Career mode missions appear to be impossible without relying entirely on the augmented reality aids. Avionics/EFB do not show where you need to do the activity, and details you need are not communicated (like altitude for sky diving). There’s just a lot of stuff missing. The flight plans loaded for things like sight seeing are entirely useless and do not reflect the actual path you have to fly either. I think there is definitely something wrong with the flight plans being loaded for missions. And there absolutely needs to be some sort of tab in the EFB for your mission.
2 Likes
If you do use the augmented reality systems and follow their expected flight plan, you will get 0% on the timing part of the mission. So they don’t even expect you to follow the flight path that is in their system.
Not having something basic like what altitude to reach without visual assistance is a massive oversight. The fact that I need the objective window constantly open to have a chance of completing these missions correctly/at all is a massive blight.
Information like that needs to AT LEAST be in the EFB.
1 Like
I was expecting something vaguely similar to Onair… managing fuel/weight, realistic economy, custom flight plans etc. It just feels like you’re trudging from A to B on rails.
1 Like
UP please Microsoft, add a proper flight plan into the Avionics.
Loading the EFB plan into avionics does not even work.
And add the altitudes…
that’s a good point too. All that stuff is automatically done for you, kind of detracts from what I want for a career mode. Half of it really just feels like free flight
Yeah agreed. I’ve noticed this.
The blue path gates don’t match the route in the NAV system.
I find it’s easier to fly direct to the waypoint marker to save time rather than flying the patterns and the approaches.
This is especially hard for sky diving missions.
I’ve also noticed that the blue gates for approaches are a mess and are all over the place. Super difficult to follow.
My suggestion would be to make the “next gate” a different colour, or gradient them so it’s clear which ones are next.
Yes, that’s how it worked in FSX. I had hoped most of the interaction type modes would at least be as close to FSX to start. I miss the voice actors, it was compelling.
1 Like
For some missions it works if you follow avionics and flight plan but the flightseeing missions are broken. Before you load the mission it shows 3 GPS coordinates that you will have to circle around , but after missions starts the change in the EFB into same one 3 times and avionics GPS is messed up as well. For those missions there is no choice than to follow the blue gates sadly.
1 Like
Thank you for the bug report.
We have created an internal ticket to see if our team already has this logged, and if not they will attempt to reproduce the issue and create a new bug report. This item is now marked as feedback-logged. If there is an existing bug report or one is created, we will move this thread to bug-logged
Yes, I was going to report this as well. Missions like Ferry Flight are especially bad. You spend time looking at the briefing, looking at the EFB, verifying the avionics have a good GPS line for you and all that, maybe even click “send flight plan to avionics”, then load the mission…It’s a total waste of time and thought.
The augmented reality brackets have nothing to do with what’s programmed in the G1000 and it’s not even close. Practically every mission, I’m many nautical miles away from the purple leg line but I’m dead center in the AR brackets. It’s ridiculous. Why is there zero agreement between the brackets and the avionics? It really doesn’t make any sense and feels like a major oversight. What are those brackets based on, if not the route in the avionics???
The worst part is, if you follow your GPS course instead of the brackets, the mission objectives won’t update and you can’t complete the mission.