Is this not mentioned in the training within the game? I remember being told yonks ago that the most important thing was to use the throttle to control rate of descent. I remember wondering how that could be applied to gliders though.
Game Discussions Microsoft Flight Simulator
- Thread starter Jenner
- Start date
Is this not mentioned in the training within the game? I remember being told yonks ago that the most important thing was to use the throttle to control rate of descent. I remember wondering how that could be applied to gliders though.
I remember being told yonks ago that the most important thing was to use the throttle to control rate of descent. I remember wondering how that could be applied to gliders though.
With a healthy fiber-rich diet?
@Faded Glory - DR400 speed management on landing at my local airport. To be completely honest, landing was pretty much crap by any competent standard, VASI on full red, dropped on wheels and not even the ATC guy sounded exactly enthusiastic about my landing (even though I've yet to understand whatever he said. I'll have to hear it on proper headphones I'm afraid 
). But hey, a landing is a landing. Also, look how beautiful my city looks at night!
Source: https://youtu.be/is7WcTHIzPo
). But hey, a landing is a landing. Also, look how beautiful my city looks at night! ![[VR] optimal_909](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/109/109067.jpg?1553781733){kind=avatar}
So, I've got the Airbus stick and today, I'm about to return the T.Flight.
All the opinions posted here about it were absolutely spot-on, the Airbus stick is so much more accurate to fine adjustments that even controlling by left hand, I can land much smoother than before. The T.Flight was jittery, it was visible on the yoke.
As for flying without throttle, the pros already outweigh the cons. While it is not that easy to adjust throttle while landing (especially with standard keybinds of F1-F3), having left hand controlling the stick with right hand free to operate anything including looking around is a huge plus - not to mention that right hand stick took place of the mouse, so it was awkward to use the mouse (and I'm using it a lot in-flight). Also, I prefer that it occupies far less real estate on my desk and I don't have to relocate my peripherals just because I booted up MSFS.
One more commentary: having one analogue throttle is nice, but when flying the Beechcraft Baron G58 (at the moment my favorite aircraft for looks, and balance of performance) that has prop rpm and mixture adjustments as well, it is far from enough. I think I will simply map the six button from 'insert' to 'pg dn' to operate all three.
All the opinions posted here about it were absolutely spot-on, the Airbus stick is so much more accurate to fine adjustments that even controlling by left hand, I can land much smoother than before. The T.Flight was jittery, it was visible on the yoke.
As for flying without throttle, the pros already outweigh the cons. While it is not that easy to adjust throttle while landing (especially with standard keybinds of F1-F3), having left hand controlling the stick with right hand free to operate anything including looking around is a huge plus - not to mention that right hand stick took place of the mouse, so it was awkward to use the mouse (and I'm using it a lot in-flight). Also, I prefer that it occupies far less real estate on my desk and I don't have to relocate my peripherals just because I booted up MSFS.
One more commentary: having one analogue throttle is nice, but when flying the Beechcraft Baron G58 (at the moment my favorite aircraft for looks, and balance of performance) that has prop rpm and mixture adjustments as well, it is far from enough. I think I will simply map the six button from 'insert' to 'pg dn' to operate all three.
Last edited:
Yes Orkney is quite poor.
Scotland in general could use a large improvement.
It really is a pretty game...
Depends where you are in the world. Some places are downright ugly. Sadly these "some places" often are the places I'm most interested in. This is Bing's fault, not Asobo, and I hope Bing someday gets its act together and gives us aerial imagery on par with Google Earth and Apple Maps.It really is a pretty game...
It really is a pretty game...
It sure is, if you can see something that is.
Even when you can't, it's still mostly beautiful, even if you can only see the cockpit. Some cockpits are just drop dead gorgeous at night, the TBM930 and the King Air are my current favorite cockpits. Sadly I really don't like the sound of the King Air's engines, it's the Asp Explorer of MSFS2020
I've been having tons of fun flying into stormy / foggy / cloudy / rainy places, the weather visuals are just absolutely fantastic! After 24 years of almost daily motorcycle riding (right until the pandemic brought the end of daily commutes - good riddance!), I've never imagined I would someday say that I'm loving the bad weather!
It would be nice if the world map would have some kind of airport iconography to let us know before hand of things like airports with no illumination, airports with no ATC, availability of ILS, etc. I would also like if the world map wasn't so blurred when we zoom in, it would save me a lot of alt-tabbing to google maps to get a sense of locations.
Last edited:
I've kind of stopped using the world map for anything other than basic route plotting and have been using Skyvector to get ILS frequencies. It's pretty good and has lots of information including approach vectors with VOR / altitude info, and while I haven't been programming those in as of yet, I've been manually routing myself in using that info (headings and altitude), and have been having much better landings as a result.
I also re-flew a few sections of the USA bush trip, and that also was much more precise when you can get airport altitudes and altitudes of the world around. It's a free tool, and well worth a look.
The glass cockpit is the night vision of MSFS...
@askavir - on the subject of airport iconography, after wondering myself a few days ago how to find VOR frequencies without going external, I discovered there are indeed filters on the map to show nav aids, it will add icons for the various VOR/ILS transmitters near airports and relative frequencies.
True, and it will add it to the flight plan. But once loaded into the game the freqs are removed from the flight log... :/
Yep, if you turn on the navigation aids in the map, then some ILS frequencies are shown... Not all though, it's a bit hit and miss. For example, San Francisco's 28 runways do not have ILS frequency markers. I assumed, incorrectly that perhaps that was real world, but looking at Skyvector showed me that there is indeed an ILS approach, and it works just fine in the game / sim.
I have no issue using third party stuff - nor did I in ED - and there is another site that will let you plan out your flights and it will (I believe) input them into your chosen planes computer in the game. It's called Simbrief, and Squirrel has a video demonstrating how to use it in MSFS. I haven't used it myself as yet, as I'm currently more into flying than programming the planes to fly themselves. However, that could change in time.
Over the last few days I have been extensively testing the DA40, DA62 and Bonanza G36. One of them would be my 'around the world' plane. The DA62 appealed the most: fast, great range, stunning sleek design, high ceiling, fully de-ice gear. Perfect!
But after lots of testflights I settled on a DA40. It's objectively worse than the other two but the canopy offers such awesome views and that is half the fun. No de-iceing at all, will figure that bit out as I go. Doesn't have the fancy weather system either, just nexrad as far as I can tell. Have to admit the 62 feels 'unfinished', both in handling and instrument modeling. :/
Anyway, I buy a used DA40 in France and a little later I receive a message from a 64-year old Frenchman. He explains the past history of this plan, the trips he made in it five years ago and wishes me lots of fun with.
Was a pretty cool gesture.
But after lots of testflights I settled on a DA40. It's objectively worse than the other two but the canopy offers such awesome views and that is half the fun.
No de-iceing at all, will figure that bit out as I go. Doesn't have the fancy weather system either, just nexrad as far as I can tell. Have to admit the 62 feels 'unfinished', both in handling and instrument modeling. :/Anyway, I buy a used DA40 in France and a little later I receive a message from a 64-year old Frenchman. He explains the past history of this plan, the trips he made in it five years ago and wishes me lots of fun with.
Was a pretty cool gesture.
The Bonanza G36 is one of the few planes I don't really like much. I don't even really know why, or have any objective reason for disliking it, on paper it seems to be objectively the best single engine prop plane available, but for some reason I just don't enjoy flying it, there's something that just doesn't "click".
Last edited:
I think that's one of the fun things about MSFS where the different planes seem to have such different affects on people.
For me, quite a bit is how comfortable I feel in actually controlling and navigating the plane, and I will say that the lack of even quite basic guidelines in operations of quite a few of the planes (unless I'm missing them) is a shame for something that purports to be a simulator rather than just a game. I think unless you have either real flying experience or experience with other sims that did have more info then while you can certainly still fly them, I'm not sure how much one is learning how to do it properly. I remember a much earlier version of MSFS that seemed to have a really good 'flight school' for every plane in the sim with good explanations of how particular planes took off, handled and landed, from Cessnas to 747's.
Hopefully these will be expanded as time goes on, quite a few of the checklists are still lacking anything more than how to start the engines, and at least one of those doesn't seem to be complete.
As for the Bonanza G36, I've tried it a couple of times, and it seemed Ok, but they were very short flights. I will no doubt dip into it again at some point, but TBH I'm still spending most of my time in the 172 as I find it both easy to navigate, and I'm really improving my landing technique, which is a current goal.