Litjan

First, we established that everything is accurate in X-Plane. So no one needs to "update". If I recall correctly, Philipp implemented a dynamic updating to keep magnetic declination accurate (whereas before X-Plane was accessing a static table). There may be local variations (ore deposits, etc.), but by and large the value should be accurate to the degree. Second, a non precision approach is mostly governed by an external navigation aid, like a VOR or nowadays RNAV or GPS. Those are not susceptible to the "1/60" rule, you are either ON the defined approach radial/track or you are not. Magnetic variation will not play a large role here, especially since wind drift is likely going to have you fly a different magnetic heading than published, anyway. The one exception would be an NDB approach, here the bearing you fly to/from the station is actually derived from the indication of magnetic heading that you read off in the aircraft. If I recall correctly, the accuracy required is +/- 5 degrees for those approaches, a one degree course error at typical distances (max 10NM) that you submit yourself to the guidance of the NDB on an IFR approach would amount to 1000 feet off-track, that sounds like much, but with the obstacle clearance and high minima associated with NDB approaches, this would not be a problem.

Funny little anecdote: The plane I fly (747-400) is getting old, and the IRS systems are not getting any updates anymore. The magnetic variation database is getting old and outdated, and therefore we are not allowed to conduct IFR autopilot coupled approaches to certain airports, anymore, for example BGSF. The heading is actually off by one or two degrees against the chart at some airports, for example at EDDF I usually dial in 247 instead of 246 (the officially charted magnetic front course), it fits much better when flying the approach. But the tolerance is much bigger, and ultimately when flying an approach without reference to true ground track, you don´t know if you are flying a few degrees off course due to some crosswind or due to a wrong declination value. Keep the needle in the middle and the wheels on the pavement, that is what matters.

What weaklink said. Its fine. What is the Magnetic Declination at your location?Magnetic Declination in Lisbon, PortugalMagnetic declination in Lisbon, Portugal is -0.94. To instantly determine the magnetic declination at your location, go to magnetic-declination.comWe get these discussions every few months, and in 95% of all cases its users not understanding magnetic declination or the way that real world aviation sources treat and publish the varying declination, including slightly inaccurate ILS front-courses or VOR radial publication (notwithstanding great circle variation of magnetic bearing along a radial). In pilot school we made up mnemonics like "West is best, East is least" to remember if you need to ADD or SUBTRACT a declination value from a true bearing if trying to figure out a magnetic bearing.

Don´t take our word for it. Download the free and time-unlimited demo and try for yourself!

No, they are from the lockout switches that prevent the pilot engaging the autopilot while the yoke is deflected. They magnetically move to block the autopilot paddle switches.

Yes, it does. You need to change the search highlight (it is right next to the search field) to "City" if you type in a City name. If you search for it with the identifier (CYWG) you change the search highlight to ICAO (although ID will also work). If you want to search for it by name (James A Richardson Intl) you can leave the search highlight any way you like.

User error.

Good instructions are great - but you need 100% of all people to read, understand and agree to them, if you want 100% of all airports authored correctly. We learned from the Gateway that a good percentage of artists are willing to make good and compliant airports - but there is a sizeable fraction that does not care or is able to understand, and letting everyone manipulate the mesh together with a "comprehensive user manual" is like handing out scalpels in 1st grade after admonishing everyone to not cut into their fellow students 😅

Will be fixed - or at least vastly improved - with the next update after 12.4.3.

The problem is that if you make mesh editing accessible, the potential for messing it up is fairly big. We already have the problem with "always flatten" and to a lesser extent with the new FLATTEN polygons - airport designers adjust the elevation mesh to make the airport look good, but do not consider that having the correct elevation (of the runway thresholds) is extremely important. I foresee some type of validation that forces runway thresholds to not only be within a certain range of "official data" (CIFP) laterally, but also vertically.

Austin already implemented it (I would post a screenshot if Avsim did not insist on image posting policy more fit to the 80s than the 21st century 🫣). I believe it will be fielded in 12.5.

If you really use X-Plane as a professional training aid, it would be used like professional simulators are - with an instructor setting up a failure for you. This can be done in X-Plane by using the "instructor station", preferably networked to a second computer. Then the instructor can (just like in the Level-D simulators I have to go to every 6 months) set up a failure without you seeing it, and also set up the "trigger" (or trigger it manually). I agree that it would be nice to add a "fail either left or right engine at..." option. I will talk to Austin about it. Edit: Austin will look into it, the feature request number is XPD-18212

To my knowledge (fuzzy) you can only set failures up to happen at a certain event (speed, altitude, elapsed time, key press) OR totally random. What you are looking for (if I understand correctly) is to have a random of either left or right engine fail at a random point in time right "around" liftoff, right? I think you can only set up a random "mean time between failures", so the engine may fail during the takeoff run, during climb, cruise flight, landing or when parked...this is hardly helpful in training. I recommend getting a second person setting up an (unknown to you) engine to fail at V1 or maybe at 1 feet altitude - this is what real pilots practice, the engine failing at the worst possible time (an engine failure during cruise flight is a non-issue). Maybe someone could also write a lua script for this.

I fully believe - and have stated so numerous times - that stepping out of the add-on-hoarder and endless-tweaker-and-tinkerer mode can be felt as a great weight lifting of your shoulders. Add increased performance and stability to that equation, and for many it becomes a viable option. Let´s not forget that there are two types of add-ons. Systemic and use case only. If you add something like Simheaven, it is systemic, you use it with every flight and have it´s effects affect you, for good and for bad. If you have an add-on aircraft, usually you only "use" it while you use it - so in my book, having 1000 add-on aircraft is not a problem, while having 5 "systemic" add-ons may be on the brink of unacceptable performance impact and instability.

Laminar Research is acutely aware of the desire for "3D grass", but they have not found a method to implement it yet with the acceptable compromise of looks and performance. I think this should be warning enough for anyone tempted, there is a saying that something seems "too good to be true". Now it has happened before that a third-party dev accomplished something that Laminar could not (for whatever reason), or did not want to do, and a certain third-party addon caters to a special preference in some users...but every time this happens, I would be wary and carefully check reviews, especially if it is payware.