Georgleboui

Ultimately it's gameplay – challenge, whatever you want to call it. Whatever sim you use, it's all just entertainment at the end of the day. And sure, glass is fantastic if you're doing real world flying, absolutely. But it just sucks out the fun in a sim. An NDB approach with no visibility with terrain around you is exciting. Takes skill, thought, attention. Trying out celestial navigation while flying over the ocean where there's a real chance you'll get lost – really fun. The Dark Souls of navigation. Following a magenta line for six hours - might as well look at Reddit on your phone or go watch a YouTube video. Or worse – flying a screen by way of synthetic vision. As soon as I see that big G1000 monstrosity in a plane it puts me to sleep. Couldn't care less about VORs in real life, except maybe to bore my wife to death as I explain what that round thing is when we drive by the airport.

No contradictions here. I disagree with the mildness of his criticism and the overall sentiment that "it's not quite all that bad" and "people have been overly harsh". The shellacking this thing gets is rightfully deserved, and anything less than that is letting the dev off the hook. It's a $60 add-on that pretends to have depth (while misspelling switch labels) but is really just MScenery quality, and a developer who has pretty much completely abandoned it.

@Joshua757 Are you the guy spamming Reddit about this? I hadn't commented there because you've been rightfully called out and downvoted for this AI slop multiple times. It's a shockingly bad plane. Almost on the level of MScenery - and I say this for the audacity to charge such a huge amount for such low quality. I had hopes for the last patch but it barely fixed anything even though it was promising a lot. The worst money I ever spent on the sim, and I'm the only one to blame as I like the plane itself.

I know it's not to everyone's budget or appeal, but honestly this is where I'm glad for SayIntentions. The injector works the same way as FSLTL (ie set and forget) but you have the added benefit of it all being controlled in VFR and IFR. And there's pop-up IFR as well which is something I've been wanting for ages. I do wish there was a more accessible solution - can't beat free - but anything else just feels clunky to use.

This is an absolutely iconic helicopter if you're from the Northern Caucasus thanks to one of the best soviet aviation movies ever made: Bonus fact - my parents called me Mimino growing up because I was 1) obsessed with the movie and the little helicopter, and 2) looked like a miniature version of the main character (sans the amazing moustache).

I agree with your sentiment but I can also see it from the devs perspective. The first thread is about inaccurate depiction of METARs - that's fine but not what we're actually asking for. The second thread is all the way from 2020 and covers a wide variety of issues, some of which have been improved since. I feel like what would be more effective is starting a new thread that's calling for an overhaul of weather in 2024. Just simple as that and straight to the point. Get that upvoted into the sort of numbers Asobo can't ignore.

It's really fascinating how toxic this community can be. People are calling it a scam - nobody has asked for your money yet. There's nothing to buy. How is it a scam? I can't recall, did Fenix get the same sort of treatment initially? I wish we supported new devs better.

I totally agree - I want this to be the best possible version of a cool plane you could possibly get. In an ideal world everything should be Fenix-level quality. But at the end of the day I'm just happy we get a solid, lovely representation of a historic jet. I can see it being a bit of a risky undertaking to take on and I'm glad someone is willing to take that risk. Same with Just Flight, and other devs like Red Wing that are willing to preserve history.

But then he'd be JoshuaL1011 - doesn't have the same ring to it.

I appreciate their willingness to fix these problems. But I do hope they would acknowledge the effort @Joshua757 put into testing all of this stuff - it's great work!

I don't think you'd be bending reality that much. An L1011 operating today would likely have a GNS530 unit like this installed – in fact the one modelled is based on a real aircraft. I'd like to know the answer to your question too actually – I believe you can set /A (or similar code) in aircraft profile for equipment capabilities within Simbrief but all my attempts to do that never actually worked.

That's part of the technique of flying IFR. It's not just about manipulating controls, but also looking at conditions and anticipating what's coming up. It's a good idea to do a pre-brief before coming to TOD - looking at expected arrival, likely approach, runway configurations, parking, etc. Create a plan of action in your mind based on all these options. In other words - like okay we might be landing either runway 18 or 36. The former means I'll need to slow down early and be on the ball, the other might mean terrain could be a factor. How do I anticipate either one and make my life easier? From there, you look at wind direction or listen to ATIS if you can to get active runways. If those aren't available you can usually look at broad ground wind data on Navigraph or Meteoblue - not accurate but enough to atleast give a general idea. TL;DR: Beyond the fact Simbrief sometimes assigns likely approach / arrival, you can always tell what arrival you'll be on based on the last waypoint. From there, look at the wind direction or listen to ATIS. Basically, try and plan for all options - that's part of the fun of it.

Yeah but it's a King Air. The Duke is a totally different kind of aircraft. I'm also waiting for Blacksquare – own all of Nick's amazing releases – but let's face it that one is quite a bit away. For the price Carenado are charging, I'm happy to at least get some representation of a B200 for a while even if its default quality.

I think every airliner should be judged on the following criteria in order to be deemed cool: ✔️ Does it have a flight engineer? ✔️ Does it feature wood panelling in the cockpit? ✔️ Does it come with a lounge? With those in mind, the L1011 is clearly the best possible airliner.

I think different people have different ideas on what a "dirty" or "factory fresh" cockpit looks like, whether they like the idea of one or not. I'd argue most people have the same preference – they want to be immersed in the environment and feel like there's detail there. Personally I always prefer a "worn" cockpit, but to me that doesn't mean it looks like a bear got loose in it. What I don't like is poor texturing, or rather one that's not utilised to its potential. PMDG 737 is one example – sure it's brand new, but just doesn't feel like it has a soul to it. Even in their promo shots it looks like an illustration of the environment, one lacking detail, rather than the genuine thing. The newer version is an improvement but overall that's my one bugbear with an otherwise great product. Fenix is the perfect example of what I consider factory-fresh done right. Sure, it's clean, but it also feels authentic. There's so much nuance to every surface that it feels real. One example I give of my ideal "worn" cockpit is the JF A300. I'd say it's overall clean but represents its age, definitely has soul to it. Again, I think it's about detail and the way each material is treated with nuance. What I'm trying to say, I think we are all saying the same thing in a way. It's more about authenticity, quality, detail rather than levels of damage. Clean does not mean flat, just like worn does not mean trashed.

Early April I believe Jorg said, but you're right there's no specific ETA.

Appreciate everyone has their preferences and set ups, but that's the absolute reason I can't fly without any head tracking. These sort of issues just don't exist and it feels that much more immersive. Someone was saying the F27 is hard to fly because the DME indicator is obstructed by the gear lever when it's in the up position. But again, that's probably something you'd have to deal with in RW by just moving your head to look at it.

It's been one of my favourites the last month or so. Definitely issues, but good to see they are working through them.

Yours is a great post. I just wanted to point out the weird time warp that is the early 2000s - It does feel recent doesn't it? 2007 felt like yesterday. But that was almost 20 years ago! That's an equivalent of saying "as recently as 1987" in 2007. In my head that just doesn't match up. Anyway, this is one my most anticipated releases next to the ini L1011. Because only the coolest airplanes have flight engineers.

I really enjoy having purpose to my flights, so I'm all about career addons. I can't fly without OnAir for example. To me it makes sense – commercial aviation is about solving some sort of a challenge, and that gives an extra dimension of immersion beyond just operating the aircraft. I also like the idea that every flight has a reward at the end. Going A to B without any sort of progression just makes me feel like I wasted time. At the same time, I also can't stand the idea of flying for an established airline and set routes. Give me the mercenary world of charters – that's where the fun is. All of this is subjective of course, it's just how my brain is wired. I also like variety, so I'll often do mini-campaigns within larger ones just to shake things up. For example, I ran a very small charter airline based out of Tatry in Slovakia, operating into various destinations within Europe. A couple of E170s and an A320. At some point I got a contract to help run a few domestic charters within Iran, operating out of Mehrabad International. At about that time PIA was having issues once again, and pilgrims were allowed to travel for Mecca again, so it made sense there would be some sort of opportunity. Took a lot of planning to set it up – figure out where we would be based, where we would get fuel, what facilities are available, what schedules would look like, what staff we'll need, and even just how to relocate our A320 there to begin with. Can't fly over Russia, and the more countries you cross the bigger the headache is with clearances – so finding the right flight plan that minimises the number of airspaces to cross was an interesting challenge. So then actually performing the relocation flight over there, after all that prep, was one of the most memorable ones I've done in ages. About 40 staff boarded the plane in Tatry – several crews to cover shifts, flight attendants, mechanics, and a whole bunch of spare parts. There was just such a sense of adventure, not just an A to B flight, but the start of something cool. Departing into the early sunrise, hearing callsigns and voices change as you cross various airspaces, and the scenery of course was stunning. Arriving in Mehrabad was like a completely different world. Having that purpose made it really exciting and I like that every single person on that flight had an actual job to do in keeping things going. And of course it was only the start of the job – getting familiar with local procedures, staying on top of maintenance, keeping it all profitable etc was quite a challenge. Sadly a couple of months later tensions flared up and was only getting worse. That was the end of the contract and had to return right as Iran was about to close its airspace. And not soon afterwards my little airline went bankrupt, but that was another story.

Wait so does Chaseplane just straight up not work with SU5 or is it more that it’s unsupported?

This is one of my most anticipated releases. The other one is the JF A300 - I fly the ini A300 a lot but as we all know all cool planes have flight engineers.

It's by the by now, but there's a subset of people who were disappointed not because they are "haters" but the exact opposite. I like PMDG, I own and enjoy pretty much all of their products including the entire 737 range. But it's undeniable that they have flaws as a developer. So many others have surpassed them in so many different aspects in MSFS and that gap is only widening. I see what JF is doing with their upcoming A300 and the visual quality is shockingly good every time I look at it. And not just quality, but their pro-consumer stance, just lovely. Similarly, every time Fenix does anything it's impressive. Even inibuilds, for all their stability issues, has a great energy about it. There was a lot of talk from Robert that PMDG changed drastically for this new 737 release. That they took a deep hard look at where they were and really worked hard at reinventing themselves. Raise the bar to where it should be. And I bought into that hype and got ready to be absolutely wow'd. Except that just never happened. It's just...fine? The new 737 for MSFS2024 is a good product. It's an incremental improvement, but it feels exactly like the same-old same-old. And I'll pay the upgrade fee to get the range back, just doesn't exactly fill me with delight to do it. Anyway, that's my long two cents.

I think there's some awareness from SI over other traffic - I seem to remember back when they didn't have traffic injection and I used FSLTL it would actually tell you to stop or won't clear you for take off. The problem is that real live traffic is problematic in an ATC environment. If it can't actually control them – re-sequence, tell them to go-around, adjust speed – then it sort of kills any point in having ATC to begin with. But then the moment it tells a "real" plane to go around then it's not real traffic anymore. To answer your question, SI uses real world schedules for airliners and will manage them based on your sim time. So if a plane is supposed to arrive at 10.30 at Christchurch then you'll probably see it there if you set your time to 10:30. Or if it's due to depart at 16:30, you'll see it taxi for departure then. Reality is that it will never be 1:1 with Flightradar or the likes so if you want parity in that way you'd be disappointed. It also adds static traffic and sprinkles GA traffic throughout too. Honestly, the no voice thing sounds like a massive deal for you but SI is all about voice control. I think that's why I like it – it feels so natural to just speak into it. I'd urge you to try it even if you feel hesitant. I'm not a vatsim person at all but feel comfortable with SI's interpretation and patience in that regard. And of course the more you use it the more confident you get.

With the Cowan H125, if you don't engage SAS then you won't have trim in the way that you may be thinking of. It does have force trim, which basically sets wherever the stick is at as the new centre position. The way you use it is you have to bind Force Trim Reset. When your stick is at a position you're happy with, push and hold that button, recenter the stick then let go. That position is now the centre of your stick. Takes a lot of getting used to and I still get it wrong after a bunch of practice. If you've flown the Huey in DCS it's very similar. If you engage SAS then it's a different matter, and you have trim back. To be honest, it's the first heli I've flown with SAS so I'm never sure if it's something you're supposed to have on before take off or not. I treat it like AP in a fixed wing. Manual for SAS is here: https://cowansim.com/wp-content/uploads/SAS-Autopilot-Manual.pdf