Jump to content

Emanuel Hagen

admins
  • Content Count

    10079
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    110

Posts posted by Emanuel Hagen


  1. Hi Yuval,

     

    as you correctly figured it might indeed very well be the weather engine.
    Those speed jumps on the PFD you mention are most certainly wind changes (there is nothing else that could cause this), so the weather engine is involved. P3Dv5 has some wind issues which have to be overcome by the weather engine. Active Sky does that, but if your weather engine is not P3Dv5 compatible then chances are it doens't.

     

    Now why does that maybe only effect the Airbus? There could be several factors involved.
    1) Many aircraft developers don't simulate high altitude effects on flight dynamics. A certain 757/767 for instance are simulated with the same stall speed at high altitude as they have at low altitude. That's a difference of over a hundret knots in stall speed! Of course they deny such effects would even exist.... lovely 135$ products,  well worth the money! ;)

    2) Aircraft like the 747 have a large range of speeds at typical cruising levels. The difference between upper and lower speed limits in a 747 is greater than in an A320 when flying at similar levels. Thus the effect of wind shifts are less pronounced.

    3) Many developers ignore the effect of temprature on engine thrust ratings. If your weather engine inserts +40°C at FL370 the whole engine calculation of a *well simulated* addon will get messed up.
    If the developer doens't care about such effects and still gives you full thrust then of course the effect of the weather on that particular addon will not be visible. A bug hiding a bug so to say.

     

    Of course other factors might come into play as well.

    WIthout actually seeing what you see it'd hard to impossible to diagnose your problem though.
    Please post some screenshots and we'll be able to give you better help.

     


  2. 7 minutes ago, Dave Gray said:

    To be honest Mathijs, V5 is a lot better than V4.5.  For one it looks better.  EA or no EA it looks better.  Most importantly it is without question better on performance.  An easy example is to start a vatsim flight in Montreal or Boston or JFK.  In the past some of these sceneries could test my locked 30 frames.  But not now.  They run very smooth almost like I'm at a default airport.  There is no question it is not without its problems.  But it seems most who have had the proper hardware and proper settings have got it working nice and have discontinued any V4 flying.  I know I have and many others.  I'm disappointed that LM didn't work closely enough with the big developers to get a product that was more seamless out of the gate.  That's on them, not you.  I see some optimism for the future of V5.  Have you ever noticed that most of the videos that have been posted in MSFS are choppy and/or fuzzy?  I'll leave it alone due to the NDA.  But I am honestly not sold one bit on MSFS.  But the screenshots look fantastic.  All frustration aside that you may have with the way V5 was introduced, I struggle to see how you can't see the things that make it better than V4.5.

     

    The thing is, what is "better"?

    I agree that EA looks pretty darn nice if you look at it on screenshots.

    But actually flying in the sim it has severe limits. For one it can't transition smoothly to new weathers. Then it still has very limited (3?) types of clouds.

    Then, I'm flying at 450kt ground speed and I'm overtaken by clouds in cruise? What?!

    EA is a nice demo of what's possible with a new engine. I kinda see it the same way as the Dx10 Preview back in FSX days. Looked nice, but was pretty buggy.

     

    In my opinion a good sim is made mainly by two points: Usability and reliability.

    Is v5 usable? Well, apart from the continious crashes, high demand on hardware, yes, it is. I flew some 300h in it since its release, thanks to short time work in my real job.
    If you don't have high end hardware v4.5 performs better than v5 though. With high end hardware v5 performs better than v4.5. I tend to say most simmers do not actually have high end hardware as in 5GHz CPUs, RTX 20xx's, 32GB RAM, etc.

    Then there's reliability. Sure, I spent most of my v5 time flying HF1. And what can I say, it crashed in one way of the other on every second flight.

    With HF2 I've had one ctd now in like 5 flights. Better, but still not reliable. But we'll see where things go, 5 flights is not exactly a point to judge from.

     

    Compare to that P3Dv4.5: It runs as it should, hardly any ctds, etc.
    People have been using it for 3 years now without major problems affecting usability or reliability. v5 isn't even close to that reliability, even with HF2.

    So yeah, the sim is on a good way and has a huge potential. I need to second Mathijs opinion though, in terms of what most people want to do with it, it's not getting close to v4.5 yet, though it's certainly on a good way.

    • Like 1

  3. Hi,

     

    there certainly is a chance, but currently there's not enough data and/or time available for those.

    Right now developers are busy working on several plattforms (P3Dv4, v4, MSFS) already so capacity to include major new features such as new engine models are limited.

    That doesn't mean it won't happen in the future, but currently no promises can be given.


  4. Bonjour,

     

    as you're posing in the English forums please write in English language as well.

    Alternatively please post in the French subforum.

    Merci


  5. Hi Andrew,

     

    this is being checked by the developers. Currently it's something that was implemented in the A320 long ago, but then simply never was ported to the A330 as none of the testers used it.

    Might be included in an upcoming A330 update if we find the time for it.


  6. On 6/15/2020 at 12:09 PM, JarredP said:

     

    This doesn't really change anything, the EFB will still be there, the idea is to optionally remove it from the model.

     

    That's not planned anytime soon. EFB's are the future, well or in real life they are the very present. My airline was probably the last to make the switch to a completly paperless flight deck in Europe (or the US) now with the end of the complete Corona stop.


  7. Hi Fruman,

     

    which flight do you use as default flight? Could it maybe be that the aircraft in there has the fuel cut off? I'd recommend always to use the standart flight with the standart fighter.

     

    I'm pretty sure something is interfering with your simulators fuel controls here. Maybe an internal mixture axis set to cutoff or something the like.


  8. It's impossible to provide some general settings as every joystick is different and in differnet conditions.
    You can use the slope function of FSUIPC to adjust the aileron to your liking. Maybe include a deadzone as well if your stick is too sensitive.

    You just have to experiment a bit to find settings that suit you and your setup.


  9. What's happening here is a feature used during flightplan editing. If you insert the same waypoint twice in a flightplan the Airbus joins them up and removes anything in between.

     

    If the same is supposed to happen during SID/STAR selection I don't know. I'm afraight right now there are not a lot of pilots flying who could give it a shot in the real deal to confirm or deny.
    All I can tell is that from the FCOM's description it is correct that if the same waypoint is inserted twice anything in between is removed. However that part of the FCOM is probably to be seen in a route editing context. I'd say the only way to find out is to check it in the actual plane.

    I myself can only speak for the 737 and I'd actually expect this behaviour for the same reason mentioned for the Airbus above.

×
×
  • Create New...