LRBS

With PMDG working on a B747 classic, now is the perfect time to create something truly spectacular. This opportunity should not be missed!

It's a pity. Honestly, even as a 2D panel, it feels like I'm actually in front of a real airplane—so realistic and convincing. I can't find enough words to express how pleased I am with this cockpit. Just imagine what it would be like with MSFS 2024 graphics.

Yes, indeed. Looking back, FS9 wasn't particularly impressive compared to today's tech. But the key difference was having skilled, professional programmers making such remarkable software. Today, many developers fall into that rabbit hole of eye candy at the expense of high-fidelity dynamics and systems functionality. I'm not sure why developers are so focused on cookies in the cockpit or fidelity rivets on the fuselage when their product has many flaws. I hope that programmers like those who created this DC-10 will return and bring us genuine joy, for the love of this hobby.

To my knowledge, no. I implement many adjustments using the SDK.

I believe this is quite accurate. I would expect exactly that to happen. There are many situations where cars and trucks are affected by jet blast. Often, we're limited to taxiing at idle power close to buildings or terminals. When we need to make tight turns or use more than idle power during taxiing, we check with ATC to ensure there are no obstructions behind us. Imagine being hit by the wake. Even during air refueling, there are special procedures for hooking up to minimize the wake. Interesting on your findings during the next test. So far, IMHO, it's quite plausible. Let us know, please.

This subject is highly debatable and open to many interpretations. Wake turbulence is highly variable and can differ each time, regardless of how it's categorized. Many factors affect an airframe and its behavior. Even today, I can't predict the reaction; each time is different. It's not only the airplane that is causing it. For sure, it's there. There is some reaction, but I have never been able to predict its strength or the outcome. Under FAA and ICAO, "classification" ranges from severe, moderate, or slight based on the roll angle. Actually, there is no standard "classification" for this event. There is no official scale for weak/normal/moderate/strong wake turbulence or any numeric “strength rating” used in reports. Unfortunately, it's not so simple: you also have load factors (+/-) on the airframe during pitch changes, rates of climb (+/-), high gain/loss or altitude variations, speed variations, and even structural damage. On X-Plane, the physics, turbulence, and reactions to these conditions are much refined, whereas ASOBs still need lots of work. I think we can reach a compromise in MSFS, and regardless of the outcome, we will still find people who argue, even if they lack a real understanding of the phenomenon or turbulence from real-life experience.

Just another real-life scenario. There are non-radar places or closed towers where you can be cleared for "an approach" and follow a prescribed procedure or transition. It can be any approach type of your choice based on certification.

That is correct "only" if there are no waypoints with intermediate altitudes before FAF that include stepdowns. He needs to be aware of those restrictions. It's not just "Once you're on a intercept heading just arm APP mode and it'll capture localiser and then descend on the glidepath. "

When on HDG to intercept an ILS, if no descent steps are needed to reach the FAF, you can activate APP mode. If descent steps are required, start by engaging LOC and follow crossing restrictions using VS or VNAV. Once you pass the last waypoint with an altitude restriction before the FAF, switch to APP mode and confirm the correct altitude at the FAF. Happy landings.

1) During a pattern (trip), after departing from our base and reaching different stations, it generally takes about 5-10 minutes for paperwork, 30 minutes to clear customs, and an additional 10-15 minutes to board the bus to the hotel. Drive times depend on the location. Then, it takes another 10-15 minutes to reach the room. Overall, on the road, expect around 1 hour and 45 minutes of transit before we can relax, assuming everything goes smoothly. When returning to the base, the situation changes; drive times home vary for each of us and are likely longer. 2) In our case, ground personnel clean the entire airplane, including the cockpit, sleeping bunks, passenger areas, and other spaces.

For A320 and B737, if you are looking for a good short exercise, use KJFK 31L JFK5 CRI to KLGA RNAV X RWY 31. You will get a short flight with good use of LNAV and VNAV. To make it easy, you can restrict the climb, cruise, and descend page speed to 180 at 3,000 FT. This will keep you busy for a while. Also, you can try into KEWR RNAV X 29. Short flights with a lot of good work. No more than 20 MIN flight time.

@jon b , who is currently qualified and current on the 787, and I, who previously flew the 777 and 787, agree that the assessment is correct regarding cockpit size. The ergonomics and quietness are different, for sure. What we had on P3D at the time, especially in VR technology, is quite different from what we have today in the PC environment. I just reviewed the FCOM and noticed that the 777 is approximately 15 inches wider. Nothing spectacular, of course, but numbers and perspective are just that.

Interesting take on his part. In any case, flying is both fun and rewarding, whether in GA, airlines, or the military. Actually, we all program to a degree and manage systems while flying. Regardless of whether we are in a glider or an airplane, we "fly pretty much every second." If he's referring to actual hand-flying, of course, there are some differences. Is he serious? Only GA has a nice view? Only GA can be completely different? Only GA has views of mountains, coastlines, and small airstrips in the middle of nowhere? How about landing on ice at the North or South Pole? How about landing on a desert on sand runways? How about on military airstrips in the middle of nowhere? Only GA has aircraft on floats? Airlines have "the same spreadsheet"? I guess he's referring to a master flight plan. Does he understand that each flight plan is different and not the same? Does he know that there are actual airplanes authorized to push back under their own power? I suppose his bubble is quite tiny.

Since this is unprofessional, the FAA should focus on improving the entire US ATC system. We are so far behind the curve that it is ridiculous. I wonder who's investigating the FAA for its obvious shortcomings. For the NEWS MEDIA, they should focus on real news.

'm in the same situation as you. I tried several options without success. The only things that work for me after so many retries are RTX Dynamic Vibrance and RTX HDR. I will list my attempts: 566.36, still no joy HDR10 on/off in MSFS 2024 In NVIDIA app settings, "Allow experimental features" to see if it enables the filters. I also tried this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkT9i1i0qj8 The more I searched, the more I concluded that we were caught up in programming deficiencies due to ASOBO's faulty game's new engine and NVIDIA drivers. Still waiting for a positive solution. Sorry.

I wonder if you have MSI Afterburner or any hardware monitoring software? V and G sync misconfigurations? Do you have MSFS under Windows settings set to High performance? Windows Settings → System → Display → Graphics It was an issue with the mouse polling rate to 250 or 500 Hz, but I don't remember exactly.

They have refused to address the issue in P3D, MSFS2020, and now in MSFS2024. Unfortunately, the same bugs persist, and they refuse to acknowledge them. Just copying and pasting the same broken items won't solve anything. There have been numerous problems with the product's quality and quality control. So much for their claim of "study level."

1000% correct!

I am writing to express my strong dissatisfaction with the tone and substance of your recent remarks. This is not the first time you have made this type of disappointing remark. Over the course of a 45-year aviation career, accumulating more than 39,000 flight hours across a wide spectrum of aircraft—from single-engine airplanes to multi-engine transport-category jets, along with military service—I have worked alongside pilots of all backgrounds and experience levels. One principle has remained constant throughout: professional respect. I have never considered any pilot “less than” based on the type of aircraft they fly, nor have I dismissed their input outright due to differences in operational experience. Your comments, however, suggest a dismissive and unnecessarily divisive attitude. While it is true that different aircraft categories involve different techniques and considerations, the implication that experience in transport-category aircraft somehow disqualifies a pilot from contributing meaningfully to discussions about other aircraft is both inaccurate and counterproductive. Aviation knowledge is not as compartmentalized as you portray—it is built on shared principles, cross-disciplinary understanding, and decades of accumulated judgment. Equally concerning is the tone of your response, which appears to diminish the value of experience rather than engage with the substance of the discussion. Professional discourse in aviation—whether in the cockpit, classroom, or community—relies on mutual respect, not gatekeeping. To be clear, I fully acknowledge that specific techniques may vary between aircraft types, including turbine singles such as the C208. However, disagreement on technique does not justify dismissing another pilot’s perspective outright, especially when that perspective is grounded in extensive real-world experience. I would encourage you to approach future discussions with a more constructive and respectful tone. Aviation is a field where we all continue to learn—regardless of aircraft type, rating, or total time—and that learning is best supported through open, professional exchange. Thank you.

Thank you so much for the clarification.

What we observe here closely aligns with @ATRguy comment. This appears to conflict with the guidance in FAA-H-8083-3C and the training manuals. For clarity and training purposes, I would like to see whether this is a standard procedure in the FCOM, part of the SOP, or simply a technique. Let's remember, this is not a confrontation, please. Thanks.

Exactly, I'm aware of the 737, 748, 777, 787, and 388. Also, during autoland, many airplanes stop trimming between 1500 ft and 500 ft and use only the flight controls for necessary aileron or elevator corrections. For those without that feature, we train before FAF to zero out the trim tabs and use minimal stabilizer trim adjustments. Some airplanes activate tail strike protection before flare, preventing out-of-trim conditions. Of course, a GA or small airplane will not have such systems, but I have never heard of any aircraft manufacturer mentioning trimming during flare all the way down through touchdown. Additionally, the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3C) instructs pilots to have the airplane trimmed for a safe approach speed, allowing smooth backpressure application for flare and landing, rather than using the trim. Many training manuals also advise against using elevator trim during flare and touchdown. I'm having trouble digesting this and would like to see where it is stipulated in any manuals, just for my educational/training purposes.

I don't think we are on the same page about the interpretation of the out-of-trim issue. When we are fighting the flight controls, applying pressure on the yoke due to an incorrect trim setting, it's a clear case of out-of-trim. In a go-around situation, trimming before and after flare all the way down to the touchdown, even if you knew what you were trimming for before, that value (trim index) will not be the same, leading to improper pitch control, and can get aggravated under different conditions. I'm not sure what's specific to the C 172, but aerodynamically/mechanically, an out-of-trim situation is just that. I agree with you, but this doesn't apply to our situation: a skilled pilot might not be as effective as an instructor who hasn't received proper training.

Agreed, I learn something new every day. My question—just a curiosity, not a challenge—is whether your FCOM or the aircraft manufacturer's manual mentions using trim during flare and touchdown as a standard procedure, or is it simply a pilot technique? I'm not looking to spark any unproductive debate.

I find it so difficult to understand the scenario described. At the airlines and even in GA flying, during training, we teach the candidate not to use the trim to arrive at the point of an out-of-trim situation. This is a perfect example of why trimming during flare, all the way down to touchdown, is not recommended and qualifies as an out-of-trim situation. During a go-around, when power is applied, the airplane will pitch up to a drastic pitch condition different than a normal take off, in a condition leading to an almost stall condition, forget about a wind gust that might aggravate this situation. A condition similar to a runaway trim scenario, difficult to counteract at high altitudes, forget being so close to the ground or on the ground. I wonder if any of these guys tried to take off with so much wrong trim setting to see the real reaction. This sounds to me like a "hangar talk" versus a normal event. Sorry to say this, but in 45 years of flying, I have never heard of a normal operation in which a pilot would flare and land using elevator trim.