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.

Thank you! This solved the problems. I was just retarding the throttle with the cowl flaps open and shocking the engine. Now I reduce power much more slowly and keep the cowl flaps closed when doing it. No engine damage. Awesome - learned something new 🙂

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.

Thank you! This is incredibly useful. Do you have any idea what ShockCooling refers to?

Hey all, I'm flying lot of this aircraft at the moment and I'm wondering if I'm doing something wrong. I've read the manual and know the engine limitations, so perhaps this is normal. The engine has a health metric which is a simplified percentage. I presume this is an aggregated average of various engine components (unlike the 310C readout which is more useful imo). For every flight I make of around 40 minutes, the engine health drops by a percentage. So after one hundred flights I presume the engine would be utterly ruined. I'm guessing this isn't normal? Yesterday I did an IFR circuit with full approach so maybe 15 minutes in the air, and the engine dropped from 100 percent to 97 percent. The things I'm doing are: Starting the engine, leaning it to avoid fouling (as much as possible before it loses rpm). Allowing the engine time to warm up before I fly or perform runup. Keep the aircraft at maximum RPM for minimal time (up til around 500ft or so) before bringing it back to max manifold / 2500 (as per the POH). Open and close the cowl flaps as per POH (full open for takeoff, full closed in cruise, on approach I leave them around half way). One thing I would say is I'm perhaps a little undisciplined with this than the other things. On another note, the fact I have what feels like a real engine is so great to me. I love this stuff, and understanding how I'm damaging the engine is very interesting. On this note, aside from the Black Square aircraft, do any other aircraft come close to the same level of engine modelling? GA or Airliner. I've been looking at the BN2 Islander and saw it had a significant update at the end of last year. Is it anything like the Black Square models in depth? Thanks all!

I'm jealous of the experience you've had - your son flying you for fathers day sounds awesome. I just finished reading Fate is the Hunter and feel like I was born at just the wrong time in just the wrong place haha. Out of interest, do you still enjoy the simulators despite the fact you're able to fly pretty easily in real life? And do you use DCS too?

I tried fshud and it was okay but like most of the ATC offerings it's fairly gimmicky/arcady in my opinion. No offense at all to those that enjoy them, I totally understand why people use them, but they're also so far from reality that it's just far better to jump on Pilotedge (if you're happy to pay) or Vatsim (if you're not) for me. There's so many things that can happen with dynamic interactions with real humans that people miss out on with this deterministic ATC Software. Really interestingly (to me at least), Falcon BMS has the best implementation of ATC I've seen. It's really fluid, natural and behaves realistically.

Thanks guys :) yup there's another gps option across the cockpit!

Hey all, These are in the Black Square Bonanza: https://imgur.com/a/VBw1rJE At the top left of the dash. It looks as though the left button is the same as the CDI button on the GPS - so presume its a remnant from before a more advanced GPS with built in CDI button existed? Is this wrong? How about the GPS/APR button on the right with 'ATM' and ACTV'? This doesn't seem coupled to the autopilot, but I could be wrong. I've skimmed the manual for the aircraft and could find a reference to almost everything except these!

Yeah I understand that. Tempted to get an offline ATC product too as sometimes Pilotedge is a just a little too hardcore and I want to relax.

It doesn't work for everyone as it's relatively expensive and requires a fair bit of focus, but if realism and complexity are your priorities you won't get any more real and complex than Pilotedge. You can trial it for five hours. It's such a game changer that despite MSFS having the entire world, I only fly Western USA. Without real ATC I just can't get immersed.

Sounds like your KTM is living it's best life to me

How's it a scam? DCS World will use well over 32gb of ram online, and VRAM requirements are going up every year to the extent 11gb on a 2080ti is not enough for some games now. Especially when you consider more and more 8k textures are available. Buying something you don't need due to lack of proper research, and being scammed or tricked, are not the same thing.

My car which is a fairly bog standard Ford gets a shine and polish most weeks and I apologise to 'her' if I let her get too dirty. Same as my old motorcycle. If I owned an aircraft I'd be at the hanger on a daily basis dusting it off. Some call it OCD, my girlfriend calls it weird...I call it love 😂

I was on the Bonanza owners forum earlier, and a fair few mentioned how they actually found landing the Bonanza even easier than a 172 due to the increased weight and similar stability, but I'm no expert! One interestingly point many mentioned is that although its a very forgiving aircraft, if you end up in IMC without training and stop paying attention, it can end up in a stall quickly. Can't imagine much more frightening than being in spin in clouds with no idea how to fly IMC. I know the flight model has had some tweaks, and a few Bonanza pilots on the MSFS seems happy enough - but I think it's a modification of stock as opposed to completely accurate. My impression is that its a survey level flight model against the backdrop of study level systems. The manual would corroborate this too I think as there's not a lot on the FM (other than that they've tweaked it), but around 85 pages on systems. Happy to be corrected on this - its just the impressions I've picked up!