After nearly three months, the TriStar still has flight model and autopilot issues that make it unrealistic at best, and less than flyable at worst. The issue of the GPS turn commands coming in late at higher speeds annoys me to the point where I use the INS for everything, including SIDs and STARs. The issues of unrealistic vertical speed in the climb, unrealistic deck angle during cruise and approach, and autopilot VNAV pitch commands coming in late during the climb annoy me to the point where I don't even want to fly the aircraft until they're fixed.

To expand:

• The GPS seems to issue turn commands too late at higher airspeeds, which causes the aircraft to consistently overshoot turns when using the GPS - I've seen this at any airspeed above ~180-190 knots.

• The vertical speed in the climb seems to be nearly constant above ~10,000ft, suddenly drops off when the PMS switches from CLB1 to CLB2 around 20,000ft, then stays almost constant again until the switch to Mach hold. Vertical speed should simply gradually decrease with altitude. This has been reported previously by others.

• The aircraft's deck angle should be a couple of degrees lower during cruise and at least a couple of degrees higher during approach. This was also reported previously.

• In VNAV mode, the autopilot commands pitch increases too late and too gradually during the acceleration phases of the climb, which results in the aircraft overshooting the set speeds by a minimum of 10-20 knots, and consistently ending up breaking the 250-knots-below-10,000-ft speed limit by at least 20 knots. The autopilot seems to currently be commanding the pitch increases just as the aircraft reaches the set speed - it should start commanding the increases sometime before reaching the set speed - and the pitch increase is also far too gradual to successfully capture the set speed.

My question to the iniBuilds team: is it unreasonable to request that solutions to these issues be prioritized over everything else with this aircraft at this time? The visual and systems fixes you've made so far are much appreciated, and overall, I like the TriStar, and I want to be able to fly this rendition of it realistically... but I don't feel I can fly it realistically as long as such fundamental issues as these exist - hence, I don't fly it at all except to test fixes released in updates.

Thank you for reading.

Just going to give this topic a bump because I'm not willing to let it go completely unanswered. This plane has needed fixes for this stuff for three months, but has received fixes for other aspects instead. In my opinion, very few issues are more basic and fundamental than an unrealistic flight model, and many people expect payware to be better than this, myself included.

I tend to agree. Things like engine parameters, VNAV Control and Logic and flight model don't seem to fall into any news cycle. I understand the Tristar was a cheaper aircraft brought out by ini, but I figured it's because complex FMC calculations, BTV, systems, etc. etc. don't need to be modelled. I hope they prove me wrong and finish the product they started.

Hello,

Many of these items are still works in progress, I understand the frustrations seeing other updates ship items less focused on the FM, Nav Logic, etc.
However...
That is not to say that work isn't being done on said items but if we only updated our aircraft with key items instead of whatever work was already complete then there wouldn't be updates depending on how long one or two specific items take while holding back other smaller fixes that are still needed. Rest assured these items are in progress and have not been forgotten. Thank you for understanding :)

Thanks very much, Jamir. I've just been getting frustrated because, at this point, the flight model is the biggest reason why I don't fly the TriStar regularly. Your words give me hope, though.