Jump to content

RALF9636

Members
  • Posts

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RALF9636

  1. Just use the templates for AAO provided in this thread.
  2. Thank you for creating and sharing these templates! That brought the CRJ to another level for me. I bought AAO just to be able to use these and it worked quite intuitively without even looking at the manual ๐Ÿ™‚, so I am not into AAO yet at all. I will certainly look into AAO deeper later on (I have been using LINDA so far, but unfortunately development seems to be discontinued - AAO looks to be a good successor). I wonder if it would be possible to dial in the landing elevation and the MDA/DH as well with the right rotary knob of the Bravo, maybe after selecting these items with one of the up/down switches. That would be very handy.
  3. This is my experience as well. I think with the environment slider you also affect rain, thunder, birds, waves etc.
  4. The OP already posted a video. This is exactly what I hear as well:
  5. I am also a little disappointed that I cannot use my Honeycomb Alpha and Bravo devices to their full potential, for example for lights and autopilot. What strikes me most is that I can set Heading, Speed and VS with the Honeycomb Bravo, but not Altitude. And due to the cockpit layout setting the altitude also requires panning the view - a quite cumbersome procedure to set the altitude. I would very much appreciate if you would find a way to allow to make use of the control devices. I wonder if FSUIPC and/or LINDA can do anything about it.
  6. I agree that the wind sound in the cockpit sounds exactly like the wind sound in the outside view. I also found that a little disturbing. Obviously I don't know if it is realistic in the CRJ cockpit, but it does not sound immersive to me, more like a window being left open. Would be nice to be able to optionally turn that down in the EFB settings.
  7. Thanks for your reply. Meanwhile I worked around the issue by renaming the existing folder of one of the default aircraft in ...\AppData\Local\Packages\Microsoft.FlightSimulator_...\LocalCache\SimObjects\Airplanes into "Aerosoft_CRJ_700" and now I can access the cameras.cfg file there and saving and reloading the custom cameras works fine in the sim. I also noticed that I have the same issue now with any new aircraft I install. I cannot access the file in any new created folder there. So something must have changed with the properties / authorizations of that folder on my system recently. I can only access the files in the already existing folders. So you are right, apparently it is not an issue caused by the Aerosoft CRJ. Anyway I would be thankful if anybody had an idea what went wrong here for me. The strange thing is that the propeties show me as the owner of the folders with full access.
  8. Saving custom cameras works fine for me with all the default aircraft and all the mods I use like the FBW A320 and the Bushleaguelegends Carbonprop-XCub. It does not work with the CRJ though. If I save a custom camera (for example ctrl-alt-1) it saves once and can be loaded again fine in the same session with alt-1. But when I try to change that custom view again in the same session, it doesn't save any more; it stays the view I saved initially. After closing and restarting the sim the custom cameras are gone completely. I assume this has to do with the following observation and the sim for some reason cannot access the cameras.cfg file: In C:\Users\...\AppData\Local\Packages\Microsoft.FlightSimulator_...\LocalCache\SimObjects\Airplanes in every folder I can open the cameras.cfg file with Editor. But not the one in the Aerosoft_CRJ_700-folder (same with the 550). I get the message: "Sie haben keine Berechtigung zum ร–ffnen dieser Datei. Wenden Sie sich an den Besitzer der Datei oder an den Systemadministrator" "You do not have permission to open this file. Contact the owner of the file or the system administrator" (translated, wording might be different in Windows). When I look at Properties-Security-Advanced I see that I am already the owner of the file. As far as I can see everything looks exactly the same as when I look at the Properties of the cameras.cfg files of the default aircraft which I can open without problems. I have the MS-Store version of the sim and I have installed the content on a different drive (so the Community and Official folder are on my drive M:). I am logged in in Windows as Administrator. I installed the CRJ as administrator and also tried running the sim as administrator. Again, it works fine with all other aircraft. Any ideas? Thank you!
  9. Is that also valid for lights? I noticed that I can't switch the external lights with my Honeycomb Alpha. It works with all other aircraft. Is that a known limitation as well, or something wrong with my setup?
  10. Thanks for the interesting insights. Looking forward for the Twin Otter. I also miss the Aerosoft Beaver. It would be a perfect aircraft to explore the new sim. Regarding the Airbus I'd also appreciate the A330 first. Actually I'm a bit surprised about your announcement it will most possibly be the A320, given there already is an A320 in the sim. At least I had the hope that the quality gap between the default A320 and the Aerosoft A320 (in its current state) would be closing over time. You seem confident enough that the Aerosoft A320 will be so much better than the default one that enough people will buy it. That either means that the default A320 will generally stay at the quite basic quality we have seen so far (which would be a little disappointing regarding Asobo's own standards of excellence) or that the Aerosoft's Airbus steps up significantly (which would be great). Of course you will have the necessary insight to assess this. Nevertheless I'd like the A330 first and use the default A320 for the time being.
  11. Thanks for your reply. I was one of those, sorry for that ๐Ÿ˜ž Yes, I've read what you wrote about it somewhere and just wanted to sum up this thread. The trip fuel varies massively when entering different block fuel values in the INIT FUEL PREDICTION page. It should only differ by small amounts according to the different fuel weight, shouldn't it? It seems not have an adverse effect on the flight, I just noticed it and thought it might be related. Thanks. Indeed, this is the only real issue I encountered so far. Take your time. I love the A330!
  12. Just to get things sorted: It seems there are at least five different issues mentioned in this topic: 1. The total fuel amount calculated by the Aerosoft Airbus X Fuel Planner is too low for the A330. Workaround: Enter the value calculated by Simbrief / PFPX. 2. The preflight trip fuel calculation on the INIT FUEL PREDICTION page inadequatly depends on the value entered for the Block fuel. I see this on every flight preparation. 3. The GWCG is incorrect when loading via GSX. It is okay when using Instant Load. 4. The EFOB values in the MCDU are too low during cruise, but the actual fuel consumption is correct compared to the Simbrief calculations and the preflight calculations in the MCDU. I have this issue on every flight. 5. The actual fuel consumption of the A330 is too high. I never had this problem so far and I am not sure if anybody really had or just aborted the flight due to the misleading EFOB predictions. Just to confirm: Am I correct that none of these issue has been adressed in 1.0.0.5?
  13. I also hear this sound on every takeoff and wondered what it is. No tables extended here as well.
  14. Looking forward. Thanks a lot for your contribution. It's a shame American gave up that bare metal look - now that we have PBR! Btw. anybody doing a Condor A330? Would be very much appreciated.
  15. I'd assume that is a different issue then. The EFOB values for all waypoints are wrong right after takeoff.
  16. UTC time predictions are ok for me. Were all your UTC time predictions completely off or only after the discontinuity?
  17. For me this problem has absolutely nothing to do with ActiveSky. This time I did not launch ActiveSky at all to test this. I used the "Cold Fronts" weather theme of P3D. Exactly the same issue shortly after takeoff. As you can see from the screenshot: actual FOB = 15.8 EFOB at next waypoint (which is 9 nm away) = 10.1 ! Data.zip
  18. But the fuel consumption itself seems to be correct. It is just the EFOB values that are miscalculated somehow. So you should be fine to continue the flight with the fuel calculated by simbrief. Did you compare the actual FOB with the predictions calculated by simbrief for each waypoint? For me it always is quite spot on. And the EFOB values somehow recover to the end of the flight.
  19. I just accidentally found this issue. It might be related. The trip fuel calculation apparently depends on the block fuel entered (and not just because of the different fuel weight). I just entered different block fuel values here pre-flight and the trip fuel shows unplausible values, it even becomes negative. Additionally I also have the issue with the invalid GWCG value, reported here (and I cannot always solve it with "instant load"): Maybe related as well.
  20. Not going to make any comparisons here and only wanting to help: I made 100+ flights using ActiveSky with the Airbus of the other (more expensive) developer that also imports the winds from ActiveSky and never ever had an issue with the EFOB predictions there. So I doubt that this can simply be put down to weird weather by ActiveSky. Also if it was caused by fluctuations in the ActiveSky weather the EFOB values should also be fluctuating. But that is not what I see. The EFOB goes constantly down in the first half of the flight and goes constantly back up again in the second half of the flight.
  21. Great, thanks a lot! And +1 for American and Hawaiian, please.
  22. Data.zip Just in case you need more logs. The thread title is misleading because the actual fuel consumption is spot on. It is just the EFOB values in the MCDU that are significantly too low temporarily. The EFOB values are okay until just after takeoff. Then suddenly all the shown values are about 6 + 8 tons too low. That starts with the next waypoint and continues from there. So the calculation between waypoints seems to be correct. The problem is that the EFOB for the next waypoint is much too low. The discrepancy gets worse for some time, then somewhere midflight starts to improve and shortly before approach the values get correct again. The actual fuel consumption is correct throughout the flight (according to SimBrief calculations for each waypoint and actual FOB readings). That has been the same for me on all my flights so far.
  23. Same here. The MCDU values that were initially totally off slowly caught up with reality during the flight and the values were correct when I reached the final waypoint.
×
×
  • Create New...