tttocs

If you're talking about something like Navigraph data used in the TDS GTNxi (or anything else which uses only Navigraph), then the answer is no. Your GTN will have the older outdated data AND outdated charts, while the sim itself will have the latest data and the charts in the MSFS planner. Scott

While it might be different if I were a scenery developer or a painter like Ryan who has to have Photoshop (a real potential memory hog - yikes!) running at the same time as the sim, I have no issues with 2024 and 32GB. I do use some addons, like TrackIR, TDS GTNxi, Navigraph Simlink (though Charts runs on an external iPad), AutoFPS and FS ATC Chatter, but I've still never run remotely close to bumping into the 32GB limit in 2024. As others have noted, if memory was still cheap it's nice insurance. With today's costs however, unless you need to run other memory intensive apps at the same time, you'll be fine. I would say that 32GB is a minimum, however. No way would I want to run it in 16GB. Even 2020 tested that limit. Scott

Both the 100 and 300 are single pilot certified, my preference for the 100 simply a result if it being the smaller plane. That said, since the 300 is the one FSR is doing, I'm pretty sure I'll end up going for it anyway. I have seriously considered the Lear as in many ways it's more my style, but the lack of RW single pilot cert has kept me stubbornly on the sidelines. Yeah, I know... 🙂 Silly, self-imposed limitations, but it works for me. Acceleration, maneuverability and lack of VNAV are all pluses to me too. I don't have a single VNAV capable autopilot in any plane in my v-hangar and I quite enjoy figuring descents out on my own, with the "banana" on the GTNxi serving as confirmation that my simple math isn't egregiously off base if I have any doubts. Scott

Yeah, I'm thinking I'm going to at least give this one a shot. It's more automation than I like, and I would've been happier if he'd done the 100 as it fits more closely with my self-imposed constraints, but... That itch for a light jet is there, and I know the implementation will be of the system depth and quality level I find necessary for my personal enjoyment. Scott

Not really. We all do this for different reasons and with different motives and that, to me, is what flight simulation is all about.. In my case, I have almost zero interest in airliners. At one point in my career I spent almost 50% of my time traveling. While I appreciate that I got to travel all over the world, the part involving flying in big tubes and dealing with large airports was, in many ways, the worst part of the deal. I'm not fond of large international airports, but absolutely love regional and smaller GA fields. I'm not fond of flying in great big airliners or dealing with heavy systems management, but love the more stick-n-rudder feeling of flying and the challenges of flying single-pilot IFR. Consequently, IRL, I flew commercially because I had to, but flew GA because I loved almost every aspect of it. The same still applies. The fact that I like to self-impose certain constraints is just part of how I make it feel more real and enjoyable. That doesn't mean I don't respect the choice of others who revel in indulging in full-on fantasies. THAT, to me is what simming is about. We all get to enjoy simulated aviation the way we want. From my approach, to @Christopher Low flying airliners VFR, to you flying everything you can get your hands on and embracing the jack-of-all-trades role. It's all good, and kinda fun to hear how everyone here approaches things. No points missed here! Scott

Not eccentric at all. I like taking a more grounded approach as well though mine is a bit more liberal as I do stretch things just a bit. Thus - 100% GA in planes certified to be flown single pilot. Basically, I fly planes that I've either flown IRL, or (and here comes the stretch) would/could conceivably fly if money had been less of an issue (though not NO issue). The TBM 850 is about as far as I've stretched things so far, though I admit I'm still considering a single pilot capable light jet if/when the right one comes along. That said, most of my time is spent in pistons just as IRL, with the Black Square Turbo Normalized Bonanza my most flown plane since moving from 2020 to 2024. My first logged hour of instruction was in a Bonanza and I've had a soft spot for them ever since. Unfortunately, I spend very little time in the plane I actually owned IRL. I would, but I've just never warmed to the JF Turbo Arrow IV. I know some like it, but... Scott

Yes, I understand that. Pls see my last post. As I mentioned, not familiar with UK procedures and hadn't found this "transition" until @Bob Scott pointed it out. I suspected that I might be missing something which was why I qualified my statement, and I was. I've already stated, having seen this, that vectors would not be expected. Scott

OK, that's the piece I was missing, thanks. That explains "OCK Transition" which didn't make sense to me given that I only saw STARs terminating at OCK. Indeed, if cleared for the "initial apch from OCK" (would UK terminology call this the "OCK Transition"?), no vectors would be expected. Scott

Couple of caveats here before I go further. I'm a US pilot IRL and in the sim, so I'm not familiar with procedures in the UK. And, the way the OP describes this there's some ambiguity so perhaps I don't understand what he's describing. That said... Looking at the relevant STAR and the ILS approach to 9L, sure looks to me as though you NEED vectors at or before OCK. The STARs I see into London are typical of those in busy terminal areas everywhere, where arrivals take you to a certain point at which (or really in most cases before which) you WILL get vectored to the final approach course of whatever procedure is being used. They're RADAR required. If that's the case, the OP is entirely correct in expecting to get vectored at or before OCK. He may have been cleared to fly the STAR, which he obviously should follow, absent other instructions from the controller, but if no vector was received at or prior to OCK, the STAR he was cleared for is done, and vectors are absolutely expected and required to get him to the final approach course. Scott

No idea why Asobo does weather the way they do, but I do have two issues with the argument you're trying to make here. First, is the contention that smaller/GA aircraft implies a more casual simmer and that's just not the case. There are many predominantly GA folks here who are anything but casual about their simming - myself included - and many who fly tubes who do it in a very casual manner. The serious = airliners, casual = GA binary simply doesn't exist. And second, the contention that smaller/GA aircraft are experiencing bad weather realistically. Oh, how I wish it were so! Appropriate consequences in bad weather like realistic outcomes when flying in icing conditions and/or thunderstorm penetration don't exist for any of us. Scott

Do you have any real world GA experience? I ask because a plane like the Baron is VERY, VERY LOUD in real life. Black Square implements a headphone simulation, enabled by clicking on the headphone jacks, which simulates wearing a noise attenuating headset as would be done in the real thing. Try it and see! Scott

As Ryan notes, the "square thing" is for windshield de-ice. I hardly notice it, but YMMV. And yes, of course, the engines do restrict side views a bit as compared to the Bonanza. I would certainly recommend O2 above 10K for night flight, but I can't recall ever flying that high for at night as I didn't fly over the high mountains after dark (single engine piston plane and all that). During the day, the regulation "above 12,500' for more than 30 minutes" was never an issue. Of course, I lived at altitude and was (am) in good shape, so that plays as well. Some people do seem to be more comfortable with it when higher than 10K. But in the sim, that simply means you manage the onboard O2 as opposed to managing cabin altitude. And BTW, nasal cannulas are really no big deal IRL. The only real inconvenience is having to manage the tubing. In the sim, I never notice it. 😉 I mostly (well, really always) fly the turbo normalized Bonanza when I go with the single and the difference in speed between it and the turbo-ed Barons at equivalent altitude is not that big. The icing is the big thing for me. Scott

Ron, I'm afraid you've lost me here. Not sure which Baron and which Bonanza you're flying, but you did reference the 58 Baron, so... The Baron 58 and Bonanza 36 are the same airframe, featuring the same visibility and the same fundamental panel layout. Unless you're mixing different generations, they're remarkably similar other than the twin vs single thing. Going back a few generations, the V35 and the B55 are also the same basic airframe. As I have both Black Square versions, I'm glad I don't have to choose. The Baron is FIKI (known ice) while the Bonanza is not so I generally take the Baron if icing is a possibility. And the "P" version does feature pressurization, so no O2 assuming all is working well, but... As for the 5,000' thing, not sure where you're getting that. Admittedly I was based out of Colorado in my owner/pilot days, but I routinely flew night at over 5K with no O2. My home field elevation was 4650, so I'd basically have to use O2 on every night flight and... no. Otherwise, do you want a twin or a single. That's kinda what it boils down to. Scott

The key here is add-on cities, I'm guessing. I've tried turning it off, and I just don't like the results as it reminds me too much of artificial FSX style autogen, but of course custom objects are the best answer if they're available. PG looks fine to me 90% of the time (though I agree that when it looks bad, it's hideous), while off never looks good given what I'm apparently sensitive to, absent custom scenery. On my personal balance sheet, on is the easy winner. You pick your poison depending on which thing bothers you the most/least and live with the tradeoffs either way. As for the Grand Canyon, I did my very first MSFS 2024 over the canyon specifically to see what the PG there looked like. Unfortunately, it had snowed and the sim's less than stellar representation of snow kinda stole the thunder from the PG, making it all kinda meh and I haven't been back in the area since. Need to go back and have a second look. Scott

You're not wrong. If I was training in a 172 in today's world I would absolutely be all over an A2A 172. From a personal perspective - having done all the time I EVER want to do in various 172 models IRL and then moved on - I'm disappointed it wasn't all a good laugh, but no, not really surprised at the direction. And to back that contention, A2A has the numbers from their previous efforts in FSX/P3D. They know what sold to a MS sim focused audience, so yes, I'm sure they know EXACTLY what they're doing. Doesn't mean I won't shed a tear for the V35B I now know I'm never gonna see again. Sigh. Scott