Fiorentoni

Well, Fenix has received death threats by "the community" because they delayed the IAE for a couple of months. So much for that. Also it's not about delays or not, the context is much larger. It's more about persons, companies and expectations. Aamir is loved by almost anyone, RSR on the other hand... well you get the point. Fenix has been applauded for coming out of nowhere with a study level aircraft, while PMDG has been critcised for bringing out the same 737 with the same subpar LNAV for 10 years. And so on and so on.

There are biz jets with scheduled flightplans in AIG, so they will likely count in the same category as airliners for FsHud.

Really, compared to the way iniBuild releases their aircraft, I'd take the taking-its-time-way of Fenix and PMDG any day.

If I had a full motion level D simulator at home, I'd probably not be using MSFS. I think most can agree on that. But does that add anything to the discussion about whether someone uses MSFS except for the fact that he apparently has no full motion simulator at home? P3D and XPL are just as far away from a full motion certified sim as is MSFS, for various reasons.

What does Majestic have to do with the E175...? Also the Q400 has no VNAV in real life (just advisory IIRC). Also this is still at least one year away, so what are you basing your decision on right now?

It will give you wrong taxiways, if they are in the scenery data. (How would it even know if they are correct or not? Navigraph does not have taxiways as (machine-readable) data, so there's no way to check for whether the scenery data is wrong or right) What might happen, is that the scenery data (the AFCAD) has no taxiways set at all or at least none that connect the gate with a runway. In those cases it will say it can't give you taxiways.

What do you mean? It DOES use Navigraph, if you update your sim navdata with Navigraph. It just takes whatever the sim gives (e.g. like the A300 or the A320neo)

This has nothing to do with AS, In my opinion. Those white ground patches I've seen for 2 years in MSFS (long before AS), it's usually a textures error with a 3rd party airport.

No, passive mode does not do weather (i.e. clouds, visibility, icing etc.), only "air effects" (many different types of turbulence). It's like MSFS default weather with realistic air effects.

Not another one... anyway me personally all I'm gonna say is that after 4 years of volcanish ash clouds, I'm happy to see something else (and more realistic).

Really? I need to pay attention to that. That's quite a nice feature!

Again, none. The amount of traffic is depending on the injector, which in this case is still FSLTL.

Yes it does/should, OLOD is exactly responsible for that.

No, AIG injected traffic uses flightplans. But if you are injecting via FSLTL, all AIG will do is provide the appropriate liveries/models if FSLTL lacks them. So the flight data will come from FSLTL, the livery/model from AIG.

I'm not using FSLTL, but AIG will basically bring you every single airline in the world, so no more white liveries or missing models. Traffic will be the same as with FSLTL, because it's, well, live traffic.

No it cannot technically influence MSFS turbulence. Whatever you have set in MSFS will be added on top of RealTurb. If you want to tone MSFS turbulence, just turn it off or set it to low.

Make sure you engage the prop brake *quickly* after pushing the aux hyd pump button. Like max 2 seconds. It‘s visible on the display as a message for as long as it‘s active. If you wait for too long, otherwise the aux pump will auto-turn off again and then the aircraft will bug out if you nonetheless move the prop brake switch.

It's tiresome. Just fly and use what you want. That's for both sides. And if you really want to make objective criticism in this thread, at least get informed (or try it yourself) before stating wrong things like "flat clouds are unrealistic" or "AS does not show clouds above 12000 feet". It's the right - no the duty - of anyone to correct objectively wrong facts. This has nothing to do with censoring or suffocating discussion. Wrong is wrong.

So... you think the best move for Microsoft would be to try to replace Navigraph and Simbrief? Really? Most 3rd party addons are using Navigraph, Fenix and PMDG are not even looking at the (faulty) MSFS navdata format. Let alone that you actually think people would replace Simbrief with some wonky MSFS default w&b and fuel planner. What you suggest would lead to actually nobody buying the premium version.

This is not about Vatsim, anyone doing remotely realistic IFR flights needs the airport weather to be like in the METAR, online or offline. You can't approach a runway only to "see" (if you see it at all, that is) that the winds or visibility in MSFS are actually the complete opposite of the METAR.

If you have any desire left for plausible and realistic weather you cannot seriously consider an engine that literally does not know stratus or cirrus layers to "nail it better". MSFS is flat out missing at least 2/3 of cloud reality! EDIT: And don't get me wrong, you can like and use whatever you want. People are different and that's fine.

I watched the video. He knows absolutely nothing about real weather. He finds flat overcast layers boring and instead loves the apocalyptic MSFS look. He can have that preference, of course, but he shouldn't make an "objective comparison" video out of it. MSFS default weather is neither realistic nor diversified, it's just "dramatic". For me AS has revigorated how I experience weather in MSFS, it was like I was dumbed down by 4 years of dramatic, unisone cumulus. Now with AS it feels "serious" and "study level" again, but I understand that's a personal thing and not every one wants to spend 25 dollars for this, just like people are happy with the LatinVFR A320ceo and don't need/want the Fenix. Each to their own.

Utter nonsense. That's non even possible since for all cloud types MSFS cloud textures and resolution are used. You're probably used to every cloud looking like the weather over Pompeji in 79 AC. Also there are about 30% ST, 30% CU and 30% CI from what I've experienced so far with AS. Very nice mix and variation.

1. The latter. Well, it uses MSFS graphics and cloud textures and stuff, but nothing in regards of weather data. 2. All three make use of it. Some probably are not working in passive depiction mode (e.g. those that actively influence clouds or transitions, obviously, with MSFS taking over the cloud depiction).

There's no real need to predict in real live, you just request the ATIS via the FMC and you know the active runway(s).