Nick, to say this thing was worth the wait is an understatement. I found myself grinning just from the first walk around and cockpit/interior inspection. The attention to detail you put into these products is outstanding.

@Buzz No, I'm away from my sim gear for most of the next 6 weeks. If I get a weekend back at home I'll give it a shot

@SadBucket Just to be clear, Asobo has nothing to do with the MarketPlace. Asobo are just developers of the game; the MarketPlace, where the game and its contents are sold, is managed by Microsoft. Not sure if Steam or Playstation would handle the situation any differently TBH.

@Black-Square just a quick thank you! My first flight completed around South East England. The Caravan feels alive and so authentic. Your work is exceptional and your talent grows with every release. The best birthday present 🥳

@C525B thanks for the recommendation on the ram air vents. i had made that discovery early on when messing around with stuff in the cockpit. i didn't make any changes to the audio i uploaded. i wouldn't even know how to go about doing that. i had included the other samples more for me to hear them side by side and less about, "this is what i think this plane should sound like". i wasn't clear about that intent. and I only used a very small handful of ftsim's sounds as i felt they missed more times than they hit as well. the engine sounds for me are much less about prop noise and more about the overall depth of the sound. this soundscape lacks the bassy resonance you hear with any gas powered engine. to me it sounds like a desk fan and takes away from an otherwise enjoyable experience in a plane i've always enjoyed flying in the sim. like i said, i have no experience in a plane with a pt-6 let alone the caravan and i know sounds are subjective but i am disappointed with how thin they sound (along with a couple of other particulars that i've mentioned prior). anyhow, looks like i am part of a very small minority of people who don't love the sounds so i'll just drop it. thanks again for the recommendation.

@jmarkows Ah, sorry about that misunderstanding. You've been a frequent flyer here for long enough that hopefully you know that I'm never frustrated with anyone, though. Or, at least it's very rare

@Black-Square said in Pilot and Copilot avatars: Just to clarify, all of my aircraft released for MSFS 2024 are "real native package[s]". As I have explained several times in the past, the modular aircraft file structure is entirely optional, and does not limit the available features or compatibility of the aircraft in any way. Asobo says this in almost those exact words within their documentation. As far as my aircraft are concerned, the modular file structure is a further abstraction from which they do not particularly benefit. As I understand it, large airliners benefit the most, and also other workflows for modeling aircraft, which I do not personally use. Though you are in general right as the native definition by Asobo is quite wide and not very precise, you can actually group them into some native levels. And yes your packages are native packages and I didn't deny that. But the level of native package you have selected for your projects comes with some disadvantages for the customers. Most of us will fly different liveries for VAs or even download the already very nice released ones from your house painter Ryan and Tim for example. And with your products (or every other product using this level of native like the JF ones) all these additional liveries are actually not liveries but variants of the aircraft. For each of these you have then to select and assign your control profiles again cause the sim thinks its a new aircraft variant. Minor annoyance for sure

Just wanted to let you guys know that I was working on this last night. Here is the post from another thread: I think I was able to arrive at the optimal solution with only some small edits to the code. I also improved some other small things in the KAP140 while I was there. The only thing I'm not sure about relates to the behavior of the real world unit. If you engage the autopilot when you are already within 200ft of your selected altitude, the vertical speed will be zero, and it will capture the selected altitude. All things considered, this is a very small tradeoff in my eyes, compared to what is sometimes required to circumvent the native autopilot. It's always amazing when you implement some of these small things, and you can immediately feel how much more intuitive they are. Thanks, guys! An addendum for this thread: The capability to display "PIT" mode still resides in the KAP 140, but you should not see it during normal operation. I've left it there more as a debugging tool, since errant autopilot modes are my best tool for diagnosing GPS addon issues.

@Captain_J I meant for my question to be directed toward Nick. Thinking about it now, I would assume he does, but that’s not to say the flight model in the sim would make it feel 1:1 with the real plane anyway. I have noticed the trim does feel more sensitive than similar types I’ve flown in real life, but unfortunately I haven’t actually flown any of Black Square’s planes in real life yet, so I wouldn’t know how they’re supposed to feel. I do know the A2A Aerostar’s electric trim feels nearly identical to real life and is much less responsive than how the Duke’s trim is modeled.

@qqwertzde said in state.cfg settings: the covers are now in place, but the chocks are still missing. This has been discussed numerous other times, unfortunately. The aircraft loading sequence in MSFS 2024 is terribly confused, with the aircraft being thrown up and down while the terrain is loading, while temperatures and wind are loaded from the camera position in low earth orbit. This means that aircraft is still moving so much when it's loaded that the chocks are automatically disengaged. I haven't found a fix for this yet, because I was hoping that Asobo would fix some of these significant regressions from MSFS 2020, but it seems like that's becoming very unlikely.

I agree. I’d rather have less Reverse Range- irl you also need to pull up a lock before engaging Beta, whereas Beta to reverse is only a spring

@Black-Square that would make sense! I noticed during my preflight that it looked like the generator amps dropped when both switches were on but I thought I surely must have been misunderstanding what I was seeing.

@SadBucket Great! Tks!

@Tadeus72 said in Where is the wear?: although a failure is going over to the next flights if you don't fix it. That's a good point, too. You could not repair the aircraft until every system has failed, which be quite an entertaining challenge to see how far you could get. @steveonatorer said in Where is the wear?: Just sad to see it being advertised as such. The quoted sentence has a specific meaning, its not about being stated unclearly. I understand how you interpreted that sentence, but the meaning was that failures of each type are possible, rather than all failures being capable of all types. I sometimes find it difficult to fit descriptions of all the features in my aircraft into my advertising, especially when various marketplaces impose character limits. Although it's not what we're talking about here, the MSFS Marketplace administrators have actually re-written my descriptions, often choosing words and phrases that I would never use! Sorry you feel like the description was not adequate. When system descriptions in my manuals have been confusing in the past, I always ask my users how they would rewrite them for clarity, so please feel free to share your thoughts.

You sir are amazing. Look forward to V1.1

@Akknk Thank you! I was going to try to create my own profiles after work and this saves a ton of time.

@Outermarker said in Transition to Beta: Even though in the release version the physical prop lever no longer visibly moves, I assume that’s still what’s happening under the hood: the prop is going fully into feather. Not the case, but I'm working on it

said in Excessive turbulence at low altitude: @Black-Square from my understanding talking to A2A, they use their own flight model and the turbulence is somehow interpolated by them before effecting the aircraft. It has come to my attention that I may be wrong about this... I'm now noticing an absence of turbulance other than the occasional bumps they inject in. Kind of a huge let down if that's the case.

@pbrad74 Ah, I see — thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood the exact scenario you were describing. Glad to hear it has already been fixed for the next update. Thanks again for pointing it out!

@Black-Square The FedEx Livery of the cargomaster. Failures at 1x in MTBF mode