Emanuel Hagen

admins
  • Content count

    8803
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    85

Everything posted by Emanuel Hagen

  1. Brake Temprature is less of a problem after takeoff than it is before takeoff. Hot brakes have a worse effect on decellerating, so you'll need more runway to stop. Once a certain temprature is reached they can even become almost useless. You woulnd't take off with the brakes above a certain temprature, thus a situation where you need to keep the gear extended for cooling of the brakes after takeoff is rather unlikely. Simple: Wait. That's what most airlines do with the Airbusses anyway, regardless of the actual brake temprature (unless it gets close to melting the fuseplug in the tires). Keep in mind cooling a hot brake imposes a strong thermal stress on the brakes, therefore reducing the lifetime of the brakes a lot. Also, once in use, the brakefans cool the outer part of the brakes first. This is where the temprature sensor is located, so when using the brake fan your actual brake temprature sensed by the system will be cooler than the actual temprature in the inner part of the brake. To prevent a takeoff with the inner part of the brakes still too hot there are temprature limits imposed on the brakes for which you may take off. These limits are 135°C using Brakefans in the A320 and 270° (actual values could differ by some 10 or 20 degrees, I'm not 100% sure of them and don't have an FCOM here right now) if you did not use the Fans! This is a BIG difference! If you did not need to brake really harsh, then you wil likely be fine with the braketemratures after a "normal" turnaround time and will not need to use the Brake Fans at all. Also remember that if you have carbon brakes your brake fans will blow carbon dust into the air, which can cause cancer. The groundcrew will thank you if you leave your brakefans off unless they are really required to make your turnaround!
  2. Our reference A330 which we had access to did not have one so it will likely not be modelled.
  3. Key keyword here are automation complacency and situational awareness. If a pilot has the altitude capture system he is likely to become confident to believe the system will always do what it has done the first 100 times he observed it. In airplanes without such automation the pilot is likely to have a greater situational awareness since he can only rely on himself. The same goes with tailstrikes for example. A study of a major A320 Family operator has shown that more tailstrikes occured with their A319 than with their A321. The reason is the same as above: In the A321 the pilot is aware of the long fuselage and rotates carefully. In the A319 he is likely to overrotate and tailstrike as he knows the tailstrikemargin is a lot bigger than on the A321, thus the risk of a tailstrike is seemingly smaller.
  4. Best will be if you show some screenshots of the approaches that do not work out. This will make it easiest to follow up on what happens.
  5. Even the real Airbus has problems with the linedrawing, so no, ours will not be perfect there.
  6. Just like our A320 which also had them
  7. It's actually mostly a mixture between 1024 and 2048 textures. High resolution must not mean that it is all 4096, it's more a question of how big the areas on a panel are that you "assign" to the texture. If you want to know more on this do a forumsearch, this question came up a year ago or so and Stefan had a really great explanation in detail back then!
  8. Personally I think LIDO better structured, it is easier to find things you are looking for and they are basically easier to read. More obvious than Jeppessen. LIDO did a very good job constructing their charts, in fact it was one of their main focusses when they designed their charts. Using Jeppessen in flight school and LIDO in flight simming I definately prefer the LIDO set. At this moment we do not have plans to change our chart provider. We will stay with LIDO for the foreseeable future.
  9. Yep
  10. Well, I can see sort of a sense in it. For example on a non precision approach if the missed approach altitude is lower than the initial altitude. If you'd set the missed approach altitude in the MCP or FCU of a Boeing or Airbus you would level off on the descend in V/S mode. If you do not arm ALT SEL in the Dash you'll continue the descent. With the operator whos procedures I know the standart calls had been modified with the Dash 8. They no longer called "1000ft to level off", but "1000ft to level off, ALT SEL" to cross check it every time.
  11. As far as I know we have no plans to change our provider. We have been working with LIDO for years already, even before we released our chartproduct. To be 100% sure I will ask the projectmanager and will report back though.
  12. Nope, luckily not!
  13. Before starting to fly the CRJ beta I thought I'd prepare myself by flying another Bombardier plane (aka the Dash 8). Well, let me say that much: I reconned there is a control culomn and there are throttles in this plane, perhaps even flight deck windows and pilot seats. The rest I had to learn from ground up.
  14. If you want it more realistic do so over the secondary flight plan. That's where you would normally do such changes in order not to "destroy" your active flight plan in case of database errors in the newly selected procedures whatsoever.
  15. And which buttons would that be that you'd like to see simulated?
  16. If somebody screws up 40 seconds are a seriously LONG time until you finally have control. A quick change between master and slave would be much easier. I like the idea of a clickspot on the side stick priority warning light for a fast changeover without the need to navigate down to the third MCDU. I'll forward it for internal discussion with the developers, project advisors, beta testers and project manager.
  17. Landing rate is indeed something overrated in flight simulation. In real life there are many situations where a landing of about 300-400 feet per minute is very appropriate. Some pilots even say no landing with less than 200-300fpm is a good landing. BUT: Since you have no real feedback about your landing in a flight simulator (it doens't require you to visit the orthopaedist if you screw up) I can fully understand why people want such a feedback. Expecially in larger aircraft like the A330, 777 or 747 you can hardly judge your landing just by looking out of the window or by instrument readings. There are a lot of nice tools available that can measure your landing rate already, so we do not see the need to include such a feature in our A330.
  18. I've edited my post seconds before you posted As soon as the livery is done we will show it
  19. Unlikely, let us first complete the aircraft model and "basic" paint itself before starting on liveries. Liveries are usually the last thing to be done before finishing the modelling/textureing.
  20. Sorry for missing your post. GSX integration - we'll consider it, but no promises. At this moment I rather tend to doubt it. Time will tell. Master - Master/Slave Mode: Do you mean a mode where both pilots can interact with the controls? This would be prone to issues as flight simulator joysticks are usually not perfect systems and if one stick would send only the slightest control input while the other is flying it could cause severe issues. Integration with IvAp and vPilot: We agree that this would be a nice feature, however, as much as we encourage flying online, we fully understand not everyone can fly online and therefore prefer to keep it seperated from the network clients. Reconnect and sync after sim crashes are being evaluated. More info to follow when we are in a later stage of development. I like your idea on the priority button, however, why should we use a button that does something compeltly different in the real aircraft for such a function? Woulnd't it be more logical if we used a keyboard combination or a joystickbutton assignment for such a feature? Could you suggest the landing rate feature in the actual preview topic? Over there the developers will read it much rather than here
  21. What would you like to have this button for?
  22. Possibly - but a detailled window view would require a virtual cabin. And that is simply impossible given the limitations of our flight simulators. A detailled door animation is not - and in fact even standart in many addons since years. So I don't really understand why you have such a big problem with it.
  23. Dudleys reply is pretty much spot on, there are certain things that people will use on most flights and these are modelled. The doors are most certainly one of them.
  24. Hi, are you sure you downloaded all parts of the Airbus? Depending on which package you bought there are at least two, or three, parts to download. Make sure you have them all!
  25. Hi Bill, you may upload them yourself in the downloadsection of our forums. As long as they are inside our forums it is ok for us.