a server fix but in the meantime, is there somewhere that normally advises of service status? I guess it may be an odd one as I can still use the site, just not the downloader applet.

Prompted to comment after seemingly having the update twice. I must be missing something. My system received the update on 22.12.20 I think (1.12.13.0 IIRC) 2 days ago on startup it prompted to update again, but showing existing version details as confirmed by the Windows App list in settings. The update looked to be <1GB and seemed to go ok, though on first start the 320 was missing, but that sorted itself after another start. I also have the terrain spikes, though I’d naively hoped the update I mention might actually be a patch. Got an impressive Devil’s Tower on EGCC 23R approach as one example...back to the free fix then. I’d agree that the clouds need work too. Some aspects look great, others less so, rough looking pixelation and weird vertical lines at certain angles. Mostly observations, but if anyone can throw any light as to why the update seems to have happened twice that would be interesting, I have to ask how an update can provoke the terrain issues that have appeared, without being spotted in testing as they aren’t exactly hard to find, for me anyways!

Regarding 2 specific suggestions on planning/ATC... -It works better when you select an approach and runway before take off That's how I started out on this one. Not working here though. -selecting a SID and leaving the STAR on automatic to let ATC select runway and STAR to assign and it works flawlessly Tried that too, letting ATC take the reins, nope. The only thing I've not yet tried is to manually enter a plan into the 320 MCDU, which will be interesting with little 'bus background. Another thing I may try is the 747 which I'm more familiar with, should that reveal an error in my approach to setting up the 320 maybe, just trying to be open minded! To be clear where I'm at, if the ATC worked predictably and consistently, I'm fine with that, but it's not the case for me so far. And as I've said before, having a simple way to allow user choice in use of ATC or not, and just using a proven IFR plan, would be nice. If there was a simple option to switch ATC off, that may help, but there isn't, that I can find anyway - and it seems I am not alone in running into issues with it. Sure, I will persevere, or wait for updates that improve things, but I'd made the observation that MS are clearly trying to increase customer base by virtue of appealing to the "gamer" market, as well as "simmers". I can't see how the issues with ATC are going to help with that right now.

Yep, that's fair comment and I will try that for sure - but there are times when I would like to stipulate a specific approach (yes I know, not very real world) to enjoy the and just use my IFR plan to do that, so a simple option to fly without ATC would be nice - to give choice.

Yep, that's fair comment and I will try that for sure - but there are times when I would like to stipulate a specific approach (yes I know, not very real world) to enjoy the visuals, and just use my IFR plan to do that, so a simple option to fly without ATC would be nice - to give choice in the matter. I can fly P3D under IFR without ATC, so why not here too?

The experience of Paladin2005 you quoted sounds familiar, which is why I mentioned that I had observed ALT constraints on the route, which should set me up for an approach that is ready to pick up the localiser and ILS, however I then encounter the sort of "help" that post refers to, which doesn't help, at all...!

That's the bit I can't figure! I'm guessing there's a simple way if doing that but so far my experience has been: Load flight from my SimBrief file, Fly Now, and immediately ATC starts banging on at me. So if you could guide me on how not to contact them at the start that'd be great. Alternately do you mean to change a COM radio setting? Thanks in advance!

OK I count myself as being on a new learning curve with this sim, coming from P3D, but there are times when it seems it is not making life easy. I mainly fly airliners and am used to PMDG study level detail. I know the default stuff like the 320 is not to that level (yet? will it ever be?) and just for fun I'm coming from an exclusive Boeing background, so I got to learn the 'bus too here. I'm now more comfortable with what the 'bus will actually let you do in terms of flight management - nav, alt, speed, but am really struggling with IFR and ATC. I'm trying to learn the 'bus on a familiar route I tend to use for P3D testing. Flightplan is generated in SimBrief and loaded via the options in MSFS2020. It sees and loads it up. The plan also shows in the aircraft. I could see ILS details loaded in also, so it knows where I am going. Following alt constraints, I should be on a nice approach, but ATC doesn't seem to want to play ball, and I inevitably end up either flying right over the runway, or vectoring around the airport,. So right now I just want to fly IFR with my plan, but without ATC complicating matters. I can come back to its foibles later perhaps. The simple question is can I, and how do I turn ATC off? I've played with a few settings to no avail, and still find ATC barking at me. It must be buried in there somewhere!!

Many thanks for the replies, that's helpful. Could I also ask for location of Gerald's latest PTA presets? cheers 🙂

I'd like to ask a question which probably falls into noob category, but been unable to find a clear answer via searches so here goes. Right now I don't tend to create presets myself, but have used some nice ones from various sources, which I may just fettle a little in terms of basic lighting settings to suit my setup. I'm now on PTA 2.67 for P3D v4.5 HF2, and what I'd like to understand is backward compatibility with older presets. So say if I had a preset created under 2.66 which I liked, can that be used safely by 2.67? Equally what are the pros and cons of doing so? Right now my assumption is a later PTA version may have extra fields available which an earlier preset won't map to, but all its existing values may be recognised by 2.67, possibly leaving a few (new field) gaps to consider. Also, if 2.67 happily opens an earlier preset, if it is saved is it then 2.67 compliant as it were? Hope that makes sense and any guidance appreciated. Cheers Dave

Yep I get a flavour of this too. Smooth on the ground, but once airborne I find stick button camera movement and transitions (using either assigned keys, hot corners or selecting from the CP UI preset list) can go pretty horrible. I'm sure it must be something simple but I am struggling to find it. Only difference here is I don't get the pause you mention, just movement that has lost smoothness. In some ways it's more frustrating as it looks so good when on the ground but deteriorates as you progress.

Thanks FPStewy. I've taken a look at the vid but lack of commentary and no vid of PATC-X usage has left me a little unclear. I've messaged Mike to see if he can advise.

I'm just looking into EFB v2 now, and trying to get my head around how EFB v2 and PATC-X work together. What are the basic route planning steps you've used that let the 2 products interact? It rather sounds like you may be doing what I am trying to achieve! Dave

I've thought about this before too, but mainly for just within the VC. The thought I had was to connect VC preset views via a defined path so that objects (e.g seat headrests) aren't encountered - resulting in a smooth flow as VC positions change from one preset to another, via defined points in space. Dave

VFXCentral is the hurdle for me, I’ll take consolation that it needs attention elsewhere. I’ve flagged it directly too. Dave