Had a vAPP of 121kn today and I didn't manage to perform a stable approach. Aircraft accelerated to 160kn and even higher as you can see on this screenshot (wasn't able to record a video quickly enough): [image: e023f5a4-4d6b-4ba0-82ef-566b4995e945.png]

It's not so much a question of "do we have failures or don't we", but rather how deep the system simulation is. To me, deep system simulation means the systems need to behave realistically when things go wrong or when a pilot mistake is made. Like others have said above, what's the point of coding deep system fidelity if nothing is ever out of the ordinary. And by that I don't just mean catastrophic events that force you to land immediately. It's more like the little things that happen on a daily basis in airline operations. Chances for a hot start, HYD pressure that can drop for whatever reason, INS issues, a pack that runs hot... just things so that system monitoring and checklists have meaning. Without that, it's hard to enjoy deep system simulation, because there's no reason for it to exist when no parameter can ever go out of line. So yes, please, add system failures, errors, acting up, randomness. I have no problem with paying extra for this. It's just that flying with knowing nothing can ever go wrong is, how should I say, not very fulfilling.

We intentionally link the brightness of the forward galley lights to the cockpit door position to prevent light from bleeding into the cockpit when the cockpit door is closed. Therefore, with the cockpit door closed, the forward galley lighting controls will not have any effect. When the cockpit door is open, the cabin lighting controls will all be fully functional. Mark - Just Flight

yes that's my confusion sorry

@Merikeri I am not so sure many have been upgraded much. Possibly just Australian ones because it's not really economic. Planes like that usually end up in countries not requiring such upgrades, which also makes them more affordable.

I stand corrected

@Swisspilot1986 Every aircraft that has them does.

Not all aircraft have polished leading edges, in fact most don't. Only ones I saw were bizjets for cosmetic purposes. Could be similar reason?

There is also Reverse Hold button binding which effectively flips your axis to 0 -> -100, meaning you pull to idle, hold the button, push physical axis forward, but it increases reverse.

@tyleraviator1999 I'm sorry for the delay! I could swear I answered this already. It must have been a similar question. There is definitely a bundle for the Dukes on the MSFS 2020 marketplace right now, but we still haven't had the bundle for the MSFS 2024 marketplace approved yet, despite already having bundles for other aircraft there already. Unfortunately, this means I don't know for certain how the 2020 bundle purchase will carry over to MSFS 2024. I suspect it works as-is right now, or else I would have heard otherwise after more than a year. Hopefully someone will stop in to confirm this for us. Sorry that's a lot of uncertainty without someone able to confirm directly. We are often just as in the dark regarding how the MSFS marketplace works as you guys, I'm afraid.

Perhaps the smoking gun that this is on Asobo's side is the problem doesn't exist in flatscreen... Asobo made changes to object culling in SU5 and perhaps that affects mipmapping too. This was almost certainly motivated by PSVR2 on PS5 - and thus could explain the difference between flatscreen and VR. The problem with complaining to Asobo is they'll most likely kneejerk blame it on the third party aircraft and I haven't seen it in first-party aircraft so it'll just get deflected back. I have seen this exact behavior in one other aircraft: Taogs Hangar A365. One panel behaves exactly the same as what I see with the A/S indicator in the Baron; it's one or two mipmap levels lower than the rest of the cockpit, in VR only. I'm hoping they'll dig into it and find something that points a finger at something. Note: aircraft are downloaded so it's not a streaming issue, rolling cache reset - just in case, dynamic settings off, foveated rendering off, off-screen terrain caching set to ultra - just in case.

On the plane irl, it is the same

@knollo thanks a lot, works as intended!

Thank you very much

Great idea!

@Lerno1 Oh ok, I misunderstood, I thought you were talking about the FPL equipment list Then, I don't know either. I'm surprised that it was not RVSM approved in US. Bunch of old aircraft of this era are approved (ERJ-145 for exemple).

Thanks, I just couldn’t remember if the INIT page was accessible. Anyway, my subsequent flight in the F100 had no spurious AFCAS messages.

I.. hmm. I was like 99% sure I was in Normal mode, but I did take screenshots... and I was indeed in V2 mode. So chalk this one up to operator error.

Nice workaround, it worked. Thanks so much