Milviz C310R Official Thread

I’m sure you meant Alpha for the yoke Bravo for Trim. I don’t think we are trying to blame anyone we are just reporting what we are seeing.

I think aurel42de has hit upon something … maybe your developers could raise the issue with Asobo’s developers.

1 Like

The interesting thing is normally, even with a linear flat curve, default MSFS seems to soften the pitch axis near the centre. Yet what is being reported here is an acceleration.

EDIT: roll not pitch

1 Like

I think you meant “roll axis”, I’ve never noticed any non-linear behavior along the pitch axis of any aircraft I’ve flown?

If so, yes, one “effect” is “softening” the roll axis near the center which affects many (not all) aircraft, 3rd-party as well as Asobo’s own. The behavior changes in some (not many) aircraft when entering/leaving VR.

A second, somehow independent effect is the “reduced range” of the roll axis (less than 100% deflection needed to move the yoke/stick animation to full deflection, in spite of 100% of deflection needed to move the aileron animations through their full range, as if the yoke wasn’t connected to the ailerons using cables or pulleys).

The MV310 shows both effects, the first one only on a flat display, the second one only in VR.

Sorry my bad I did mean roll axis.

The other oddity as you say is in many aircraft the yoke animation and elevator animation are not in sync. Whether the elevator animation matches the FM elevator deflection would be interesting to know.

The thinking that Asobo actually listens to anything we (or any 3PD’s) say is… ironic. They do not. Ever. Listen. To. Us.

In fact, what they commonly say to us finding a serious bug is… put it in the vote queue and, if it gets upvoted, maybe we will fix it.

No joke.


Yeah, I know zip about the hardware aspect. Also, I’m not a dev of a modeler or a painter, sound person, manual writer, social media person, marketing person etc. I am, quite literally, just some guy….

So please, assume I know not of what I speak and we’ll all get along way better c


Thanks man, I will test tomorrow. I do have the Twotter!

1 Like

Pretty normal in a large company.

I work for a software company and the nature of most of our devs is they get an idea about what they want to do and what is important and what they think might be fun and funky and then totally ignore the clients and customers, marketing people, anyone else and carry on with their original plan even if the project is about to sink. The only people they actually listen to are the big bosses who often have even less idea what is important in the big picture then the devs themselves. It is also impossible to get our devs to write any documentation or manuals, they would much rather be programming some new funky (though often useless) feature than “waste” time on user documentation.

Fortunately not all developers are like that.

I just moved to PC from xbox this week and this is my first PC only plane purchase and it’s the best GA aircraft I’ve flown in the sim. It’s funny because my first few flights the airspeed indicator wasn’t working and I spent forever trying to figure out why (answer: pilot cover!). I like the GTN750 as well (new to me as doesn’t exist on xbox) although it looks like it might be worth paying for premium. I saw there is another version from TDS (GTNXi) and will have to research that in more depth since no free version to try. Anyway, just a fabulous plane. Looking forward to my first in-flight failure…


To get full advantage of the Premium gtn750 you will also need a Navigraph annual sub. Which is worth having, but just be aware you will need it to get full functionality.

No idea about the tdn other than it apparently uses the Garmin Trainer software.

1 Like

That’s sobering.

I got to give it to Microsoft and Asobo: if your only information sources are Dev Q&A’s and interviews, you get a totally different picture. As a user, you hear them talk about the close relationships they have with Aerosoft or Working Title, and you extrapolate that they must also talk to what you consider the “important” 3rd parties (MilViz, PMDG, SWS, A2A…) on a regular basis.

After hearing you and Randazzo, I’m starting to think that Asobo only talks to Aerosoft because their boss at Microsoft has some personal history with Kok and/or Hartmann, and because they know that Aerosoft’s aspirations for their products are manageable (as in: looks nice in screenshots; doesn’t CTD; flight model and systems close enough™ for the kind of user who is impressed by the fact that the product comes with a 100+ page manual, but doesn’t actually intend to read it).

I have to admit, when I put my IT guy hat on, I feel for the guys at Asobo. Given the history of MFS, the codebase must be quite a mess. But that doesn’t excuse the lack of a fast track for addressing bugs of a more technical nature. It must be obvious to them that only very “broad” bugs (“fix turboprops”, “fix the weather”) and showstoppers can get any traction in the voting system, while bugs like “the (relatively few) owners of expensive flight controls are bothered by buggy yoke animations” or “the electrical system isn’t correctly simulating battery charging” will never ever make it on a “top XX” list.

I appreciate that devs like MilViz take it upon them to work around the bugs and limitations to create products that shine and make MFS feel more like a sim.


@Krazycolin any news on the update?

Relax guys! it will come, let them take their time to release something well polished. :wink:


Regarding dampening your trim button response, have you checked out Lorby’s Axis and Oh’s?
Here is a vid that shows how to adjust exactly what you were referring to. It made a bid difference for me with several aircraft. Aerosoft HowTo : Damping the trim button in MSFS using Axis and Ohs - YouTube

Right you are: we don’t want the update to the C310 to be another SU5 or SU9, do we? :wink:

1 Like

Merely asking out of curiosity. Not intending to create any sort of pressure. :+1:

1 Like

I appreciate the help but honestly I’m not going to install a 3rd party app to lower the trim button range only unusable with the 310.

I’m hand flying the Kodiak, C152, C172, RV14 and others just fine with the trim setup I have. They all take different amounts to get reasonable straight, level flight without AP and the trim buttons I have. The 310 is almost as bad as the Twin Beech in this regard, it just won’t stay level no matter what.

This may be correct behavior and I’m out of luck, or MilViz adjust some things so “-2.7° is too much, -2.8 is too little, oh and button changes are ±0.3°” is not a thing. In my opinion, it shouldn’t be.

I have a lot of planes and besides the unflyable Twin Beech, every other plane is less terrible with elevator trim.

Oh and I remember reading a comment by someone else somewhere that the 310 is one of the planes he’s happy when he can enable the AP so I assume that person also wasn’t happy with hand flying the plane. I should have listened I guess.


Ohhh i know!! same here buddy! Looking foward for the update as well.
didn´t mean at all to be an ■■■■■■■ :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

Is there any chance you could add functionality to show VNAV glideslope indications on the HSI when using the PMS GTN750 for RNAV approaches?

We are not adding further functionality to the HSI, afaik,

As far as trim is concerned, have you been to the support forums and brought this up?

Does anyone else have this issue?