If you want a Honeycomb Alpha for Christma you better order fast because we are quickly running out of stock!

Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About AMJBecker

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork
  1. Nice link! Thank you. Question: do the FSX sceneries comply with P3DV4, too? Sometimes it's mentioned explicitly that a scenery is for P3DV4 only. Does this mean that this particular scenery is for P3D only, but the others are for FSX and P3D?
  2. I made an update of the P3D scenery as described above. It's much better now, as the runway names and frequencies and runway courses are corrected in many cases. Thank you. But missing runways are not added, at least the two, which I checked (Almaty 23R/05L and Frankfurt 25R/07L still don't exist). This means that the second recommendation above seems to be the only way to be safe. Thanks mopperle.
  3. Does anyone have a good approach how to overcome inconsistencies between the Aerosoft Navigation database and the P3D scenery? As an example: I performed a flight to Almaty, Kasachstan (UAAA) and selected runway 23R. During final approach I recognized that runway 23R does not exist in P3D and the ILS approach could not capture the tuned ILS. I checked in P3D and realized that the P3D scenery only knows a runway 23 (which seems to be runway 23L in the Aerosoft navigation database). Another example: The final approach to Dusseldorf, Germany (EDDL) towards runway 23R went fine until short before the runway threshold, when the altitude suddenly went up a significant amount so that landing is nearly impossible. Again, comparing the runway characteristics between the Aerosoft navigation database and the P3D scenery shows a difference in the runway elevations, which for me most probably causes the altitude hop. (Runway 23L is fine, by the way.) it is a very bad surprise after a successful flight, when all of a sudden things go wrong. This is why I'd like to know how others handle such effects.
  4. I understand. It makes things much easier for Aerosoft, of course. But a 13 GB download for P3D plus installation takes a lot of time. To do this prior to any Aerosoft update (which are very easy and fast) is quite hard. At least, when you know that there are dependencies, for instance, when Aerosoft utilizes new functions of a higher P3D release, it would help a lot.
  5. In the Aerosoft Updater for example, where you list, what the update is about? As an idea.
  6. Ich hatte dasselbe Problem und folgte dem Rat, die P3D Version auf 4.5 anzuheben. Resultat: Fehler weg! Danke! Das ist auch die Lösung für das folgende Topic:
  7. I investigated more in the support database, whether somebody else has or has had the problem I'm currently having and found this one: Luko0211 stated there: Das sieht für mich nach dem bekannten Problem mit der Inkompatibilität von (Looks like a known problem regarding incompatibility (between A319 professional version) (and P3D 4.4)) My A319 version is, and P3D version is 4.4.16..... With this remark I updated P3D to version 4.5.13.... And this is the solution for this problem. I'd like to make the following proposal to Aerosoft: In case of dependencies between your code and the P3D version, please give kind of a release note that prior to installing a new Aerosoft version an update to P3D is a prerequisite.
  8. As promised, here are some screenshots: The flight is from EDDK to EDDH. Take off is from runway 14L. Before take off During take off The switching conditions from PREFLIGHT to TAKEOFF phase should be satisfied, but the MCDU PROG page remains in PREFLIGHT After take off After THR RED altitude The switching conditions from TAKEOFF to CLIMB phase should be satisfied, but the MCDU PROG page remains in PREFLIGHT, the MCDU PERF page remains in TAKEOFF As you can see, on PFD the flight proceeds as expected. But on MCDU PERF and PROG page there is no phase switching happening. Have a look at the ND before takeoff and after THR RED altitude. It appears that the FMS does not capture the flight plan waypoints, but it recalculates a new path to meet them. Strange! Can somebody see any setting that might give an explanation for this behaviour? Screenshot of the pedestal and the overhead before take off. I don't think they are of any evidence, but I made them in order to provide a complete view.
  9. Yes, Dave, the save is from an earlier version. I also thought that this could be a reason and tried to create a new flight from scratch, i.e. from Turn-Around-State. The problem is the same, unfortunately.
  10. Hey guys, after some emotions, let's step back and be fair to one another. First, of course I understand that it is hard or even impossible to deliver a solution to a reported problem, when the problem is poorly described. I would appreciate in such situations that Aerosoft asked for more and specific information and failure data. Second, I can imagine that many of the problems reported do not have their origin in the code, but in user mistakes. This is primarily applicable to novices or rookies. If the problem affects a general function and looks like a misinterpretation by the user, well, in this case, it makes sense to suggest to the user to follow the step-by-step tutorial. I am not a flight simulation freak, but I am a rookie neither. I've gone through a long learning curve already. I successfully performed many flights before. I was very surprised that the reported problem occurred to me, particularly because (as I wrote above) the flight was a saved flight that worked fine several times before. I also supposed that the saved flight may be the reason of the failure, but unfortunately a newly created flight showed the same problem. Of course, if the problem occurred for many users, I certainly would have found an appropriate thread. That only a few users are affected is quite obvious. What takes me aback is that the problem occurs in this essential flight phase and nobody else (exept Leo) seems to be affected. Nevertheless, there must be a cause for the problem. Before I open a new thread, I always try to find hints or already given solutions that could help my problem fixed. That is the case here. What Leo describes looks exactly like what I am experiencing. (Even if Leo's problem description looks a bit cryptic for people who haven't experienced this, I at least recognized that it is like mine.) Full of enthusiasm that I am not alone with my problem and that I will find an indication, how my problem could be solved, I found your comments. This is why I was disappointed that much. Browsing through lots of threads I too often found your recommendation to perform the tutorial flight. In how far would the tutorial flight help me? If the problem is reproduced, something is wrong with my installation, because you would certainly not deliver a code that does not even prove to work with this essential test case. If the problem is not reproduced, still something is wrong with my settings or installation, or may be the code, because the absence of errors for a test case does not mean that there is no error in the code contained at all. In order to make progress, I provided some more information about the symptoms of the problem earlier. I hope this tells you a bit more about where the problem may be. I can send you some relevant screenshots that may further explain the symptoms, if that is of any value to you. I can also, as I offered above, attach the .fxml file and the .fms file of the saved flight that didn't lead to the problem before. So, let's make progress together! Surely, you have my support, because I'd like to have my problem solved.
  11. Additional Info: PROG page remains in PREFLIGHT phase, i.e. does not switch to TAKE OFF, although the switching conditions should have been met (thrust levers TOGA, speed >90 kts). PERF page remains in TAKEOFF phase. Furthermore, PFD is in CLB/NAV mode and PFD shows THR CLB, when passing THR RED altitude and thrust lever set to CL detent. I.e. from a PFD point of view everythings seems ok, but MCDU does not follow the phase changes and FMS does not direct the A/C along the flight plan waypoints.
  12. Hi Mathijs and Dave, to be honest, your replies read very disappointing. It is of low value to refer to the tutorial ever again. and that Airbus follows a different philosophy is correct but does not solve the problem Leo has and I have as well. I experience the same problem after(!) installing the newest version of the A318/A319 professional, for newly created flights as well as for saved flights, which worked fine with me many times before(!). So, something must have changed. But I don't know what. May be that there is a good reason for this, but I'd like to know, how to overcome this problem. I ask you for help. If you are interested, I can send you the .fxml file and the .fms file of a saved flight that showed no problems before.
  13. I'm trying to plan a step climb with the A320 Pro 1.2.3. Doing so, the flight plan shows a S/C pseudo waypoint, but does not reflect the new vertical profile, as it should do according to the Thales FMS Pilot Guide. Is the STEP ALTS function not yet fully implemented? I have something like this in mind, but couldn't find it in the forum anymore. Performing a step climb during the flight manually by just changing to the new cruise altitude in PROG page and on FCU works fine. Flight phase switches to CLIMB and returns to CRUISE, when the new flight level is reached. So, no issue here. It's a planning and fuel and time monitoring issue only. See the following screenshots: original PROG page Section in original flight plan STEP ALTS defined and accepted (question: what does the message "OPT STEP: ENTER ALT ONLY" mean?) resulting changed flight plan, showing the S/C pseudo waypoint, but an unchanged flight level and no T/C pseudo waypoint, where the new flight level will be reached
  14. This is an extract of the Thales document, I was referring to. It's from part III, chapter 3.4, HOLD Function
  • Create New...