Jump to content

Captain Nav

Members
  • Posts

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Captain Nav

  1. Ok, no worries, I will double check the assignment I have in P3D and use Ctrl . Thank you very much.
  2. Hello, P3D v4.5, A319 v1.4.3.0 With the latest A319 update (v. 1.4.3.0), I can no longer release the parking brake with the brake button on the keyboard or on my joystick. It worked perfectly well before on v 1.3.1.0 and it works for my other addons, no problems there at all. I can still release it by moving around the flight deck with Chaseplane and click on the parking brake to release it, but it is cumbersome and not the way it should work. Are you guys aware of such an issue? Thank you and best regards.
  3. I have a similar issue with the latest update. The speedbrake lever does not physically move in the flight deck and there are no notifications on the ECAM, but the spoilers are definitely up on the wings.
  4. Done, thank you, I now have the newest version, v. 1.4.3.0, installed. So far so good!
  5. OK thank you for that, I will have a look if it happens again. In the meantime, how do I update the various aircraft? The updater does not let me do it as I mentioned in the post above. Do I have to reinstall the whole thing from scratch? If so, do I install the new version (1.4.3.0) on top of the old one (1.3.1.0), or do I uninstall the old version first and then install the new one? Thank you so much.
  6. No, I am not using those updates, but it does not matter.... what I am trying to say is that IF there is a restriction in the RAD you have saved in PFPX (whatever version you may have), then it will "create" the fuel error message in PFPX v2.04 as we discussed above. I have fixed the issue as far as I am concerned. As I said, take it or leave it.
  7. Upon checking the Aerosoft updater (1.6.0.1), it says I have version 1.3.1.0 installed....and available version: 1.4.3.0 / New Version 1.4.3.0. 12 June 2021. FYI, I actually downloaded the aircraft on the 15th of June....! I thought I had downloaded the latest from the shop. However, I have 2 issues here: 1) The updater says version 1.4 is for P3D v5, I only have P3D v4.5 2) The "Update selected Product" tab at the bottom is greyed out, I can't "click" on it Thanks for your help, I appreciate it.
  8. Thank you for getting back to me. I purchased the aircraft about a month ago, so I suppose it is the latest. Let me double check.
  9. Hello, Just wondering if there is a solution to the checklist/Copilot "freeze".... Quite often, the checklist/Copilot will simply freeze on one item of the checklist and there is no "skip item" option.... Once this happens, there is no way back, no way to get things going again. Any help with this would be appreciated... It is extremely frustrating! I already had to restart the sim twice today. Thank you.
  10. Well, I am not 100% sure this is what's happening, but the chances are... it is. I was working on a route from LFPG to LFBO.... It was giving me FL290 as max (Eurocontrol rule inserted in PFPX). If I was trying to force a higher level instead of optimum (FL350 for example), then it would give me the fuel error message. Once I removed the level restriction in the route restrictions (Altitude/FL restrictions) tab, then I could plan the flight up to FL350 with no error message and FL290 was not showing as max anymore. It is working for me, I do think this is where the problem is....Why it comes as a fuel error message, I don't know, but I have fixed the problem. Take it or leave it!
  11. That is what some "professional" flight planning software actually do, they use FL302 for 9200m, whereas you fly FL301.... I would not lose sleep over that.
  12. I don't know if you got it working again or not, but I have come across the same problem lately.... You are getting this error message because there is a route level restriction in PFPX. If you try to force a level above the restriction you get the error message. If you use optimum, then it uses FL240 which, for the route, must be the higher you can fly at. Why the message comes as "fuel exceeded..." is weird, but that is what it is.
  13. Thank you.... As I said, it is a little bit unpredictable at times, which forces us to be "proactive" in the descent.... LOL
  14. Fair enough, at least, I am not doing anything wrong, LOL Thank you
  15. After having flown a few sectors now with the 319 on P3Dv4.5, I am starting to notice issues with the ability of the aircraft to maintain a good level of accuracy in the descent profile. As you know, there are usually a few altitude/level constraints during the descent and on a STAR. I find the aircraft does not always meet those constraints very well. Sometimes it is up to 500 feet too high crossing a waypoint with an active "at or below" constraint. On other occasions, although the beginning of the descent goes well and the aircraft seems to be on profile (green ball centered), then all of a sudden, the green ball goes up and the aircraft almost levels off with nothing having changed...then, it will go down quickly and the aircraft will be very high on the profile (a bit of a roller coaster effect). What also actually happened to me once was that after a At or Below constraint, the aircraft almost levelled off instead of continuing the descent. If I had not continued the descent myself, then I would have arrived over the FAP 15000 feet too high. You get the drift overall.... the "VNAV" or "descent" function is erratic at the best of times. It is very frustrating as sometimes, the aircraft is too high, sometimes it is too low. Descent planning, and execution, is not reliable. I use Active Sky for the weather and load up the wind data forecast into the aircraft FMS. I like the aircraft and am not looking for perfection, far from it. I just feel that a working and usable VNAV (or whatever the Airbus term is) would be amazing. Thanks.
  16. Yeah, I tried again a CONF3 approach and landing (3 degree glideslope) on the A319, about 56.5t LDW, and still had a nose up attitude of about 6/ 6.5 degrees nose up. The Vapp suggested in the MCDU was 133, for a VLS of 128. I was maintaining 133 knots on final approach. It does not look realistic at all....It gives me the feeling of flying a flapless approach! Are the speeds suggested by the MCDU in the APP page too slow, maybe? Even with FULL config, it was giving me a Vapp of 130 and a VLS of 125... FYI, on a FULL config landing, I usually get a nose up of about 2.5 degrees....
  17. I was flying into Gatwick, I can't remember exactly the weight, but it was definitely selected as CONF3, not FULL, since I had first selected FULL and saw it was giving a lower vApp, then changed it to CONF3.
  18. Just to confirm, I was flying vApp, which was about 140 kts (VLS 135). Thanks. By the way, I have to say I quite enjoy the aircraft, good fun so far and complex enough for me.
  19. Got it all sorted out, the sound in the sim was muted, so this is why I could not hear GSX and use the AS sound "mixer" . Just weird that the A319 sounds were still coming through "raw", I guess that it is what misled me. Anyway, all sorted out now.
  20. Hello, Sorry for the stupid question in advance (I am not too familiar with Airbus, I am a Boeing man), but I would like to find out if it is a normal thing for the A319 to have such a high nose attitude on final approach. I have just flown an ILS approach with a Flaps 3 configuration (I understand you can land with Flaps 3 or Full) and on final approach, I had a nose attitude of about 5 or 6 degrees nose up. It did not look right at all. Thanks for shedding light on this. Regards
  21. Thank you for the reply.... Yes, I have checked with the Ground Power Unit, then started the APU, disconnected the GPU.... Same noise. As soon as the aircraft is powered up, there is a lot of that background noise. I actually worked it out just now.... In volume control, the percentage does not lower the volume of the avionics and the cooling. If I set them at 1% or 95%, I get the same exact level of noise. Unless you set both avionics and cooling at 0, then you get the same level of noise. Is this the way the simulation is supposed to work, or am I missing something? I don't see the point in having a "sound percentage" if it has no influence whatsoever on the sound levels....
  22. Gentlemen, thank you for your reply. With GSX, I do not hear anything, no sound of boarding passengers, no engineer's instructions., etc... I get pushed back and everything, but don't hear anything. GSX works with other addons, and the GSX settings look right. Just to clarify, you don't control GSX with the 3rd MCDU, do you? You control GSX independently, right? With the aircraft sounds, there is that constant background noise. As I said, the 3rd MCDU sound options do not seem to have any effects. In the volume options, it gives you the option to lower the percentage of various elements (Cooling, Air Cond, etc... if I remember well, but as I already said, even setting everything down to 10% does not seem to have any effects overall. It does not make any differences. I would like to be able to lower that constant noise because it is a lot of white noise and after a while, it is tiring and annoying. Thanks for your help.
  23. Hello, I have 2 sounds issues in the A318/319/320/321 in P3D V4.5 please. The first one is with GSX. GSX interaction sounds are totally cutoff when I use the aircraft, but it works with other aircraft (777, etc...). GSX works, but I can't hear anything from GSX. The GSX Services option is on. The second is with the sound of the aircraft. There is a quite loud constant background noise (quite loud with headsets on) I can't get rid of. The sound options in the MCDU3 do not seem to have much effect even when battery sounds, cooling sounds, etc... are reduced to 10%, for example. In outside views, you can hardly hear the engines (which is Ok actually). Overall, the sound seems to be "weird". I used to have the aircraft on FSX and don't remember having those difficulties (with GSX in particular). Thanks.
  24. Hi Sorry for reviving this thread but it is the only one I could find about that topic.... I understand PFPX needs to work out if the route requires ETOPS or not, but what I don't like is the fact the navigation log is "interrupted" with this( these) GO point(s). This is information I don't need in the navigation log. On a flight from OMDB to OBBI, surely I don't need the software to tell me when I should go back to OMDB or go to OBBI.... It is not even an ETOPS sector anyway. I just find this extra info useless, to be honest, and a disruption in the navigation log. A lot of OFP solutions do not use this GO point option... It is rather strange. This GO point option was not there a couple of years ago with the previous version of PFPX.... Is there definitely no way this can be removed? Thanks
  25. If anybody knows about this one, it would be great. The minima button does not seem to be doing anything. PS: sorry for reviving thread.
×
×
  • Create New...