Hi, Stephen! You can update LOWI to the latest version today or tomorrow. Files sent to xplane.org. We have a tons of new features and fixes. I will wait for your review on a new version. Your opinion is very helpful for us. Thanks

News! - Released! : CT182T Skylane G1000 by Carenado   Carenado have released the X-Plane11 version of the CT182T Skylane G1000. It is really hard not to be confused with their earlier Cessna release of the C172 Skyhawk G1000 in March 2019. Visually and with the same G1000 avionics install they could be noted as very much the same aircraft.   The Skylane is a four-seat light aircraft with fixed landing gear, powered by a fuel-injected 230 hp (172 kW) Lycoming IO-540-AB1A5 piston engine, gross weight of 3,100 lb (1,406 kg) for take-off and 2,950 lb (1,338 kg) for landing. It was certified on 23 February 2001 and, as of July 2015, it is the only C182 variant now in production. The earlier Skyhawk has only a Lycoming O-320-D2J (160 hp (119 kW) engine and a top speed of 125 kn (143 mph, 231 km/h), so this newer Skylane however will propel you at 150 kn (170 mph, 280 km/h)... so what you are buying here over the Skyhawk is speed, and lots of it.     Special Features of this totally upgraded XP11 version include NEW Full interior and exterior PBR (Redone completely), NEW 3D interior and exterior with MANY details, NEW customized FMOD sounds and the Laminar Research Customized X-Plane default G1000.     Other Features Include: Full VR compatible Specially designed engine dynamics for XP11. Flight physics optimized for XP11 standards. Physically Based Rendering materials and textures throughout. PBR materials authored with industry-standard software used by the film and gaming industries. Realistic behavior compared to the real airplane. Realistic weight and balance. Tested by several pilots for maximum accuracy.     Recommended System Requirements Windows XP – Vista – 7 -10 or MAC OS 10.10 (or higher) or Linux X-Plane 11 CPU: Intel Core i5 6600K at 3.5 ghz or faster. Memory: 16-24 GB RAM or more. Video Card: a DirectX 12-capable video card from NVIDIA, AMD or Intel with at least 4 GB VRAM (GeForce GTX 1070 or better or similar from AMD) 310MB available hard disk space   Included in the package 5 HD liveries. 1 HD blank texture. CT182T G1000 Normal Procedures PDF. CT182T G1000 Emergency Procedures PDF. CT182T G1000 Performance tables PDF. CT182T G1000 Reference PDF. KAP140 Autopilot PDF. Recommended Settings XPLANE 11 PDF.     If you have read the X-PlaneReviews review of the Cessna 172SP SkyHawk XP11 by Carenado Then you would know I absolutely loved this little aircraft, it was a gem, so I am very curious on how this more powerful C182T Skylane will compare...   ________________________________________   Priced at US$34.95 the CT182T Skylane G1000 is now available from Carenado     Now Available here from Carenado   Images and details are courtesy of Carenado ________________________________________   News by Stephen Dutton 13th October 2019 Copyright©2019: X-Plane Reviews    

Thanks for update !   Maybe then X plane should somehow make 3rd party developers continuously aware of this, perhaps even make it compulsory before allowing them to market.   RFTC is a very important feature that should be fully utilized. Even more so with the new Microsoft FS looming on the horizon !

By default in all the reviews the "Runways Follows Terrain Contours" option is on...  if the setting is to be off then I will note that the off option is required like I did in in the review with Mexico MMMX, so you have it the wrong way around...  and yes annoyingly developers consistently do their work with the contours switched off so their work does not match the rest of the X-Plane scenery.

Request !  Could you possibly mention in your all your future reviews whether the scenery utilities  "Runways Follows Terrain Contours" ?  Personally for me this is a game changer & should be promoted wherever possible.  +  I don't understand how many amateur scenery /airfield creators manage to have this option, yet many Pro developers leave it out ?    Many thanks for your detailed reviews BTW  !

Scenery Review : Cancún International Airport by FSimstudios   I flew a review of the original release of FlyJSim's Boeing 737 TwinJet back in 2014. The route was KDFW (Dallas Fort Worth) to MMUN (Cancún) and it was the first time I had flown into Cancún, but it was made possible by a freeware release of MMUN by 5171  I had always wanted to fly to Cancún, Quintana Roo in Mexico as this is an extremely popular tourist resort that is a sort of an America's Ibiza as the location is so central to all North, Central and South Americas. No doubt I loved the flying, but the freeware rendition was good (for the time), but there was also a lot of liberty taken with the scenery in tall highrise buildings at any airport is usually a no, no in the authenticity stakes, but as you know my goal in any scenery is the rendition of the actual real world scenery and not a close fantasy.   So I never sadly went back to Cancún until a more worthy scenery was possible, that is until now and interestingly enough only a few weeks after the excellent release of MMMX - Mexico City that I really (really) like, so a flight from MMMX to MMUN, was always going to be an interesting idea and a great route to put into operation.   (Navigraph Charts)   Departure from Benito Juárez International Airport - MMMX is always very dramatic, the weather up this high AT 7,316 ft / 2,230 m altitude can make for very challenging departures and very scary arrivals...     Flying distance is almost exactly 700nm or around 2 hours 10min flying time, but as i was using the VOMA1A STAR the approach is almost directly into RWY 12L, go into 30R or 30L and the route is the far way around the coast by the visually far better but longer routing...   MMMX is placed not in an urban environment, but in a more remote rural setting south of Cancún City, the runways are well spaced and to the point our landing runway 12L/30R is placed almost remotely away from the main central terminal areas...     ....  first impressions were extremely positive, but there was an average join between the custom scenery and the default mesh, we will look at this later.     The photo ortho textures are very good and give you a nice feel of Cancún with the lakes and environs looking pretty spectacular on approaches, but the 3d or say 2d grass is at odds with the photo texures, I love 3d grass and they are a major requirement to take the flatness out of the flat orthos, but here it doesn't quite work as the bushes or grass is too dark or at odds with the surroundings, it looks fake rather than realistic, a more lighter to match grass would have blended in better (as most developers do).     The surrounding foliage is quite good, but some 2d tall palms have again the same effect as the grass, they look out of date and average and the age is shown with the black surrounds and rather than a transparency around the foliage.     There is a 3d taxiway bridge from 30R threshhold on taxiway D, it is well done but it has a steep incline that needed a fair bit of thrust too climb up...     ...  I love taxiway bridges (sad like that, I need to get a life), but I just do, but there isn't much happening on the Carr. a Aeropuerto Cancún as it is deserted of traffic, in fact all roadways don't have a lot of or any dynamic traffic in or outside the airport.   Taxiway detail is very good, as is the runway textures...  one thing you need to aware of is that if you use the 12L/30R runway (most arrivals do) then it is a long taxi to the terminals... Terminal 3 is not that far, but Terminal 4 is a long all the way around the airport taxi, the opposite is true as well, if departing from T3 then it is a long taxi around to the 12L threshold (past T4), personally I don't mind as I love a long taxi,  it gives you time to see and explore the new destination, but be aware of the required taxi fuel.     MMMX is a busy place as well, the busiest in Mexico...     Terminal Two (domestic) stand 20 is my assigned parking...    MMUN has the SAM - Scenery Animation Manager plugin (Plugin Required) feature, and one feature I seriously like, but I found the navigation VDGS guidence board blank (arrowed)?     However if you get your parking position correct the SAM will activate correctly...  some gates however didn't work either (stand 18 was one) so you need to have a working assigned gate. As a note I checked the SAM data and Gate 18 was listed.   So overall my first impressions of Cancún International Airport are extremely positive and I seriously like the scenery a lot, but there are a few details that I thought could have been far better executed.   ____________________________________   Cancún International Airport Aeropuerto Internacional de Cancún IATA: CUN - ICAO: MMUN     12R/30L - 11,483ft (3,500m) Asphalt 12L/30R - 9,186ft (2,800m) Asphalt Elevation AMSL 20 ft / 6 m     Although there is the (very good) custom photo ortho textures, but the install is a bit of a mis-match. As you have the default base textures and the custom, and then the secondary airport custom textures all converging around the airport? so the result is a bit of a bad mis-match of everything, poor blank areas are around the boundary of MMUN, sharp lines of the custom photo and all in contrast to the different airport scenery textures themselves...   it doesn't all quite match up? So as an X-Plane installation of the scenery it is all a bit amateurish, maybe passable as freeware, but certainly not as payware.     The main Carr. Tulum - Cancún carraige way is cut off to the northeast of the airport and you lose the traffic on the roads, and there are a few buildings missing here that would be a visual requirement to the scenery...  number one rule is that any custom scenery should blend in completely into it's surroundings.     The Terminal numbering is also the airport's history, and follow the development and you can see how the airport has developed since the airport was officially opened in 1974. All terminals are adjacent to RWYs 12R/30L, the secondary RWY 12L/30R was built and opened in October 2009.   Terminal 1 The oldest and the most basic terminal at MMUN, it is not even actually a building in the sense as it is an open air set of layers for arrivals and departures...     It takes the meaning of "Cattle Class" to a whole new level, but it does add authenticity to the scenery. Terminal 1 has 7 gates: 1-7A. After suffering damage by Hurricane Wilma, the terminal (carpark?) was temporarily closed for remodeling in order to accommodate charter airlines operating into the airport. It re-opened in November 2013 to charter flights of which now currently serves only one airline in Magni.   Terminal 2 You could class Terminal 2 as the main older terminal at Cancún Intl, it is the domestic terminal with the old control tower still visible... it has 22 gates: A1-A11 (in a satellite building) and B12-B22 (in the main building).     Absolutely your choice for the best Mexican feel with the satelllite building having an Aztec feel, and that early design authenticity throughout the terminal. Modeling and textures are very good.   Terminal 3 CUN has always battled with the explosion of passenger traffic, long delays and overcrowding are well founded here. In 2005, ASUR invested US$150 million for the construction of Terminal 3, which was inaugurated in 2007, along with the new runway and a new control tower which was opened in October 2009.     Terminal 3 has a lovely brick facade and great windows. T2 has 21 gates: C4-C24. And in t has been recently expanded adding six gates and commercial areas, and it was formally opened in March 2016. Most US carriers as well as some Canadian and European carriers all use this terminal. All terminals in the scenery have internal details as well, overall most are quite basic, but still viewable. Terminal 3 is the best and typical of the four internal designs.     Terminal 4 The newest Terminal is Terminal 4, which has 12 gates and was opened in October 2017. Gates are 53 - 64 plus two remote stands 67/A - 68. Airlines flying to terminal 4 include Aeroméxico, Interjet, Air France, Lufthansa, Air Transat, WestJet, Condor, Southwest Airlines, Air Europa, Frontier Airlines and Sun Country Airlines. You could note T4 as the International terminal at CUN as T3 is more North American continent focused. Sitting behind T4 is a tall ground radar tower that is well done, and highly noticeable.     There is a large remote apron position between Terminal 1 and Terminal Two that cover stands 1 - 11 with 4A, 9A and 11A diagonal parking.     There is a huge general aviation/private jet parking area by the threshold of RWY 30L, there is a modern VIP terminal that makes the area highly usable if you are transiting the airport or doing a quicky vacation weekend. Loads of PP (private parking) stands PP1A to PP37 are available so there is always somewhere to park.     Control Tower The taller newer control tower was built with the expansion in 2009 and is notable by the beer branded "Corona" advertising...     ....  well done, and the style reflects the bare concrete architecture. All the tower views can see each approach well, but the approach to 30L has a black line (arrowed) in view, but it is below the actual approach runway view. A note that the tower cannot see the T4 ramp, as it is noted on the real terminal charts.     Cargo Terminal Nestled between Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 is a small domestic cargo facility, there are six stands 26 - 32, and mostly has undercover warehouses, there is a DHL logistics facility set out behind.     Ramps and clutter are very good, but the ysfsim ground routes the parking defs are marked for passenger and not cargo...  so if you want run frequently to MMUN in a cargo role you would need to designate or shutdown a couple of the ground routes for cargo use. Amerijet International, Estafeta Carga Aérea and FedEx Express are the users of the facility.   Detail of all the terminals is very good, and so are there textures, of all the minor infrastructure it is well presented here as also very good and so is the excellent branded ramp and apron clutter, but that is where it ends....     ....  carparking and between building spaces are like the roads, in being just textures (mostly all grey) with the lines added on, and in many cases they are just blank areas, so there are no photo based textures to give the airport good landside ground detail, and unfortunately the blandness is highly noticeable. You can get away with this on the ramps and aprons (just) as the linage is very good, but in the other areas it all looks quite average. Cars and vehicles are 3d, but just boxes than actually modeled cars, again you just get away with the effect from a distance, but overall it is not the realistic photo or modeling detail you expect.   The abandoned Allegro Boeing 727's add a nice bit of authenticity when using RWYs 12L/30R. And static aircraft are supplied, but not shown here (WT3).     Runway and concrete textures are fine, but not in that high quality feel the stones in the asphalt look, but they are realistic...     ...   but two shoulder areas with the Taxiway C/E junction and the entrance to the GA apron from taxiway D (D2) don't connect up correctly, and no it is not like that on the Google Maps, as there they are correctly aligned.     Cancún visuals FSimStudios give you some very good if excellent photo textures that surround Cancún city...     ....  they look exceptional, but the execution at the edges of the photo textures are just visually horrible? Attention to detail is certainly at a miss here.   Cancún's beachside hotels are represented, but are just very basic at best...  this is only a skyline visual only, and not even a VFR worthy flight.     WT3 : The ATC routes are done here, but badly if you do a generation of MMUN. Aircraft pop out on the runways and there are no connections to the parking stands, so overall it is total mess....  however ysfsim has completely redone the ground routing (we need to buy this guy a beer!) FSimstudios MMUN Cancun Intl WT3 Ground Routes and now the whole airport is fully WT3 functional. Operations are now about as perfect as you need, love it, and again a big thanks.     Lighting At first glance MMUN looks pretty good in the darkness...  from a distance.     The ramps are excellent, bright and highly workable, and it is nice down here and the tall control tower looks great with the brand lighting....     ...   but again away from the bright lights the rest of the lighting is all a bit average. All the landside areas are in darkness, with not even any carpark lighting and that the approach and internal roadways also do not have any lighting.     Night taxiway lighting is a bit hit and miss as well, the approaches to the actual runways for departure are noted by lightboxes, but not the taxiways, except for in a few zones, worse is the large break of lighting on the edge taxiway and centreline lighting over the taxiway bridge.... you could easily lose a B747 here off the bridge...     ... and with the poor scenery to ground texture insertion, the traffic lighting going north (to Cancún City) is broken and missing, so overall it is again pretty amateurish.   Summary FSimstudios are another FSX/P3D studio to release their first scenery for the X-Plane simulator. And as with most FlightSim developers the results are a bit hit and miss, and the misses here are mostly and as usual in the areas that X-Plane in scenery differs from the FSX/P3D platform.   The good is that we have finally a decent Cancún MMUN airport to fly into as a very desirable destination. Terminal reproduction and design is very good as are the airside layouts of the airport, the photo realistic textures look excellent on departure and arrival and you have that excellent SAM - Scenery Animation Manager plugin on all the gates, airside clutter is branded and again well done, so overall CUN looks really good.   The average is when you get a little closer to the scenery. The airports X-Plane boundary installation and even the photo realistic install is quite awful and even amateurish, ditto the landside layouts (flat textures), lighting layouts and traffic road lighting and oddly placed shoulder areas. ATC routes are incomplete. Taxiway lighting is incomplete as is the taxiway navigation. Grass and tropical trees are out of date and X-Plane airport animations are not available and neither is active traffic on the roads (not even the supplied default traffic). Cancún City is about as basic as you could deliver.   The frustration of sceneries like FSimstudio MMUN Cancún is that it has everything in it's basic form to be a top notch high level scenery, but again like with most Flightsim crossovers it fails on the most basic X-Plane aspects in not knowing or understanding the X-Plane dynamics. Can it be fixed... yes it can and actually quite easily, but an experienced X-Plane scenery developer would have to iron out the many kinks.   So do I recommend to buy Cancún International Airport by FSimstudios for X-Plane11? For the overall quaility then no, as it just falls too short...  however as a working scenery it is still a great addition to your flight routes, and flying in and out of CUN is a very good experience, certainly with the fixed WT3 ground routes and the SAM interaction.   Overall I do actually love the Cancún experience and will obviously use this scenery with Mexico City's MMMX...  but CUN could have been so, so much and a far better introduction from FSimstudio's for the X-Plane simulator.   ______________________________________________________________________     Yes! Cancún International Airport by FSimstudios is Available from the X-Plane.Org Store here : MMUN - Cancun International Airport   Price is US$22.50 Features High detailed representation of Cancun International Airport Detailed terminal buildings, including interiors and the new Terminal 4 High Resolution textures (4096x4096) Realistic Ground Poly of the airport Hotel Area with over 300 hand modeled hotels FBO and airport Surroundings modeled with great attention to detail Baked Shadows Static Planes SAM Animated Jetways Highly optimized for great performance Volumetric grass and custom vegetation 3D Modeled bridge on Taxiway D SAM Animated Jetways HDR Night Lighting PBR Textures   ______________________________________________________________________   Installation The download package is huge at 1.05gb and is installed into your "Custom Scenery" Folder.   Total scenery installation is a huge 2.50gb   SAM - Scenery Animation Manager plugin is required and to be installed in your X-Plane Resources/Plugin folder WT3 - Ground Routes by ysfsim FSimstudios MMUN Cancun Intl WT3 Ground Routes is a requirement to replace the poor ATC routes (with the ysfsim MMUN ground routes there is supplied an optional scenery folder to hide the static aircraft (recommended))   Requirements : X-Plane 11 Windows, Mac or Linux 4GB VRAM Minimum - 8GB VRAM Recommended Download Size: 1.1 GB Current and Review version: 1.0 (Sep 17th 2019) ______________________________________________________________________   Scenery Review by Stephen Dutton 7th October 2019 Copyright©2019: X-Plane Reviews   Review System Specifications: Computer System: Windows  - Intel Core i7 6700K CPU 4.00GHz / 64bit - 16 Gb single 1067 Mhz DDR4 2133 - GeForce GTX 980/SSE2 - Samsung Evo 1Tb SSD  Software:   - Windows 10 - X-Plane 10 Global ver 10.45 / Checked install in X-Plane11b6 Addons: Saitek x52 Pro system Joystick and Throttle : Sound - Bose  Soundlink Mini : Headshake by SimCoders Plugins:  WorldTraffic3 US$29.95 : Environment Engine v1.07 by xEnviro US$69.90 : Scenery Animation Manager plugin - Free Scenery or Aircraft - Boeing 738 by Laminar Research - Default with X-Plane11    

Does it come with static aircraft at the gates of T1 and T2?

Listen Sunshine the details and the fix are there to be used, use a text editor to adjust the text in the MMMX apt.dat and it will work....   the required text file is on the bottom of the review (if you look).

i cant fix the floating hill ☹️ some one can help me? maybe sending the text file fixed please?

Behind the Screen : September 2019   First of all the September edition of "Behind the Screen" is quite short, mainly because my personal interaction with X-Plane in September has been quite minimal. Real life sort of got in the way of my online life in that I had to secure a new home, but that aspect, plus the packing to move has now been completed. The actual move in the middle of October is still to be completed, so again the site will be quiet again for another week or so in that period.   Certainly we are sorry in the lack of output from the site, but it is what it is.   I was (on and off) able to review JustFlight's lovely PA-38 Tomahawk. And it did get me thinking in what was the main aspect of the review, in that what is the best aircraft for an introduction to simulation.   For myself originally it was to fly a Boeing 747, which was really in hindsight is the worst type of aircraft to try to fly, or to learn to fly in... it is called a "Heavy" for a reason. To my benefit X-Plane9 and the evolution of the aircraft presented in that era in a way allowed me to sort of grasp the basics, but to confront say the same situation now in the current "Study" grade environment, I certainly would have been totally overwhelmed, or even try to factor in of where to start. You can and mostly do muddle through, but looking back after 10 years of simulation flying, there are so many different and complex factors now to learn and study.   So unless you are a current flying pilot, I doubt you could could reach a high professional grade within two years, most will scoff at that statement, but I mean the total depth of every aspect of flying an aircraft, and there is the actual simulator running skills to learn as well. Flying aircraft is highly complex, but achieve a credible level of skill and you will have achieved a great goal in your life.   One aspect was that I never even remotely considered early was in flying was a GA or General Aviation aircraft and to most of you punters that may seem to be quite a bizarre point of view, but I admit it was a mistake in trying to learn the basics of flying in a reverse order, and one aircraft in particular thankfully saved me.   Before moving on I will recount one quite funny story that highlights your inability to understand the early details and the learning of flying a (heavy) aircraft, I was flying the XPFP (X-Plane Freeware Project) Boeing 747 from Singapore to London, I took off and did the whole procedure to get the B747 to 34.000ft and made sure it was following it's route, all done I settled in for the 11 hour flight to Heathrow...  so obviously your not going to sit in the chair for the eleven or so hours, so I went and got something to eat. I checked the aircraft two hours later off the northern east coast of India, and noticed the B747 was actually flying around in long wide circles and was way off it's intended route...  it was just lazily flying around and had been for about 20 minutes or so, so I noticed the autopilot had disconnected itself as that was the reason the aircraft was doing it's strange antics...  so what caused the autopilot to disconnect?   I couldn't at first actually work it out? but the cause was the simple change of the speed from IAS to .Mach, I had not done this, so when the aircraft went higher it went faster and then over it's maximum IAS speed and disconnected the autopilot...  you learn, you get better, and as you would gather I was quite late arriving in London with very minimal fuel and irate passengers.   But the core essential point is that I was putting my cart before the horse, in reality I should have learnt the very basics earlier and in a basic aircraft before putting myself through a lot of torture of things not going correctly.... at a certain point I had to stop and then return to do this critical aspect.   I had always liked Carenado's F33A Bonanza and even it's very early form it was thankfully a fully rounded aircraft and the very first aircraft I prided myself in buying. I had to a point got here very lucky in the quality, dynamics but more so in the excellent avionics package that was set up for not only VFR flying but also for IFR (VOR) instrumentation... so I went back to the very basics.   I started flying circuits, touch and goes, basic flying and handling techniques and then learning how to trim the aircraft correctly. Then I moved on to point to point flying, setting up a route and flying that route to the destination, then added in VOR to VOR navigation while learning how to follow maps and navigation... on and on, but the biggest interesting thing I did was to fly in learning only the F33A, and I flew that F33A week after week until I knew pretty well everything about that particular aircraft... I simply logged hours and hours on it, in all weathers, all airports and was building up skills that would last me years. When Carenado updated the F33A to X-Plane11 I was very critical on some of the aspects that had been changed, they were fixed, but the point there is how well I knew the aircraft to notice even the slight aspects of changes that had been done. I adjusted to the better X-Plane dynamics and still even now when wanting a base line not only to measure my own skills, or to update my flying skills then that F33A is still the benchmark that I work too.   So everyone has their own particular or favorite aircraft they want to fly, but a high quality one here is important and not just a basic machine, as if the dynamics are off on your chosen machine then it can seriously mess and sometimes even damage badly with your basic skill base, and that is the word here...  base. Because when I flew the Tomahawk, the first thing I did was to fly the F33A on the same (long) circuit for one to get me into the right headspace and then to translate to feel out the balance of the dynamics of the PA-38... that F33A is also my constant benchmark for any changes in X-Plane itself and always that F33A is my first flight to see the different changes and how they affect the simulator. And sometimes I fly that little damn machine for just total absolute fun.   So I was very aware of promoting any aircraft to be a learners first, and obviously the F33A Bonanza is my absolute favorite, but there are a few out there that are simply excellent... VFlyteAir's PA-140C is excellent, as is the Cessna 172SP SkyHawk XP11 by Carenado (Glass) and the JustFlight's C152 and PA28R Piper Turbo Arrow III/lV (not the non-turbo Arrow as it is dog slow), and the one most will nominated will be the Cessna 172SP Skyhawk by AirfoilLabs which I acknowledge is extremely well liked and a very well completed aircraft, it's extensive features however would not make for a great if basic learning tool, it would just be a little too hard for a complete novice to learn on and master the aircraft with too many distractions.   Strangely unlike the real world, X-Plane users have access to pretty much any aircraft they desire, were as in the real aviation most pilot's unless they have unusual jobs (like a ferry pilot) are mostly restricted to only a few models or ownership. So our skill base has to be quite wide to cover the huge range accessible to us, but I have found (reviews aside) that mostly I now fly only certain aircraft, but that still ranges from a heavy to a general aviation aircraft, the difference is I know them intimately.   This aspect for me is important in the factor of what I called flying professionally, in the fact that in flying these few I do the full complete procedures that they require, and again they reflect a baseline to other aircraft (and reviews) for my judgements. Overall I have come a very long way in mastering my skills, you never ever stop learning, but that learning has also taken 10 years to master. My biggest yardstick is that in reality I have learnt more in the last three years than all of the seven years before, that is a combination of the changes and the ongoing depth of the simulator and also the sheer depth of the aircraft we now get to access, but overall it still comes simply down to doing the basics, in circuits and trimming the aircraft correctly as it is in the real world of aviation.   See you all next month   Stephen Dutton 1st October 2019 Copyright©2019: X-Plane Reviews    

A "Doddle" to fly - perhaps in the sim but IRL that thing was a spinning death trap.  Most accidents at low altitude so probably not training maneuvers - that sucker just liked to spin.