Please, please stop forcing persistance!

[TBMpilot]

Tonight I'm trying to work on windsheer events, simulating them in different scenarios. I've sent the most of time not flying but dealing with this utterly stupid "persistence" regime. This doesn't exist at Simcom or FSI or anywhere else a professional sim is used. Why does the developer force this upon us and make the whole thing really amateurish?  

[rjb4000]

You’re asking why the simulation behaves as advertised?

 

 

[CJSouthern]

At the end of the day it's a simulator; so it should simulate. If you leave something a certain way in a real aircraft then guess how it'll be the next time someone returns to the aircraft?

It's doing what it should do -- and it's one of the features I like.

 

[Goran_M]

I'm completely lost for words.  So much time was spent coding this, and we're getting called "amateurs" for it.  

It's up there with "Your TBM is too realistic!  Can you do something about making a choice between basic mode and realistic mode?"  Yes, we've been accused of the TBM being too realistic.

@TBMpilot I'm sorry our TBM is far too realistic, or, in your words, "amateurish" for you.  Perhaps the "OTHER" TBM is more suited for your needs.  No persistence. Basic systems.  Get in and fly.  But as @rjb4000 mentioned, the product page has full disclosure on what is in our TBM.  And we always encourage our customers to read it, to make sure they make fully informed decisions before parting with their money.

[Muddie2202]

Some people just cannot be satisfied

[oldflyguy]

I think what @TBMpilot is getting at although in an incredibly off-putting way is being able to end one situation and jump immediately into another.  Perhaps there is a work around with the ability to store an infinite(?) number of airframes - or at least enough to accomplish what he / she is looking to do.  I only work with two or three at most so I don't know if this is viable.  By the way dev team, have you folks decided to give us die-hards the original flight model back?  You know, the one everyone complained about because of the "P" factor .  Some of us still miss that.  Looking forward to the update.

[Goran_M]

7 hours ago, oldflyguy said:

I think what @TBMpilot is getting at although in an incredibly off-putting way is being able to end one situation and jump immediately into another.

You got that right.

7 hours ago, oldflyguy said:

Perhaps there is a work around with the ability to store an infinite(?) number of airframes - or at least enough to accomplish what he / she is looking to do.

The states are saved in a file in the Resources/TBM900 folder.  Is it possible?  I guess so.  But it was never a consideration to have more than 1 state saved.  As realistic as we made it, our TBM was never meant to substitute or supplement real world training, including loading various aircraft states for different scenarios.  It's for entertainment only.  And part of that entertainment is leaving the aircraft state feature.  We COULD add more aircraft state files, but it would require a lot more work for a very small feature, that wouldn't be used by many.

 

7 hours ago, oldflyguy said:

By the way dev team, have you folks decided to give us die-hards the original flight model back?  You know, the one everyone complained about because of the "P" factor .  Some of us still miss that.  Looking forward to the update.

If you only knew what kind of messages we were getting when the P-Factor was included.  I'll bring it up to Saso, but I offer no guarantees.

[CJSouthern]

1 hour ago, Goran_M said:

You got that right.

The states are saved in a file in the Resources/TBM900 folder.  Is it possible?  I guess so.  But it was never a consideration to have more than 1 state saved.  As realistic as we made it, our TBM was never meant to substitute or supplement real world training, including loading various aircraft states for different scenarios.  It's for entertainment only.  And part of that entertainment is leaving the aircraft state feature.  We COULD add more aircraft state files, but it would require a lot more work for a very small feature, that wouldn't be used by many.

 

If you only knew what kind of messages we were getting when the P-Factor was included.  I'll bring it up to Saso, but I offer no guarantees.

As an "aside", I suspect that P-Factor would make the aircraft a nightmare on takeoff for people like me who fly with a yoke but no pedals (thus have no rudder control).

For what it's worth, I started my TBM simming with the 930 in MSFS 2020 and found it to be a worthless piece of cr^p (I since uninstalled the entire product) - so many many things that just don't work right (if at all). If you want a "pretty game" then I guess it's fine, but if you're wanting an accurate simulation then they're as different as chauk and cheese.

[oldflyguy]

2 hours ago, Goran_M said:

If you only knew what kind of messages we were getting when the P-Factor was included.

I can only imagine.  And I get that.  "Flying" the TBM with a twist yoke would be interesting.  I don't know ____ about coding all this stuff.  So, I take what you folks can provide.  Which with the TBM is a lot.  That model and just a couple of others are what keep me in the sweet spot.  So thanks...

[CJSouthern]

35 minutes ago, oldflyguy said:

"Flying" the TBM with a twist yoke would be interesting.

If you ever win Lotto, check these out ... I'm still drooling ...

https://slawdevice.com/en/

[alexaeglir]

@Goran_Mthe persistence is what makes this aircraft so great. Many a times I had to motor the engine before my next leg, because ITT was too high. Or getting ready to taxi and find out your trim isn't working because of maintenance issue and you have to shut the engine down and fix it. So many things that are made better by persistence. I can even restart x-plane and find the engine covers is not on yet because the engine has not cooled down.

And yes I would love the P-factor back. I just love this "little" aircraft.

[aerox]

Fully agree with the comments in support of this aircraft - I get far more enjoyment from this aircraft than anything else. However, I’m not sure why some folks appear to be concerned with the lack of the so-called ‘p-factor’. For single engine prop aircraft, it’s negligible. What I think is more relevant, is torque effect and prop slipstream effect - which are separate to ‘p-factor’. I’d much prefer these be modelled but this raises the question - should we select ‘experimental’ mode on in XP?

[Goran_M]

4 hours ago, aerox said:

should we select ‘experimental’ mode on in XP?

Definitely!

[aerox]

I'll give it a go - thanks 

[TBMpilot]

Apologies if my tone was a bit off - I have a better understanding now for the intended purpose of the HotStart TBM.

May I suggest future consideration be given to having two available modes to choose from: (a) game (b) simulator. The difference is items conducive to been used in more of a "traditional" simulator environment - p-factor, restoring default config, removing ancillary menu functionality. It is somewhat dangerous to train for example, without p-factor as it creates a "lazy foot" which can cause a roll on go-around in the real world.

[rjb4000]

20 hours ago, TBMpilot said:

It is somewhat dangerous to train for example, without p-factor as it creates a "lazy foot" which can cause a roll on go-around in the real world.

Right - and as the developer has stated a number of times, this product is not to be used for training.