Jump to content

C525B

Members
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About C525B

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

C525B's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare

Recent Badges

13

Reputation

  1. Thanks for that. It generally sums up my feelings as well. I have started writing more posts for this thread that I decided not to send because I realized I should be spending my limited free time in the game instead of participating in some back and forth between detractors and cheerleaders. One legal analysis was offered by @Moach. They did not say what jurisdiction the lawyer friend operates in, but the concept seems reasonable. On the other hand, there is the argument that Aerosoft made: that they are obligated to protect their I.P. regardless of personal feelings or perception. Not a lawyer, but I do know that there is a precedent for the latter because companies must not allow branches from their protected I.P. that cause them to "lose control" of the content. One thing I would remind folks about is the Captain Sim issue with liveries for their first MSFS release and the debacle that enrolled flightsim.to. This...is...not that bad. I liked the CCM mod. It fixed several issues I had. I also know how to edit flight dynamics and may have gotten around to making my own changes, but he did the testing and saved everyone a lot of time. I have been into flightsim for 20 years and I can't think how many modified .cfg or .air files I have used or distributed myself. The Twotter, as a product, is for a very small market, not a mass technology (think of Apple and Samsung suing each other for years over smartphone tech). It's not a good look and I am not sure why this is the hill for Aerosoft to die on. The issues with this add-on are well-documented in this forum, but other than the sounds it's unclear what exactly Aerosoft is planning to have fixed on the Twotter. I agree that regular roadmap posts would smooth over much of the angst.
  2. Yes, I know what you mean. I also get that the current state of the MSFS GPS even with the PMS530 mod is not the slickest thing around. However, I have used many a 430/530 in the real world and the 530 DME feature is seen as a bit of a novelty because the GPS itself is highly capable. Not every 530 has it either. I guess the "right" thing to do would be to load the procedure that you are flying even if you are not tracking the GPS course. This gives you the best situational awareness and reduces having to fiddle once you are in the thick of it. Not trying to argue with you at all, just deliriously falling back into flight instructor mode. It's cool that you want to fly the fundamentals. Aerosoft has us covered anyway since Mathjis has reiterated that they are considering adding a DME. But for the time being, the easiest thing to me would just be to set a direct-to whatever fix you need DME for, then you will have G/S, ETE, bearing, etc.. There is also OBS mode if you need the GNS to show a specific course to a station/fix. Thank you for taking down all our feedback! I enjoy participating in this forum because I think the Twotter is a great airplane for MSFS and the fact that users are given a stake in further development is encouraging.
  3. Yep, exactly. They said this was changed in the update. Gotta set that course yourself!
  4. I agree with @FlyingFroluc's earlier posts. I think the GPS vs. slant-range thing could be seen as semantic when you're talking about the approach phase (you're at low altitude so the slant-range error is minimized). In the US, you are broadly permitted to substitute an IFR GPS for DME as long as you are still using the ground-based navaid to track the final approach course. "Overlay approaches" have been abandoned here too, but you can still use the GPS legally in a number of ways to determine distance to a fix or navaid. Regardless...I think a standalone DME would be nice.
  5. Photosimlabs' scenery for St. Croix includes Seaborne's seaplane dock in the harbor. Perfect for your Seaborne runs! Nothing found in that department for STT or San Juan unfortunately...
  6. @Mathijs Kok Any chance this will be considered? The DHC-6 is a "raw data kinda' airplane". That flight director is not particularly realistic for that type of ADI in the first place.
  7. Yep, as many know, that unfortunately has been carried over from FSX/P3D. I remember when there was a flight dynamics mod for the old Carenado C208 in FSX where someone had the idea for a secret gauge in the panel that modulated invisible spoilers to simulate prop drag. Definitely teaches you not to slam the power lever back, but the effect may have been a bit exaggerated. You could make some really short landings though! Prop drag specifically was one of the things they said would be improved by the new propeller dynamics in SU8. Should be awesome...but...I also use X-plane, so I know the consternation that comes with big changes to the game's whole flight model, especially when the change breaks every payware aircraft you own and you have to wait for the devs to come around and update all their aircraft.
  8. Reference material: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_-qDEAfRig I think what you're talking about is the airspeed/power where the props fall off the governors. When the video starts, they're 100 KIAS, prop levers are full aft, and torque is showing zero (so probably flight idle). FO pushes the props full forward and there is no increase in RPM. Then CA adds power to about 10PSI at 70 KIAS and there is almost no change in RPM. So, I'd say yes...the props should be well off the governors on approach and the Aerosoft Twotter is pretty accurate in this regard.
  9. The HSI CDI definitely does not match the GPS course deflection. However I have not yet seen an indication that seemed clearly wrong when using ground-based Navaids. Several Carenado add-ons for FSX/P3D had the same problem. There were several simvars that output course deflection and the devs just habitually referenced the wrong one.
  10. This looks great…will you upload it somewhere?
  11. It would be nice if the flight director would hide when the AP is not in use. In every other airplane in MSFS I can press the key for "Toggle Flight Director on/off" and make all the modes go away, but that is not the case with the Twotter. Since you can't set FD modes without turning on the AP (due to the way the KAP140 is integrated), it is basically unhelpful...instrument clutter that makes hand flying IFR more difficult. It will only ever show a wings level mode until you turn on the AP, and it does this even with no power on the airplane. Thank you for hearing me out.
  12. OK, it's happened again. A319 CFM on 1.2.3.2. Windows 7 Pro. i7-4790K @ 4.5 ghz. GTX1080ti. 32GB DDR3. ChasePlane, ActiveSky ASP4 with REX SkyForce (injecting clouds only), running in the background as usual. Flight plan: KLAS BOACH8.RIKII SHTNR.ANJLL4 KLAX FL280 Loaded the flight, set cold/dark state as usual. Used the fuel planner and the INIT LOADSHEET feature on the 3rd FMS, which I don't normally. Flew the whole flight in managed mode without any modifications to the route (until the end anyway...decided to change the approach after speed went haywire). Made a manual descent with V/S from FL280-260, and then again to 240. Engaged managed DES prior to GLESN (has a window constraint FL240-300). Managed speed worked fine until GLESN at which point it dropped to around green dot speed. I also noticed something else strange...overhead GLESN and next two (I think) waypoints, the footrests on both sides of the cockpit extended and then retracted spontaneously. I realize that those animate on their own when the aircraft enters the CRZ phase, so I thought it was worth noting. They just extended and retracted on their own at the instant I passed GLESN, ANJLL, and CAANN. I can test again, perhaps tomorrow night...but the last time I ran into this bug (see my post from a few days ago) was also in the A319 after passing a waypoint that had one of these window constraints (i.e. as above, cross GLESN between FL240-300 and 280KIAS). I don't know if that is a common feature of procedures in Europe, but they are quite common on RNAV STARs in the U.S. Logs attached. managed_spd_2.zip
  13. Your idea makes sense, but I experienced the issue on 1.2.3.0 even when flying the route as initially loaded without any modifications. I have also changed the landing runway or the approach or the entire STAR + runway with no issue.
  14. Just upgraded to 1.2.3.2 last night. Two flights today...no issues on the first one, this happened on the second one. Windows 7 pro. i7-4790k @ 4.5ghz. GTX1080Ti. 32GB DDR3. P3D V4.4 A319 IAE KLAS BOACH8.LVELL.LUCK1.KSAN FL260 Flying LUCKI1 STAR to KSAN. LVELL transition was loaded however I proceeded direct MOMAR. Prior to TOD, I selected the LOC27 approach to KSAN, no approach was selected prior to that. 10 mi prior to MOMAR I selected 12,000', 2 mi prior to MOMAR I armed DES. MOMAR has a window constraint FL240-260, no speed restriction. The initial step down to MOMAR was fine, however during the level-off for the constraint at MOMAR, managed speed reset to 214 KIAS, even though there was a 270KT constraint ahead. I tried to go back into managed speed a few fixes down the road, but it was still commanding something around min speed. Logs attached. I paused and copied the logs as soon as I noticed the problem. logs.zip
×
×
  • Create New...