marsman2020

BS. Not every aircraft developer should be forced to create their own flight dynamics engine outside of the sim (which is what PMDG does).

The article that claimed "20%!!!" was 20% to 10th Gen Intel....NOT to AMD 5000 series. Also without knowing which version # of the sim was benchmarked, it's impossible to know if the data is valid. Plus there are other major issues with 11th Gen Intel, look at the Gamers Nexus clock speed graphs, it's clocking lower then 10th gen in many instances.

My vote for the "thank you" aircraft is a steam guage Bonanza (strictly based on what I'd like to see).

There are some nice non-Garmin avionics out there now that drop in for the GNS430 and GNS530. It would be nice to have them in the sim as well. It's really too bad Asobo didn't think ahead to swapping out avionics, and everything in the bezels, etc is baked into the aircraft 3D models.

You can only fly so many aircraft but a nice 50s GA aircraft would a fun addition to the sim. Thanks for reviewing the patched version!

I have a mechanical keyboard nerd numpad that runs the QMK custom keyboard firmware that I need to dig out and program with a few custom keybinds for AP stuff.

My experience with things like this is that it's best to initiate a private conversation with the moderators if you disagree with a decision they made.

In the Options (ESC) menu "General" section there is a tab "Flight Model", and it needs to be set to "Modern" for all MSFS aircraft. Legacy is only for use with the most basic of FSX portovers (many more recent FSX portovers use Modern as well), and causes major issues with aircraft intended for MSFS - aircraft stuck on runway, no rudder, etc.

There is way more to the flight model then the global coefficients, if you want behaviors to be correct at the edge of the flight envelope (like stalling the inside wing during the base to final turn).

A straight wing vs a swept wing vs a delta wing will have different spanwise distribution of lift. Different fuselage and engine mount configurations will also have different local coefficients around them. Yet the normalization algorithm is "one size fits all", mapping every aircraft to the same idealized geometry with only a handful of parameters to adjust that geometry. It also doesn't allow for things like a true biplane flight model. It may be an interesting way to try to have some local effects like stall, etc derive "naturally" from the flight model while maintaining backward compatibility with the FSX tables, but I'm very skeptical of the results thus far.

Every aircraft in the simulator with glass cockpits. Check out the 'Known Issues' linked above.

I'm not sure why this cargo cult thread from October was dug up again.

It doesn't help that they ported this from the downloaded help file that comes with the SDK, and the LaTeX equations don't work, so it's basically unreadable. They even made a big deal about how the SDK documentation was moving to a website, but apparently no one ever clicked through the pages and scrolled down to realize it's unreadable. I replied to a thread that had community manager participation on the MSFS forum pointing this out, to no avail. Maybe someone with closer ties and working on the SDK could mention it and get the equations fixed. I hope so. I know the WT folks have been at the pointy end of the spear on fixing a lot of things since the very beginning, but to me Sim Update 3 was a huge disappointment and I'm getting exhausted with waiting for the promised content and improvements, which are constantly pushed back in time (based on many interactions I have observed, this is likely because the full scope isn't really understood when the initial promises are made).

If you create a login to the site Flightsim.to will track the last version of addons that you downloaded vs the current version. But that only helps for addons that the authors had chosen to put up on that site. (Like GotGravel's Cubs, etc) So I too have a giant list of links to various websites and forum threads that I use to check my addons once a month or so. Robert's Turbo Bonanza is still at Version 3.

Doing a flight right now with both mods and no problems. There is a 'known issue' in MSFS with avionics not starting that was introduced in Sim Update 3 a few weeks back: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/release-release-notes-1-14-5-0-sim-update-iii-now-available/375519

I've seen the rudder 'twitch' on takeoff roll, haven't flown through enough weather to see if it's 'twitchy' as far as bouncing around. It feels so nice in the roundout/flare that I'm willing to forgive the takeoff roll 'twitch'. I've probably made my best landings in this aircraft. There are lots of things in the MSFS flight model that make it very challenging to tune aircraft right now. You tune one parameter and it breaks something else. There are new factors and parameters stacked on top of old FSX parameters. This is one of the better aircraft I have flown.

Other addon aircraft are running into similar issues with controls. This seems like something that "the platform" ie MS/Asobo should have addressed.

One of my around the world flight legs I have been flying in the Bonanza, I neglected to check fuel for at takeoff and only had 50%. Realized it not too long after takeoff, did some math and it seemed like I could get to my destination, so I opted to press on. Along the way I ran into some winds which significantly slowed my forward progress. Landed with like 30 min of fuel left, at a grass airstrip, in fog down to around 200ft, using an "approach" defined in LittleNavMap.... Couldn't go to any alternate due to lack of fuel. I was very glad that I has practiced flying the Bonanza 'by the numbers' to get a 500fpm descent in approach configuration, so I could focus on looking for the runway through the fog. Always check! Looking forward to trying out v 0.3 of the Arrow, Just Flight is really pumping out the updates with a level of responsiveness beyond almost any other aircraft 3DP!

I guess tomorrow we will know if it's actually fixed or "Asobo fixed" Personally if it were me I'd go find some FPS "black holes" that haven't been mentioned in any forum threads and keep the private until after the patch. It wouldn't surprise me if they just manually fixed the locations people have explicitly called out but left all the others.

There aren't any

Not true. They have discussed in multiple Q&As that they have so many branches of the source code that it's getting hard to track, and that a lot of the work is happening in branches associated with XBox.

It's already weakening the PC platform because a large portion of Asobo's resources are going into re-writing huge swaths of the sims for XBox, all of which is happening in branches of the code that we won't get to benefit from on PC until after the XBox release. Many of the big improvements to things like weather are very unlikely to happen until after the XBox version is out and the branches have merged back together. There are so many branches that the devs can't even keep track of what features they have fixed/added in the Q&As. Us paying customers get a half-broken barely Beta product and the devs are off making an XBox version instead of fixing what they have already sold.

On the MSFS Forum someone noted that elevator trim doesn't actually seem to work correctly. The elevator does not deflect due to the trim setting - trim seems to just add extra elevator authority that magically appears from nowhere. The consequence of this is that you need your trim setting during roundout and flare to match whatever was used to tune the aircraft flight model, in order to have the same elevator authority the person doing the tuning had. In a real aircraft being mistrimmed might increase the control force required significantly (for aircraft without fly by wire) but in MSFS it seems like having the wrong trim setting might make it impossible to flare properly at all.

If you read the thread on the MSFS forums that was linked, you would see that the performance problem is not within the airspace, but in a corner-shaped sliver to the northwest of the airspace. People identified this based on the boundaries of the 1-2 FPS "black hole" at the 76T airport. They then used that observation to predict the location of other FPS "black holes" that had not yet been identified. Something in the math that determined the airspace boundaries seems to be messed up, producing geometric areas just outside the airspace that become FPS black holes. Avoiding the area to a the northwest of circular airspace might really improve people's flying experience for now......