Jump to content

CRM320

Members
  • Posts

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by CRM320

  1. Well that's not an easy one to answer.

    The correct answer has to be no. We default to Managed and Selected vertical modes and that takes care of 90% of what's actually used in a crowded flight environment. For the purist that will be an issue, but that's not the customer this product is intended for anyway.

    Following on that answer, I assume the TOO STEEP PATH is not simulated in the Airbus X Mathijs?

    Regards

    D

  2. Hi Mathijs,

    I think you mentioned somewhere, you do have the X66F flight controls? If you do I would surely appreciate any tips on calibration and functions setup as you probably been clocking already a few hundred hours of flight testing on the bus by now. I have the X65F and I do find the setup pretty "fussy". I have been thinking of sending it back as I do find the force sensing do not provide the right Airbus feel on the stick. Would be happy to hear your verdict/advice.

    Regards

    D

  3. Yeah, okay. But that would cause the braking distance on a wet runway a bit longer. It enforces what I say, why does a wet or snowy runway increases braking distance so much if aerobraking is more effective then wheel brakes?

    And yes, I am lucky. But the guys with the hyper cars do like my light Elise that has no steering /brake assist and no electronics, just a lot of horses and rubber. You would be amazed how many cars you get to drive if you are just a nice guy. Look if you buy a Porsche for 150.000 Euro you can drive it fast, but there is always some idiot is a 35k trackday car that's faster. Letting others drive it and go "goddamn this thing goes like stink" really boosts your ego.

    I feel the Anti-skid issue coming up so I attached a few shots the manual on the subject. (Chapter 6 of your A320 system briefing has got 5 pages on Braking) If you have it in hand it might be easier to read than me trying to explain. I am looking through my FCTM to see what is actually written on the subject, will post pdf if I find anything of interest.

    Regards

    D

    IMG_0409.JPG

    IMG_0410.JPG

    IMG_0411.JPG

  4. The wipers got two speed, individual on both sides, with 4 different sound files (left/slow, left/fast. right/slow, right/fast). But we do not do rain drops on the glass. We know it can be done because it has been shown, but those attempts cut fps by half. a price we were not willing pay pay.

    Shame. It would be good to have these as optional. Tick box style, enable or disable. (ideal world I know) because the dedicated PC that runs my simulator could definitely accommodate for the extra FPS needed. oh well..

    Regards

    D

    • Upvote 1
  5. Lets start on it... (because I got a question about that and because I got nothing new on the Bus today). Why decides what a contaminated runway is? I ask because last winter I was riding shotgun in a MD80 and the captain and his 12 year old copilot (well he seemed that young) had an argument on that. What's 'standing water' etc? Is that something the airport decides of is it up to size of the cojones of the captain? I could not ask in that occasion because the captain did not like me in the cockpit (the airline arranged that) and he told me to sit there, sit still, not to touch anything and to be silent. Did not even get coffee.

    The captain only assess a situation and make a decision based on what he is given by ATC e.g: "Condition report of runway: wet". "Condition report of runway: contaminated" You do get worried when I tell you I never experience a contaminated runway so to speak as if it doesn't exist (but it does and it is a serious topic). (hence my earlier post about procedures). If you open your flight manual (and that applies to all manual), you will find that a runway is considered wet when the depth of water on is less than 3 mm, If the depth is greater than 3 mm the runway comes into category "slippery" or "contaminated". These differences in depths obviously affect the actual landing distance.

    An aircraft requires 40 percent more runway to stop on a wet runway. On a contaminated runway the figure increases by 300 percent. Thus, if an aircraft requires 6,000 feet of runway for a landing on dry runways, it would require 8,400 feet on a wet runway, and more than 18,000 feet of runway if the conditions are contaminated. When a pilot receives an ATC report that says the runway is wet, he assumes that the depth of water is less than 3 mm and that a 40 percent addition to the landing distance will make for a safe landing. In reality, the actual depth of water on a runway can be as much as 3 inches e.g. during a heavy downpour. This would bring it into contaminated category.

    So again, not something the flight crew is able to go and check for themselves I am afraid. Some pilots on this forum might be able to add to that or else. I am not sure I answered your question Mathijs.

    Regards

    D

    • Upvote 2
  6. The airline I fly for, on the Airbus fleet, does not allow reduced thrust takeoffs on contaminated runways or if directed by the MEL. There you go, an SOP that does permit TO/GA for Airbus departures ;)

    Contaminated runway.. I won't even start on that one, I don't think this is the right forum to do so. As a matter of curiosity, what carrier to you work for/what type?

    Regards

    D

  7. That's not strictly true, you can do a full power takeoff, you don't require an assumed temperature. You're right that reduced thrust takeoffs prolong engine life but you don't require a Flex temp. to fly an Airbus any more than you need a SID/STAR function. However, in reality, unless there are over-riding performance reasons a flex temperature is used for departure and if your flightplan contains a SID and a STAR then pilots will load these into the FMC/FMGC. I do want realistic, but it's been explained that Aerosoft won't provide that, I was just wondering about why certain features had been selected over others, that's all. Apparently it just comes down to an easy function to program, that's fair enough.

    Indeed but I am yet to come across an SOP who will let you do that. Or I really would like to know. Taxiing on single engine is one of the things we got to adhere to (assuming some other restriction are met) and there are many more. These days cost saving is a priority. An airline has got to be safe but it has got to be profitable. We don't make the rule book I'm afraid. Anyway, we are drifting off course, let's get back to Airbus X!

    Regards

    D

  8. for the more advanced users, i would also highly recommend the aivla electronic flight bag (EFB) for FSX with SID/STAR entry, transitions, charts, checklists, PMDG support (.rt2 import), fully updatable navigraph cycles, a neat/organised product for any aircraft with or without a FMS - more importantly, it's easy to use (both visually and theoretically)... looking forward to flying the 320 with the EFB/FMS/everything

    I Echo that one, Flight Bag is a fantastic piece of software and indeed a perfect companion to the Airbus X.

    Regards

    D

  9. I know it's been done to death, I don't want to rehash it all again so I won't comment on the "not being important part", but a few other things here confuse me. First, regarding the complexity issue, surely it's easier for people to just enter a SID or STAR instead of manually inserting the waypoints (putting in coordinates/radial and dme distances from a beacon might be a little too much for the "user in mind"). What I can't match up is that if SIDs and STARs are "too complicated" how on earth are people going to get their heads around Flex temperatures - a feature apparently included in this product?

    From the features pdf it says the target audience are "people who want a realistic experience without having to spend many hours preparing for a flight." It'll take a lot longer to enter in every waypoint on a GORLO Rnav sid out of Amsterdam compared with pushing a couple of buttons to select the SID. I appreciate what you say - if we don't like it then don't buy it, that's a fair and valid point. I said before that I've come to associate Aerosoft with good quality products and I think a few people are just a little disappointed that this will fall short of the high standard that Aerosoft usually set. Clearly you've done your market research and homework, but I don't understand how if SIDs and STARs are too complicated, why Flex temperatures are considered a-okay for the amateur blink.gif

    Danny, you can fly the 320 without a SID or STAR but you can't without a Flex temp (SOP: Use of reduced thrust levels is optional but will ensure operating efficiency, reliability and engine service life). That might answer your question. If you want realistic, there is your answer.

    Regards

    D

  10. Okay, first to clarify, I am talking about real life procedures here. In that context, what are you talking about when you say"GPS"? Since that's just one of the systems the FMS uses for navigation reference, you still have to look at and use the FMS here.

    Now, RNAv transitions are completely disconnected from any VOR/DME, they are pure coordinates. So you can't use any of that for lateral guidance, regardless how well prepared you come. And GPS? Once again, your head is down there with the FMS for that. That one's "direct-to feature will take care of the first waypoint, yes. Now, do you prefer to manually input the other 11? Or simply being able to select something like ROKIL26? Either way, once again you can't do either without using the FMS. Or can you?

    I'm not a pilot, I am an air traffic controller. We have to learn how our procedures are flown, and I have flown into "my" airport on the flightdeck of a CRJ and an A320. They used the FMS, as I had expected, but I am now curious about your whizz-bang method allowing you to leave it aside, just as Aerosoft left it aside in their A320 ( which I'm still going to buy btw).

    Regards,

    Robert

    I think you are missing the point that was made earlier (you are not the only one). You seem to be believing that one pattern is like any other. It's not. Do not generalise what you know of 1 pattern to any other approach. Different approach are flown in many different ways and if you are ATC you surely understand there is more to an approach than just a computed STAR. There are a multitude amount of reasons why a STAR would not be computed as there are many ways it would. You narrow thinking is a bit worrying for an ATC may I just add. Up here we often rely on guys like you to vector us more often than I need to use a STAR. Maybe I need to spend more time in the simulator. Let's stop with the SID/STAR issue, Aerosoft has done a great job with Airbus X, lets test it ourselves and see how she flies before making any judgement. Again, I don't recall Aerosoft making a statement about never including the SID/STAR in the future, so let's wait and see.

    Regards

    D

  11. SIDS and STARS... sigh... I would like to know from some real life pilots how often they actually fly a (complete) STAR. Hardly ever, I think. And this goes for ALL the functions the 'hardcore simmers' are begging for all the time. This Airbus X will let you experience everything a real life Airbus pilot does and encounters in real life. If there will ever be an advanced version, I wonder how much of the added functions will actually be used in real life! Hardly ever.

    This Airbus will give me the experience a real life pilot has and that's all I need. I don't need tons of failures which never or hardly ever happen in real life. I don't need the possibility to manually operate all systems when this never or hardly ever is done in real life. I don't need STARS which are hardly ever flown in real life.

    I think 'hardcore simmers' lost track of what real life flying is about nowadays: getting the passengers safe from A to B with as little interference from pilots as possible. B) The Airbus isn't made for diehards who love to push as much buttons as possible and who like to keep manual control of everything. That's totally unrealistic. And so this Airbux X will give us everything we need to simulate a REALISTIC flight, as they are done in real life everyday. Isn't that what we all want...? If you want to do it the Hollywood way, wait for the advanced version. :P

    (I am exaggerating, obviously, so don't take everything too seriously, but I hope you do get my point!)

    SID/STAR in simulator (mostly). In real flight we get ATC vector (mostly). Again it depends on a lot of factors. Departure, weather, schedule, slot and so on. I am not sure I answered the question. (And yes we do still use paper maps guys)

    Regards

    D

    • Upvote 1
  12. fully agreed, this project is being unfolded with just the right dose of carrot dangling on a stick - nothing in excess, everything presented for all to see, open and honest, great stuff aerosoft,

    jayel

    I echo your comment. I think honesty and transparency has been at the very top on this project, all credit to Mathijs.

    Regards

    D

  13. Hi,

    I am also very looking foward to see this airbus in the air. Maybe I mix something up but I am sure that there was an announcement from you Mathijs that there will be a more advanced version availbale after the release of the basic one, I am right ? I searched in the forum but I wasn´t succesful for this keyword...

    regards

    Pascal

    Many of us are also eagerly waiting for the possibility of an advanced version but based on what Mathijs said I wouldn't expect any announcement before end of this year/early next year. I'd say let's give this Airbus X a good run and wait to see.

    Regards

    D

  14. Good catch. These things are very important even for newbies. Colors on FMA shows if the mode are armed or active. What does yellow color indicate? Hmm. And radio altimeter...it is not Baro, how does it read altitude on the ground? I just wonder how Rad Alts accurate at the decision height...Looks to me those things needs be worked out. rolleyes.gif

    Guys, we all noticed those little imperfections, but please acknowledge you are looking at a Beta product.

    Regards

    D

  15. Or.... you just look at the charts and fly it. These guys can fly you know.

    Somehow people seem to think the Airbus is never flown by the pilots. But really that is not the case. While doing this project I spend many flights in the observer seat and in at least 50% of flights a part of the route was flown manually and not following the flight plan. Just listen to ATC of your local airport and you will learn this. Every time you hear 'cleared short', direct to' etc it is a very good indication the aircraft is not following the flight plan.

    Vraiment? , Is that Air Berlin SOP Mathijs? I do/did a lot of system test flight with AF on the jump seat and company routes were always "de rigueur". Surprised to hear you have seen so much manual handling on the 320. But I do get your point relating to Sim.

    Regards

    D

  16. Well having read all the threads and seen the latest video, I have to say it reminds me of that old Tina Turner song. "Simply The Best". Well done to all the team involved on this aircraft. You guys may not realise it, but you have just set the bar for entry level addon quality and I think it will be a very long time before it is raised again. If this doesn't get an Avsim Gold Star, I will be astounded.

    Couldn't agree more

    • Upvote 3
  17. I'll honestly say we'll give PMDG a run for their money on flight dynamics. Of course they have never done FBW flight so that's a bit vague but we got very serious flight dynamics. It's also not so lite on systems, in fact it's rather strong on all systems that do not require a lot of user input. We just went easy on the most complex systems. But for example electrics, hydraulics etc are pretty detailed. In some systems like external lights we think we are far in the lead. Let me show:

    First image, all lights off. Very standard FSX.

    Next, taxiway turn off lights on. They shine 45 degrees of the nose to show obstacles you might hit with the main gear while turning.

    There are few aircraft who have these lights working, ours does.

    Next we switch on the main landing lights, the big stuff.

    Something rather special here, the lights actually illuminates the objects. No Wilco, PMDG etc aircraft does that. You can actually taxi in complete darkness with our bus!

    Now on to the nose gear light. It has two settings, first the take-off setting. This shines rather steep down and is focused. It helps pilots judge the pitch attitude and also lights up the tree you are going to hit.

    After you landed the nose light is switched from TO setting to taxi setting. It now fills in the gap between the two landing lights.

    Of course all the switches and animations are correct. You can extend the landing lights and not switch them on. They will also automatically switch off when you retract them. Etc etc.

    That's all pretty cool and not eye-candy as some might say. If it were default FSX lights it would be as they just put a light polygon on the ground. But these lights actually all work as they should and make night take-off and landings a lot more realistic. It's a fine example of our focus with this project. It's all about flying the Airbus, not learning about how to set up a descending 2 minute holding pattern over a fix in crosswind.

    Outstanding work Mathijs, we will now be able to make our night approach with ground reference as in the real situation, Fantastic piece of work. This add-on is worth the money just on those lights alone.

    Regards

    D

  18. No TCAS sounds is not a show-stopping issue for me.

    Hi Mathijs, I think I'd rather you guys get the TCAS from the real source rather than making them up. If it is to wait until you release them as a mini pack after the airbus X release, I don't think it's a big deal. I could have recorded that for you a few days ago have had known!

    Regards

    D

    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use