@AvApollo On the 750, I clicked from GPS to VLOC (not at the sim, but I am thinking that is what I did.

@hunterdouglas You make some good suggestions. But.... not sure there is much we can do to satisfy these requests. A fleet of GA aircraft 'in a box' (as we did with the old PlusPaks) is feasible. However, standards are a LOT higher than in PlusPak days and, because there are a lot of freeware AI aircraft about, I am not sure we would be able to make much of a commercial success of this one - certainly not enough to justify costs even without liveries. More importantly, any such pack would need to function 'in game', rather than just provide aircraft. We'd need it to work (and be bought by) a decent number of ordinary users - not just DIYers (see below). Creating an airport modifying tool is not something we'd really want to get into. It's not our bag and we generally leave tools development to third party devs (see, for example, Real Taxiways from Black Square). Over the (many) years we have been doing Traffic we have seen that buyers tend to fall into three categories: Flyers - want a product that adds realistic commercial traffic to the sim so they are not flying in empty skies and don't see United Airlines 737s at Glasgow. Spotters - like to watch the 'action' happening around airports. We even built a 'Spotty' tool to satisfy this need in a previous incarnation. Suffice to say we haven't included Spotty in any subsequent version. Tinkerers - people who like to repaint aircraft, add missing planes and schedules or create flight plans from the past or in more obsure locations. The vast majority of buyers of FS200X/FSX/P3D/MSFS versions fall into the first category. We did find a higher number of Tinkerers for the X-Plane version, which is probably a function of the sim itself. X-Plane has encouraged tinkering for many years with things like Planemaker and flying on Mars. However, even 'over there' the majority of users still seem to be Flyers. What this means, of course, is that we need the software to appeal to the majority of users and that's where a big chunk of the compromise comes in. It also means that any future developments and updates after initial release are usually restricted to more planes, new liveries and updated schedules. Beyond that, we are constrained by the commercial realities of dev cost vs sales potential. So, while we dso our best to make it possible to modify and customise the Traffic offering, it's not a core part of the add-on.

it's so annoying and for 30 dollars it should be fixed at least

Did anyone make a server? If not, i’ll be happy to make one and send a link…lmk

I am yet another one patiently waiting. I do wonder though whether or not the passenger or amphib/cargo version will appear first or at the same time since they are two seperate releases? And if so would we be able to purchase the discounted bundle package?

would also like to see some new things for the starship. the plane is still my absolute favorite BS plane. special place in my hangar. heart warming to see it and to get on board.

@santos Sorry for delay in reply but the enquiry is a bit beyond the scope of the forum I think and no forum users seem to have replied. In brief: Yes No Don't think so but might be possible in a limited way Yes In more detail, yes you can import other aircraft to use with FS Traffic - caveat being there must be a schedule. No - you have to use the MSFS style flightplans. You can do this via the Traffic Control,Centre IIRC. More details in the manual which can be downloaded from the JF website. Not really possible. You can switch between databases AFAIK, but it starts getting complicated if you want to tinker about with a global schedule. Paint kits - yes, these are available.

@Black-Square something like euro truck sim when drivers sleepy maybe? If not, then perhaps loss of controls to a greater degree?

Please let me know if that fixed the issue. Thanks

I made a Lua script for FSUIPC7 that sets the active frequency to a dummy frequency when COM CIRCUIT ON is off, and restores it to the previous frequency when COM CIRCUIT ON is on, for COM1 and COM2 separately. (Initially I tried using SI's start/stop ATC keybind, muting the whole SI app, changing COM volumes, and changing COM receive selection, but changing the frequency worked out the best.) Requires the payware version of FSUIPC7 to run. com1_power_offset = 0x66DE -- A:CIRCUIT COM ON:1 com2_power_offset = 0x66DF -- A:CIRCUIT COM ON:2 com_active_hz = {} com_active_hz[com1_power_offset] = 0x05C4 com_active_hz[com2_power_offset] = 0x05C8 RADIO_SET_HZ = {} RADIO_SET_HZ[com1_power_offset] = 67240 RADIO_SET_HZ[com2_power_offset] = 67242 stored_frequency = {} stored_frequency[com1_power_offset] = nil stored_frequency[com2_power_offset] = nil dummy_frequency = 111000000 function check(power_offset,power_status) if power_status == 0 then stored_frequency[power_offset] = ipc.readUD(com_active_hz[power_offset]) ipc.control(RADIO_SET_HZ[power_offset],dummy_frequency) else if stored_frequency[power_offset] then --script is meant to be run before radios are first turned on, but check just in case ipc.control(RADIO_SET_HZ[power_offset],stored_frequency[power_offset]) end end end event.offset(com1_power_offset,"UB","check") event.offset(com2_power_offset,"UB","check")

FYI - the ETM seemed similar to the one in the Turboprop Bonanza and Duke - and both of these work correctly in the Duke. That's why I thought it might be a TBM specific issue (or an update that didn't make it to the TBM yet).

Every post here shows me that the AP is not being used correctly for climbs, and probably descents too. It's not an A320 Airbus. Best explained in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho7B8AOt7Os. It will change how you approach the whole thing. BTW running at full power or any torque setting that results in prolonged red or even yellow torque numbers will destroy your engines very VERY quickly.

This is the same MSFS 2024 LOD ""feature"" that we've discussed many times for all my aircraft. I have a workaround, but it must be applied by hand to each object that I think might disappear. I will review this for all my aircraft before their next updates (should only take a few hours across the fleet), but there was also a recent offer from Asobo to "reopen the discussion internally", which might yield fruit. Thanks for letting me know.

@afowle23 I ses, Thanks for the info!

I see, thanks for the reply. Hopefully asobo will improve the lacking physics in the future. Thanks either way!