Recently we have seen a lot of codes used to unlock our products being offered for discounted prices. Almost all of them are bought using stolen credit cards. These codes will all be blocked by our systems and you will have to try to get your money back from the seller, we are unable to assist in these matters. Do be very careful when you see a deal that is almost too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true.

Jump to content

Andrea1

members
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Andrea1


  1. Hi,

    Maybe it's for this (Vref slight low, and higher drag being in the "left side-first regime" of the speed/drag parabolic curve) that I've noted that with the last release also a/c drag dueing approach seems wrong (too high) with a CFM A320 in about ISA consition, 3° glide slope ILS, flaps full and weight about 63,5 tons I had 60% N1 and 1800 kg/h! While before that (ans also looking at RW videos etc) I had about 50-52% N1 and about 1000-100 kf/h fuel flow during approach...

    Best Regards

    Andrea Buono


  2. Hi,

    2d panels, a realistic tekeoff performance tool, a simpler way to import wind data i.e. similar to ifly 737: there you needn't to create a "WXR file" etc.: their software can import directly the wind data from active sky also if your route (made by simbrief or pfpx) is naturally different from that made by active sky..also descent wind are directly read by AS., a feature (maybe is already implemented, I can't remember) for having a landing distance, during autobrake, according with rwy state (dry, wey, icing i.e. by using weather data taken by active sky to "approximately" define the runway state (wet/dry/contaminated etc.)).

    Ciao

    Andrea Buono


  3. Hi Mathijs,

    Good luck!

    You right: It's a very hard work (I hope that 5 flight for each model will be sufficient..but maybe you need some ones more etc..).

    You're right: also the real Bus is a really complex machine!

    But we trust in you and your team, so good luck and keep all the time necessary to update the flight dynamics...5% of difference vs real data is a wonderful thing: also level D simulators have to respect this limit!!! Incredible, on considering the limits of fsx and p3d4..so good luck!!!!

    Ciao

    Andrea Buono

    • Upvote 1

  4. Hi Meyerflyer,

    According to my A320 FCOM "In Flight Performance - Climb" 3.05.10 Section Table in ISA condition with a weight of 62 tons at brake release and normal climb profile (250kt/300kt/0,78Mach) you should arrive at FL100= 4min (burning 420 kg of fuel), FL200= 8 min (about 800 kg fuel), FL250= 11min and 1000 kg, FL330= 17 min and 1370kg, FL350= 19min and 1460kg, FL390= 24 min and 1720 kg.

    Anyway Mathijs said they have been working and tuning all flight dynamics so we must have a little more patience, I'm sure they are doing an hard and very good work "behind the scenes" and we'll have a very realistic bird ASAP

    Best Regards

    Andrea Buono 

    • Upvote 1

  5. Hi to all,

    Just finish first flight with my A319 professional "bus"..

    Very easy on frame! At ground LIMC (aerosoft scenery) 40-55 fps on air 60-90 fps with active sky next..

    Only bad thing..in real life I'd have to overhaul both my engines (CFM 56-5B) because during my takeoff at reduced thrust assumed temp 65°C on rwy 35L (31°C 1017 qnh ) I hadan EGT of 967°C!!! and you know that CFM56-5b EGT limit is about 950°C! . I do my apologizes but I forgot to check by your "future improvement list" if EGT curves will be "adjusted" in the very near future updates...I checked also by appling full rated power and I reached 1027°C!!! (in fact the first stage HP turbine has melted...very expensive to buy!!!!) ..you know in real life (new engine) EGT at takeoff should be in the range 800-850°...(and also considering an external temp of 31 instead of isa 15 being the EGT varying according with the square root of temperature ratio in kelvin it should in the range of 830-880) no more..

    The second question is about the IAE-V2500 engine: during start this engine 'sFADEC should apply a 30 sec period of "dry crank" i.e. just engine start rotation to blow out the residual fuel etc before applying ignition (as happened with the previous version of the bus) but now this not happens.

    Best Regards and Congratulations

    Andrea Buono

    • Upvote 1

  6. Hi,

    just installed v. 1.21 troubles I discovered (but, apart load manager already present in version 1.20):

    load manager got a dry operating weight completely wrong being the real DOW of an A320 let's say from 42 to 44 tons (depends on airline specific equpment and seats configuation) the load manager giving 37400 kg (this issue had been corrected in version 1.20 but reappared in 1.21);

    engine parameters are completely wrong (like the previous editions): ground idle of CFM56 real Airbus (according to real A320 FCOM) should be: (sea level 1013 mb 15°C=ISA conditions and static): N1%=18-20 N2=58-60 with 390-460 ° EGT and fuel flow of 250-500 kg/h (let's say 350): Airbus X gives: 23-25% n1 I can't remember N2 but should be 63-67% and fuel flow 1100-1150 kg/h! (this is not caused by a FSX limitations or by the fact that this simulation is "basic" another software house made a FS9 basic edition of the A320 giving the correct engine parameters...so not so difficult to simulate!)

    but thungs are also wrong at higher power settings: at max rated takeoff thrust airbus X gives a fuel flow (sea level 1013 mb etc) of only (about) 2560 kg/h now, considering a CFM56 rated at 27000 lbs of static thrust (12250 kg) and a static specific fuel consumption that for a "high-bypass" turbofan like the Snecma-CFM56 should be around 0,35 kg per kg of trusth I should read about 4300 kg/h on the fuel flow meter, (considering that the airplane is not static but it's moving the fuel flow should be also a little higher also if the power should be a little lower but anyway I should read a value between 4200-5000 kg/h) a 2600 kg/h would mean engines are developping about only60% of the rated static thrust!

    The last but the most important: after lift off when I, i.e. at 500 ft AGL, put the A/P engaged the plane goes nose down in a dive and crashes! No Working FBW! (no joystick issue having calibrated it before flying as usual) Like version 1.20 but worse than version 1.40, now the plane is unflyable! (I would check my trim settings but with version 1.40 I, without changing any trim, obtained a flyable aircraft after taking off and engagina my A/P!!!

    Any chanche to have soon a flyable "basic" plane, (please)?

    Ciao

    Andrea Buono


  7. Hi Mathijs,

    ...is exactly...the message I've seen and I was talking about....(sounds really good!)

    Some ideas...(keeping in my mind your goals and strategies)...let's me see...i.e. "tuning" the engine parameters trying to match them to real one by referring on fuel flow, EGT, N1 and N2...

    As soon as I'll have others suggestions I'd like to let you know....

    Best Regards and Good Luck!

    Ciao

    Andrea


  8. What COULD make an advanced version a gold-mine nonetheless is a very good 'basic' version, like we have right now (well, almost: I am looking forward to v1.20). If this version really catches on, people might get interested in a more advanced version (even when they are not hardcore). Those 'new-basic-hardcore's-pilots' combined with the already existing hardcore group might be an interesting target group for Aerosoft. But I still don't think it will bring in as much money as this current version will do.

    Hi Jeroen,

    You're right: your analysis is very deep...for the reasons you're so well illustrated my too hope this "basic" airbus X edition will be a very good edition and will be a success...for that I hope in a (future) advanced version:

    1) 'cause I really believe than Aerosoft team is one of the few around the "software-house world" that could make it;

    2) 'cause I've read an old post on these forums, by Mathijs Kok, talking about that possibility...

    regarding money I think that if a company is better than others by producing better and more advancing software ecc. it's right for that company to earn more money...

    Anyway now I'm looking forward for the 1.20 version...

    Best Regards

    Andrea


  9. Hi to all,

    my name's Andrea Buono and I'm an "hardcore simmer" with more than 20 years of "experience".

    I've been awaiting for a good replica of the Airbus A320 (and derivates) from ages...

    Now your "Airbus X" could be the right idea! Yes I know it's a "just-born" product but I can feel it could be a great product in the future..I've seen it has still a lot of "issues" to be fixed but It's seems to me that Aerosoft want really do good things and being an "old dog" I know the talent, capacity and serioussnes of Mathijs...

    I'd like only to give an advice to Mathijs Kok...I've seen by reading another post that Aerosoft could consider to make a more realistic editon of this A320 for very interested hardcore-simmers, I can well understand that commercial interests of Aerosoft nowadays could be different: in fact the intention of this software house, as declared here and in its product page was "to produce a good quality A320 software but not complex like PMDG etc" so that it could be purchased and used but a very large variety of FSX costumers. My advice to Mathijs is that: A more realistic version could also be a really "gold-mine" for Aerosoft: I know that in Europe a lot of very dedicated "hardcore simmers" are awaiting for that and I too would be agree to spend some more euro to have my Airbus X upgrated to that "as real as we can" version and Aerosoft could use its "know-how" obtained by this version of Airbus X to produce its realistic version (i.e. realistic engine parameters and gauges (EPR for IAE version), A318/319 extensiuons a failure generator with checklist indicated on EICAM PAGE "Eicam actions" a virtual copilot calling Vspeed and normal cheklist, a WXR radar) very good source of business! And I believe that Mathijs could be one of the only men able to to do that...

    Ciao

    Andrea - Como I


  10. Hi to all,

    regarding engine: at ground idle (according the the real airbus FCOM CFM56 engine) paramteres should be (ISA ground level etc.) N1= 19-20% , N2= 56-58% FF=270-500 kg/h EGT=390-460° at takeoff full power being the specific fuel flow rate (about) 0,35 kg of fuel per kg of thrust and considering 27000 lbs of static thrust (12.250 kg) FF should be around 4200-4400 kg/h (depending i.e. of true airspeed etc.) next days I'm going to check for FF vs. weight, speed at various altitude during cruise and climb time...

    Best Regards

    Ciao

    Andrea

×
×
  • Create New...