Jump to content

ESzczesniak

Members
  • Content Count

    167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

ESzczesniak last won the day on February 16 2014

ESzczesniak had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

About ESzczesniak

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Solo

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. On products that have these as options, I wouldn't have it any other way. Not have maitenance and standard wear simulations are not deal breakers, but certainly love them when I see it.
  2. I'm not sure it would blow the wheels, but is very frowned upon. Large commercial jets actually do not want to touch down too soft or autobrakes and spoilers may not deploy. However, on clean runways an aim will be around -50 to -150 fpm and even on wet contaminated runways your looking at maybe -250 fpm. Many airlines will push an aircraft in for a maintenance review if they are over -500 fpm. Of course, MSFS only counts it as a crash if it exceeds -1000 fpm.
  3. Well, I agree Aerosoft seems to be trying hard to bring things up to speed. However, I'm one of what appears to be many who wishes they could get a refund. I knew systems wise what I was getting in to (ok, I still feel the web page overstated things a bit, but it was ballpark). However, I find the aircraft almost entirely unflyable by hand and autoland is problematic. An aircraft that doesn't fly well is very problematic.
  4. The Airbus X is beautifully modeled and I am quite happy that you are looking in to an "advanced" version. I've only had a few flights, but here is what I'd add: 1. Expansion of CDU/FMGS: In particular I'd like to see the ability to build a flight plan within the FMGS including departure airport and runway, SID, airways, STAR and arrival airport and runway. After that, being able to input speed/altitude constraints would be my next choice. I'd be happy to see allowances to select custom climb, descent and cruise speeds instead of hard coded speeds. However, I rarely actually change these data, so I can't argue much for it. Holds and fixes would be nice too, but I can live without those as well. 2. INS alignment: Truthfully I am not all that concerned about modeling drift, etc. Really, I would primarily like to see an option to require an alignment time period and to require that we flip the switches to align them. 3. Tuning of the VNAV: I don't know that I really need EVERY aspect modeled, but I would like to see a more flexible modeling for both managed and open VNAV. 4. Manual handling: I understand that the Airbus X was designed to be flown the way an A320/321 is normally. However, often aircraft really are hand flown on departure and final approach and while she handle's fine on departure, handling on finals is quite stubborn (we'll see how well it may be worked out with 1.20 though). 5. More thorough climb/thrust reduction profiles. In particular, the ability to set a thrust reduction height separately from an acceleration height so that we can model noise abatement procedures (typically thrust reduction at 1500 ft AFE and acceleration height at 3000 ft AFE). 6. I would like to see an option for VC rain...although I can easily live without it. 7. I like the idea for an ACARS simulation, but that's quite a bit extra work there. Like others, I am ok without a WXR, terrain display or wing flex.
  5. I'm curious what other people's perceptions about the approach control on manuals. I've only had the Airbus X up for a couple flights and she handles fairly well on departure. I just can't tame it on approach. I've tried flying both a manual approach from before the LOC intercept and letting the autopilot fly the LOC and G/S intercept before taking over. The problem I'm having is that the elevator controls, particularly up elevator, is laggy and over sensitive. If I am falling below G/S, I correct with just a slight bit of up elevator and go from a descent rate of about 7-800 fpm to 5-600 fpm immediately and looks good. But the elevator response just keeps ballooning over the next 1-2 seconds and even with fill down pressure on my stick (ok, yoke) the descent rate comes up to about 0 fpm. This makes tracking the G/S very difficult, something that I am actually pretty good at on most other aircraft being able to hold the G/S until about 50' AGL. I find a similar response with down elevator, but not as dramatic. I'm wondering if this is a result of my poor understanding of the FBW syste, as I'm a Boeing guy normally. I have been trying to trim the aircraft on approach like I would any other aircraft while flying manually. Perhaps I'm messing up the FBW system? I always have concerns over correct speed/weight but have been using the speeds from the CDU and flying around 120-130 kts. I'm curious what people's experience has been flying this aircraft on approach and if it's any different than my experience.
  6. I'm also hoping to see UAL repaints.
  7. I too have the incorrect runway useage (I think we're done with the debate about this being an issue?). In addition, I noted a while ago in the forums that RWY 15 should have a VASI light system--not only is it realistic, but would also help judging your short final on this steep primarily visual approach.
  8. Have you been using the default FSX bloom for those shots or the EMB bloom mod? I love the look of them, but never got the EMB mod to look like that and FSX has been pretty FPS intensive for me (admittedly though all my testing for it was at major hubs with complex aircraft add-ons).
  9. I think he's implying that Aerosoft stuff in general is hard on the frames. While I agree to some extent, I'm not sure the sceneries are any harder than other high end scenery developers...at least not on my system.
  10. I have AspenX and think it's a great product, but I'm curious as to where the VASI lights are? According the airport information page on airnav.com (http://www.airnav.com/airport/KASE), runway 15 should have a 4 light VASI visual approach system with a 3.50 degree slope. I don't see them anywhere in the preview photos, so I don't think my scenery is wrong. Perhaps it wold be fairly easy to add them ourselves with some instructions? Or a simple update?
  11. I do agree that Aerosoft's F-16 is excellent, but so is the VRS F/A-18E. I think it's a bit unfair to compare it to the acceleration Hornet (after all, that's a legacy bird) or the price. First off, the price is not greater than $50 for the VRS bird (you can pre-order for that now) and in fact if you order it before release it's $35-40 (depending on if you a former owner of the FS9 version). Secondly, this truly is a study level simulation within the constraints of limited access to government performance data. Is it as complete as a PMDG like they claim? Realistically, not really. But it's not fair to compare them either. Boeing is working right with PMDG and none of a 737's avionics are "classified". Outside the realms of what's limited because of classified information, VRS is a PMDG bird. The flight dynamics of the FS2004 version were a dream (too bad I can't comment on realism since I don't fly the real thing) and the systems modeling was excellent. So was the F-16 and Aerosoft got in the game early with an FSX native fighter. Personally I'm glad to have both options.
  12. Not to the same extent. FSX has redesigned the texture handling system. So while FS9 can use all the features including photo scenery, scenery objects and autogen, it is unable to handle them in the same numbers and texture size as FSX. Even if FS9 is strictly speaking still capable of handling say an equal size photo scenery, it does so with much less efficiency than FSX and comparatively takes a bigger performance hit. This is not an all out defense of FSX. It has it's issues, but so did FS9 for the first couple years it was out. Regardless, there are some things FSX has improved and I'll give credit where it's due.
  13. Well, I do agree with this. However in the mean time the PMDG JS41 isn't a bad aircraft to fly in to this airport. Granted, you're pushing the service ceiling a little bit more, but still well within limits unless it's a really hot day.
×
×
  • Create New...