The SR22 can barely eke out 170 KTAS. The POH indicates significantly higher performance. The game even says it’s a 150 KT airplane. It’s a 180 KT airplane. Half of the buttons don’t work.
What gives? When will this be fixed? I paid extra for this plane and it doesn’t work 1 year in.
You are correct about the SR22 in MSFS.
So far the obvious highest priority for MSFS is the ability to take screenshots in MSFS.
Now that Xbox is accomplished perhaps this can start to head towards being a flight sim. But at this rate, it may be another couple years before this is a flight sim.
I still cannot believe that Chinese localization is the top item by far on the wish list. Watch, that will be the next excuse for delaying basics like SR22 performance, Live Weather, ATC, etc… I wonder what the next thing will be to stop MSFS from being a flight sim; maybe world hunger or Arbor Day…its always something non-aviation related, and screenshots are always the main priority.
As much as I sympathize with the frustrations, especially at SU5 and such, this IS a flight sim. Matter of fact it’s the best one out there right now I’d argue. Nothing else has given me such an equivalent feeling to my flights in training here. It’s a truly magical piece of software, which is why I suppose I get frustrated like you when they focus on different things.
That being said, I chipped in a vote; The deluxe aircraft in general all kinda need a pick-me up, the Baron and SR22 especially
I always find hese posts unhelpful. Are you talking indicated airspeed? Groundspeed (please, please tell me you’re not talking groundspeed)? True airspeed? Do you have the engine leaned properly? What are the atmospheric conditions? What altitude are you flying at? How is the airplane loaded?
99 times out of 100 the issue is biological and not mechanical.
I clearly said that I can barely do 170 KTAS. That means true airspeed which is well off the book numbers.
Yes, it’s leaned properly. Well under max gross weight which wouldn’t affect the cruise speed that much anyway. The plane performs nothing like the real thing.
Sorry but MSFS is still well behind XPlane in basically every category except appearance, where it is far ahead. For many, that’s the most important thing and I get it. But for myself trying to use it to stay fresh for real life IFR, this sim is basically useless. I have fun with it and for basic VFR stuff it’s great. But all the nav systems are terrible. Editing flight plans often results in it just self deleting and you can’t even do a missed approach on an RNAV.
I’d hardly call VFR stuff basic, it’s the very root of GA. More than that, MSFS excels in basically every VFR aspect possible. The visuals are obviously massive in that, but so are the flight dynamics; Mountain & Mechanical turbulence is not a thing in X-Plane, whereas it’s quite prevalent here, and it should be.
I don’t have strong objections to the IFR stuff being varyingly weak, I’m sure there are failings there. The Working Title mods help, but even I’ve had some hiccups in my brief interactions there.
I just don’t think it’s at all fair to call MSFS ‘less of a sim’ when VFR-wise it blows X-Plane [as well as basically every other sim] out of the park.
What I mean by basic VFR is pilotage navigation. And yeah for that this sim is excellent because it’s literally a satellite image. I play the game and enjoy it, I’m not saying it sucks by any means I’m just pointing out that while it looks VERY good it is extremely flawed where I want it to be good. I understand to most people who never do any sort of IFR they won’t care at all and how pretty the game is is the big draw. I agree the flight models are fantastic and the weather/winds/etc… are great. But that’s just one part of a “sim”
The problem with MSFS is that the navigation systems are not just bad, they are unusable. For genuine IFR flight like with PilotEdge it’s a complete waste of time. When I want to screw around with a friend I would always pick MSFS. But if I’m doing any sort of IFR, Xplane is just flat out the better sim at this point in time and it isn’t even close. The working title mods help, but again, you can’t even do a missed approach! You can’t delete waypoints you don’t need on an approach. When you load an approach, you can’t go direct to a fix without it causing problems. And they have slapped Garmin’s logo all over the place yet their systems perform NOTHING like the real thing.
I’m not in disagreement over the systems I assure you, I sympathize entirely. I suppose I don’t see them as much as an issue purely because I just don’t engage with them that much, admittedly. But they do have problems, and I am at least thankful that Garmin fixes/improvements have remained the #1 feedback item for as long as they have.
Also, I’m loading up the sim now to do a little SR22 testing myself. I’ll probably find the same as you, but if I get better performance somehow I’ll heads up here.
God I wish the SU5 lighting and clouds stuck, the weather’s right but the lighting is way darker than it is here IRL.
Sorry, tangent aside, as you can see I’m booting up the SR22 now
Yes it’s just frustrating because a year in I still can’t delete a waypoint I don’t need in the flight plan if it’s part of an approach. Like, come on.
Try out the SR22 and see. Compare it to the POH page 5-23. It’s a game so just set the weather to standard atmospheric conditions. Go to 6k, 8k, 10k. Go full throttle and see what you get. I’m getting nowhere near the published numbers. The plane should be able to make ~180 KTAS.
See what I mean about the obsession with screen shots – that’s what gives.
As you can see, Full Throttle, 2k [haven’t tested other altitudes yet]
Not the incredibly off 160 KTAS you were showing, but still a good 10 knots below what that POH says
At 4k, I get 166 IAS, which is decently off
Vno is 176 indicated. The other person was cruising at 171. So, like I said.
And how are you getting that? You’re computing TAS?
I have a feeling that the actual flight dynamics etc are out of Asobo’s skill set….they just don’t have the expertise in their ranks to solve these challenges….hence reaching out to the likes of Working Title and Fly by Wire.
However, I must admit I am enjoying the Just Flight PA28 collection……regretfully though, that the wind effects on the take off/landing roll are up the creek…eg…cross wind coming from the left, the aircraft has a very strong tendency to veer to the left, and become uncontrollable….this happens in all aircraft irrespective add ons or default. I have recorded this problem with Zendesk a number of times, from when I was a Alpha/beta tester….the problem still exists. I am a PPL pilot.
I never found it an issue before, it was well within reason, but something about SU5 amplified it by quite a bit. I agree the crosswind component to the left is, a bit jarring and sudden at the moment.
The G1000 has an OAT probe which allows it to instantly calculate wind and TAS, which it shows below the airspeed indicator. You can see in the example above by HeinousHarold that he was doing 171 KIAS and 176 KTAS. At 11 deg C, 29.92 and 2k indicated, that’s basically exactly 2k density altitude. The book says 186 KTAS which is 10 KTAS faster than he is getting.
Vno has nothing to do with this issue.
That’s almost 178 KTAS. Book says 186 for 98% power at 2,000 feet in standard conditions (which you have). So it’s 4% off book. I would say that’s at the very least as close as you would get in the actual airplane. Remember that book numbers are in brand new airplanes with a test pilot.
I really don’t see any issue here. If the OP is only getting 160 I would say the plane isn’t the issue.
