august78
-
Posts
122 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by august78
-
-
Thanks for the replies, but I dont see how I was being rude? He was in fact being rude to me. I didnt say I knew better than him, yet he told me in not so many words to shut up ("if you know better, dont ask"). Besides - he didnt ask a question. He told me to shut up. I responded because its not up to him to tell me that. In fact I responded with more info and examples in the posts above. To be honest I didnt see his post with the question of reading the manual and giving an example. My post was aimed at Maddz. I gave an example of my problem already, and yes I have read the manual.
Im a paying customer, and I have bought several aerosoft products over the years. Please treat me with some of the respect you yourself are entitled.
With that said, thanks for the response.
-
Well, how can we know what you know/have down in detail" That's the reason why I asked 2 questions!
But if you know better, then don't ask! OK?
Snappish... If you dont know the answer, dont reply...
-
To clarify further: I initially didnt select the last waypoint of the SID in the flightplan before hitting "high alt plan", and so my choosen natrack was erased. By highlighting the last point of the SID, FSC9 keeps the natrack as a part of my FP, but it still doesnt give me a good route from the sid to the entry of nat a.
My flightplan looks like this
[sID] ?????????????? [NATRACK A] ????????????? [sTAR]
Im using the button "High Alt Plan" to fill inn the [?], but it makes irational choices in regards to getting me from the SID to the entry of TRACK A adding 400nm of extra detour to get there.
-
Hmm your replies are not answering my questions. I am not having trouble downloading or adding natracks. My problem is when I request FSC9 to automatically "fill in the blanks" with high alt plan (the blanks being from the last point of the SID to the entry point of the NATrack, and from the exit point of the NATrack to the first point of the STAR). It makes completely irrate suggestions taking me from the London area all the way down to the Canarie islands and up again to the entry point of NATrack A which is just south west of Ireland.
-
This is really bugging me. I want to fly from Europe to the US, and using current NATRACKS. After downloading the tracks, I select track A. Everything ok so far. I then select the SID and STAR. Finally, I want FSC9 to build the rest of my flight plan. I click High Alt Plan. Everything except SID and STAR is erased, and it takes me along a route close to the south pole....
Am I doing something wrong, or is this a programming oversight?
-
I just bought Keflavik X, and when trying to make a route from ENGM to BIKF in Flight Sim Commander 9, I get no available STARs to choose from. If I try to reverse the route (BIKF-ENGM), the SIDs show up. I did a rescan of the database in FSX, but this didnt solve the problem. Any help is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Andreas Stangenes
-
-
Nevermind. I downloaded the wrong link
Went a bit fast there - sorry! -
That's quite alright, Paul
And thanks for the info everybody! It hasnt received alot of feedback, but a few others have confirmed the alt sel bug. I will give it another go and test without pushing or pulling the alt sel knob, and see if it makes any difference. -
I am having problems with the Airbus X when approaching an Altitude Select when flying manually with FBW enabled. It would be nice to know to what extent this problem exists. You could help us all (the consumers and developers) by testing this simple setup:
Take off from any airport with normal configuration for your particular departure, and pre-set the altitude select button to a normal initial climb altitude (i.e. 3-7000 ft). You need to fly the departure manually, and dont engage the autopilot. Set take off power, rotate, climb and set the throttles to climb mode when indicated. When approaching your ALT Select altitude, make particular notice of how your aircraft responds to pitch input. Would also be nice if you could notice how the plane conforms to roll input as well.
Then, on the same trip (after a recovery if you experience any serious issues), try to make a climb or descent to a different altitude (not within 1-2000 feet from your ALT SELECT) and level off, and aim at flying straight and level. All this should be done with the FBW system enabled of course.
My findings so far is that with the FBW system enabled, the plane will stop responding to pitch inputs when approx 2-500 ft from the ALT Select (coming from below or descending down to the selected altitude). She will either nose dive or climb uncontrollably for a few seconds. When leveling off at an altitude DIFFERENT from the ALT SELECT, she will have no problems with the handling of pitch and roll.
Hope this setup is clear to you, and that you feel you can do this without too much hassle. If you dont experience any problems, please do state that in your report. Thank you!
-
Are you guys engaging autopilot b4 capturing an alt select? What happens if you try to set your alt select to 2000 ft and try to capture that by handflying from take off? My airbusx captures the alt like a drunken sailor, and I am really displeased with this problem persisting through this new patch.
-
Interesting to see that there hasnt been an official reply to this question yet...
Sincerely,
Customer
-
Hello Steiner,
Please un-install the product, then un-install SP2/Acceleration from FSX and then Re-install SP2/Acceleration and then the product. A corrupted SP2 installation is being known to cause these types of graphics issue.
Just a shot in the dark, of course, but the 747 from PMDG and Concorde X from FSL share some of these symtoms as well. Long the solution was unknown, but shortly after the launch of the concorde x, a very clever fan came up with a solution. You can find this tweak here:
http://forums.flightsimlabs.com/index.php?/files/file/69-fsl-texturefix-v11zip/
An explaination to the cause and some small bit of info on what this fix does:
http://www.flightsimlabs.com/aircraft/concorde-x/concorde-x-faq-troubleshooting/
I found that the problem starting these kinds of issues (missing whole or parts of the airplane, missing big chunks of scenery etc) share the root cause and therefor also the solution. At least I havent had any problems with this issue since using the fix. There shouldnt be any drawbacks whatsoever, so you can use this fix with no angst for side effects.
-
Thanks for the heads up, Chris!
-
Hi. Just wondering how the landing lights are supposed to be portrayed on the aircraft itself. I get fantastic landing and taxi light reflections on the tarmac, but the source of the light - the light bulbs if you wish - are not visible on the aircraft. The strobes, beacon, nav and logo lights are all visible on the plane. I can spot 4 very faintly glowing taxiand turn off lights on the nose wheel, but the landing lights on the wings seem to be missing. Is this the way it is supposed to be?
-
Ok made a new testflight. This time I decided to leave SEC1 online. Long story short - she performed well except for 2 things:
1. Approaching ALT SELECT the control inputs just did not work predictable. About 200 ft from intercept she became nearly uncontrollable. The plane got a signficant nose down tendency. Instead of pulling hard on the yoke this time, I decided to rapidly bring the yoke all the way back, and releasing, and all the way back again. Can describe it as "pumping" the yoke to the full back position and relaxing - in rapid succession. This kept the aircraft from decending too much, and I think I only lost a couple of hundred feet. However, I decided to disengage SEC1 for a while to get her back under control. So from this experience I gather that the real problem arises when intercepting an ALT SELECT. Otherwise, the FLB is (almost) fine.
2. After re-engaging the SEC1 during decent, and having the ALT SEL to 1000 ft BELOW my target altitude, I didnt have big problems flying her straight and level at 4000 ft (alt sel = 3000 ft). On the glidepath I noticed that even though pitch was somewhat maintained during a slight right bank, the aircraft had a very noticable tendency to pitch down AFTER a slight left bank. Tried to trim to no avail. This meant keeping a decent profile got pretty hard. And when I say slight bank, I mean S L I G H T! The bank to the left was hardly noticable, but the pitch down afterwards did occour 100% of the time. It was, however, very predictable and pretty straight forward to compensate for.
Sat her down nice and comfy, and the FBW testflight was far more successful this time around. But its far from perfect, and I do feel I am flying a beta product.
-
1
-
-
As I said, I'm using the same install as everyone else (1.21) and have no idea what this "nose dive" is all about.
Forget turning the FBW off, forget the AP. Set the load to 50%, fuel 20%. Enter the runway heading and ILS freq for whatever airport you're at and on the PERF page check your VAPP speed. Put a speed of 180 in the AP and flaps 1, get on the runway and give it TOGA.
Now after a few hundred feet of climb, gear up, throttle to CLB, pull the speed knob and pretend it's a fast Cessna and hand fly to 2,000ft, do a left 180 to downwind etc, etc. (leave the flaps at 1 and speed at 180)
Once back on the localizer (call it 10 miles out to get some space), as the Glideslope comes alive, dial in the VAPP speed, gear down and flaps as required during the descent.
Now, at what point did your nose dive with you having no control?
Hi Paul,
I am at work now (blush), and I cant go make a new testflight right now, but I will share with you what I experienced the first few flights:
Aircraft is in it's standard config (engines running, pneumatics and hydraulics set, lights etc). I use the connector to set loads and fuel. I set approx 20% fuel and medium load. I program the FMC with cruise alt, TL, flaps 2 takeoff, calculate V1, VR, V2, set the speed dial on the MCP to V2 +5, set the init climb to my cruise (because no online atc available), input the flightplan inlcuding SID and expected arrival. Set the NAVRAD to GWS (111.30) for the ILS 01L for ENGM (my arrival airport at Oslo, Norway). The FBW systems are set untouched. They are in their standard ON config. Flaps 2. Anti ice on as required (getting cold here in Norway). Taxi to the runway, line up. Full throttle and rotate by pulling back on the stick. The aircraft feels heavy. Very heavy. Pull back by an unusual large amount to get any effect. Positive rate of climb, gear up. The SID calls for a right turn at 800 ft. I give gentle inputs to the right on my stick. Hardly any reaction. I have to give it full deflection to the right to get any proper response from the aircraft. Flaps 1. If I remember correctly the aircraft made a large nose up or nose down at this point. No matter how hard I pull or push the stick, nothing seems to make any slightest difference in pitch. Finally, she starts to react after a few seconds. Continue my climb. Flaps up, clean up the aircraft. Having a real hard time getting proper pitch and roll control. She either does way too little or way too much in relation to what I intend. I set the AP on, and she follows the Lnav path correctly. Btw, the FD on the PFD does not indicate the proper roll input. It's direction is seemingly uncorrelated with the programmed path in the MCDU - untill you engage the AP. Then the FD will harmonize with the AP.
Descent: Disconnect the AP when leaving the final point in the STAR heading towards the FAF to intercept the ILS. Altitude is about 5000 ft and descending with approx 1800 ft at this point (seems like its the standard descentrate for the Airbusx). Approach mode is initialized and confirmed, meaning the AT will automatically decrease airspeed as the flaps go down, and set VAPP with full flaps gear down. As I approach 4000 ft wich is my alt select altitude and the LLZ intercept altitude, the nose dives again. Uncontrollable. I loose around 1000 ft or more. I cant remember if I had set flaps 1 at this point. This happens at least one more time, and I have the darndest time trying to manually capture an altitude. When she approaches a set altitude, she starts to nose dive when coming from above going down. Coming from below she starts to nose up when nearing the alt select. I manage to save her, and intercept the ILS. Get on the glidepath. Flaps 2, gear down. Flaps 3, flaps full. Speedbreaks armed. She is nearly impossible to keep stabile on the final. Inputs are increadibly slow, and she starts to do things I havent given any inputs in that direction (mostly nose up or down). As I get very close to the ground (like a couple of hundret feet) she starts to react much more smoothly. Im thinking maybe its the ground effect. I make a pretty ok landing with her, but I would think most of my passengers are dead from fright already.
Did the same trip with SEC1 disabled, and she flies like a charm. She responds correctly to all inputs. I can make minute corrections, and she flies them well. A lovely girl to land! The ground effect seems to make it easy to grease the landings. Love it!
My equipment:
CH yoke
CH pedals
Registered FSUIPC
ASE (latest version)
EFB from Aivlasoft
REX
+++
-
What I find kind of funny is that in one thread here somebody linked a youtube video of an Airbus take-off. I think it was one of those threads moaning that it can't be flown or something silly like that. Anyway, the video very, very clearly demonstrated the vast amounts of control inputs used from rotating, climb out, clean up and joining the SID and then finally after all that hand flying, actually activating the AP.
The point being that a lot of small inputs are used to fly an Airbus it seems.
As for FBW; I think the main features would be the protections provided i.e. the computer will not allow excessive pitch or roll, will apply power when speed is too low, will ignore pitch inputs that are excessive and could lead to say a stall. It gets really pissed at anyone slamming that stick around. Small inputs and lots of them.
Aside from the somewhat annoying pitch change on AP disconnect, I don't really see what all the fuss is about (not addressed to you Tim). I'm using a X-52 with all default settings, no FSUIPC and no problems with take-off, approach or landings. So, if anyone has that big an issue, I can only assume something is different, but that difference isn't the Airbus X. As for the AP off/pitch issue, this is actually caused by the way that FS has always (yes, always) controlled an aircraft with the AP; it uses trim and of course when you couple that with the way FBW works i.e. with zero trim.....well there's always going to be a problem, but it lasts for what, a second or two? If you know it'll do it, surely it's just a case of being ready to give a small pitch input to counter it?
The product basically does what it was always intended to do and does it whilst looking very nice too.
Hopefully, a more advanced version will come along that uses C++/GDI/Vector gauges etc and that will allow a lot more to be done.
Oh, and the main question Tim, "how does FBW work"; in the way that MS implemented it........I don't think anyone does know!
Sounds really cool! I guess my FBW computer just really gets pissed off from my hand flying and decides to just nose dive to shame me for even thinking about not engaging the AP... When my bus nosedives no control input adjusts anything. No small inputs, no full deflection... Nothing gets that nose back up except for time. Disabling the FBW SEC1 system makes it fly pretty well, though. Go figure.
-
Well, it's just a discussion over semantics. My main point is that the bugs this aircraft addon suffers from are so severe that most newbies will have great troubles with this product.
-
I have very little experience with default ATC. I never use it. I fly on vatsim 99% of the time. I wouldnt know if default atc actually would give you altitudes based on some kind of mathematical algorithm based on how far, fast and high you are flying towards the airport, or if it follows some other logic. Does it take into account minimum safe altitudes? Anyway, the AirbusX is paradoxically not really suited for the newbi simmers that this product is targeted for. Untill the bugs are fixed.
-
Hi folks!!
@Aerosoft: Please fix the unrealistic engine-behaviour at least for the the advanced edition. It's not realistic that the engines spool to almost TOGA during engine start (sound-wise and also N1-wise). I've mentioned this during development already, but I felt it hasn't being taken seriously...
Thx
The funny thing is that even though Airbus X is by ideology within basic standards, and isnt meant to be very advanced, it is one of the most difficult planes to fly because of the bugs. Also because of the lack of sid/star and rwy capability in the mcdu and the lack of VNAV you really need to have a firm grasp on how to descend your aircraft properly so that you dont end up overshooting or flying 20 nm at 3-4000 ft. You also need to access charts for SIDs, STARs and ILS's to depart or arrive properly - which is a good thing really, but that's being more similar to FSLabs concorde or aerosoft a300 which are relatively advanced addons.
At the moment I would never reccommend this addon to newbies because it would destroy their introduction to flight simming. I can find enjoyment in this product, but then again, I have simmed for many years now.
-
1
-
-
Most important to me:
- Work out the current bugs (FBW system, nose dives)
- Implement full sid/star capability in the mcdu (you cant call it advanced without this)
- editable heights and speeds for each waypoint
- VNAV
These are quite important points if you are to tickle the fancy of more advanced users. Everything else is just a bonus.
-
Hello Conchi,
Theres a list of tweaks and fixes that come out with the updates and should all have been mentioned on the forum posts!
Well I am a new customer, and I have to say that the information on the status of this addon is not so easily located as I have to shift through several parts of the forum (is my problem flight, systems or just simply airbusx related?).
Anyway, I have version 121 which I bought and downloaded this weekend, and I have all of the problems listed in the OP. I am also unsure of wether Aerosoft knows exactly what problems exist and what their causes are - and wether I should start beta testing their product?
Sincerely,
Andreas Stangenes
-
The 3 SEC (Spoiler Elevator Computer) computers from Airbus are responsible for spoilers control, standby elevator and stabilizer control.
Normally (as a very short example) for pitch control, it is done by ELAC1 and 2 computers, if they failed then control is done by SEC1 or SEC2.
So if I understand you correctly, the SEC1 is a redundant system for controlling the pitch? So when the plane flies perfectly fine with SEC1 disabled, it would indicate that there is a problem with either the ELAC1, or more plausible, the SEC1 redundant system.
Logically, one can deduct that since I'm not disabling the SEC2 system, the ELAC1/2 computers are not failing, but the SEC1 is taking over the pitch control and conflicting with stick control. SEC2 is still online and should replace the function of SEC1, and SEC2 seems to be working fine. Whaddaya think?
FSC9 ignoring NATRACKS when building high alt plan
in Tools/Missions General
Posted
Actually I already got my help from a norwegian fs forum (not related to aerosoft). Maybe its a cultural thing (english is not my native language), but I will be hard pressed to return to this forum.
The problem still persists that FSC9 makes some bad choices sometimes when using high alt plan. I am following the steps in the manual to build the route. Its not a very big problem because I can manually correct it and delete unneeded waypoints. Its just something for the developers to concider in a SP or future build.
If you arent interested in this feedback, which your tones signal, then thats that.
Sincerely,
Andreas S.