JillStanton

Yes, I've noticed the same things. For instance, I can lower full flaps on approach and there is practically no change in pitch attitude whatsoever. Rudder is simply not need to coordinate turns for whatever reason. This can't possibly be correct.

I've no particular desire to pay $50 to beta test a product for a developer, good grief. There is a lot not finished with the 'early access' Aerostar, despite A2A intimating that the product just needs some 'final polishing' or whatever. I don't have it in for A2A, in fact I LOVE the Comanche in FS2024 and consider it the best single G/A aircraft available for either FS2020 or FS2024. Yet we are expected at present to search through A2A's forums to learn the correct procedures for the Aerostar as no manual is included with this early access version. I'm disappointed with A2A this time around and don't understand their logic with the Aerostar product as the Comanche was released completely finished with only very minor issues that are to be expected with a new release. An A2A employee on their official forum recently thanked a paying customer for releasing a full checklist for the Aerostar (one wasn't included in early access). Really? People pay for a product and have to make the effort to do such things on thieir own???

Must've interesting enough for you to read and comment on, taking time out of your obviously incredibly busy life.

I downloaded MSFS2024 using the trial Xbox Gamepass, so only have $1.00 (US) invested. I would purchase 2024 in a heartbeat IF all the addons (or at least some) that I own were fully compatible. As it stands, I must sacrifice flight simulation fidelity for a platform that offers enhanced performance and scenery improvement. Quid pro quo. From a gamer's perspective by contrast, MSFS2024 is a wonderful evolution of the brand. I'm not a gamer.

Nothing has really changed. All iterations of Flight Simulator have always had, and will always have shortcomings due to Microsoft's development culture. There is always mega-hype surrounding new version releases, along with inevitable blatant programming errors that are a result of rushed efforts to meet release deadlines. It's all about making as much money as possible rather than trying to please the relatively small group of 'hardcore' simmers that experience the most frustration. Obviously, with MSFS2024, Microsoft aimed solidly at the casual gamer market which Redmond is now convinced is the core profit sector of their customer demographic. The graphic engine of FS2024 with enhanced multi-threading support and the new ground texture capability are both impressive and a leap forward, but just don't expect Microsoft to ever release a platform that doesn't regularly alienate 3rd party developers and the customers thereof. There's no such thing as loyalty in this regard, nor will there ever be. It is what it is, like it or leave it.

A third party developer for MSFS2020, MarineRM, has publicly stated, "Unfortunately, there is a blockade by Microsoft on non-Marketplace packages that use XML interaction codes in add-ons in the community folder in MSFS 2024. This has been reported as a product blocking bug and they are working on it." Really, a "bug"????? No, that absolutely had to be on purpose by Microsoft. They will maybe fix the "bug" after holidays sales have plateaued. Microsoft scheduled the release of MSFS2024 to be at the start of the Christmas shopping season. This speaks volumes.

I'm honestly beginning to wonder if Microsoft purposely built roadblocks into FS2024 to delay third-party developers from entering the marketplace right away. As such, compatibility issues with third-party addons enhance the appeal and viability of Microsoft's own default aircraft in FS2024, which obviously provides more incentive for people to purchase the more expensive 'Deluxe' or 'Aviator' editions of FS2024. The higher price points of the different enhanced versions of FS2024 of course come with substantially more default aircraft and helicopters. There would not be a lot of incentive for individuals who have already invested very substantial amounts of money purchasing addons for FS2020 to purchase enhanced editions of FS2024 if such addons were immediately compatible with FS2024 right away. As we all know of course, third-party addons are typically vastly superior to MSFS default aircraft. Someone like me laughs at the prospect of paying $300 for a chance to fly a larger array of default Microsoft aircraft in the sim, and yet people DO pay an exorbitant amount of money to do just that. Greed drives MSFS from the perspective of Microsoft; always has and always will.

The continual decline of the educational system is such that by 3034, it's accepted as fact that the Earth is flat.

Not working for me. No default 2020 library objects show at all when my sceneries are imported into 2024. Exclude files are working, however. I have 1 gig internet and all regular 2024 scenery, including photogrammetry cities, show up fine.

Did you manage to get the Blacksquare Duke fully working in MSFS2024?

My MSF2020 sceneries are missing all the default MSFS2020 library objects in MSFS2024 (hangars, buildings, control towers, etc). I'm guessing default library objects are no longer stored locally with MSFS2024 and are streamed instead? I suppose I could try copying certain default .bgl files from MSFS2020 into the MSFS2024 community folder. Custom scenery objects with their own texture files that I generated for MSFS2020 work well in MSFS2024. Not having access to the default MSFS 2020 library objects in MSFS2024 is going require a complete rebuild of my sceneries that use them.

I'll get over one day. 😏 I'm willing to bet that you're using rudder trim incorrectly to compensate for whatever the root cause of roll instability is though on the Blackbird T6. Look at the rudder ball on your turn coordinator and it's very likely to be skewed out of center significantly when you consider the aircraft trimmed properly and flying straight and level. What you've done is put the T6 into a forced slip condition to compensate for the roll instability in straight and level cruise flight. The rudder ball should be perfectly centered in the turn coordinator and aileron trim used to compensate for any remaining roll moment, but this is impossible with the Blackbird T6. I think most users would be better off never touching aileron trim and just forcing a slip condition with rudder alone, even though this isn't realistic.

Quite honestly, after more testing, not even Lorby's high precision aileron trim setting I mentioned will properly mitigate the Blackbird T-6 roll tendency in straight and level flight. I'm sure this is subject to interpretation among different simmers, but if the aircraft can't be trimmed properly on all axes, precision instrument flight is just not possible without an autopilot or yaw damper implemented (which the real T-6 of course has neither). I can't recommend anyone purchasing the Blackbird T-6 unless you are willing to simply overlook issues like this. Just my opinion.

Really? You can easily trim off the rudder ball in the center, then use aileron trim to dampen out remaining roll moment? If so, do you mind my asking what controller setup you have?

To answer my own question above about aileron trim sensitivity on the Blackbird T6A: The only solution I've found is to unbind roll trim controller buttons altogether in the Blackbird T6 cockpit tablet setup page, but keep the roll trim sensitivity slider set all the way to the next. Next, using Lorby AAO, bind Lorby's built-in 'high precision aileron trim set' parameter to left and right trim buttons on your controller device. This will essentially increase the sensitivity resolution of your assigned controller trim buttons and allow very very small, precise aileron trim adjustment. Again, even though if no roll trim buttons are going to be assigned via Blackbird's Tablet Setup Page, Blackbird's roll trim sensitivity slider appears to still govern some sensitivity output to roll trim buttons assigned independently of the tablet, so the Tablet Roll Trim slider must still be set fully to the left, even with Lorby AAO assigned aileron trim buttons as described in the above paragraph. Without implementing Lorby AAO as described, I personally find it impossible to trim out roll moment in straight and level flight with the Blackbird T6 using any other method other than forcing the T6 into a skid with the rudder, which is both unrealistic and aerodynamically very inefficient (incurs a high drag penalty which reduces airspeed and significantly increases fuel burn). Finally, I'm extremely disappointed by Blackbird Simulation's lack of attention to what are small, easily fixable bugs like this with the T6A. Even a moderately thorough beta testing process before release would have quickly identified the problem with aileron trim sensitivity and allowed developers to easily fix the issue. I would furthermore counsel anyone considering buying a Blackbird Simulations product to wait several months after initial product release after customers themselves have had time to find all of the product bugs and list them on various forums, and then observe whether or not Blackbird ultimately fix the identified issues. When customers bring up things like flight modeling behavior on the official Blackbird forum, they are far more likely to be blamed for using the wrong piloting technique rather than being taken seriously that something is possibly wrong with the flight dynamics instead. This seems to be increasingly common with more and more MSFS2020 developers anymore.