lzamm

Apologies if I wasn't clear. That suggestion was made by @SierraHotel. Just to clarify, not to continue the topic.

Interesting how challenges to deeply-held and unsubstantiated beliefs descend into attempts to discredit the proposer rather than critique the idea itself. Of course, there's not much else that holders of such beliefs can do, other than reiterate their blind faith in them. The suggestion has been made that the scientific community should drop its widely-supported hypothesis that consciousness is a physical process. This goes against the entire thrust of the scientific movement, which has explained practically everything else that was thought to lie in the realm of the gods as a natural process. That's basically what science does, and has done in spite of those who believed, and stood by their beliefs, in Thor's hammer creating thunder, a geocentric universe, non-evolution and the like. It's what the tools it has have been designed to do. I'm not saying that consciousness IS a physical process, just that it is the business of science to investigate how it can be explained as a physical process. Saying that "science [must acknowledge] that conciousness is seperate from mind" isn't any help, except for hand-waving apologists. For if it isn't a physical process, what is it? Contrary to popular imagination, scientists don't just go "looking for" something, they must have an idea - a working hypothesis, even if it's wrong - to look for. Perhaps one day those who know everything will come up with a concrete suggestion that can be investigated. Until then, scientists can only plod on along the only, and provably successful, path they know how to tread.

Seems to be the equivalent of X-Plane's Scenery Gateway.

VOR tracking has been missing from most airliners with a capable FMS since the 1980's - including the Boeing 757/767 and later products. The 737 has it only because Boeing wants the FAA to believe it's still the same plane it launched in 1968. There has also been a run-down of worldwide VOR stations, presumably to save costs in the presence of more modern navigation systems - with hindsight, a rather doubtful decision given the current rash of GPS spoofing events.

Although I had dabbled in flight simulation before, FS9 was the first one I spent any serious time upon. I just loved the Dreamfleet 727 and criss-crossed the world with it, enjoying every second on the ground and in the air. I held on to FS9 for an unconscionable time even after FSX came out, mostly because of that model (the fact that my PC wasn't very good helped), but eventually made the jump, and then to X-plane and latterly MSFS. I still have FS9 installed on my old machine and occasionally give it (and the 727) a spin, but I find the lack of a proper virtual cockpit and the clunky controls off-putting and quickly return to the modern world. So yes, I miss FS9 - like I miss most of my beloved childhood memories, that are better off for remaining memories and not being revisited.

The video is more about moving to haptic (motion feed back) sidesticks rather than yokes, which makes a lot of sense.

From its description:

Sorry, double post.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. I'm not too sure of the direction MS is taking with the level of detail it is putting in default aircraft. In the past that has been the realm of third-party add-ons, and in my opinion it should stay that way. Not that I'm complaining, mind you :).

I wonder how much Microsoft put up for its side of of the contract. To me, it sounds very much like take the money now and worry about the penalties later. But best of luck to them. It may not be impossible, but it certainly isn't easy.

I don't fly GA on MSFS much (and when I do, rarely above 3000ft) but if it's anything like FSX, and I suspect it is, leaning to the correct mixture actually increases the power (RPM on fixed prop, MP on constant speed). So just (incorrectly) lean for max power.

For the record, the latest on this is that installing the SU12 update has fixed the issue. Thanks to those who contributed suggestions.

It's called terminal velocity. After falling a certain distance (dependent on the weight and drag coefficient), drag equals weight and a falling object stops accelerating. Beyond that point it doesn't matter how long the fall is as the speed remains the same. Cats know this.

So after 2 years of faultless operation my trust in the MSFS store version has been betrayed by a requester coming up after the "signing in" and "checking for updates" phases, saying "Something went wrong launching your game - Error code: (0x80004005)" and the program exiting. Interestingly in the xbox app the program shows up with a frown-face icon instead of the play button. Did all the stuff I read about, such as updating xbox/store, logging out an in again, repairing the app and dism/sfc. Still the same. However the program runs fine if run as an administrator, I didn't even lose my settings. So it's clearly a permissions issue and all the files are still there and intact. However I'm not keen on running as admin, particularly if an update has to be installed (what permissions will the new files have?) Anyone seen this before and/or have any suggestions? If not I'm probably up for a reinstall before SU12 drops (I'm not on the beta).

This won't be much help if the Microsoft servers are the bottleneck. Microsoft has millions of customers and I'd be surprised if those who pay for a service don't get priority over us freeloaders. I get very patchy results here (southern Europe). Places I visit for the first time are sometimes fine on the first run and sometimes take several minutes to load through. The cache definitely works, though. Eventually even London ends up looking pretty good.