3catcircus

Gotcha. I'll have to give it a shot.

I've taken a similar approach. I've taken the FSLTL models and just let the default ATC run things just to see how it goes. Yes, there are multiple instances of aircraft running through me and each other in taxiways. They continuously request takeoff clearance while I can only do it once and then sit there and wait. Once airborne, I may get instructions to climb to a higher altitude then filed (or capable of due to weight). But to sit at the threshold at a KSFO or KLAX and see a stack of dots off in the distance that are arrivals in sequence or to see heavy traffic in the air is a great starting point for the default ATC to improve upon. I think the key should be to have models stay separate from injection and have ATC tied more closely to injection from the same source. Whether that is BATC or PSXT or FSHUD or whatever - it should all be tied to the live injection source that MSFS natively uses as ground truth.

I've currently got MSFS 2024 (SU4) installed and it is like the "land of the not quite right." Sometimes the parking locations are slightly off so jetways don't necessarily align with a door. The pushback tug always wants to automatically turn the aircraft tail to the left even if it would make sense to go to the right. Oftentimes I have to restart from the main menu because navdata isn't fully there. Likewise, I've had to restart because there was no engine cover available to actually remove on the stock A320 so it was installed but not shown as such so it was not able to be removed. Had anyone else run in to similar issues? Is this likely just an artifact of it being a streaming install and I just need to wait longer before doing anything once I get you the Ready to Fly screen?

I've found that there are a bunch of stutters initially, and I've had to reboot two or three times necessary something hasn't been right with the stock aircraft - missing nav data, unable to three managed modes on the stock A320, etc. There's also the annoying things like KPHL is apparently showing a bunch of general aviation parking at the terminals.

Thanks for the advice. It seems like every time there is any update, I've got to reload at least twice. I'm wondering if it's just because it's a streaming install and stuff takes a while to finish streaming. Like, even the airports sometimes take a while for the jetways and pushback tug to appear.

So, I fired up MSFS2024 last night. It took quite a bit of time to get to the main menu. I attempted a quick flight in the stock A320 out of KJFK and it took multiple shutdowns and restarts and it still didn't work right. Engine covers not showing but also not removable, missing nav data, and inability to enter into managed modes. I then realized that MSFS2024 had automatically updated itself (it's an MS Store install, streaming rather than completely downloaded) to 1.6.34.0 (SU4). I've seen some recommendations to move community folder content before updating. How do I do that if I don't know if an update is going to occur until I run MSFS2024? Only things I have installed in community folder are the Navigraph hub contents including the PMDG planes, as well as a downloaded install of the Aerosoft Paderborn airport since it was the only way I could get the VDGS to work. Do I just need to move the content to a backup folder, rerun, shut down, and move the content back? So I just need to uninstall and then reinstall everything in Navigraph Hub? Thanks, John Powers

Yep, I'm aware. The issue for me is that IRL, a FE was a full time job. Sitting there monitoring a fuel transfer means you're not looking at primary instruments making sure you don't transfer too much fuel, upsetting your CG. On a subsonic like the 742 or L1011, the tank configuration is less complex and the time to react to an issue up front is greater. Having the option would be nice.

If they do release one, as long as it has a virtual flight engineer as an option, I'm sold.

I'll be using the shortcuts for the FE if I need to. Trying to perform the duties of three crew as one person is a bit much. Back in the FS9 days, the PSS Concorde's VFE was entirely necessary because of the complexity of the fuel management process. Even the Ready for Pushback 747-200's fuel management could be distracting. If it has multiple INS options that work well, I'll be happy.

I was still using P3D 5.4 when the Win11 24H2 issue broke all my Aerosoft Airbus planes and had been patiently waiting for a fix. Over the holidays I finally hit the bullet and bought 2024. I haven't looked back since. Yes, there are bugs (always on dome light in Adobo 737 max, missing Terminal E at KBOS, importing a simbrief flight plan into iniBuilds A320 not always working and trying to fix crashes the displays, etc.) but none of them are show stoppers.

Yep. Go into controls, keyboard and search for SAVE. You'll have up to 10 views. I use usually 6. Bind them to ALT + 0 - 9 (however many views you use). Then do a search for LOAD and then bind to CTRL + 0 - 9. Then do a search by keys for each ALT and Ctrl binding to find out if the keys are blind to other functions. By default, they are. Unbind the key combo from the other function. Then things should work. I use 1 - 6 as follows: 1: lower overhead 2: upper overhead 3: FMC 4: pedestal/radio stack 5: Centerline of cockpit (helpful for staying on centerline) 6: EFB

I've been looking at something since I've been frustrated at not being able to use the Aerosoft Airbusses in P3D v5.4 since 24H2 got installed. I noticed that *every* stock aircraft.cfg file, and my TFDi 717 aircraft.cfg file is formatted like: [FLTSIM.0] title=Aircraft title sim=Sim xxx Whereas the Aerosoft ones are formatted like: [FLTSIM.0] title = Aerosoft A320 xxx sim = A320 The gap between the text in the aircraft.cfg files for all of the Aerosoft airbusses is all tabs. It *couldn't* be as simple as going in an eliminating all of those tabs in each of the aerosoft Airbus aircraft.cfg files to make things work in P3Dv5.4 with Win11 24H2, could it? Has anyone tried this?

Thanks everyone! I'm not too concerned if the Arc A770 is barely ok in 4K or 1440p - I'm only running at 1080p.

I've got an XPS 8960 I bought a year and a half ago. 32GB of RAM, 13th Gen Intel. The only not top of the line part is the Intel Arc A770, which handles most things just fine since, it just isn't bleeding edge in comparison to an Nvidia card.

So I used to be an exclusively FS9 guy because my PC was never that powerful. A few years ago I went all in on P3D when I got a new PC but with the recent Win11 24H2/Aerosoft A320 P3D v5.4 issues, I'm ready to make the jump to MSFS2024. I am willing and able to buy payware aircraft and am looking for some advice on what to invest my time in for the full gamut of offerings: A318-A350 - Fenix and iniBuilds? B737 - 787 - PMDG? Any others for models they didn't offer? MD-11 - TFDI? B717 - TFDI or Captainsim? Concorde?

Anyone know if the FSLabs A320 works with P3D v5.4 and 24H2? While I'll miss the Aerosoft A330 while Windows gets patched with the fix in build 27774 from the canary channel, I'm not opposed to giving the FSLabs stuff a shot even at the higher price point.

I didn't even get that far - I normally run with admin privileges in WinXP SP3 compatibility mode with visual themes and desktop composition off. After installing this fix, it popped up the notice that windows was running in basic graphics mode (as expected), and then did nothing. If you go the manual route as opposed to editing the registry, just make sure you open the command prompt as an administrator, otherwise sc config secdrv start= demand or sc config secdrv start=auto won't work. Also, remember that you need a space after the equals sign in order for it to work properly. I'm shocked. Silent Hunter III works just fine. Microsoft's own product gets broken by this security update...

Who said anyhing about descent? In general, the highest workload situation (for me) is during takeoff - when I have to quickly switch from Tower to Departure (I only use flightsim when online with VATSIM or IVAO) while also controlling the aircraft and also looking out for traffic. Having that radio/comms panel as a2D pop-up on the main 2D panel is much much quicker to deal with than trying to sweep from heads-up to looking down at the pedestal to switch frequencies in a 3D panel. Additionally, how much do you need to pan? I find that the 8 points of a hat switch work just fine to see where I need to see.

One very simple reason: well-done 2D panels are ALWAYS going to be cleaner-looking than 3D panels for the majority of users - the vast majority of them aren't going to be running a bleeding-edge rig with everything maxed out graphically. Additionally, most users don't have TrackIR and/or EZDOK. Second reason - unless optimized, 3D panels typically eat up frames in comparison to 2D panels. Third reason - I personally prefer the 2D panel because it is quicker for me to switch between pop-ups to mash buttons while keeping my eyes on the main panel rather than try to sweep across a 3D panel to mash buttons.

I'd just be happy if the newer stuff (777, DC-6, whatever is next) were made in a FS9 version. I saw no reason to "upgrade" to FSX in order to enjoy CTDs and lower framerates when FS9 still looks great and is "supah-smoov" when running any combination of complex aircraft and scenery with all details set to max. The MD-11 works great, looks great, and is thoroughly enjoyable. Likewise their existing 747 and even the original NG package works great. Do I need it to model the inner workings of the sanitary system to enjoy it? Nope - I'm not one of those that runs through all kinds of failures. Nor do I care too much about the smallest rivet being detailed in the external model - as long as it looks like the aircraft being modeled and the moving parts move, I'm happy. VC? Couldn't care less - too distracting for me. Give me a package that allows me to line up the systems used the majority of time in flight and the FMC allows me the tools to fly an RNAV DP or STAR properly, and I'm happy. Accurate VNAV/LNAV operation without the need to play with the crossing restrictions? I'm there. Ability to operate SLOP and ETOPS on a NAT crossing the pond? Good stuff. For me - the most enjoyable part is the system operation aspect moreso than the FDE - but that's why I'm an engineer. The MD-11 doesn't need a makeover at all - at least as far as the FS9 version is concerned. I'd much rather see a continuing trend like they are doing with the DC-6. Perhaps a good DC-10, 727, or L10-11? Maybe A 707 or DC-8? How about a 717 that SW/Airtran fly all over the place? If they are going with current fleets with a lot of aircraft in inventory - then they need to do the entire Airbus family A318-A340 since no one else has done one that isn't an utter travesty (I'm still using the PSS Airbus package since it just works, despite its age). I don't see a need for the following (mainly because the level of modeling of he listed developer works "good enough"): 737 - they already did it. 747 - again - they did it. 757 - the PSS/JF one works just fine. 767 - Level-D. 777 - they are doing it. MD11 - they already did it. MD8x - Leonardo's version is top-notch. DC-9 - the Flight 1 version works pretty darn good and is fun to hand-fly. That's my $0.02...

I'd love to see PMDG do the following: 1. L10-11. I missed the boat on the OMWings L10-11, but I'd love to see one done right. 2. B717. This thing is a workhorse for Airtran and I'd love to see it done. They have the "base" of the cockpit, at least, since much of the B717 and the MD-11 systems are common. 3. Airbus A318 - A340. Take the idea of the old PSS Airbus series and do it right.

No - but I imagine if the weather radar works in other panels in Win7 x64, it should work here too. Yup - Just remember to have UAC off when installing, install as administrator, and if it gives you an error and an option to reinstall using suggested settings to go ahead and do so (likely it'll automatically then select the correct compatibility mode when running the installer). In addition, you'll likely need to do the same thing when attempting to run the configurator.At that point, your pre-Evo 737PIC should work just fine in FS2004 on Win7 x64 (just remember to turn off the Aero features in Win7 when running FS2004).

Why would you need FSX for a Win7 compatible version? I'm running PIC 737 in FS2004 on a Win7/x64 machine with no problems. Does the update break it?

The PSS Airbus packages are still available from Justflight.com They are sold as the "A320 Professional" which includes A319/A320/A321 and the "A340 Professional" which includes the A330/A340.While it is a bit difficult to find a whole bunch of new(er) livery repaints, and the PSS models aren't the latest and greatest, the package works well enough for me: smooooth performance with high frame rates and an MCDU model that is good enough for government work (it may not be 100% modeled, but it is sufficiently different than the standard Boeing FMC that it provides enough immersion that you know it isn't a Boeing...)

Great shots - where are you getting your repaints from?