Jump to content

Sharkbait

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About Sharkbait

  • Rank
    Flight Student - Groundwork

Recent Profile Visitors

775 profile views
  1. Whilst I agree it wasn't reported much, that's most likely because everything looks like it's working correctly. You get given a FLEX temperature based on your inputs, and everything appears to be functioning correctly. The first time I noticed was when I was flying a short leg, with low fuel and a small payload, and it took off like a rocket - I thought that was a bit odd. I've also pushed my throttle beyond the FLEX detent and saw TOGA thrust settings, but no increase in engine output. So to the eyes of those not deliberately looking for it, yes, it probably wouldn't be reported. Either way, this is good news!
  2. Previous topic was locked, questions remained. This product still states that FLEX is a feature for the P3D version. Purchasing I believed that this was correctly implemented, as stated by the product description. FLEX functionality is an extremely realistic feature to airline operations. I don't want to be that annoying guy, but can we please have some clarity as to whether the product will include it for the P3D version? Or perhaps, look to remove it from the feature list of the product, if it is not going to be supported for the P3D version at all. Personally, knowing this feature was not going to be included would have most likely altered my purchase decision.
  3. Is there any further information on when FLEX functionality will be implemented? It's still a feature advertised on the product page. It's not really 'FLEX take-off' if it's just TOGA thrust with a different name.
  4. I performed a re-install between 1.0.0.6 and 1.0.0.7 and have had the same result. Also, I've experienced this at default airports where my FPS are constantly in excess of 30-40. For what it's worth, my weather is provided by Activesky for P3Dv4, using the recommended settings for the 330 (provided in another post, to alleviate the typical problems with AS and payware aircraft). It's not a product breaking bug, more of a minor annoyance, but it certainly is odd.
  5. I've just had this reoccur with 1.0.0.7. I think it has something to do with when there is a tailwind component on the ground. Taxying out just now, when I turned with the wind, the elevators would go nose down. About halfway through the second video I posted above, you can see the wind fluctuating (in the red info text across the top) and the elevators responding accordingly.
  6. I have not mixed it up with GWCG. The takeoff trim value is based off of the TOWCG, not the ZFWCG. I've followed your procedure to show show where the error. You can't just enter the TOTAL fuel and be done with it. It requires deliberate manipulation of the fuel data (per https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/149826-a3xx-fuel-planner-balance-update/) in order to get a correct trim data for your TOWCG. I believe this further highlights the desire to either: A. Either be able to directly enter a ZFW in to the aircraft, enter the fuel, and the aircraft balances itself, like many other payware addons available on the market. B. Correct the fuel planner so that a TOTAL fuel amount correctly updates the CG. 1. Using a previous OFP I generated in PFPX and from a VA I fly with, 243 pax, ZFW 155,700kg. Flight is from YMML to VHHH, required fuel is 59,700kg. Sliders moved to match ZFW (note the information in the balance section, bottom left. TOW %MAC 28.0% ZFW %MAC 31.1% Trim UP 3.5 2. Entered total fuel amount of 59,700kg. Note, that none of the fuel or balance information on the left hand side updates. 3. Generate loadsheet, no image, self explanatory. 4. Init the loadsheet. Like you said, the data here is transferred (ZFW, ZFWCG and Trim values), but the trim figure hasn't taken in to account the self entered TOTAL fuel value. 5. Images showing the data transferred. However, the trim value is only based of the 35,730kg of fuel in the running total section of the fuel planner, not what I have manually entered in to the TOTAL figure. Now if I enter a bunch of parameters in to the fuel planner to bring the running total up to 59,700kg, I actually get the correct trim values from the fuel planner, based on the correct amount of fuel loaded to the aircraft of UP 2.3. This leaves the trim a total of 1.2 units out. Also, the TOWCG is vastly different to the aircraft calculated one as well. I, personally, do not like this system. The system is simple to use, yes, but invalid for aircraft loading at the moment. Not to mention, the fuel planning data it produces is grossly inaccurate (but that's another topic altogether). The captain does not individually move passengers and cargo around to get a desired CG. This is done by other people. I've got other addons (e.g. FSLabs, PMDG) where I can enter a ZFW in to the aircraft, and it provides a balanced aircraft based on that figure. I have the option to fiddle with different ZFWCG's if I wish, but generally this figure is going to be optimised prior to being given to the flight crew. Is the entering of a ZFW directly in to the MCDU to generate a load (e.g. on LSK4L of the LOAD and FUEL page) something that can be implemented in the future?
  7. Your idle is high, which suggests your throttles aren't actually at idle. Idle thrust is approximately 19-20% N1, your sim is up at 41%. Could possibly be a throttle calibration issue. Try calibrating your throttles to see if that brings it down. Also, hit F1 in the sim, and they should return to idle in the interim.
  8. Yes, it can, but it shouldn't go to 7 or 8 degrees nose down to catch up to the airspeed like that, for a 2000ft descent. That's the issue, the descent wasn't late per the ND. Have a look at the TOD arrow. Descent was initiated before reaching, by about 2.5nm, but then it's immediately 1300ft high on profile.
  9. Personally, I did not purchase the A330 for any of these features, and in fact have not used any of them at all. This doesn't currently update the CG and trim correctly, you need to fiddle with the fuel sliders to make your fuel match otherwise your balance will be out, see https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/149826-a3xx-fuel-planner-balance-update/ I too would like the function of being able to enter only a ZFW.
  10. I didn't intend to sound hostile. When someone states something as fact (especially on the internet) and you don't know their background or where the information has come from, it never hurts to question it, especially when you have conflicting information. Good to know. Ironically, it seems I've managed to bug it in to correct function?
  11. It's not just you. The fuel planner is giving significantly lower figures than required for the A330.
  12. My point is, I have found it in an FCOM and many references, and in the video it's not acting the way it's meant to per those documents. Do you have anything that says otherwise, apart from just you saying it's correct in the Aerosoft version? I might also point out, that 90% of the time, the Aerosoft aircraft does not perform the way it did in the video, and the NEW CRZ ALT message does not appear until I do push the FCU ALT knob.
  13. Polo, Literally every reference I've ever read about the Airbus series would indicate that this is not correct function. I'm not convinced that if I inadvertently dial the FCU altitude to FL430 (as shown in the video above) that the aircraft will just agree and assume that FL430 is my cruise altitude. You need to initiate it (Push the FCU ALT knob in) prior to it transferring to the PROG page CRZ ALT. Do you have a reference or source that you could point me to that says otherwise?
  14. Managed to recreate it. I think it occurs when multiple step climbs take place. I'm currently at FL390. I set 410, then entered managed altitude and it set the cruise altitude to 410, which is normal. I then dragged the altitude back to 390, set the cruise altitude to 390. Now when I increase the altitude, the CRZ ALT increases immediately with it, without entering managed mode.
  15. I'm using 1.0.0.6 now, and I can't reproduce it just now after reaching cruise. The original issue happened on the second flight, near TOD. I'll see if something different happens near TOD on my current flight.
×
×
  • Create New...