Joan Alonso

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

31 Excellent

About Joan Alonso

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Airwork

Recent Profile Visitors

495 profile views
  1. Jus to add, related to the landing lights. The delay is normal, the same happens with the belly lights of the 737. But, the reflection of the landing lights on the engine won't show up unless you point your viewpoint where the landing lights are. So for example, I have a camera pointing the engine and front wing, when I select Landing lights on and selecting this view the reflection won't come up (after the delay discussed here of course) unless I move the camera towards the belly of the airplane. It does not happen with the Wing inspection lights for example. It's a sim limitation or bug? Can be solved? Thanks
  2. Joan Alonso

    progress, updates etc

    So, how is it looking the update? Can we expect the update to be released today? Or more likely during the week? Thanks.
  3. Joan Alonso

    2D FMGS Brightness Color

    Hi, here's a screenshot of the magenta text I mean. This screenshot is at nighttime, with the full brightness of the 2D FMGS. The magenta colour is almost unreadable. Thanks!
  4. Joan Alonso

    2D FMGS Brightness Color

    Yes, tried both. The shift+L just changes the background bmp. And with the brightness key at 100% gives me a magenta color really difficult to read. I can barely read the speed/altitude restrictions. I'll try to upload a screenshot tomorrow. Thanks
  5. Joan Alonso

    2D FMGS Brightness Color

    Could be possible to make the text colors of the 2D FMGS a little brighter? Specially the magenta one. With the 2D FMGS brightness at full it's difficult for me to read it well. I ask because I believe it's hardcoded into the dll and not customizable? Thanks!
  6. Joan Alonso

    A320 / 321 No Contrail?

    Yes. I also noticed this days ago. Simply copy the smokesystem lines of the aircraft.cfg of the A318/A319 series.
  7. I agree. The data that AS put in their models may be correct and accurate, but the way the sim reads and interprets the data causes the developers to "distort" the flight model to behave more or less like the real one. Not an easy task, not at all. But, I would have preferred an updated FD than other nice additions we had. Sure, I'm only one customer, most customers are okay with it, so I just can politely ask and thank you to check this out. Ok, it is a balance between the real one and the sim expectations, but I'm sure we agree that the data right now needs some adjustment.
  8. Hi Mathijs, No, I'm not. I only speak from a simmer point of view, and seeing other flight dynamics by other developers from multiple aircraft (the other bus also) the first thought is that the AS flight dynamics are pretty off from what are supposed to be. Why? Well, how close they are to RL? I have no idea, but I can only speak subjectively form YT videos and personal feeling after years of FS. And the easy conclusion with all this "subjective data" is that the other developers numbers are more accurate than the AS. Maybe the others are wrong, maybe. But even if the others were wrong, wouldn't be easier to rework the FD to be closer to simmer expectations? It would save AS a lot of time from discussing this topic with fussy guys like me.
  9. Well. After testing the update, unfortunately I have not seen any remarkable change. Yes, maybe the A321 feels more heavy, as it is supposed to be, but IMHO it should be even more. Glad to know that this is finally being reworked, hope that it is for all family. Just to add something, the climb "problem" is specially noticeable below 10,000 and after rotation. When rotating to almost 20º after take off the speed tends to increase as the pitch up was not affecting at all. This happens with all variants, when the "standard" behavior would be the speed stop increasing when pitching up so sharply. In fact, an A320 with let's say 65TOW i think would need to rotate no more than 15º more or less before seeing the speed trend going down. Being two totally different aircraft in RL and two different developers, the best flight dynamics I have ever seen are the PMDG NGX. Can not comment on other PMDG models, but I guess it would be the same. With the NGX you can feel almost every single ton that you put in it. The way the autopilot performs climb and descent is superb. The autopilot is dependent of the weight, pitch and thus applicable thrust with a little margin with a standard load, the Airbus now seems to have a really huge margin until noticing the weight is affecting the climb performance. Being the Aerosoft bus the Airbus par excellence in flight simulation I'm just asking for a similar accuracy with flight dynamics, maybe the most important aspect of the sim aircrafts, with such a great features added and the vc reworked in the new versions the flight dynamics is the only thing that puts me completely off of the sim. So again, thanks for looking at it, and take the time you need to dig deeper into those figures.
  10. Just tested. 74TOW, reached FL18 in 6' 30'' in managed mode. The same that happened with 66T. No matter how many tons I put on it, I feel like flying a big fighter jet. I've been complaining about this behaviour since the little bus came out. The answer has always been the same, more or less: "there's nothing wrong with the bus, your system is causing this, we will fix the descent problems". Then I thought, ok, let's see how the bus reacts for other users (Youtube): The result, yes, the bus climbs way too fast and way too easy for everyone. So, my conclusion is that most people feels ok flying P3D in Arcade Mode and thinking, wow, how fast I'm climbing with the A321, what a performance! I don't, nor others here, because it is not how it is in RL. And of course, I paid for a simulation of an Airbus for a really good price, I do not expect a highly detailed parameters in the fuel temps, if they are modeled, fine, thanks, but let's see how the aircraft climbs first because it takes me completely out of the simulation. As a curious fact, I never had this problem with the old buses. So, it would be more or less easy to compare data between the the two versions of the same aircraft. Just saying. I thought days ago on giving up, now that the big ones are out there's more people complaining about this and I really hope someone in the dev team considers this important enough to look at it thoroughly. P.S. What I got with the last .dll is that the aircraft does not pitch down too much in order to catch the new managed speed. So it smoothes the ALT/SPEED pitch changes. Now It slowly pitches down a little bit, the funny thing is that the bus does not cares if she is climbing 600fpm (like with the old .dll) or maintains climbing 3000 fpm with the new one, it is really easy for her to reach any speed with any rate of climb.
  11. Even worse with the last 320/321 ECAMD2D.dll. Now the aircrafts (both 320 CFM and IAE) mantain easy +3000fpm while accelerating to managed speed. Climbing to FL18 in 6 minutes. 66T TOW. Wow, what a climb.
  12. Joan Alonso

    Not following ascent/descent path

    I saw Dave's stream yesterday. I don' know if he was flying with the updated files on the A321, but even the big one of the family performed a terrific climb.
  13. Joan Alonso

    Random crash due to MCDU?

    If you already have 5.14 it does it automatically, so that’s not the problem of your CTD.
  14. Joan Alonso

    Random crash due to MCDU?

    Happened to me also approaching LFSB while scrolling FMGS F-PLAN. P3D crashed without a report of the CTD. In my case I always suspect of wxstationlist.bin and FSUIPC being involved. I don't know why but seems that this file gets corrupted so frequently. After deleting the file I tried the flight again and no problem, I'm not saying that your problem can be related, but it is worth a try. BTW, the last version of FSUIPC 5.14 deletes the file at session end. I made a batch file for it many time ago , now FSUIPC does it for me.