!! Windows 7 no longer supported !!

As Microsoft will stop supporting Windows 7 on Jan 20th we will be unable to test any of our
products on that platform. It may work, or it may not, but no guarantees from our side. 

Jump to content

AMJBecker

members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About AMJBecker

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork
  1. I know there is a topic, which looks quite similar to mine: This was closed, because you thought that the reason is an incompatible P3D version. But I am facing a similar issue. The difference: I have the current P3D version installed (4.5.13.32097). Furthermore, loading/resuming a saved flight works fine with the A320 family, but not the one mentioned below for the A330. The flight has been saved with the same SW versions of O/S, P3D, A330. A320 is version 1.3.0.0, A330 is 1.0.0.2. Find attached the "Saved Flights" files for the flight, which shows this error (this is a state just before pushback). I performed the flight successfully and made some saves previously. Training A330 Hamburg 33 Johannesburg 21R ILS before Pushback.wxTraining A330 Hamburg 33 Johannesburg 21R ILS before Pushback.abxtraining a330 hamburg 33 johannesburg 21r ils before pushback.asctraining a330 hamburg 33 johannesburg 21r ils before pushback.fmsTraining A330 Hamburg 33 Johannesburg 21R ILS before Pushback.fxml There is another saved flight for the A330, which surprisingly works (this is a turn around state at a specific position): Hamburg Parking A4 turn around state (A330).abxhamburg parking a4 turn around state (a330).aschamburg parking a4 turn around state (a330).fmsHamburg Parking A4 turn around state (A330).fxmlHamburg Parking A4 turn around state (A330).wx And now a 3rd situation (basically before descent), PROG page does not have CRZ and OPT FL: Training A330 Hamburg 33 Johannesburg 21R ILS before Descent.abxtraining a330 hamburg 33 johannesburg 21r ils before descent.asctraining a330 hamburg 33 johannesburg 21r ils before descent.fmsTraining A330 Hamburg 33 Johannesburg 21R ILS before Descent.fxmlTraining A330 Hamburg 33 Johannesburg 21R ILS before Descent.wx So it seems that the issue is not about a general incompatibility problem, but a specific issue arrising from some saved parameter(s).
  2. Oh, good news! The one for the A330 release, I mean. I'm very excited! I will continue my understanding work with the new Fuel Planner. I'll see. Thanks Dave
  3. Another example, where I cannot find an explanation: looking at the index units for fuel in the Airbus Load and Trim Sheet, they are all negative and for a high fuel amount growing substantially, meaning that the COG is expected to move forward. But the Fuel Planner shows an increasing %MAC for high amounts of fuel. See following screenshot:
  4. I am not yet familiar with the A330. But does the A319 also have such a trim tank?
  5. I am trying to understand, how the Fuel Planner calculates the Center of Gravity. Comparing the COG calculated by the Fuel Planner for an empty aircraft, i.e. ZFW = BOW, which results in %MAC of 27,2%, with the COG for the full amount of passengers, but no cargo and no fuel, resulting in %MAC of 21,9%, I'm getting confused. A lower %MAC means that the more passengers are on board, the more forward is the CG. I would expect the contrary, because there are more seats behind the 25% MAC line than before that line, isn't it? See the following screenshots Other Load and Trim Sheets, as can be found in the Airbus Flight Crew Operation Manual, Part 2, Chapter 1.40, also suggest a shift of the COG towards the back with a growing number of PAX.
  6. Apparently the mapping between the TOWCG values and and the THS settings are not correct in Fuel Planner as well as the Steb-byStep Guide. Chapter 5.4 in Vol 6 (Step-by-Step Guide) shows the mapping for A319, which in fact is that of the A321, and vice versa. The Fuel Planner seems to have taken over the same swap. Selecting e.g. A319, the TOWCG translates in THS settings for the A321, and vice versa. This is the Trim Wheel for the A319, where the TOWCG value of 41 corresponds to DN 3: ... and this is the picture in the Step-by-Step Guide: Here the TOWCG 41 of the A319 is higher than DN 3.
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. In the Aerosoft Updater for example, where you list, what the update is about? As an idea.
  12. 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:
  13. 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 1.2.5.1. (Looks like a known problem regarding incompatibility (between A319 professional version) 1.2.5.1 (and P3D 4.4)) My A319 version is 1.2.5.3, 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.
×
×
  • Create New...