Secondator
-
Posts
1836 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Secondator
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Alright, I see that there has been bit of a storm building up here over the weekend. Some people are even claiming that we are not going to implement the howl sound at all. I don't know where such statements are coming from. But they have certainly not come directly from anyone involved directly with the A330 development. So here is a word from the development team to settle some things.
So first of all, yes, we are aware that the howl sound is missing from the work in progress video preview of the sounds. Now there are always some compromises to be made with previews, and sometimes it can be hard to balance between what's ready and what's work in progress. But we want to be able to show you guys the overall progress we are making with the project, while giving sneak peaks into the development process itself. This means, that pretty much any preview we give is always work in progress. And sometimes we even get good feedback on these previews to improve things further. EFB has few examples of that, where we added a feature mentioned on this very thread. When it comes to sounds, we understand that the howl is a distinctive part of the sound environment on Trent 700 engines. At the time we did not realise how much this sound missing would raise questions if the sound would be missing from the end product as well. So on the hindsight, we probably could have been more careful not to release that early preview of the sounds just yet, and do better quality control check over such preview to ensure that we post a preview only after the howl sound was implemented in there as well. I can only apologise on my behalf for any upset this issue has caused.
Now as for the howl sound itself. Our sound engineer has been working through the weekend and just today introduced a new sound set with the howl also being implemented. Of course for now, it's just the first version, and will still need some fine tuning. Maybe a new preview where this can be heard will follow at some point (in the end, it's up to Mathijs, I just deal with the technical side). But just wanted to settle the misconception that there would not be any howl at all implemented on the final release.-
15
-
1
-
33
-
28 minutes ago, iLucasRT said:
Hi Mathijs, I have a question that is absolutely made out of my own curiosity (and I understand if you don't want to disclose that information).
What programming languages are the A330 being made on? Do the same languages are used for all aircraft (A330, CRJ, TO) or do they change depending on the aircraft to be created?
C++ (WASM), JS/HTML and some XML. It's relatively standard stack of programming languages across any aircraft project for MSFS. The exact approach which language is used for which feature is dictated by the feature and its requirements.-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, andre760li said:
Â
That is right, BUT as I said, the Lufthansa and EW-Discover A330-343X´s have a max capa of 78t. Defenetly 78000kg! That´s neither the "standard" capacity, nor the capacity with extra tanks... that is the reason why I ask.
Â
It's good to remember that the limiting factor of the tanks is volume. The version we are modeling currently for initial release is the version without center tanks. Total volume of the tanks is 97 530 litres.
Now, how much that makes in terms of kg depends on what fuel density you use. And fuel density depends on several factors. Different companies might use different fuel densities on their documentation. The standard fuel density used by Airbus is 0.785 kg/l. This is also the fuel density that we use in our calculations. Using this density we get 76 561 kg as the fuel weight for the maximum fuel volume. But of course, it's not wrong to say that the aircraft can hold 78 000 kg of fuel. It's just a different density value used.
A330-343 itself refers to the specific engine model. In this case Trent 772B-60 or Trent 772C-60. Our model rocks the Trent 772B-60 engines (and as said previously, has no center tank option installed). In the real world, there are A330-343s with and without center tanks installed.-
9
-
-
28 minutes ago, ahmed2003 said:
Hi Mathijs, I want to ask about the range of the aircraft how many kilometers?
It's a hard question to really answer because the maximum range depends on few factors like the flight conditions, the useful weight of the aircraft (full of passenger and cargo or empty) etc. I would say that you can fly distances of +6000 nm pretty comfortably. That would be for example the distance between London and Buenos Aires.-
3
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Pavel1971 said:
Â
My question is more about the actual use of the A330 than the model.
Isn't fuel dumping a mandatory option in aircraft design? After all, fuel collection is used in case of failures, when a forced landing is provided and there is a need to dump fuel.
In this case, the desire of the airline goes by the wayside
The second part of the question. If there is an A330 in which fuel dumping is not provided, what were the designers guided by when lining up the aircraft without fuel dumping, namely reliability, etc.?
No, fuel dumping certainly is not mandatory design feature of the aircraft. There are many airliners which don't even have fuel dumping as an option. All A320 series aircraft for example. If no fuel dumping is possible there are two options left out, either remain in the air and burn fuel until under Maximum Landing Weight, or make an overweight landing.
Now for your second question, let's assume the scenario of being above Maximum Landing Weight. Basically designers go with the regulation books. In the US these regulations are called FAR and in EASA CS and so on. In general they are all fairly similar because same aircraft operate all around the world. You have to meet all the regulations in these books to get airworthiness certificate. The reason for fuel dumping systems is not actually the structural integrity of the aircraft in an overweight landing situation but the climb requirements (namely climb gradient) in an approach configuration at Maximum Takeoff Weight. If the aircraft cannot meet these requirements, a fuel jettison system is required. A330 can meet this requirement, therefore it is not necessary to have a fuel jettison system installed. Boeing 747 for example cannot meet all these requirements and therefore must have a fuel jettison system installed.
Some further read for those interested in aircraft design, you can check out FAR regulations US FAR 25.1009 which leads into regulations US FAR 25.119 & US FAR 25.215d which lists the required climb gradients in different situations more in detail.
As for why some airlines might want to have a fuel jettison system installed on their aircraft even if it's not necessary, I can only give some guesses for. But one logical reason that comes to mind could the added landing options when reducing the weight. For example the airline might operate often at airports where the runway length would not be enough to guarantee enough landing distance margin in the case of an overweight landing. Without a fuel jettison system, in this case the crew would need to either find another airport (might not be possible), or wait until they burn enough fuel to allow a safe landing margin. So overall it it adds to safety allowing more options for quicker return in different situations. And of course reducing the landing weight adds to safety to reduce the risk of structural damage to the aircraft in an overweight landing situation. But aircraft are designed to withstand the structural loads well beyond the loads generated even on the overweight landing, and it would be extremely alarming if the structural limit of the aircraft was very close to allow only MLW. Especially since landings can be unpredictable in terms of how hard the touchdown is. A hard touchdown below MLW can be much harder to the structure of the aircraft than a "normal" landing overweight. But of course the risks increase with overweight landing and an inspection must always be carried after such event to ensure the structural integrity of the aircraft still.Â-
4
-
2
-
-
34 minutes ago, HarryBRZz said:
 So there will be no fuel dumping? only standard stuff?
Fuel dumping is anyways an extra option of the airline to choose from. Some A330s have it, some don't. Ours don't. And I also believe that the version where this option is not available is more common in general as well.-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, SoarandSkor said:
Do you think there could be a way to compromise on this issue? Maybe you guys don't have to put intersection options on the EFB, but maybe to appease the groups wanting to do intersection takeoffs we could manually adjust the runway lengths using the information available? I'm not a developer, but based off what I can see already, it seems as if implementing that would not be TOOÂ much extra work.
"Oh I doubt that it can be that much extra work" is always what precedes something that gets you stuck for days or even weeks. Been there, done that.
But joking aside. We'll make a note out of this for the future. But we have other higher priorities right now we want to work on. This is not something that would be considered as "release critical" item. And this does not mean either that we promise to deliver it later. We'll see if we manage to fit it in at some point depending on what the future holds.-
5
-
-
51 minutes ago, mo35k said:
Â
1. Is the FMS an updated version of P3D or is it using the same code base?
Â
2. Is the aircraft RNP AR approved?Â
1. The FMGS (and also MCDU) code will be rebuilt completely from scratch for MSFS.
2. We are not ready to discuss the level of RNP approaches (including RNP AR) just yet beyond what has been told earlier.-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Nico Bauer said:
Which Approaches will the A330 be able to fly?
ILS, R-Nav...
ILS, LOC, RNP (RNAV), VOR, NDB-
2
-
3
-
-
10 minutes ago, Luca_ 04 said:
TAP never operated the a333 btw, they only operate the a332 with GE engines and the a339. So I'm wondering why you have created the TAP livery, because it is actually fictional.
TAP has had 4 A330-343s in the past up until 2019 when they were leased by Air Canada. So even though they don't operate anymore for TAP, the livery itself is definitely not fictional. You can find the real aircraft if you google the registration "CS-TOU".Â
-
2
-
-
38 minutes ago, Pilotamg said:
@Mathijs Kok we will have the noise of the (PTU) at the time of taxiing?
A330 doesn't actually have a PTU like the smaller busses.
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, PaulRoeder said:
hey again,
will the derated takeoff/climb function be integrated?
It will be similar to how it is currently on the A330 for P3D. You can derate with Flex temperature but the standard derate of D04/D08 and so on for takeoff and DCLB1/DCLB2 for climb are currently not planned at least on release. -
It always helps us if you can find a case where the issue can be recreated and explicitly give the steps how it can be recreated. It makes it easier for us to investigate when we have a clear case we can try to check and see if firstly we are able to recreate as well, and if we are, use that case to check for any potential fixes. I understood that you were able to recreate the issue as well, but it still took me few tries with the instructions you gave to find the exact cases where it happens. So, in the end, I was able to recreate this issue after some investigation in certain fairly specific cases. I will use this also as an example of reporting an explicit case to recreate the issue.
I tried to recreate this issue on a flight from EFHK to EFOU flying a route EFHK/22R TEVRU3N TEVRU Y75 SUVIB EFOU/ILSZ12.TEGBO (transition). I loaded the route in normally including the departure runway, SID, STAR, ILS and the transition. Next, I went to the LEGS page and started to remove waypoints by deleting them manually from the very bottom of the LEGS page starting from ADKIN all the way TEGBO but left SUVIB still in the LEGS page. Then I went back to DEP/ARR page to select new arrival for EFOU and right after I had the runway selected again for ILS Z 12 the FMS freezes. The FMS does not freeze if I delete the waypoints all the way to GITVU and leave TEGBO on the LEGS page before selecting the new approach. In other words, the FMS freezes only if I delete all the waypoints manually on the LEGS page that I previously had selected as the approach procedure through the DEP/ARR page. Also, if I leave ADKIN and start the deletion from altitude waypoint (700) and delete everything all the way to TEGBO leaving SUVIB in the LEGS, I am not able to reproduce the freeze. I used the latest Navigraph AIRAC 2010 for this test.Â
This gives us clear steps how to recreate the issue at one go instead of trying to guess what kind of routes, steps, configurations, procedures etc. could cause this issue to first find a case on our side where we can recreate the issue. It also increases the chances that the issue that you experience will get promptly fixed and is not easily overlooked because we could not find a test case where we could recreate the issue to begin with due to ambiguous instructions. It's simply not possible for us to spend hours upon hours interpreting what the user might actually have done to cause the issue. We always try, and if we cannot find a way, we ask for more information for the very steps that caused the issue to make sure that we are doing things the same way. I understand that it's not always easy to give these instructions because these issues can happen out of nowhere and it's hard to remember the exact steps. But it always helps us if you can find a way to recreate it to give the exact steps including the exact flight plan, procedures selected, exact point where the issue happens and any edge cases where the issue might not happen that can give us a jump start for our own investigations.
Â
Now about the issue itself. I have noted this down on our issue tracker and forwarded it to the developer. But it should be also noted that this is not really a correct way to change your arrival procedure by manually just deleting the remaining flight plan on the LEGS page. You can simply overwrite an existing approach with new approach by not deleting anything on the LEGS page, going into the DEP/ARR page and selecting the new procedures you want to follow. This is the standard way to handle this case where approach procedure must be changed and should not cause any issues with the FMS. But nevertheless, the FMS should not cause a fatal freeze that ends the flight in any case, so we'll have a look into it.
-
1
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Abdulaziz Mo. said:
Oh he deleted it, is aerosoft going to develop a boat for the sim ?!!!!!!!
Not knowing the context fully I guess you are refering to a post that was meant for the Offshore Industries: North-Western Europe add-on that includes multiple different boats (scenery objects) in the product.
ÂÂ
-
12 hours ago, NoelCP said:
I did this mod and it works very well--thanks to Olaf, Goofey and Billy. Â I installed an update today, but it's as before--unless I change those radios the ATC problems persist. Â I didn't read the release notes so perhaps this update had something to do with something else.
Hmm. That's odd since the update should have addressed all these issues discussed on this thread. Could you please describe the exact steps you can still recreate the issue on the latest update. More details the better. -
The hotfix is already released on Aerosoft One as of today. We have sent it also to external stores and in-game marketplace but since it's weekend ahead it might take until Monday before it comes available on these channels.
-
1
-
-
This topic has side tracked to off-topic already, and I think Mathijs already gave the answer to the original question. We are aware of this issue but right now it's not at the top of our priority list. With that I'll lock this topic as answered.
-
12 hours ago, Joe Markowski said:
@Mathijs Kokif you could make that new tracker visible to all, but only modifiable by mods, that might solve a lot of the community complaints over lack of communication/documentation on what things are and are not known or in work.
Â
If the format is appropriate, of course.
Unfortunately that is not possible. The new tracker is meant only for internal use including information that we must keep confidential for various reasons (not just for the CRJ but other products as well).Â-
1
-
-
This issue has been discussed already in several topics. A hotfix will be released to fix this issue.
Â
-
9 hours ago, Calicrook said:
Steps I did to do this were as follows:
Â
Flight from KBFL to KDFW Â cold and dark on the ramp,
after getting the APU started, started filling out the flight plan in the FMS. after that is all done, went to clear out a disco in the legs page, freezes at that, everytime I try to clear the disco
Â
Â
just tried again, when clearing the disco's or at least trying to, it freezes up the game.
Please post the full route including departure runway, SID, route itself, any approach transitions, STAR and arrival runway for this case. Also where in the route the discontinuity that you try to clear is located (after which waypoint)? -
I'll talk with Hans if there is something we can do about this. Perhaps a third option in the EFB that only syncs the PFDs but not the standby instrument. No promises but we'll see.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, rbringh said:
Hopefully that statement means both Captain's and FO's radio panels will be fully operative. Will they?
No the First Officer's Audio Control Panel will remain inactivated for now. Otherwise it could cause potential conflicts between which channels are actually open. Take for example a situation where VHF2 Receive is OFF on captain's side and ON on FO's side. Or wise versa, ON of CAPT side and OFF on FO's side. Which side should it follow to make the actual receive variable itself ON or OFF in sim? We could make OR logic gate for it which would mean that the channel is open if it's open on either side. But that would then mean that you might need to fiddle with both panels when you want to make any changes (if channel is open on either one, it's open, so you need to close it on both panels for example). So in the end, there is only one ACP that controls a single audio device audio, just like in real life. Since most people fly from the Captain's seat we chose for the CAPT side as the functionable one. I understand that it's not optimal for the pilot's who like to fly from the FO's seat that they have to use ACP that the FO would never touch in real life. But after giving this some thought within the development team, we thought this is the simplest solution for now to avoid any confusion between which channels are actually open and when when trying to control single audio device through both panels.
I want to clarify also that the audio control panel is different thing from the radio itself. Audio Control Panel only controls the channels that are open and closed for transmitting or receiving and their volumes. The COM2 radio on the FO side remains fully operable. It's just the Audio Control Panel on the FO's side that remains inactive because of the possible conflicts mentioned above.
We might look into the possibility of selecting a role through the EFB as CAPT or FO, and that then determines which ACP is the functionable one. But this requires more time to investigate and implement, and we have not made a full decision on this yet.Â-
2
-
1
-
-
I cannot give any definitive ETA because there are many factors like testing, distribution etc. at play even for a simple hotfix. It probably will not be this week yet unfortunately but we are looking for a release by the end of next week if all goes well. I know this issue is frustrating and a week can be a long time still to wait for a hotfix. We are doing out best to get it out as promptly as possible.
Â
What I can say however is that we managed to include some fixes for the audio control panel as well for this hotfix so that controlling different audio channels will be a bit more logical as well.Â
-
1
-
-
There will be a hotfix coming to address this issue. First of all, I understand how frustrating this issue can be and we are looking to get this hotfix out as promptly as possible. Probably will not get it out this week yet unfortunately since there are so many moving parts when it comes to releasing even a quick hotfix that have to be taken into account. But we'll try to get it out latest by the end of next week.Â
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
Aerosoft Aircraft - A330 Preview
in Product Previews
Posted
I can assure that the developers have got pretty good already going through the deciphering algorithm, reducing the decoding time to just few milliseconds by now. It seems to be a bit like doctors hand writing. Only select few can develop the skills to read and understand it.
Â