I would recommend looking at the full change log to see what you’ll be missing out on by not installing v2: 146 Professional (MSFS) Changelog : The Spirit of Flight Simulation
Even if you don’t use the UNS, coffee maker etc, there are numerous other bug fixes and improvements included to most areas of the aircraft so I can’t see a downside to updating.
Martyn - Just Flight
Thank you for posting the links and spreadsheet, I sure do appreciate it. Good stuff!
Thanks, I’ll do that. I want to be on the safe side because this is my favourite airliner (at least before RJ will be released). But perhaps I am too nervous…
I bought the 146 on the marketplace yesterday. Did I get the most current version, or should I keep checking for updates?
Also (and I hate to ask…) is the MP version the same as the one purchased directly? I’m pretty much done buying MP planes that have been detuned to accomodate Xbox hardware limitations.
wait a minute. is this really a thing? i know mp releases remove weapons and the like but are there really different copies of planes for mp and pc? this doesn’t sound right to me
It’s not that there are different copies. That would be a good thing - one I’ve been asking for for quite some time. It’s financially unteneble though, since the devs would have to spend twice as much to gain less than twice the revenue. So compromises are being made.
It seems more and more clear that (some) developers are releasing aircraft on the marketplace designed to accomodate the more limited hardware resources of the Xbox. This by definition limits certain aspects of the model for users with more powerful PC’s.
Hence my question for Martyn.
Can you provide some details behind this affirmation ? Which products and which aircraft? I’m curious of the answer from Just Flight here, but you’re also spreading information that would create suspicion over all
developers and the marketplace in general. Hence would be good to be factual…
Thanks
It’s simple deductive logic. If my system can run a plane with elevated graphics options @ 90 FPS/ 12ms, and an Xbox can run the same plane @ 50 FPS/ 20ms, then it stands to reason that a plane my system runs at 40 FPS/ 25ms would be unplayable on an Xbox.
Why do you think the Fenix Airbus series isn’t available on the marketplace? Because it is unplayable on an Xbox. If it’s ever ported there as the only version available, I guarantee you it would not be the same resource-intensive model it is now.
If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. The thing is, no marketplace developer wants to talk about it. They need to make their models enjoyable on an Xbox, since that’s the biggest market share. How can they do that without reducing texture quality and systems complexity? The answer is… they can’t.
But if you want an example, MilTech has used WASM extensively in the Osprey V-22. Why? To make it more accesible to Xbox users. The problem is that WASM and Lvars don’t play nice for PC users like myself who use SPAD or Axes&Ohs. That limits my ability to enjoy the plane, in order to allow Xbox users to enjoy it.
I never got an answer to this:
The ONLY answer is to have two versions available for purchase. But like I said, that’s not going to happen, for very sound financial reasons.
This is not the same as cold hard facts. It’s speculation.
And this is really not the place for this conversation, since this is a thread for the 146.
I’m somewhat surprised you’re still fixed on going down this path. We had a lengthy discussion about this some time back on your thread that touched on the idea that the Xbox was holding back the development of the PC.
The developers can specifically submit aircraft for PC and for Xbox to the Marketplace.
During the whole Twin Otter trim wheel animation kerfuffle, I posted a quote from Raul at FSReborn where he, specifically, debunked the entire idea that the Xbox is responsible for PC aircraft limitations.
Devs are going out of their way to offer “lite” liveries and/or the ability to toggle off cabins, such as with the 146, to allow add-ons to work more efficiently on lower end PCs and Xboxes. IniBuilds has settings in their PC-only versions of their airports to reduce animations and fidelity for lower end PCs. This isn’t just an Xbox issue.
I’m bummed this fire is being flamed.
You haven’t answered my question (Fenix is running through a 3rd app that is not available on Xbox) and actually shared a plane available on both platforms. I’ll stop here as it is going off topic.
Just looking for Just Flight answer whether there would be a difference between products published on marketplace and through their website. And eagerly waiting for its release on MS marketplace as I’ve been enjoying really much this plane in the past 2 weeks 
Sorry, I shouldn’t have continued that somewhat off-topic discussion.
I thought it relevant only because of my personal speculation about the 146 v2 changes vis-a-vis my spending $55 on it yesterday.
And I did qualify my ‘speculation’ by saying “some developers.”
Anyway, I’ve ruffled enough feathers and I won’t mention it again here.
@NORTMAR can you please have a read of the thread on ATC that I have tagged you in. It pertains to weird ATC behaviour that only I and another user are noticing and coincidentally we are both flying V2 of the 146.
The ATC is giving us bogus 0ft designations on takeoff and bogus constraint targets on approaches (not always). One of the mods on here has pointed out that this sounds like a simbrief/navigraph / internal navigation db mismatch. But in Navigraph hub (I have a sub) I have the 146 nav db listed as up to date. BUT would this per chance only be applicable to the older FMC and not the UNS1? If so will Navigraph be supporting an update to their HUB to update the UNS1 nav db too? Just trying to figure out what is going on here as it’s leading to a mess in the ATC alt designations.
I’m using SU15 beta but that might just be a red herring.
Apologies for going off-topic here, but just want to quickly address this as everything stated here is highly inaccurate:
WASM has no sort of benefit for Xbox users above PC users. WASM is extensively used in the V22 for the VTOL FLIGHT MODEL CHARACTERISTICS. Other aircraft will use WASM for custom autopilot systems, systems that go beyond the MSFS Limitations (Such as radars, TCAS, sling loading, etc.). WASM can also be used for code protection and DRM reasons (which also applies to our products)
WASM therefore provides no special benefit for Xbox above PC, or vice-versa. It allows us to go beyond the limitations through custom code running via simconnect, and will be present on both PC and Xbox versions.
WASM can read and write LVARs, no problem with that. The Osprey uses an “unclear LVAR nomenclature” for which we have provided a list, and PC Users using SPAD have been able to configure their hardware using our guide. Similarly, other WASM-enabled aircraft will have LVARs that interact just fine with SPAD or similar software.
Every developer out there will have separate versions for Xbox and PC. The main difference will be limited to polycount and texture size - this is what affects memory the most. Systems and code has a very small impact on memory and therefore is generally not a problem on Xbox. I’m speaking for myself as a dev, but probably applies to others: it is incredibly difficult to maintain different versions of code for PC vs Xbox, and hence we will always avoid having platform-specific versions.
We do not have any data to back this up, but I’m almost certain Xbox is NOT the biggest marketshare, though it is very significant in size.
Ok Folks, input appreciated.
Now we can get back, and please stay, to the topic at hand.
All holdings needs to be programmed and armed. The modern FMCs of other aircraft may be a little clever and add in some computed waypoints to initiate for example, a “teardrop” entry, but to actually stay in the holding, they would need the same commands from the pilots to do so. So, this is correct behavior.
As for the autopilot’s handling of 90 degree turns, this add-on has always struggled not to overshoot these. I’m not sure if this is true to form of the real aircraft, since the approaches involving these types of turns would have been a lot less common in this aircraft’s day. One would imagine that the RJ had no problem at all with its updated avionics.
In any case, my suggestion is to intervene with Heading mode just to begin the turn, and then you can switch it back to LNAV as the HSI localizer lines up. As for an example of an approach that LNAV doesn’t handle well, either of the “MOKEG” transitions at Klagenfurt are impossible to complete accurately without intervening with heading mode.
This is the rule of thumb I go by for any 90 degree turn I do in this aircraft:
The above hasn’t been taken from any sort of guide and is just from my experiences of this aircraft using trial and error. Obviously one would have to compensate for heavy head/tail winds. But I hope it’s of some assistance.
Hey JF and Martyn congratulations for the wonderful V2 update, you guys always deliver.
I think I find a bug with the weather radar though. After selecting Map button, the other mode buttons doesn’t change the display, still showing the map, which updates during the flight, but no wx radar is displayed.
Íf you got the CPU power to run the external Fenix app and “study level” calculations… On lower end PC-s Fenix is unflyable processor maxed out disconnects from external app etc. Still BAe 146 V2 performs really well just like PMDG B737 on the same machine.
I have a quick question regarding altitude:
I am planning with Simbrief - then download via Simbrief DL and then load the flightplan into the plane and the UNS1. Now, after the update MSFS ATC wants me to either fly at 0 or very low (i.e. 2000 ft) level. Or they clear me to 9000 ft then order me down to 3000 ft. But in my OFP I have 28’000 FT…
Any idea what went wrong?
Are they saying 2,000 or FL200?
2000 unfortunately - not FL200 - that would be fine
