Bigbluss

Disappointed, I presume

Just reconfirmed. HP shows 70 per engine at full power at sea level. Guess this one isn't as detailed as I thought.

The EDM700: https://www.jpinstruments.com/shop/edm-700/ You can see it on the bottom left of the main panel. One for each engine. I'm a little disappointed if this is the case. This unit is a major part of taking care of and managing the engines.

I looked at the carenado aircraft and they show the same numbers. I wonder if it's maybe some default copy/paste thing maybe. Definitely impacts my view of the addon though. If the engine isn't simulated correctly that's quite a big deal.

Hi all, wondering if I'm potentially misunderstanding something here. I've been using the Black Square Bonanza a lot and I really love it. I just tried out the Milviz 310R and I can immediatrly see the EDM-700 is a very shallow simulation vs the black square, but what about the output HP? At 1000ft AGL with the mixture producing peak RPM, both engines show 60bhp. Surely this isn't correct? Am I getting something wrong, or is this just a meaningless graphical gloss? If so, it probably means the 310R is a no go for me. I've got too used to Black Squares deep engine simulation!

I think it probably is relatively tough. Lots of variables with many subvariables changing in realtime. Certainly not a trivial problem.

Hi everyone, I'm looking for something bigger than the 310R but smaller than an actual airliner. The two that look interesting to me are the BN2 Islander and the Cessna 414, with an edge towards the Islander because it just looks very unique. That said, I'll generally always go with the superior simulation. Is one far ahead of the other? Most of the reviews of the Islander are positive but it looks like it received a significant 2.0 update that changed a huge amount. What are people's thoughts on it? Does it include things like wear and tear and the potential for failure like the 310R or Black box simulations? Thanks :)

Please be the most detailed DC3 in the history of flight simulation!

You're right. I can take off from Newark and fly over NYC in heavy weather in the 737-700 and get 80fps with zero stutter. I believe that's probably the most dense area in the sim. Stutters definitely mean you've got something up.

I have a 5800x3d and a 7900xtx running ultra everything (except object and terrain lod) 1440p at 100-165fps. My PC is a little worse than yours and I get zero stutters unless I turn object and terrain lod up too high. I also have 64GB 3200mhz ram and it's running off a dedicated NVME. First off check the object and terrain LOD. Drop them to 150 and see if it fixes it. Make sure your traffic isn't maxed out too. Also not sure how new you are to pc building but incase you're very new, make sure to turn on XMP. Ignore the people talking about process lasso. It's not 2009 and we're not running FSX anymore. Your machine is an absolute beast and you don't need that nonsense. Like I said, my PC is a little worse than yours and my performance is absolutely flawless at heavy payware airports in the PMDG 737 and Fenix. So yeah, check the traffic and drop it. Then drop object and terrain LOD. Bet you'll be running great at little to no visual difference.

I've got 1000 hours on MSFS and I spent £80 on it. If that's not a bargain I don't know what it is. Will happily buy an upgraded version if it's still a simulator. Can't actually believe people are angry about releasing a new version four years on. And the same people complain about a potential subscription. Someone get these people to an economics 101 class.

The amount of work that goes into MSFS is fairly staggering. Say what you want about bugs, very few non subscription based software products get anywhere near this level of support. I believe there's far more to the Microsoft Flight Simulator engine than we think. Microsoft are all in on AI, building a 1/1 representation of the Earth and having simmers constantly checking every corner of it for accuracy feels like it has a huge potential across a significant number of industries, both military and civilian. I would be very surprised if the long term goal of MSFS wasn't to build a 1/1 Earth simulator down to the smallest level, catering to every type of meteorology. When I read what I typed, it feels a bit conspiracy theory-ish. It isn't meant to be. I simply believe there's much more to the engine than they talk about in public.

To the people struggling to start it - sometimes I have to add a little extra throttle to get it going. Fantastically alive aircraft. I've messed up caring for the engine before (I think I ruined the spark plugs with improper priming) and mid way through a flight the engine starter lurching. Cannot recommend the payware 172 mod enough either.

I've seen this all to often in my professional life too, as a software engineer. One "high performer" is allowed to treat others as they see fit based on their high output. Sadly these toxic individuals can often be the downfall of otherwise decent companies. I believe some individuals with particularly toxic personality traits dedicate a large portion of their lives to gaining niche technical expertise, as it allows them to express their venom and narcissistic tendencies all the while being protected or excused by managers. My singular purpose as an engineering manager is to keep these snakes away from my teams! A shame one managed to destroy what sounds like a decent community.

I'm watching this live and he's already found a few bugs during startup. Nothing game breaking yet. The cabin temp is in C showing numbers in F, and there's some errors with the test logic. Engines not started yet. Still though it looks decent complex! Just got to hope Hans is (for once) open to criticism and bug fixing..