Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

462 Excellent

1 Follower

About FWAviation

  • Rank
    Privat Pilot - SEP

Recent Profile Visitors

2968 profile views
  1. Yes, they work for me, too. Sadly, both liveries are out of date already. D-ACKL in real life only carries a "Lufthansa" instead of a "Lufthansa Regional" livery now, while D-ACNW has been painted in Lufthansa's new livery a few weeks ago.
  2. Thanks for pointing out, @vali - good to know! EDIT: Did he take those two liveries down? I can't see anything about them on his Facebook page and I sadly don't have my login data for AVSIM with me (so I can't check whether those two download links still work), but I can't find the two liveries via the AVSIM search function.
  3. That's good advice for a truly annoying problem. I can give everyone the advice to do without third-party AV software (at your own risk, of course) and simply use the Windows virus protection and firewall (if you are a Windows user). My brother-in-law who is an IT professional recommended it to me and I never regretted it since. As Mathijs already pointed out, AV software can do more harm than being helpful.
  4. I second that request. @vali, Max Wohlerdt (who does a lot of Lufthansa repaints) also plans to update his CRJ textures for the CRJ Professional in the months to come. So I expect the D-ACNN livery in its current form to be released in the near future anyway. Nevertheless, it would be great if the livery included in the default package would already lose the Eurowings paint.
  5. This problem was already addressed above in this post and the subsequent posts. Tailstrike should really do something about it, it is highly distracting.
  6. May I give you a recommendation from another customer's standpoint, @greycap? If you behave that aggressively and reproach the Aerosoft team of not checking your problem thoroughly, you can't be sure of getting a reply. As Mathijs and Otto (mopperle) already pointed out, they could not reproduce the problem. Otto even posted a video where he panned around to the corner you meant. They also suggested you to address that problem also to FSDT, since your problems indicate that GSX could be the culprit. Did you do so? In any case, you ask them to do something they already did and although they already said they can't reproduce it and gave you further advice, you react in such a destructive manner. This is not a good idea.
  7. @airbusA333, the more interesting question is what happened and what you did before you started recording that video. Because you were apparently off course already then. I detect that your navigation display already displayed abeam points at that stage - so I suspect that something went wrong already when you chose another "direct with abeam points" earlier. It's also strange that at the start of the video, in the upper right corner of the ND, it shows RADIS as next waypoint although ABVIPPA and then ABARTOR should actually be the next two waypoints (according to the flightplan in your MCDU). It would also be interesting to know whether you encountered that problem also in other flights in the A330 or only in this flight.
  8. If it took a lot of work and especially the files are not the same as in the initial version (and with a shortened fuselage for the -200 and different engine shapes and data for the GE and PW engines, there would certainly be quite many new files), I for my part would be perfectly fine with a reasonable upgrade price for new models or engine variants.
  9. That is understandable. And of course it would make no sense to develop for P3Dv4 any longer if P3Dv5 is already out. But I hope that at the very least, the development of further A330 models and/or engine variants is still an option at least for the future MSFS version of the A330. I mean, if such an expansion was generally unviable, PMDG would probably not develop -600/-700 expansions for every new 737 NG base pack and not currently hint on a potential -ER version of the 777-200. Or bear in mind QualityWings with their 787-10 expansion.
  10. @AAC47 The "Load and Fuel" page shows under "ACT" the amount of the fuel the plane is carrying at the moment. The 12.1 tons shown match the FOB number shown on the upper ECAM display. And at 1:57, you can see the "ACT" number on the "Load and Fuel" page changing from 12.09 to 12.08 tons. So just like @airbusA333 said, it seems as if the correct amount of fuel was loaded before take-off and that the plane burned the "missing" 3.5 tons during take-off and climb. I have another guess what could have lead to the problem following the course: I noticed that you flew a route abeam to the waypoints VIPPA and ARTOR. Maybe the abeam function in the A330 isn't working properly yet and the autopilot got somewhat confused whether it shall head for ARTOR or the "ABARTOR" abeam waypoint? I haven't used the abeam function so far, though, so I sadly can't provide any advice.
  11. @DaveCT2003 The assumption that it will take considerable time until we have a comparable range of add-ons for MSFS as we have it now for P3D is an assumption I share. But this assumption is actually also a very good rationale why it might be a good idea to develop additional A330 models and engine variants for the P3D version while P3D is still very much in use and MSFS hasn't caught up completely yet. šŸ˜‰
  12. Does that include that there will be no new engine variants for the A330-300, at least for the moment? By the way, @GBNLL, I can confirm that the A330 is very much flyable, at the very least in its current version I did a flight from EDDL to KMIA last weekend, and everything worked like a charm, also the MCDU fuel indication problem which was present in the earlier versions of the A330 was gone.
  13. Thank you for the nice livery, @LIAMD3012! It contains one mistake, though: The stylised bird on the right side of the tail should point to the right (i.e., into flight direction). For comparison, here's a picture of the real plane: https://www.planespotters.net/photo/1040218/d-aiaf-condor-airbus-a321-211wl
  14. Thank you for the interesting insights and your friendly answer, @steve dra! I'm crossing my fingers that you are able to fix this. Do you have any thoughts about the size of the "Lufthansa" lettering? The width of it seems right, but in this and this picture it seems as if the "L" is slightly higher than the rain gutter above door L1, while in your livery it seems to be smaller.
  • Create New...