Fiorentoni

We've all been there, done that. Flight simming is all about quality time. If you don't have much time for simming, only fly those aircraft that actually are worth it. These days - unless it's something safe like Fenix Neos or PMDG 747 - I will not buy any more addons unless all reports coming in make it sound like it could actually be better than one of the aircraft I already fly regularly. I do have a couple of hours for simming almost every night, as it's my only hobby, so I do have a couple more aircraft I use regularly. Fenix, PMDG, iFly and the A350. Even then I e.g. use the PMDG 777 maybe once or twice only a week. Now imagine I'd only have one day a week to fly - I'd have to cut that list down to 1-2 aircraft. So tldr: Whenever something new comes out, just think "It's not going to be as good as what I already have, so I will not buy it." If that turns out wrong, you'll (happily) find out soon enough. If not - saved some money and even more important precious simming time.

You mean the exact distribution of pallets etc.? Hm yeah that would currently be a bit above the focus; can you even load the cargo that precisely in the FF 777? What I do have at the moment is a simple, slightly randomized load distribution info (below the total payload section), so you can spread the weights between FWD & AFT + [if applicable] MAIN DECK & BULK. That will give a bit of variance in regards to the CG% you have in your flights (and consequently the trim settings). It also recognizes some airline-type-specific load tendencies (e.g. [U]LCCs filling one hold completely first before using the other one, to save turnaround time etc.).

It's a website, no need to download. As for your question: You would use RPC (Realistic Pax & Cargo) during (or before) your Simbrief flight planning and enter the pax number and payload from there into Simbrief. Then the rest as usual - the iFly will consequently get those pax number and payload from the Simbrief import. So RPC -> Simbrief -> flight sim is the work flow.

"Oh no - not another app!" Yeah well but this time it's not AI slop, but made by a fellow Avsimmer of yours - me ;) So what is is about: A thing that annoyed me for years was that the pax numbers and additional cargo you get from Simbrief (or several other VAs I've tried) were totally random and more often than not did not fit the "narrative" of my flight (e.g. a holiday charter 737 at the start of the local holidays filled up to the takeoff performance limits, a 777 freighter out of Hong Kong carrying lots and lots of low-priced Asian products, an A320 city-to-city with mostly business people with a small laptop as hand baggage etc.). I therefore build myself a PC app half a year ago which would create fitting passenger numbers and baggage and additional cargo weights that fit the narrative of my flights. While I was at it I even added some other things that could create some sort of story background for the flight, like a simple MEL system and a turnaround time generator (with e.g. random slot delays). Then two weeks ago I thought that might be something that other simmers might be interested in, so I thought I should share it and that's what I did. I made a webapp (= website) out of it and released it yesterday. It's of course free. I hope it's something that can improve your simming experience and immersion, enjoy! And feel free to give me feedback / report bugs via the form on the site. Thank you for your attention :) realisticpaxcargo.com

For most people switching from Jeppesen to LIDO (including myself) it was: At the start: Ugh, so many colors, too many things put onto a single chart After some time: Oh actually a lot of the important info is presented in a much better and clearer way! I find the approach and ground charts vastly superior with LIDO, like leaps and bounds. SIDs/STARs I like Jeppesen a bit more, but only slightly.

No worries, this will be fixed in the ATR compatibility update for MSFS 2028.

The 777 is more high fidelity currently (mostly because of the Fenix having some VNAV problems, which hopefully get fixed), but overall the Fenix is the vastly superior addon. It's the best in flight sim history, I'd even go that far. EDIT: That said i fly the 777 more because I'm more of a widebody guy and it's a very good addon, like all PMDG aircraft.

Yes that's because the approach waypoints are not official waypoint but are created custom waypoints by the charts provider. If you had a LIDO navdata they'd be called like on the LIDO charts, but since Navigraph is Jeppesen, they follow the Jeppesen conventions in the FMC.

Uhm the missed approach altitude is right at the bottom box of the approach chart, in bold blue text. It's significantly easier to find than on the Jeppesen charts, how can you miss that? DH is right there too. SIDs/STARs are complete (although they put more SIDs/STARs on single plates while Jeppesen usually does one plate per SID/STAR).

Because that's not what constitutes absolute superiority in an A340 addon?

It is a tad worse yes. Hopefully will be better once it's 2024-native

Charts are not installed locally, they are fetched via the API e.g. when opening them on the EFB. So all "updates" will happen without you having to do anything or even noticing it frankly

Assuming you have the EA version and fly no-star arrivals - those (and in general vectoring) got some pretty big fixes on EXP. I suggest trying it again once they come to EA soon. Also keep in mind you can always post a log on the discord support channel and let someone take a look at it, if you find something happening consistently to you but not to others apparently

That was the theory of one of the ATR pilots over at the MSFS forums. I haven't tried the 42, just the 72. The 72 is definitely severely underpowered, I mean you can just compare it with the MSFS 2020 version. The 2024 version can't even reach 200 kts during level flight at cruise.

Yes it does. Apparently they put the 42 engines on the 72 and viceversa. It's an ridiculously awful update

I have no problems with any ini airports and PG off in MSFS 2024, KJFK including. No bumps (except those normal ones; definitely not unusable).

I know what the point was and the point is correct.. That argument I quoted is still stupid, even more so when there are much better arguments on the table. That whole thing could have ended mid-page 1, when someone would have said "Most people think it runs fine now, what's your specs? You cannot generalize your experience, making a fact out of it etc etc." Instead people responded with "Build one yourself then Superstar." or "They do that in their free time!", which doesn't even address anything he said, and from there on it derailed as usually with both sides talking completely past each other. And I would attribute just as much blame to those guys as to him. EDIT: I actually almost stopped commenting here on Avsim because of how every thread goes like this. Guess that was a relapse, sorry back to rehab!

That's a stupid argument. Most people probably can't build a CaptainSim 777 either, so does that mean they cannot say anything negative about it?

Have finally turned PG off a month ago and haven't looked back. It's crazy how smooth my sim has become. Before that I would have stutters and what else in all airports at PG-cities. VRAM usage has gone done by a solid 2GB overall too. Of course for those iconic skylines (like New York) you need some city pack, otherwise it kills a bit the immersion; but other than that the cities look pretty good and most importantly consistent.

Yes it's a Boeing feature. It's called the "dead band" and is around 10 degrees pitch during the rotation. Same for the 777 AFAIK

I agree that vectoring has had some regression over the last one or two months, especially overshooting the localizer for me. That said the devs are aware and consequently vectoring is currently the major focus of internal testing in BATC, so there's hope for significant improvements in the very near future.

I use time accelration just fine with the 777. Never noticed this bug; the time is correct in the top right corner, so I guess it's just a rare situation or I don't know.

Their airports look very good, but they do not update them at all mostly. They stay with bugs and flaws (e.g. at HECA there's still a miscalibrated ILS, for two years now) and they don't respond to emails or anything. That said their airports don't have too many flaws, I use most of them regularly.

Keep in mind I'm not neutral when reading this (see signature), but this is my honest opinion as a customer nonetheless: I've using BeyondATC daily from day one, so 2+ years. The progress is immense in those two years. Seriously, you should look back what issues there were in 2024 and compare that to now. Of course it does have some temporary regressions while trying to fix complex stuff for good (for example right now a complete overhaul of ground handling is in internal testing, with the aim to prevent stuck traffic much more reliably), but that's the nature of an early access product. Keep in mind BATC can inject a lot more traffic than any other tool (especially if you are using live traffic) and this does increase the complexity even further; it's not an easy task (if it was, someone else would have done it ages ago and we'd be all using that software). It does frustrate me too at times, but it's still the most reliable tool, and I've tried them all (and I also regularly watch videos with flights with SI, so I know the progress [or lack of] there). I'd love to fly with Vatsim and I do every once in a while (1000+ hours), but it's so limited quantity wise (either overcrowded or deserted, nothing in between), that just doesn't make fun. I know for a fact that the big anonymous survey BeyondATC has made with its userbase has given a very positive overall feedback, so - contrary to this thread - most people are overall happy with the progress and current state and are using BATC for most of their flights. On the other hand I can tell you for a fact that the devs are aware of all the issues and flaws and what's still missing (we make sure they know, that's the advantage of such a huge huge userbase) and - which is even more important - are constantly working on it. EDIT: And as for "unnecessary features" - yes GSX integration ended up being one of them (which is more due to GSX), but CPDLC support and live traffic are immensely popular with the userbase and have led to an influx of a lot of new users on top. Other than that I don't see any unnecessary features? I mean if we are talking stuff like cabin crew voices or the webcam watching you while you're playing in order to know whether you're still at the keyboard, that's not BATC, that's another tool...