falcon71

Best request it on the JustFlight forums. I guess the KLN is still under the radar. I hope this will change once the Dukes are released and people can see what it's like. Version 1.0 of the KLN is ready to go and stable for developers, I'm just waiting on the Dukes here.

They added the PA-38 Tomahawk forum and now the Black Square forum is on the next page. Click the small 1 more categories link to see it.

I know, this is a stupid question to ask of a weather program, but has anyone tried if the visibility works correctly? The visibility with the default live weather is always half of that of the METAR and it has ruined many non-precision approaches for me. If this is fixed in Active Sky, then this alone would be a reason for me to get it.

Is the redevelopment of the real airport done or are there still any major changes to be expected anytime soon?

Thanks guys for your input, this clarifies a few things. I still find it strange, that anything less than 9999 means an automatic go-around for any non precision approaches. As I said, I kept an eye on this for the past weeks and I'm sure its not airport blending. Southern Tenerife was in a dense fog all the way to the sea. Here is another example at VNKT, the runway is 4km long: The METAR was stable at that time, there are no other airports nearby and the whole valley was filled with fog, this is not a low cloud. I hope that Ambient Visibility in the debug menu would give a clue to what is going on, but it seems kind of unrelated to the perceived visibility. Does any one else have this problem with the visibility? If so, I will file a Zendesk ticket.

How do I interpret the visibility in the METAR correctly? Let's say the METAR reports 9000 meters, I was under the assumption, that I could see 9km in either direction. I had to go around at the minimums a few times lately. Whenever the METAR is not 9999, the fog appears quite dense. I made a habit of checking the perceived visibility when it is not 9999 and came to the assumption, that MSFS interprets the visibility as the diameter instead of the radius. In other words, the visibility is halved. This screenshot was taken at GCTS this morning, the runway is 3.2km long for reference. The visibility here looks much closer to 4.5km instead of 9km to me. Does anyone know which interpretation of the METAR is correct?

It does show. But for me, it shows the VS deviation. When I'm above the path and I pitch down to the target VS, it shows on track, even though I would be still above the path. I was expecting it to still show that I would be above the path.

One thing I'm very surprised nobody is talking about, is the VNAV deviation bar. For me, it seems to only show the deviation of the current VS to the target VS. Based on the FCOM, I understand that it should however show the deviation to the VNAV path in feet (Like any other aircraft). I can fly above or below the VNAV path and the FMC also never shows any significant deviation. Did I understand the VNAV deviation bar wrong, am I the only one with this issue or do you all just live with it?

A TU-134 is still in active development: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/tu-134-by-kai-31/389415

Yes you can. If it is in the real manual, then it is simulated, including custom waypoints of all types, which are saved persistently.

I was not approached by Milviz/Blackbird, so I do not know their intentions. But yes, either of those options is available. I just hope that they are aware that there is an accurate open source KLN available if they have not developed their own solution.

The KLN 90B is available for aircraft authors here: https://github.com/falcon71/kln90b The KLN 900 is very similar to the the 90B and I would be willing to make the necessary adjustments to simulate the 900, if there is demand by aircraft authors.

It appears that the Dash 7 used the KLN 900, not the 90B. There are only tiny differences compared to the 90B, so it would certainly be possible to create that device as well. However, I would first like to make sure the 90B works bug free and see if there is actually any demand from aircraft authors, before starting with the 900.

I flew there exactly once and that flight ended in a CTD. I then read about the CTD issues and decided to not fly there again until Asobo fixes the issue. I didn't even got to enjoy v1 and now they ask to pay for v2...

This requires a lot of trust if you don't know what you are getting. How was their 717 in terms of system depth? Comparable to the Leonardo Maddog or just Aerosoft level?

Mike, can you give us an overview on how the terrain masks and snow cleared roads work or are those trade secrets? I'm especially interested if those features can cause a performance impact and if they can affect addon compatibility.