Aerosoft Airbus X

[Guest inbrekers1]

Which things are left to be done? And how close are we to the last few tests befor the release?

And another question: Is it going to be possible to let the AP flying an autoland?

(without the danger of landing left ore right of the rumway, even with strong crosswind)

An Ap landing is only for low-vis conditions. Not for windy ones if I remember right...

[StefanB 2]

An Ap landing is only for low-vis conditions. Not for windy ones if I remember right...

Right. From the BFU Website you can download the last Report about the Lunfthansa Crosswind-Landing at EDDH.

Stefan

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I don't know why, but it seems like some idiot went through all the posts on the last pages and gave everyone a -1 vote.. I don't know why he did it but I gave everyone who didn't deserve his -1 a +1 so they are on 0 again...

@Mathijs: She's really looking awesome... How do you guys do it? All these beautiful airplanes in a rather short time-span??

Ahh yes but we know who done that and he'll know that we know. Childish behavior.

And our CEO does not agree we do so many in so short time, he thinks it takes a heck of a long time. But what you got to take in mind is that where other developers/publishers got only one development team we got a few. In fact there are hardly any publishers that have their own developers. Most use external developers on a royalty base, we like to keep a bit more control. Projects still suffer from feature bloat but it is at least a bit easier to stop. There is also the fact we got little to proof, so we tend to develop for the customer and not the reviewers. You got no idea how much time that saves.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Which things are left to be done? And how close are we to the last few tests befor the release?

And another question: Is it going to be possible to let the AP flying an autoland?

(without the danger of landing left ore right of the rumway, even with strong crosswind)

All modeling is done right now, flight model is being tested but I expect little issues there. Few sound issues to solve but the main thing is the coding of the more complex systems. We know how to do them, little surprises there. In the next 18 days day that will be closed as beta test continue. As always I am not afraid to send out something we know has some loose ends that got multiple solutions. Sometimes you just need customer feedback to get it right.

On autolands... as far as I know right now, it will work fine right up to the max Xwind. But it depends a bit on fps. FSX calculates some things on a fps base and when it gets behind shit happens. But that's FSX, not the model.

[Schullebernd 13]

An Ap landing is only for low-vis conditions. Not for windy ones if I remember right...

*lol* It's more difficult for me to make an autoland as to do it manually. (on Wilco)

[SimPilot767 157]

An Ap landing is only for low-vis conditions. Not for windy ones if I remember right...

For the Boeing 737 (300-900) the maximum allowable crosswind speed for a CAT II or III

autoland is 25 knots.

I think, it´s probably the same for the A32X.

Timo

[vali 31]

For the Boeing 737 (300-900) the maximum allowable crosswind speed for a CAT II or III

autoland is 25 knots.

I think, it´s probably the same for the A32X.

Timo

Maximum wind conditions for CAT II or CAT III automatic approach landing and roll out (according with FCOM):

Headwind: 30knots

Tailwind: 10knots

Crosswind: 20knots

Wind limitation is based on the surface wind reported by the tower. If the wind displayed on ND exceeds the above mentioned autoland limitations but the tower reports

a surface wind within the limitations then the AP can remain engaged. If not (wind beyond limitations), then CAT I can be used (without autoland).

[shastana 8]

No that's not planned. But why should that make it hard to fly the SID or STAR? Many aircraft do not have systems that do not have these kind of displays and they still use fly these approaches and departures. I assure you Airbus pilots know how to do it, when a SID/STAR is not in the database they often do not spend the time to enter it, they just take the Jeppesen chart are fly the thing.

The extended version is still planned but as it is for a smallish market it will not be started before the Airbus X is released.

With all my respect Mathijs I'm pretty sure that "smallish market" is not that small. I love the bus and really looking forward for the extended version.

[andromeda 51]

...

Now, although a lot of a pilots job is automated, they dont always have the SIDS/STARS ifor their destination in their database. So they have add it manually.

So actually, this airbus has gotten slightly more realistic.

I would imagine (and I would probably be one, though I do lots more hands on flying now) that quite a lot of simmers use the automation available to them.....ie just stick in a sid, and a star and approach. When one relies too heavily on things being done for you. In this case, the plane is flying you!

at all times, you should be flying the plane, and using automation to help you. and if the automation cannot help you, do it yourself. ...So the fact that SIDS and STARs are not included within the FMGS isnt a big deal. As a pilot, you need to be able to program it manually yourself. Its part of the job.

Thank you for pointing things out as an airline pilot, Paul! That's exactely what I meant in my posting concerning that issue some pages earlier. And that is the reality of flying! "In that case, the plane is flying you": Well spoken and that's exactely what I meant some pages before by my remark "You gotta have situation awareness!".

But why should that make it hard to fly the SID or STAR? Many aircraft do not have systems that do not have these kind of displays and they still use fly these approaches and departures. I assure you Airbus pilots know how to do it, when a SID/STAR is not in the database they often do not spend the time to enter it, they just take the Jeppesen chart are fly the thing.

Same here, I couldn't agree more! I wonder why people who claim that they want to have a PMDG like airliner as close to reality as possible don't bother to do their sim flying a little bit closer to reality.

Problem is just that sometimes a waypoint isn't actually there (as a 5letter code like ISNUB or XP224), but is, i.e. a junction of two radials or a distance from a radio station on a certain radial like VOR/220/15 (-> a point 15nm from VOR on VORs radial 220). Will the FMGC accept the usual place/bearing/distance waypoint scheme? Otherwise it could indeed become difficult to fly some SIDs/STARs, especially in countries where those procedures are mainly based on radio stations instead of GPS waypoints, and where there are no such waypoints as RNAV overlay to the SID/STAR.

On first sight you got a point there. But in fact there's a very easy workaround for that problem. I got a small (some bytes) formula programmed in my pocket calculator that does the conversion. If you got the Radio-Nav's position in longitude and latitude (And you know it because it's published in the AIP), it's a very simple mathematical operation (geometry) to compute the longitude and latitude of a fix given by Radio-Nav-Aid, bearing and distance.

I willingly would like to provide the formula for that computation within then next days - I just don't have the time to search for it right now!

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

With all my respect Mathijs I'm pretty sure that "smallish market" is not that small. I love the bus and really looking forward for the extended version.

In our experience it is about 1/4 of the market for a simpler model. The problem is that to developer for that 1/4 takes a LOT more money, you get a lot more returns from the shops as people can't handle it (those people never post in a forum obviously) and customer is way higher.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Closing this topic, replacing it with http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=33282