[NDP Cycle 2211]

Der neue Cycle wird entweder nur mit der alten Cycle-Nummer 2210 oder sogar mit den alten Daten erstellt. Das ist nicht zu verifizieren. Bitte korrigieren.

[NavDataPro Cycle 2208 problem]

Agree, same here. Furthermore I just purchased another subscription for 1 year. Despite entering the new code, validity for new cycles is NOT indicated. Still indcates the old (used) cycle as VALID !! So there seems to be a pretty nice mess in the NavDataPro Administration.

 

Oskar

[Mega Airport Zürich X falsche ILS-DME Readings]

Danke !

Oski

[Mega Airport Zürich X falsche ILS-DME Readings]

Ebenso erstaunlich ist es, dass sich keiner der zuständigen Entwickler zu diesen Thema meldet ! Es sind immerhin alle 4 ILS-Approaches betroffen und das ist für einen Mega-Airport doch eher schwach ! Eine - noch so kleine - Randnotiz eines Entwicklers dazu wäre definitiv wünschenswert. Es kann ja nicht sein, dass dieser fatale Fehler einfach so unkommentiert bleibt, oder ??

Oskar

[ILS / DME Angaben falsch]

Das gleiche Problem besteht auch beim Mega Airport Zurich. Beim Anflug auf Piste 16 mit Frequenz 110.5 ist DME an der Pistenschwelle nicht 0. Möglicherweise beziehen sich die Koordinaten jeweils auf das Pistenende statt den Pistenanfang...

Nicht nur auf der ILS 16 - siehe hier : http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/54233-mega-airport-zurich-x-falsche-ils-dme-readings/ Es ist einigermassen erstaunlich, dass sich noch keiner der Entwickler angesprochen fühlt. Es ist immerhin 80% der Radionavigation im Eimer...

Oski

[Mega Airport Zurich X]

Disregard this post here. I have opened it in the German Support Forum.

Oskar

[Mega Airport Zürich X falsche ILS-DME Readings]

Erstaunlicherweise ist es offensichtlich bis jetzt niemandem aufgefallen, dass alle vier ILS-DMEs falsche Distanzangaben liefern. Dies, weil die DME-Stationen fälschlicherweise bei allen vier ILS auf der Localizer-Antenne positioniert wurden, anstatt beim Glideslope-Sender. Dies ergibt je nach Runway Fehler zwischen 1.5 und 2NM. Da sollte ein Patch helfen können. Das DME jeder ILS von LSZH Zürich zeigt NULL am Touchdownpoint (0.2 NM nach dem Threshold).

Nachstehend die Profile aller ILS-Anflüge in LSZH:

RWY 14:

RWY 16:

RWY 28:

RWY 34:

Oskar

[Mega Airport Zurich X]

Here is some additional information on that subject:

See below the 4 profiles for the ILS 14, 16, 28 and 34:

RWY 14:

RWY 16:

RWY 28:

RWY 34:

Regards

Oskar

[Mega Airport Zurich X]

Uhmm, yes Bruce, I'm definitely sure . LSZH Zurich is my home airport and I've done a few thousand IFR landings here and furthermore I'm working now for a company that produces route-manuals for airlines. I can tell you that all four ILS-DME's are reading ZERO at the touchdown-point (0.2 NM after THR). I have checked the AF2 files and they indeed show all four DME's at the LOC position. Yes, I'm definitely sure about that, don't worry

Oskar

[Mega Airport Zurich X]

Gentlemen, I wonder a bit that nobody has ever noticed a major shortcoming on this airport: ALL ILS-DME distances are WRONG as the DME's are placed at the localizer antenna instead onf the GP antenna. Therefore the DME distance at touchdown DOES NOT read ZERO as it should. All four ILS' are affected by this bug! I didn't check on other airports but I'm afraid that this bug is present on other airports too as it is a common misunderstanding.

Oskar

[No Flight Path Vector?]

Although I have seen the graphics being present I could not find a way to switch on the FPV. Is someone telling me that there is no FPV modeled ? Can't be, can it?

Oskar

[THR CLB]

I have the issue that I never reach the N1 limits that are set by FADEC. Suring take-off the given limit in the Engine Display is NEVER reached. Even after liftoff despite throttle in the TOGA detent the engines thorttle back to around 80%. TOGA and CLB modes should be FADEC controlled engine limits that shoud be maintained as long as this mode is present. This results in an OPEN CLIMB schedule with engine output always at the limit and speed being maintained by elevator. I never see this happen.

Oskar

[Aerosoft Airbus X - Preview]

Will it be included custom landing tyre smoke and sound?? Or we shall observe default FSX gigantic cloud of smoke and hear nothing.

Would be great if possible to make,... that amount of tyre smoke produced is somehow result of landing. Hard landing - lost of smoke (not like default)

Soft landing - nice small amount od tyre smoke

Well, just to make it clear:

- soft lading -> more smoke but generally thinner plume

- hard landing -> less smoke but thicker plume

and btw: you don't hear the "screaming" of the tires inside the cockpit (depending on the A/C type you might hear a bit in the cabin) in fact you don't hear anything (in fact you feel it...) except for the whole A/C shaking when hitting the ground a bit hard

Oskar

[A New Simulator (June edition)]

Hi Mathijs

I appreciate very much your (and your company's) guts to at least brainstom the idea of developing a future Flight Simulator. And with interest I read all postings for things that obvioulsy need to be imperatively included into a new Flight Simulator.

A huge amount of ideas. Some excellent and some going too much into details. I agree to all proposals that can focus on INITIAL requirements of a new simulator. One thing is for sure: it will be judged by the FSX standards and whatever can be achieved within (due to excellent add-on programmers like A2A, PMDG and others...).

So in my opinion it must feature everything that is already available (which is quite a lot, as many posters here might have overseen) PLUS:

Better aerodynamic model (be aware that even within x-plane with an admittently good aerodynamic engine some A/C fly like crap. A good aerodynamic model does not automatically imply perfect behaviour. It's what addon programmers make of it. but I agree that the THEORECTICAL CAPABILITES are better)

sloped runways (but please do not use x-plane as a reference. Those slopings are only mesh dependend and use the same "bending" algorithm as for the streets .. with sharp bends which are by no means realistic)

Updated NAV database (it is a pita to always use external programs for flight planning or to add/change navaids)

better multiplayer capabilities (the present quality of data transfer allows very accurate formation flying already, to set up a connection via GameSpy is the enervating part...)

Making use of today's PC standards (multicore processors, multi-processor boards) is something that should not be expressively asked for . This HAS to be included in any future program developments.

All the rest (and I mean ALL) can be achieved in future developments if the program architecture is reasonably selected. As for ATC my thoughts are a bit split. As I have spent over 30 years in real aviation I know that a realistic ATC will never be achieved. In this respect I fancy online flying as it is used on today's level (improvements are also still possible ... ) OTOH if AI traffic needs to be implemented (and it obviously needs AI traffic) there MUST be some kind of ATC .. at least in the background.

And .. PLEASE: maintain Multiscreen capabilities including detachable instruments/groups (I still love the unrestricted view outside on one screen and all the instruments on additional screens)

Oskar