UrgentSiesta

It needs to go further. There needs to be some basic level of realism/functionality. Like, I’m even (mostly) okay with the Captain Sim antics because at least they’re (mostly) honest and upfront about it. But the mscenery dreck is obviously substandard. Heck, I’m not even sure Deimos is up to par (?) And really, cheap rentals should be absolutely mandatory. If an addon has a very low conversion rate to full purchase, that could even automatically log a flag for investigation and so on.

I keep reminding A2A that they “owe us” their version converted from P3D. 🤣

We can call them Monday Morning Developers, like all the US football “experts”! 🤣

Go give this some love in the official forums! Microsoft Flight Simulator ForumsMSFS Marketplace Partner AnnouncementWe want to share an important update regarding content available in the Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 and 2024 in-game Marketplaces. Over time, we have received a significant amount of feedback fro

Well, to borrow a quote, “Looks like I picked the wrong month to stop buying 737’s”! I’ve never cared much for the distinction between the NG and the MAX, so I’ve been fairly satisfied with the PMDG’s since P3D days. I never tried iFly back then simply because I never saw them recommended as an alternative(?!?). BUT, those types of noticeable differences in flight models are exactly the qualities I’m seeking in addons, so it’s a worthwhile expense for me to switch. Appreciate all the feedback - means a lot!

I think airplane addons are for guys like shoes are for women. you can never have enough, and there’s always a different one for each occasion! And I’m totally in board with it!!! 🤣👍

Have you tried the improvement mods for the Default Mustang? Seems pretty nice!

Well, higher than I wanted it to be, but I’m not surprised. They’ve explained that the MH-65 has significantly different systems to the Dauphin, and there’s a bunch of other options/equipment, and most importantly, I’ve yet to be the least bit disappointed in a Taogs addon. 😁👍

I’ve already said I have the best Airbus available in the ToLiss A346 for XP. All I’m looking for here is something to pretty to keep the 747-8 company. 🤙

Yep. For e.g., Just Flight went way overboard with their Turbo Arrow v2 - you need waaay too much rudder. Conversely, A2A Sims has nearly zero rudder needed in their Comanche. So little that it’s actually distracting!

Better late than never!

Many thanks - it’s “probably” a good idea not to just kick the tires and light the fires like I usually do! 😎

TBH the features list looks pretty good to me…? Nonetheless, since this is a “Famous Flyer” for me, I’m waiting for a sale. T

I personally don’t mind aero effects being a bit overdone - it greatly helps (me) to remember that they’re there. My biggest nitpick with the C172 in XP is that it’s waaay too easy to land. I’m never that good IRL!

I personally find the SimCoders Reality Expansion Packages to give very good results, especially when seeking the nuances of flight. It’s cheap, too: $20 and adds directly in to the Default 172. Or you can make a copy of the 172 and upgrade that, so you have both to compare. But first, I’d take Litjan up on his offer of assistance. A LOT of flight sim addon misbehavior has more to do with peripherals than anything…🤙

I forget what torque is supposed to be on final IRL…? I was shooting runway approaches today and I think torque needed to be around 900lbs to maintain 75-ish kts with full flaps. W&B was around 6900lbs, 35ish % cg. I have to look at the POH again for the steep approach procedure. IIRC it’s idle power and 75kts. I wasn’t able to get that, but it could easily be me approaching too steeply…? I was either over speeding on one approach, or needing power to maintain 75kts the next. Overall my impression is that low speed handling seems to have been further improved - not as wallowy Seems like rudder work has been cleaned up somewhat too? And maybe drag still needs work - ie, still too high when fully configured…?? So, all in all, it seems further refined to me, but I haven’t been flying it that much to speak definitively.

& @Stearmandriver I’ve read that the iFly handles better in general. How does it do in this and similar situations?

Now THAT’S one I’d not expected to see! It’d probably be fun for aircraft carrier ops!

I thought it was kinda funny 😁 I picked the 737-700 as my favorite-of-favorites because it just ticks so many boxes. Small enough to operate from so many airports (particularly as a lightly loaded BBJ1), more than fast enough to get where ever you wanna go in reasonable time, up to 6,000 nm range (who has that kind of free time, anyway…? 😂), and complicated enough that it’s unlikely to ever bore me, or get into a situation that it cant handle. And it might be surprising, but it’s actually pretty good at low n slow sight seeing (like the P-8 Poseidons are known to do 😎). Hang the flaps out and it’s even slower and lower - we’re not paying for gas! One of the main reasons, though, is that it’s just so well documented. If I have a question, chances are the answer is readily available. That’s not the case with sooo many addons, even the Hi Fi ones. It’s a pretty straightforward decision I guess, and I’m just thankful I’ll never have to make the choice for real. 😁🤙

A. Did you read the entire lede…? No, obviously not. B. What’s your “Just One”?

Agree. Found this response from them to be quite interesting in terms of flight modeling: “YouTuber YourSimCFI recently found a genuine bug: with right rudder input, the left wing dropped instead of the right - incorrect proverse roll. It's real, and it's now fixed. Thanks for catching it before release - this is exactly the kind of thing that's easy to miss and hard to spot. Somewhere along the way, though, this turned into "the whole flight model is default" or "it's wrong everywhere," and I'd gently push back on that. The flight model was vetted by real FA50 pilots and deemed correct across normal flight regimes. This bug lived in a specific edge case that the validation work didn't center on, which is why it surfaced late rather than never. One bug in one regime isn't the same as a broken model. For those who want the detail: MSFS builds the flight model from many parameters, wing dihedral being one. The real Falcon 50 has 0 dihedral on paper, but in flight the wings bend slightly upward, so the effective dihedral is a touch positive. We'd set the handbook value of 0 - correct on the ground - but since MSFS calculates this live, it really wants that slightly positive in-flight value. And that mattered: whenever wing_dihedral is 0 or negative, MSFS produces incorrect proverse roll. Setting it slightly positive fixes it. (wing_virtual_dihedral, for those wondering, has no effect once wing_dihedral is 0 or negative.) So the handbook value is physically correct, but the sim needs the in-flight value to behave right. That's not us faking the model - it's matching what the wing actually does in the air.” (Tagging @lwt1971 )

Now I don’t feel so alone! 😎

US and EU helo main rotors generally spin in opposite directions, so the corrective anti-torque pedal push is also opposite (or “backwards” as Ryan correctly stated it 😂). Or you could do the whole Russian Kamov coaxial main rotors and skip the tail rotor all together 😎 In terms of engine failure, give me a helo ANY day. While it’s dangerous to try for a hover autorotation, you can still get them down onto just about any parking lot or very small patch of grass.

Europeans 🤦‍♂️ (Just kidding 😁🤙).

A man after my own heart - esp the eyebrow windows! All reasons I specified the BBJ myself, especially trying to cram it into tiny little strips it has no IRL business doing. 😎 Interesting note on the MTOW the Aussies use 🤙