mtr75

That is probably the difference. I say I have no interest in tubeliners, but every so often the mood hits me to hop in the 320 and do a flight where I leave the flying to the copilot and just sit in the left seat and enjoy the view.

I don’t dispute your opinion, but it seems a rare one. I have no interest in tubeliners, but the GA aircraft are basically useless for IFR, unless you’re into handflying, which doesn’t seem to be the case with a lot of people. Are you flying the community modded A320?

I don’t remember asking you.

What really sucks is that a lot of people ordered these just to resell on eBay for double and triple the retail price. Otherwise I would be getting one. I have the Alpha and it's brilliant.

@robert young Random question: I'm curious as to the motivation to make this a turbo version as opposed to normally-aspirated. I realize that in a simulator it's pretty much irrelevant, but in real life, unpressurized turbocharged airplanes are kind of niche aircraft for people who operate at higher elevations. They're more complicated to operate and maintain, and otherwise generally don't make sense for the majority of piston GA operations. Just curious as to what your thought process was, as I'm sure making this a turbo added to your development burden. Not a criticism whatsoever, just pure curiosity. Thanks!

You're right about the yoke and throttle quadrant, etc. Although there really is no better time to be in flight sim than right now, when I stop and think about yoke, throttle, rudder pedals, etc., 1440 monitor, PC, TrackIR w/ pro clip, divorce settlement, and on and on and on, I've got every bit of $3,500 in the screen I'm staring at right now. Is it worth it? Hell yes.

VFR low and slow is basically the only use for this simulator at this point. That being said, that's what I'm using it for (VFR tour of the Caribbean in the 172 at the moment), and for that it's absolutely fantastic. The visuals are every bit what you hear. Nobody can say whether that kind of money is worth it in your particular situation, but if you really enjoy flight simulation and can afford that, I would absolutely recommend it. And FWIW, I'm playing it on Ultra settings with a 8700K and GTX1080, both stock. Runs like a dream.

There are any number of reasons why someone might not want (or might not be able to) view video content on youtube. Some people are concerned about their privacy. You may not be aware, but youtube tracks viewers of embedded videos. So someone may be purposely avoiding youtube to protect their privacy and unknowingly surrender that privacy by watching an embedded video. Some people don't have access to mobile data, or it may be prohibitively expensive, which is why they're using a primarily text-based forum to begin with. The point is, your stated aim is to keep people from getting scammed, which is laudable. Nobody is going to argue with you about that. But you may be (however inadvertently) causing them to do just that. Your thread title isn't clickbait, and if you want to give people the option of watching your video, wonderful. But a written synopsis, however brief, would be useful for and considerate of those who, for any number of reasons, don't want to or can't watch youtube videos. If you want to block me for saying that, please feel free.

I'm not talking about modeling PAR approaches, I'm simply talking reasonably accurate (e.g. non hilariously unrealistic) altitudes, for example. I mean for crying out loud, I get handoffs saying "Tune to center on OH-N-E-two-two-decimal-seven", where they actually spell out the word ONE phonetically. Honestly, it's pathetic. They could make some very, very basic changes to improve the system vastly. That any of these errors made it into the release version is really just sad.

Yeah, this is getting pretty into the weeds of approach types, but what the G1000/3000 should be able to do and what it can do in MSFS are most certainly decidedly different things. My understanding of the RNP AR approach is that it's similar to a CATII/III, which the GX000 systems can't do. They should be able to do the rest of the RNP approach types. https://aopano.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/garmin_icao_flight_plan_information.pdf

Localizer approaches don't have glide slopes by definition.

The answer to your question is "all of the above". Both the G1000 and G3000 (and the WAAS-enabled 430s and 530s for that matter) can use all ILS and RNAV approaches. They can even do the LDA approaches, which you presumably will never use or be interested in.

Depends on what you mean. I wouldn't consider an A320 to be in any way associated with the word "beginner". But if you want to start out in the 152 and learn how to fly, absolutely it is!

Unfortunately I think the horse has left the barn on this one. Undoing, fixing, updating, and correcting the IFR environment in this game/scenery simulator is infinitely more difficult than having done it correctly to begin with. That's why I was and am pretty incredulous about the whole process they used to develop and alpha test this game (we're in the beta now, let's just be honest). That they got the very basics of the IFR system - ATC phraseology, altitude and heading guidance - so laughably wrong is inexcusable, and frankly tells you all you need to know. They really needed to get the foundation correct from the start and they didn't. To what extent the errors they've made are fixable, we will see. But it's really unfortunate. I'm not so worried about them having made hash of the G3000, for example - that just messes up one airplane that people may or may not use. And we've already seen community fixes for things like that. But we can't get community fixes for the foundations of the game.

Instead of using this to promote your youtube channel you should just explain what the issue is.

I keep coming back to this and wondering why “of course” the AP will work as expected in one mode and (according to you) there is a problem with another mode, even though both are exhibiting known characteristics of the respective modes. The other related question is why some people are having issues and some are not. They’re using the same program. The variable is the operator.

Ad hominem. Your second one this thread. How many more logical fallacies can you share with the class?

That is a fair point. Honestly I can see the appeal and I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it's a bit like learning to drive in a Formula 1 car. If you really want to do it this way I'd recommend looking at the POH and trying to create a checklist for yourself where you can list a step by step process for slowing down, getting stabilized, deploying flaps, then eventually the gear, etc. The problem with learning this stuff in a fast airplane like the TBM is that everything happens quickly. Try starting the process a good ways out from the airport. Start your descent at least 50 miles out, depending on your altitude, and getting slowed down and ready for the approach at least 20 miles out. Give yourself time. Going down and slowing down at the same time is not easy while trying to prepare for an approach, configure the airplane, etc.

Yeah, yeah, nice try. You call me out for a argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy two seconds after you do it yourself, then try to act all noble and fair. Fail.

One thing I would recommend is not using the suggested frequencies in the ATC window within the game, but rather looking up the ATIS frequency yourself on the web and manually tuning it in. I've found that this has worked on several occasions where the ATC window either had no frequency at all for the ATIS, or the frequency they did have didn't work.

There's your first mistake. Try the G1000 172. It would make the learning so much easier.

Well I guess being nice and trying to help was a futile gesture.

From the guy who two sentences before said: Too funny. 😄

That might be useful if you're doing aerobatics. Short of that I can't imagine what use having twice the pitch travel of my Honeycomb would do.

Given that this is a known issue with FLC and that the solution is using VS mode - and that this is exactly what you're seeing in the game - I tend to disagree. One thing you could do is note the VS during a descent using FLC when you're getting oscillations, then recreate that descent using the same VS using VS mode instead and see if you get the same oscillation. My guess is you won't. And that, to me, would answer the question.