Indeed! Instances of E46 are almost certainly due to a bug teleporting your plane to “the first airport in the list.” I’m not aware of Philipp’s work on this, but certainly if anyone has a repro case for this that hasn’t been address, they should file a bug.

E46 at 1 in 200 flights ?
Good thing Philipp seems to have found a smoking gun that causes this teleportation to be a very real thing in X-plane. This would be the most thoroughly quantified bug to be squashed ever since.

What is this “big amount of data” you speak of?

The percentage may be small, but I’m sure that, like me, there are a lot of people waiting for the right moment to invest in a VR headset. Personally, I’m waiting for the mainstream vendors to go at least 5k resolution and 180 FoV.

In The Glorious Future™, yes… but I don’t have the spare dev time to do so now. :/

LOL, I have both OS’s but can’t use the old iMac for XP because the Jobian’s thought soldering the GPU to the motherboard was a good idea (software driven hardware sales strategy). Then they decide to clue the case shut and I thought that’s it for me. I now have a Wintel with three GPU slots that I can easily add to or upgrade easily without having to buy a new machine.
So the smell of old pee isn’t coming from my windows machine…

Would it be possible to have this divided into countries or continents?

Keep in mind these figures are the percentage of flights over the entire lifetime of X-Plane 11. Newer planes are naturally disadvantaged by that metric.

Have you checked ivao?
https://www.ivao.aero/

You can get training from real people, most of them actual pilots and air traffic controllers. Check it out.

Sigh. If only it were that simple. We’ve had a lot of debate internally about opening up the tutorial file format, but the problem is:

• The file format, while it is “plain text,” is really not suitable for editing as text. (Trying to do so would be like trying to edit an ACF file without using Plane Maker… except worse, because of lots of non-obvious interdependencies between different parts of the file!)
• The editor we used internally to create the existing tutorials is, frankly, terrible. We essentially hacked up WED to edit certain aspects of the tutorials, while still editing other aspects in plain text. It’s basically as bad an authoring solution as we could have come up with while still being able to get the initial versions of the tutorials out the door.

So, while we could theoretically just stick the existing, awful authoring tools online, I think it would make things more frustrating for third parties, not less. What we really need is like 6 months of developer time to allocate to building a real, nice tutorial editor. But… we just don’t have the resources for that in the near future—the team is already booked quite a ways out on higher priority stuff.

(The other challenge to getting the schedule time is: the existing tutorials have not really been a knock-out in terms of end-user response. It’s hard to say whether this is because of the way they are implemented—they could probably be better!—or because the whole concept is just less interesting and less useful to people than we expected they would be. In either case, it’s hard to make a case for moving our limited developer resources off some other important project—especially something we know the community will love—to work on the tutorial infrastructure.)