How are you checking this? If it is, you should see this line in the file “flight_model.cfg”:
CFD_EnableSimulation=1
Hm. strange. Perhaps it only uses it partially? The product description says:
"The flight model uses the most up-to-date features available in MSFS, such as CFD propeller and stall physics and improved ground handling.
Anyway, this is the FSR500 thread. Perhaps we should move that discussion or possibly question for the developer in the proper thread. 
When they say CFD propeller they might mean “prop_mod_use_modern”? That isn’t CFD though.
In the meantime, I have arrived in Corfu (Greece) on my way to the Seychelles. Holy, it’s still a long way to go, but every part of the journey is a lot of fun with the wonderful FSR500. 
6 Likes
Working Title are adding some additional features to the G100NXi for the next Sim Update.
The current state of the G1000NXi is actually pretty solid and dare I say, overall better than anything you’ll find in any other desktop simulation that I’m aware of. I’m aware that the Hot Start TBM900 has HITS (which was always buggy for me) but all in all I’d say WT has got it in a pretty decent plane.
I used to detest the G1000, mainly because the default FSX/P3D one was just so awful. It’s really a pleasure to use in conjunction with the FSR500 though. The current NXi might not do all of the things, but it does way more than enough that I don’t miss anything when I fly FSR500, or any other plane with it for that matter. I’m really looking forward to the expanded hardware support coming.
8 Likes
Overall I’m impressed with the G1000. My big issues:
I have found it hit-or-miss when editing flight plans (on occasion have been unable to delete waypoints)
No vnav offsets
No real weight/balance/calculator pages (which I believe are pretty extensive in the real G1000).
Some of the issues have nothing to do with the implementation. The G1000 just doesn’t translate well to mouse clicks, etc. Touchscreens like the GTN 750 or much easier to work with.
External control fixes that issue but if in VR then yes it’s one of the big downsides.
True but I get enough flak from my wife for the yoke, throttle and pedals. I don’t think our marriage could survive the torment if I went and got a controller for the G1000 ;-D
Just say you can watch the news on it whilst you fly to keep up to date with world going’s on? Worth a try!
Definitely don’t get one if you have to watch news on it. 
Waste of a good screen.
2 Likes
What one SAYS and what one DOES need not align
This is the pre-purchase spiel angle mate!
1 Like
This man understands how marriage works 
2 Likes
Haha I don’t think so. I’m single, but thanks … I think?! 
Some tips on making the G1000 easier to work with in this thread
Given your need for a ‘stealth’ solution maybe just a discrete LoupeDeck with its dual rotary encoders. Or really discrete, just a ‘knobster’.
More of a general question but pertains to FSR500.
Which lights should be on at engine start as the FSR (and the TBM) do not have a rotating beacon? Thanks
Nav, and possibly Taxi I would guess. It should be in the POH, in a section for pre-engine start I think.
According to that document, lights are checked as part of pre-flight, then all turned off again, and section 4.5e is where you start to turn lights on.
Wrong POH… that is not the right aircraft, please stick to FSR500 full user manual, we have there all you need, do not use manual you find on the internet… there are many different versions out there, the one above for example is using deprecated avionics, CBs, layouts, etc.
@madbraindoc all the procedures explained to me by a pilot on type, they put nav lights and if the tarmac is busy they fire the strobes to alert people nearby.
Best,
Raul
5 Likes
Ah, good to know, thanks. But presumably there is an “Internet” POH that does match the plane you are simulating?
I am simulating a FSR500, any similarity with any real airplane is pure mere coincidence
R.
13 Likes
Aha, I understand, and you aren’t marketing this as an M500. Which leaves us in a tricky position.
Just for sake of argument, if there is some performance aspect that someone wants to dispute. Let’s say we believe the “FSR500” is not climbing as it should, or maybe not performing at a certain altitude as expected. You would go to the POH, and see what it says. But if we can only use your “FSR500” manual, then it will likely mirror what the simulated plane is doing.
So that makes it difficult for someone to argue their case doesn’t it?