Leaderboard

Tom and I met at FSExpo last weekend and planned the final steps we need to take before release.

not very likely no. The cockpit texture, being the center of attention and in view for the majority of the time was optimized quite well for 96 DPI monitors IMO and still looks good......assuming a reasonable camera distance from surfaces. Also, since we did this work way back when, before Substance Painter was a thing...it'd be a massive undertaking to try that. Of course if you put the camera quite close to a surface, there will be 'jaggies', but philosophically, I'm not in that camp. I'd rather optimize performance for the 95% use case (pilot-ish viewpoint +/-) rather than the 5% use case (peruse 3D closeup under a microscope after buying). -tk

Good catch! I'll get this logged and see how we can get this integrated.

A favor, if I may? It's doubtful I'll see any notices when the final drops. Would you circle back to this thread and let me know? I let to try flying it again. Thanks!

I am happy to hear that. Really. One of the things that drove me away from MSFS.

@VirtualGAaviator Yes very good for first go the 560. Wish he'd just get over the realistic bit, maybe 90%, It was underpowered for 12, but he addressed that, fuel flow was too high, which is why i did so much flying, he's now got more realistic numbers. Getting involved gave me in site into plane maker, so discovered he'd left out the engine bypass ratio, Fixed that. Its now far to overpowered on take off, like way past teh plane maker spec, but that appears to be an xplane issue. Climbs well id suspect pretty close to spec. Also had issue with negative fuel flow on start up, that is addressed, than there was radio operation, couldnt monitor com 2 while com 1 was selected, even with com 2 speaker selected, thats hopefully being fixed in his final, had to do a dot point to explain. Mentioned doing teh Avitab interface for chocks etc, but kept going on about realism, so you cant remove chocks they disappear on start up, but they may go when staring APU must check that, otherwise you cant push back. Needs to be pressed on the Avitab thingy. Do like the GPU and having to connect battery bit. Also would have preferred the default FMS than a GPS but I think that might be too much for a first run. I think would get more buyers if it did. Flies well. Now waiting on final update.

Really beautiful, but I'm afraid of FPS in the new version. I loved the 733 in v. XP11 for its excellent performance (FPS) and smooth simulation ;-)

I'm thoroughly enjoying this well designed and, as far as I can tell, accurate simulation. It is a real delight to fly. But how do my expensive passengers really feel? Graeme (Reflected Reality Simulations) makes mention of this in one of his excellent instructional videos. When disembarking, my passengers always thank me for the flight, but are they really happy with that +300fpm landing, maybe a bounce and then a less than comfortable deceleration as I rapidly run out of tarmac? Or was the elderly millionaire couple unsettled by the fighter jet like departure followed by discomfort in their ears as we climbed a little too quickly? Did they really have to wear their seatbelts for the whole flight because I forgot to turn off the sign? Why did we stop so harshly at the gate? It would be interesting to gauge whether the flight has been smooth from gate to gate. Is there a way to measure the parameters of the whole flight? G-forces, vertical speed, acceleration/deceleration, etc. Is there a way that this information could be displayed in the form of a passenger satisfaction survey after the passengers have disemabarked? It would add that extra depth of immersion. Obviously, it would not apply when there are no passengers embarked, ie. Training flights! I note that Zibo has a approach and landing rating display in his excellent 737-800 simulation, the only rating, other than landing rates plugins I am aware of. I would love to try and develop something along these lines but my software skills are very basic, as in none! Anyway just an idea to add further immersion to an already peerless simulation.

Hi there, Since this seems to be something you're really hoping for (seen a couple posts from you about it now), I don't want to sugarcoat the answer. There are no near-term plans to do anything for MSFS. The team has a very full plate right now with X-Plane work, and it will stay that way for quite a long time should things go as planned.

The map page in active sky is able to show you bad weather. Not like a propper weather radar but it is a top down view.

Couldn't we have a least the default XP weather radar? It's better than nothing, it's a bit disappointing that such a great product is lacking this essential tool that we use quite extensively in real life (really love this product btw, specially as I am working on my CL65 type rating)

You ain't nothing. Move on. Fuck you.