Microsoft Flight Sim 2020

[BOO]

Am I also correct in thinking that if you don’t run it Msfs will just revert to its old bing maps? 

Edited May 1, 2023 by BOO

[Mtnbiker1998]

I've often wondered how this game would look using different data. I'll definitely give this a go today and see how it looks

[Lusekofte]

I changed between vr and 2d and got ctd

I won’t add anything new until I get this software to work properly. I spend 80% of the time figuring out what’s wrong

[BOO]

3 minutes ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

I've often wondered how this game would look using different data. I'll definitely give this a go today and see how it looks

Remember to clear your rolling cache if you use it beforehand. 

[DD_Arthur]

2 hours ago, BOO said:

Am I also correct in thinking that if you don’t run it Msfs will just revert to its old bing maps? 

I’m still using version five point something or other. I’ve seen no reason to update to the latest version as the one I’ve got works perfectly well and whilst I’m grateful to the guy who set this up and have bought him a coffee, I’m not going down any subscription route he may be touting.

 

You’ll find a great many opinions about this thing and if it’s misused it will certainly screw up your game. The most important thing to note is to run the app before firing up the game and to exit the game before stopping the app.

The app must be stopped by shutting it down correctly and not simply clicking on X.

 

If you don’t run the app the game will simply default to the original Bing data.

 

When you use it with the latest Bing or Google data the first thing to notice is the roads are no longer green?.

On the previous page of this thread I’ve posted a video of flying along the Cote D’Azur.

Go to 17 minutes and check out Nice. The video was made streaming the much superior Google data of this area as opposed to the rather sparse Bing data available in the stock game.

 

Despite the divergent reviews and people screaming Beware!! this thing works perfectly for me and let me be honest here;

I’m a f#ckwit when it comes to this stuff….?

 

 

Oh yeah, I don’t use any of the cache options - in game or otherwise…

[Mtnbiker1998]

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

I’m still using version five point something or other. I’ve seen no reason to update to the latest version as the one I’ve got works perfectly well and whilst I’m grateful to the guy who set this up and have bought him a coffee, I’m not going down any subscription route he may be touting.

 

You’ll find a great many opinions about this thing and if it’s misused it will certainly screw up your game. The most important thing to note is to run the app before firing up the game and to exit the game before stopping the app.

The app must be stopped by shutting it down correctly and not simply clicking on X.

 

If you don’t run the app the game will simply default to the original Bing data.

 

When you use it with the latest Bing or Google data the first thing to notice is the roads are no longer green?.

On the previous page of this thread I’ve posted a video of flying along the Cote D’Azur.

Go to 17 minutes and check out Nice. The video was made streaming the much superior Google data of this area as opposed to the rather sparse Bing data available in the stock game.

 

Despite the divergent reviews and people screaming Beware!! this thing works perfectly for me and let me be honest here;

I’m a f#ckwit when it comes to this stuff….?

 

 

Oh yeah, I don’t use any of the cache options - in game or otherwise…

I gave it a quick looksie, the non-green roads was definitely a plus and the area around my house was noticably higher res and more up to date. Although the lack of green-blending effect was definitely noticible up in Alaska where I've been playing around with Misty Moorings (Thanks Luke!) Theres a lot of mismatched tiles around there and I think stock does it better. I'll keep it installed on my pc but I think for most flights I'm not gonna fiddle with it too much. 

 

Another neat toy for the msfs toybox though! It really is blowing my mind what the community is able to do with this game. If only IL-2 would get similarly opened up to the community...

[BOO]

I will certainly keep the app. For the most part I think the averaging of the old bing stuff generally works well. For areas it doesn’t however, the app is a great fall back, giving several options. In areas I’ve tried it it’s worked very well indeed. 
 

Thanks @DD_Arthur for the tip. 
 

 

 

[BOO]

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, BOO said:

 

Hey, I recognize that! ? 

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

I gave it a quick looksie, the non-green roads was definitely a plus and the area around my house was noticably higher res and more up to date. Although the lack of green-blending effect was definitely noticible up in Alaska where I've been playing around with Misty Moorings (Thanks Luke!) Theres a lot of mismatched tiles around there and I think stock does it better. I'll keep it installed on my pc but I think for most flights I'm not gonna fiddle with it too much. 

 

Another neat toy for the msfs toybox though! It really is blowing my mind what the community is able to do with this game. If only IL-2 would get similarly opened up to the community...

Maybe my hometown would do with Google 

[BOO]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

Hey, I recognize that! ? 

I had in mind a "penance" for dropping the Kodiak would be to allow a few days for repair (it said Id damaged the U/C) whilst "hiring" a cessna to go across to Portugal.  The WB-Sims 172 steam guage is I think what is going to be delivered. Took a nice little flight in the evening/night from Castel de Castells to Alicante (Ali-bloody-Cante as my neighbour use to tell us he was going------"Wife cant get enough of that Ricotta wine..") to play with the Nav gear.  Not sure I could put up with Ralf invading my personal space all the way to Porto in the confines of the 152. 172 is a bit wider.

1 hour ago, Lusekofte said:

Maybe my hometown would do with Google 

Its got you- what more does it need?  ?

[Gambit21]

You guys need to organize an around the world race, or at least a trans-continental race for something. Alaska to Tierra del Fuego? Something. Same aircraft, or pick from several aircraft of equal speed.  Plan your route...time your legs etc. Shortest total time start to finish. That just sounds fun or am I weird? I can't play MSFS but I think it would be interesting to see it happen...maybe that makes me even weirder? 

 

 

[Lusekofte]

Good idea @Gambit21

It would be interesting. I am sorry you can’t use this sim. It is king of frustration, but also best experience I had about flight. Sad choppers are rubbish

Edited May 3, 2023 by Lusekofte

[BOO]

Day 19   - Palaminy, France - Castel de Castells, Spain. 362 Nm. Real Tme, Live Weather.

 

 

We taxi out in mixed conditions though a lot fairer than the previous night.

 

 

Determined to finish what I stated I return to the d’Aleu for a brief stop.

 

 

And it is brief. What was I thinking! Despite 3 attempts, even the prestigious stopping power of the Kodiak and the incline is not sufficient and a I gracelessly give up!

 

 

Here, the scenery is faultless and beautiful as we pass over and though the Andorran mountains on our way to a La Seu D Urgell Airport (LESU) for fuel.

 

 

 

This is a handcrafted airport on a small plateau hidden deep in the valleys on the Spanish side of the moutains, and its beautiful! 

 

 

Gassed up, we resume south though the valleys….

 

 

…and into the pains of Spain. It instantly feels like a different country thanks to the abrupt termination green giving mountains into golden, terraced land below us.

 

 

The rain in Spain however, doesn’t follow convention today and instead is mugging the coast. And to some degree.

We nimbly dodge through the worst of the inland edge, passing in a gap though two distinct systems.

 

 

As we pass though, this is sight that greats us. In the still it looks very hard edged where the rain meets the ground but, in the sim, it was fluid.

 

 

Passing Barcelona  in think cloud and out into the sea, a break in the weather is a good point for a second run over the city…

 

Barcelona!! Magnificent!

 

 

Ah well, like relatives, you can’t choose your live weather. We do catch a brief glimpse through the murk.

 

 

Working South along the coast, the Weather soon clears into something far more amiable. In the distance I spot something on a hillside and go for a looksee. In not sure if its stock or a part of the We Love VFR pack but this is the Weather Radar Station near Corbera de Llobregat.  

 

Approaching Barcelona The game had begun to stutter. I put this down to the PG of big city combined with huge weather. However, the stutter didn’t stop after leaving the area. Considering putting in and restarting, I lazily tried the old DCS trick of Alt Entering into windowed and back. This worked, instantly clearing the stutter and returning the fps back above the 60 that my game is vsync’d to. Ive since made a macro for this and bound it to a redundant button.

 

 

At Reus, we head out along coast, relaxing into a long leg of the route with little deviation.

 

 

Sticking close to shore we watch the mountains slip by….

 

 

…before passing over the flat delta of Parc Natural del Delta de l'Ebre.

 

 

Valencia’s PG works very well…….

 

 

…..for the most part. This is what I don’t get about MSFS. You go to the trouble of incorporating PG into the scenes but that, apparently don’t bother to check that it works properly. The result are weird “Treescrapers” instead of dock cranes. Just odd.

 

 

However…sometimes what Bing provides in imagery is far more lifelike…and would have been moreso had I not turn down the tree detail. Flying inland towards our destination, the hills and mountains are beautiful and a stark contract from the concrete horrors that are the holiday destinations along the coast.

 

 

Rounding the top of the hills, the first sight of Castel de Cestells. Actually in real life its called Pist Del Cocoll ( I think) and it’s a Forestry Fire Fighting station. In game, the helipad there becomes a sort of ice cream parlour come abandoned nuclear shelter….

 

 

Another perfect Landing. No. This is the last image of the Kodiak. Usually, I’ve been careful to trim the aircraft to enable me to either pause the game or take external images. Today, I was tired so just “sticked” it in. The ground rising fooled me into thinking I was almost on the deck when I paused and, on unpausing, the game hurled me into the earth with the “you are a bad man and here your journey ends” message.

 

From the get-go I decided that I would not gloss over mistakes. To the point where Ill end the trip if something catastrophic occurs. On this occasion the message was about critical damage to the U/C. Ill class this as a walkaway though no doubt the Kodak would have been a write off.  So I go on. But the Kodiak doesn’t. At least not this one.

Edited May 3, 2023 by BOO

[BOO]

7 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

You guys need to organize an around the world race, or at least a trans-continental race for something. Alaska to Tierra del Fuego? Something. Same aircraft, or pick from several aircraft of equal speed.  Plan your route...time your legs etc. Shortest total time start to finish. That just sounds fun or am I weird? I can't play MSFS but I think it would be interesting to see it happen...maybe that makes me even weirder? 

 

 

 

Im only here for the beer n the BBQs.

 

Got MSFS to fly in a less competative envioment!.  Id be lying awake worrying about wind forecasts and worrying more about how accurate the weather is to that in sim...:-)

 

Would be a very interesting thing to see between simmers who knew what they were doing though, fuel carried versus stops, longer routes verus weather. I think the main issue woud be finding two or more who could fly at the same time if real weather was to be used. better still on a server. 

[ZachariasX]

8 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

You guys need to organize an around the world race, or at least a trans-continental race for something. Alaska to Tierra del Fuego? Something. Same aircraft, or pick from several aircraft of equal speed.  Plan your route...time your legs etc. Shortest total time start to finish. That just sounds fun or am I weird? I can't play MSFS but I think it would be interesting to see it happen...maybe that makes me even weirder? 

 

Love the idea. I think one has to make it kind of a Rally, as it is impractical to ask participants not only to start on a specific day and time, but then also spend all the hours without using sim rate.

 

I think the MacRobertson Air Race has a suitable structure, a long stretch with a few required stopps. One should of course be free to add as many stopps as one feels the need for.

 

To make it interesting, there have to be certain restrictions. Obviously, I would ban GPS, of course. (You knew that.) But even with GPS, I would would stack participants according to engine used as well as prop type (fixed/constant speed). Basically one had to agree on some permitted planes for a given „flight“. Or make classes like „non turbocharged lycoming 540, constant speed prop“, etc. Or just stack them according to nominal power rating.

The DC-6 makes for a great racer, as the weight greatly impacts airspeed and max. (reasonable) ceiling. You can also limit engine servicing on the route. One can mandate a certain amount of cargo for given stints to make it harder.

Also the JPL 152 would make for a fantastic club racer. It‘s a great aircraft and it‘s free. The higher the realism of the module, the better.

Prop aircraft until 1939 would also make for a great field, but those distances without AP are tedious…

 

For a given route, there must be a start date and an arrival date for all participants in order avoid a DNF. The timeframe for the race is required to kind of ensure similar weather for all participants, while still allowing for some creativity in terms of choosing the route.

 

LittleNavMap logs could be used as „proof“ for the route flown as well as measurement for the in game duration of the flight. The internal pilots log in MSFS is useless for that, as it measures your time on the computer, not the sim time of the flight. Shortest time for added flights wins.

 

If honesty means something to the participants, one could make it „iron man mode“, black screen means you‘re dead, DNF. And get a honorable mention in the ranking.

 

I have to try such a setting once I‘m back at my sim rig.

[BOO]

Day 20 – 22.    Aeródromo Forestal, Castell De Castells, Spain.

 

“Wanted. Reliable, hard working travel companion. Must be a good self-starter with a forgiving personality…….. big wheels not essential but preferred”.

 

The search for a Kodiak replacement began. Whilst tempting to simply carry on with the same type, because it is an excellent module, there were several things I thought I might like to change. Firstly, the glass cockpit sucks FPS and I’m not using all its features as I thought I would. I’ve also become zombie like reliant on GPS which I want to do less.

 

Four contenders came to mind and, in three days of clear skies and beautiful Spanish sunshine, I gave each a try.

 

The JPL C152. TBH it’s too slow, too light and can’t carry Ralf and the virtual 250lb weight of the pack up. Beautiful little thing though. Very handsome in its own basic way. Great fun to fly in turbulence. and into tight spots.

 

 

The WB 172. Its can carry the load and is study level but…..it just didn’t connect with me. After the 152 it looks a bit ..”portly” and the tint wheels gave concern. Shame as Id bought a £70 upgrade to the game along with the £15 enhancement pack when I thought I was going to use it more. For another time and some serious study.. Also considered the Bagalou C172 Bush taildragger but, without the WB expansion, it didn’t cut it.

 

 

The An2. Quirky with decent, if not outstanding range. Unstallable. Ralf appears to be less keen to co-pilot and lurks in the back. An interesting cockpit is let down by odd looking “flat” switches that appear very 2D in a 3D environment. Lack of AP and an inability to use VORs however is what ultimately kicks this into the weeds.

 

 

DHC-2. Poor (as stock) range but, for now, this isn’t an issue. Basic Bendix AP (with basic Asobo inaccuracies of operation apparently) and the ability to swap out twin DMEs for DME/ADF packages seem a realistic enough modification to be done in field, as required. The optional absence of any GPS if so desired is a boon.

 

It has its issues, although all are minor. The seeming inability to bind the VS increase/decrease is a PITA but can be lived with. The heading bug is also a sod to see. What aren’t though are the prop effects, which are fantastic and constantly tempt you into altering rpm needlessly. The additional flame and exhaust effects on engine start from Got Friends are also very nice. 

 

 

 

The implementation of the radios into an otherwise beautiful cockpit is also a bit off. They have that “DCS GPS add on” air of a bad photoshop about them. Hard to explain but they don’t have the same 3D quality as the rest of the pit.  Not a deal breaker though and increasing the Ambient Occlusion and shadow quality seems to tone them down.  Just hope the fps gain is sufficient to soak it. Finally, the night lighting is odd. The dials are presumably back lit but cast so much light out it appears as if they are illuminated by some unseen external source. Still, they do looks nice,

 

And this is what I choose with the Got Friends 40Th Anniversary Expansion and Tigers DHC-2 improvement mod Add-ons.  Steam radios, 35” bush tyres and (initially) twin DMEs. In the yellow finish of CF-OBS, it looks the part and is the epitome of a Bush Beater to me.

 

 

Oh…and a handy dandy GPS in an iPad back up (Sky4Sim mod) cos I’m not that clever but I isn’t that stoopid either.

 

 

Meet Ol (e) Yella!

 

Side note: Ive been blown away since installing MSFS at what Got Friends bring and often give away for free. The Savage Carbon, Grravel  and NX Monster are brilliant fun whilst their mods add much to bush types. Feeling I really ought to support them, Ive bought the Wilga which may well make an appearance later in this journey. 

 

 

Edited May 3, 2023 by BOO

[AEthelraedUnraed]

I was wondering what settings/rules you guys use. It seems at least @LukeFF has some kind of random failures on with the circuit breaker and fuel pump and such.

 

I recently installed MSFS again, and I was thinking about doing some kind of small tour myself. If I do, I want to do it fairly

Edited May 3, 2023 by AEthelraedUnraed

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I was wondering what settings/rules you guys use. It seems at least @LukeFF has some kind of random failures on with the circuit breaker and fuel pump and such.

 

I recently installed MSFS again, and I was thinking about doing some kind of small tour myself. If I do, I want to do it fairly

 

Yes, the 310 has 4 levels of failures. I use the "rare" option, which is considered to be the most realistic setting; every component at this setting has a 1% chance of failure. 

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yes, the 310 has 4 levels of failures. I use the "rare" option, which is considered to be the most realistic setting; every component at this setting has a 1% chance of failure. 

 

That's incredibly high.

I'd never get into an airplane where every component had a 1 in 100 chance of failing.

 

 

[AndyJWest]

9 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

That's incredibly high.

I'd never get into an airplane where every component had a 1 in 100 chance of failing.

 

 

 

I'd guess that given enough time, most aircraft components have an 100% chance of failing. What matters is how long it takes...

[Gambit21]

2 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

I'd guess that given enough time, most aircraft components have an 100% chance of failing. What matters is how long it takes...

 

True...but on any given flight is what I'm talking about and considering maintenance of course. 

I mean, 1% is actually a pretty high percentage when you think about it...100 isn't that big of a number.

 

 

[AndyJWest]

53 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

True...but on any given flight is what I'm talking about and considering maintenance of course. 

I mean, 1% is actually a pretty high percentage when you think about it...100 isn't that big of a number.

 

 

 

I've not looked into how MSFS calculates its % failures. 'Per flight' would be difficult, since it requires knowing in advance how long a flight was going to be. 'Per hour' would make more sense, but is it say 1% per hour per 'component', or 1% per hour overall?  Even the latter is high (at least for modern aircraft, and serious issues) but I'd assume that people turn it on because they want to practice dealing with failures. Make the rate too realistic, and you could wait years. Not particularly useful, and tricky to test and debug.

 

DCS 'failure mode' is more sophisticated - have you used that at all? I've fiddled around with it a bit, just to experience the joys of dealing with a Tomcat with single-wing sweep failure. I think I posted a screenshot somewhere...

[Enceladus828]

My last time playing MSFS before I head off to start my first airline job. 

Decided to get the Boeing 247D and have had lots of fun with it:

 

All the doors open including the nose and rear baggage doors in San Diego (in the 1933 United Airlines livery)

 

In Berlin with the Lufthansa livery (notice the other 247s)

 

Early 30s era aircraft lavatory

 

Neat magazines

 

Afterwards I went soaring over Lake Como, Italy

 

[BOO]

7 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I was wondering what settings/rules you guys use. It seems at least @LukeFF has some kind of random failures on with the circuit breaker and fuel pump and such.

 

I recently installed MSFS again, and I was thinking about doing some kind of small tour myself. If I do, I want to do it fairly

Given the absence of easy randomness in the stock sim Im using ScouseAirline's random failures

 

https://scouseairlines.co.uk/software/randomfailures

 

So far Ive had it set to low without triggering anything on my average 2-3 hours sessions. I will probably now raise this to Normal. Seem a better solution that having to set randoms every flight. 

[ZachariasX]

9 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

That's incredibly high.

I'd never get into an airplane where every component had a 1 in 100 chance of failing.

As I understand it, these are not always terminal failures, but usually include popped circuit breakers etc.. Hence, chance that the front falls off is considerably smaller than 1% and way smaller chance of failure than improper use of your engine/systems will cause. In the 310R, I had several failures so far, but in the end, I worked hard for earning all of them. By itself, I only inherited popped breakers that mainly remind one of following the startup checklist.

 

I‘d say (also todays) warbirds have a much higher failure rate than 1% even for essential systems. But as long as my wife doesn‘t know about that, I‘m fine.

[BOO]

Without state saving such as on the 310 I’m not sure how much setting random failures is actually more realistic than not. In the Beaver I’m effectively starting off in a pristine every time. I’m not sure if the scouse software logs and saves or resets on a stop. Guess that’s something I need to find out. 

[LukeFF]

12 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

That's incredibly high.

I'd never get into an airplane where every component had a 1 in 100 chance of failing.

 

IMO it's not bad at all. That, and I should add that it's every component that Milviz/Blackbird tracks within the 310 that has a 1% chance of failing with the "rare" setting. There is no chance of your wing or the front fuselage falling off. ?

 

Plus, one has to remember that the "newest" 310Rs left the production line in 1980. They've flown a lot of hours and thus accumulated a lot of wear and tear to all their individual components during 4 decades. In all my hours of flying the 310 so far (probably about 20 or more so far), I've only had a few failures so far, and all of them have been mangeable:

• 2 popped circuit breakers for the GPS.
• One failure of the variometer.
• 1 burnt-out bulb (found during a preflight inspection).
• 3 failures of the fuel pump.

In each of those instances, I was still able to make it safely to my destination (or an earlier destination than planned, in the instance of the fuel pump failures). Yes, they are annoying, but IMO it's just part of flying such an old plane.

 

For those wondering how Milviz calculates airframe and component failure on the 310:

 

Quote

Systems Realism

In most sim airplanes, the systems are a bit simplified so as to make them easier to use and trouble free. While this is appropriate for many modern airplanes where improvements over the years have done exactly that in the real world, the 310R is an older airplane. If you want something much closer to the authentic experience, turn Systems Realism on. It’s not as critical to flight as Engine Realism, but it should provide some interesting effects.

Here are just a few examples of some of the changes brought about b ySystems Realism:
• If you are the aircraft’s owner and you store the airplane for any length of time over a week (that is, you don’t fly it) and you do not cover the engine, intakes, and pitot tubes you will have a small risk the components they protect could be damaged when you go to fly again. The risk increases with the length of time the airplane is in the hangar.
• If you leave the pitot tubes covered, your airspeed indicator will not function.
• If your pitot tube freezes, it will realistically freeze the airspeed needle at or near the last airspeed when it froze over – not drop to zero as in the default sim.
• If you retract your gear without remembering to tap the brakes to stop the wheels spinning, you risk damage to your gear or the gear bay.
• If you apply brakes too often and too hard at high speeds, you can overheat your brakes and damage them.
• Gear and flaps can be damaged by extending them over their rated speeds.
• If you turn on the heater but fail to open up the cabin air, the heater could overheat and shutdown with possible damage to it.
• When using the ADF, the needle won’t point rock steady at the station but will fluctuate realistically at a rate and amount correlated to the signal strength, unless you’re very near to it.

• All the circuit breakers work, and further they are subject to temporary or permanent outage due to short circuits in the systems, as we describe in the “Failures” section.

Wear and Tear

This option, when selected, allows the aircraft’s components to slowly deteriorate over time, like they do in the real world. The rate of wear and tear depends on the amount of usage, but it’s always happening. Even if you don’t fly the airplane, a slow rate of wear happens “in the hangar”. In some cases, with Systems Realism” turned on, birds and insects can nest in your airplane and cause more rapid degradation in certain areas.

Wear and tear is divided into two categories: induced and entropy. Induced is damage caused by mishandling, for example engine cylinder damage caused by excessive operation over the tops of the green power arcs, or failing to lean the mixture while taxiing. Entropy is the tendency of organized systems to become disorganized over time. It’s a fundamental property of the physical universe. That’s the kind of wear and tear you’re choosing to permit by turning this option on.

It happens slowly, but it happens. Every component has a MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) and as the airplane is flown, a “service time” is updated for each component. As that service time grows, the operational readiness of the component gradually declines; when it declines enough, it will fail, either partially or completely. You can see the operational readiness of the major aircraft components on the “Status” page after an inspection. See the “Status” section for details on how to do that and how to repair damage whatever the cause.

 

Failures

We’ve discussed the many ways that mishandling and mistakes can provoke failures in the aircraft if the “realism” options are turned on. We call these induced errors.

“Failures” are another thing. If you select any other option than NEVER here, you’re allowing things to break more or less randomly, not caused by pilot error. Unfortunately, this happens in the real world too, where things break even when we treat them gently and correctly.

Only one of these options is in effect at a time, and they only apply to the aircraft identified by the ATC ID at the top of the page. This setting is persistent.

Never

This means the 310R systems code won’t ever trigger a failure, whether that failure is induced or “random”. Regardless of your realism settings, you’re safe from the consequences if you check “Never” here. Even if “realism” is on and components are damaged. The damage will be recorded and displayed in the “Status page” (described below) and can be repaired but no actual aircraft component will fail. No random failure will be generated, either.

 

Rarely

This is the most realistic setting. It allows induced failures to actually fail components, and it will very rarely generate a “random” problem. Most of these problems will be minor, like a circuit breaker popping out or a gauge needle getting stuck. Some can be major, up to and including engine failure. Anything can fail, even light bulbs can burn out. But also, everything can be fixed.

 

Occasionally

This option is the same as “Rarely” except failures happen more often. This might simulate an airplane in poor maintenance condition. You aren’t guaranteed a failure on every flight, but it would be rare to get two in a row with at least something minor going wrong.

 

Frequently

This is more for practicing emergency procedures as you are guaranteed at least one major and one minor failure on every flight. You just don’t know what they will be.

 

[BOO]

7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

IMO it's not bad at all. That, and I should add that it's every component that Milviz/Blackbird tracks within the 310 that has a 1% chance of failing with the "rare" setting. There is no chance of your wing or the front fuselage falling off. ?

 

Plus, one has to remember that the "newest" 310Rs left the production line in 1980. They've flown a lot of hours and thus accumulated a lot of wear and tear to all their individual components during 4 decades. In all my hours of flying the 310 so far (probably about 20 or more so far), I've only had a few failures so far, and all of them have been mangeable:

• 2 popped circuit breakers for the GPS.
• One failure of the variometer.
• 1 burnt-out bulb (found during a preflight inspection).
• 3 failures of the fuel pump.

In each of those instances, I was still able to make it safely to my destination (or an earlier destination than planned, in the instance of the fuel pump failures). Yes, they are annoying, but IMO it's just part of flying such an old plane.

 

For those wondering how Milviz calculates airframe and component failure on the 310:

 

 

 

Would that have required specifc code for 310 or is that a general (if clever) feature that could be adaapted easily to other stuff by a developer? 

[LukeFF]

4 minutes ago, BOO said:

Would that have required specifc code for 310 or is that a general (if clever) feature that could be adaapted easily to other stuff by a developer? 

 

AFAIK it's all specific to the 310.

[BOO]

Just now, LukeFF said:

 

AFAIK it's all specific to the 310.

makes sense - its something the game would really benefit from as whole. 

[DBFlyguy]

Yesterday's Live Dev Stream, a lot of good things coming to MSFS!

 

 

Edited May 5, 2023 by DBFlyguy

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, BOO said:

makes sense - its something the game would really benefit from as whole. 

 

Agreed, it was a big selling feature for me - the idea that you both have to watch how you fly and be on the lookout for something going wrong makes the flying all the more satisfying. 

[Mtnbiker1998]

Boo, glad to see you picked the Beaver! Been flying it's float version almost exclusively since the last World Update, between hopping around French Polynesia and all those Misty Mooring addon ports, I'm getting plenty of practice with water landings!

 

Don't have many screenshots since I'm flying in VR, but I've been taking my Beaver on my own little cross country trip from Seattle up to Alaska. Long way to go still, but quite enjoying the mountains along the BC coast!

[BOO]

2 hours ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

Boo, glad to see you picked the Beaver! Been flying it's float version almost exclusively since the last World Update, between hopping around French Polynesia and all those Misty Mooring addon ports, I'm getting plenty of practice with water landings!

 

Don't have many screenshots since I'm flying in VR, but I've been taking my Beaver on my own little cross country trip from Seattle up to Alaska. Long way to go still, but quite enjoying the mountains along the BC coast!

 

Its a very engaging module. The Kodiak is great but, as I said before, its very clinical. Very efiicient. The Beaver "feels" of its age. Would be better with state perisitence, especially given its vintage but Ill forgive that just for the sound of the radial and the prop animation. Speed wise it'll cruise along at 135mph and fuel burn in cruise is substantially different form the advertised ones (Im getting roughly 10 mins per Imp Gallon at 2000/30 giving 135mph at 5000ft) making longer transit flights more possible than i thought. 

 

Its the first time Ive really played with the VORs in game too. Very easy and, coming out of AP on the final of an ILS appraoch, you inherit a stable and trimmed aircraft. 

 

Final big plus is that FPS is up making more graphic options available. 

[Lusekofte]

3 hours ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

Don't have many screenshots since I'm flying in VR

Well I push control tab and Get 2 d for screenshot. 

[BOO]

Day 23. Aeródromo Forestal, Castell De Castells, Spain – Badajoz, Spain.  321 Nm, Real Time, Live Weather

 

 

Station to Station.

 

“Where’s the cup holder?”

“ Im looking at him”

 

 

Ralf seems decidedly unimpressed with the Beaver. Part of the iPhone generation, he is suspicious of gauges with moving internals. But Ralf hasn’t had the pleasure of a flight in the it yet and I quietly takes bets on how long the epiphany will take to hit home. I remind him that he’s only here because I couldn’t bring the dog and he begins to poke and rattle things in the cockpit.

 

 

Today’s Leg is less about sightseeing and more about familiarisation. AS such it’s a pretty mundane trip across Spain to the Portuguese border. On the way, I want to play with the radio nav equipment, using the benefit of clear skies and fine weather to check my understanding. Both stops will be ILS approaches.  

 

We start by flying on a Nor-North Western track towards Albacete. I have my VOR strategy. I tune the lower unit to the VOR at the location and the upper, AP linked unit to the ILS approach and the VOR. Then I set the upper’s OBS to 268 degree. The idea is that I will use the NAV AP to fly north to intercept the radial, set the heading bug after the turn and switch to HDG mode whilst using the lower VOR instrument to ensure track, hen tune the upper to the ILS approach for runway 27. Once this activates, I go back to Nav, wait form the Glide Slope to register and centre then hit APR. If all that sounds like sucking eggs, forgive me. Im a GPS monkey.

 

 

Flying over the ridges on route we pass a real bug-bear of mind – synchronised windfarms. Perhaps there are such things but, here in the UK, each turbine kinda does its own thing. It looks odd.

 

 

Well, everything goes exactly as planned. The strategy works a treat and I inherit a perfectly trimmed Beaver just short of the runway its dials and AP have led it to. Albacete is a military base and there is little by way of facilities found at Civilian airports that I can find. Seems its rather “dumped” into the sim. Ah well. We top off the tanks and continue.

 

I’m really falling for the Beaver. Its flies like the old truck it is but in a graceful and “cushioned” manner. Small adjustments are easy to make and the trims, with the Tiger mod, is gentle and predictable. There’s also something very liberating about not slavishly following a pink line.

 

 

The next leg of the route is to a VOR at Hinojosa Del Duque. A slight different strategy is taken, tuning the lower VOR receiver to this station, whilst setting Radio 1 to the VOR and ILS for our ultimate destination. Plan here is to use the HDG AP to get to the first VOR, reverse the OBS to “from” on a radial that will intercept the destination’s VOR and line up with the runway, wait for the final VOR to ping, switch that to the second unit and use HDG to keep a track then tune Radio one to the ILS VOR. A lot simpler than I make sound.

 

 

The route isn’t full of landmarks but, none the less, once again the sim enough provides points of interest by default which I can use to locate myself on route using the map options on a disconnected Little Nav Map.

 

 

Often though, its just pleasant scenery set off nicely again Ol Yella’s livery. Like Here…

 

 

We reach the last of the hills that mark our approach to Hinojosa Del Duque and I prepare for switching the OBS from 270 Degree “To” to a 90 degree “From”. As the needles twitch, indicating the pass over, I switch the OBS and set the heading bug. This is all going very smoothly.

 

 

There’s a lot of space in the Beaver and the seat behind the pilot affords a much better view out of its bulged window. Its also a great place from which to flick wet tissue at the back of Ralf’s head.

 

Initially, thanks to our relatively low altitude, the VOR at Badajoz doesn’t register but, gradually, the faint morse code comes though the headsets and the needles begin to come to life, then stop, then move again, as the signal begins to gain strength. Once again Ive set a radial to coincide with the ILS at Badajoz and, as the signal stabilises, I switch the AP from HDG to NAV.

 

 

I project the course and whare the expected turn onto the radial will occur. And blow me (dont) if it doesn’t happen at that spot! I doubt every day will be as easy as this but I’ll take it. In this image the landscape looks very “2004” – in the sim it wasn’t at all and looked fine. Odd.

 

 

Using the ILS and APR auto-pilot the approach to Badajoz is smooth and accurate.But something is amiss. Tress encroaching on the runway are the first indication.

 

 

Touching down, the airfield instantly feels “odd”. There are no taxiways and trees grow everywhere. The airfield isn’t something I’ve added although there is a spanner on its icon to indicate it’s an add-on. I presume its part of the Deluxe edition but cant be sure. Either way, its not a functioning airport save for the ILS. Effectively its just dumped in the landscape and I wonder its it been overwritten after the Spain update.

 

 

Regardless, we find a spot and set up camp. I put Ralf on first Zombie watch, just in case. The Beaver is a wonderful thing. I measured the cruise economy on route. Roughly an Imp Gallon every 10 minutes at 2000/30 and 135 mph IAS. I think the stated 395Nm range is conservative but, even so, a 13 hour endurance? Perhaps it’s the light load and I’m certainly not factoring in climb but even so.   I drink a toast to happy accidents.  

Edited May 5, 2023 by BOO

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, BOO said:

Plan here is to use the HDG AP to get to the first VOR, reverse the OBS to “from” on a radial that will intercept the destination’s VOR and line up with the runway, wait for the final VOR to ping, switch that to the second unit and use HDG to keep a track then tune Radio one to the ILS VOR. A lot simpler than I make sound.

Flying like a man! Easy huh? In windy, zero visibility conditions, this can get very entertaining. Especially if you are running on your last gallon of fuel.

[BOO]

17 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Flying like a man! Easy huh? In windy, zero visibility conditions, this can get very entertaining. Especially if you are running on your last gallon of fuel.

Haha!  im under no illusions ?. Thats why I left it to a bright  clear, calm day before dipping my toes!

 

 

[BOO]

C160 is out