Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/21/18 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    I am starting to hate the term "study level." In fact I would like to see a definition of that. Study level was drummed up as a sales pitch and it is just that and nothing more. I think it leads some to believe that each engine and aircraft fit exact operation perimeters every flight. Having worked heavy aircraft for over 25 years and the CFM 56 for over 15 years it is clear that each and every one has there own personality to begin with. Then you have to figure in all the differences in the airframe...no two A320s weigh the same for instance and they too have their own personality. Now on to the environment. There's almost too many variables to consider. Exact OAT and pressure have a direct impact on engine performance. That said, performance targets are just that and usually reside inside an envelope. It would be safe to say that fuel burn on the A320 over a 3 hour flight could vary easily between 2000 to 3000 lbs. Likewise, if the books say the stall speed is 115kts for your given weight and config I would be ready for that at 120. If you are getting large differences in fuel burn look at your planning software or if you really want to get into the weeds go right to the tech data and manually calculate it. Back to study level. The aircraft addons that I find would meet a so called study level dont bill themselves as that.
  2. 2 points
    Okay, I'm sure that you've taken Ander's comments at least a little wrong - I believe he only meant to help (let's not debate this publicly). In the flight sim community, when one notes a potential bug it is quite normal for people to offer suggestions to confirm it and this does not apply only to testers. You see, we all play a part in making things better and if this didn't happen then our community would not be as far along as it is! With this in mind, if one writes publically then one has to expect and accept that there will be replies and suggestions. The only other alternative is either not to post, or write a private message to the Aerosoft staff. But if you post publicly, the public is likely to respond and usually with suggestions. Regarding potential bugs... if someone doesn't provide evidence, the post is often ignored by the staff because we know that if one is savvy enough to notice a potential bug then they can also provide a screen shot and narrative about what they're seeing. Let's now move forward from this, with everyone remembering that we're all friends here, and to post and reply as such! Best wishes.
  3. 1 point

    Version 1.0.0

    90 downloads

    Contents of this ZIP-package: Airbus A320 Tunisair TS-IMW (CFM Sharklets) (clean and dirt) Repaint by: Holger Sobl Stefan Hoffmann Aerosoft paintkit by: Stefan Hoffmann Installation (Airbus Livery Manager): Start the aerosoft Airbus Livery Manager and drag the ZIP-File into the list - or click "Add Livery" and select the desired file. You get a preview of the new livery - and install it with just one click. (You can read all Livery Manager functions by clicking the "?" button!) If you are looking for more or other repaints then you can also look on my homepage http://simtexture.de!
  4. 1 point
    It still sounds like it isn't necessary the flight-model but more external influence - and (again, I'm sorry to keep suggesting it) flight planning omissions. It could easily be weather, which isn't factored in, since it's more predominant on longer flights. Also, you do realize, that even in the real-world, I imagine that fuel calculations sometimes doesn't match exactly the flight-planning? In extreme cases very much so... I remember a couple of years back, quite a lot of planes, simply had to divert half-way between the east- and west coast, simply because of they ran out of fuel, because of strong headwind. I know - it's extreme... but it does happen... and since you're saying, that it's more noticeable on longer flights, I lean towards the dozens factors which needs to be taken in, when planning such a flight - and of course the unknown factors like weather changes. If you want to know, please try the following: Conduct several flights in clear weather (NO weather what so ever) and NO other influential factors. Same weight - preferably empty (NO cargo and NO passengers) and same plane/engine type. Try over different distances and see if you can come up with some kind of factor for any deficiencies in fuel calculations. I don't know SimBrief's profile of the Aerosoft Airbus - but you could also try with PFPX and see if there's a difference... Also - if SimBrief uses a different weather source than your sim. There could be a different between some 'live weather source' like NOAA or Weather.gov (or whatever SimBrief is setup to utilize?) and the external weather application the sim uses. Also the weather engine interprets this weather data into simulated weather within the sim - which (most likely) isn't 100% like the real conditions... The above, was just a few suggestions... Sorry for being to stubborn, but I get rigid when someone just begins accusing, that an addon is faulty - without any proof and without presenting data from necessary tests (and a LOT of tests is necessary, when an addon is as complex as the Aerosoft Airbus) One should always do a throughout troubleshooting, when stating such claims.
  5. 1 point
  6. 1 point
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?

    Sign Up