Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rolle

  1. Hello, the flight following function in airbus x connect is a very nice addition. Are there plans to expand this function in further Versions? What i miss is the remain-time/distance to the departure, or the distance to TOD, or the ground speed. If this would be added, that would be very nice! Greetz
  2. Thanks for that. I tried this and reduced the frequency on the ND and PFD xml's. Now i have about 3 to 4 frames more. At the moment it's ok for me, because the slideshow goes into an acceptable motion. The next thing is the the reaction of the N1, as i described in the first post of this thread. What i obeserved is, that the N1 doesn't, or very very low, decrease when the indicate airspeed goes into overspeed. An overspeed situation accure when winddirection and speed are changing or you go into descend. Sometimes, the N1 shows absolute no reaction, although an Idle position would be the better way. Greetz
  3. Hello Mathijs, nice to read this. But i have to say, that the FPS changes are not marginally! With version 1.11 FPS on Ground (and when turning) at about 18-22 fps. Now, in conjunction with an Addon, down to 6 to 7 (when you are turning, <- and only then). Thanks for that. I've tried this and changes the frequency value from 18 down to 5. The fps are now 2-3 frames better, so there have to be another reason for the lower fps. I hope we can go back to the old very good framerates and in addition to solve the overspeed issue (see above) . Greetz, Dirk
  4. Hello Michael, perhaps it has different reasons, but can you tell to us how and where do change the refreshrate of the ND's? Thanks Grz
  5. Hello, i think the cause of the low framerates are the higher fps of the ND. When i taxi and the compass (ND) doesn't move i have an excellent framerate, but when i make a turn the frames going deep. So, it would be nice when Aerosoft can give an 'quick-fix' . With these frames actually the update is an step backwards, in spite of the good other improvments. In my judgement, higher frames on the ND are not very important. For me, the ND-frames from the first Version was acceptable. Grz
  6. Hello, at first, this new version brings a few great improvments. But for me there is a massive new problem: With this Version 1.20 my Framerates are now very low. I used the same route, the same Scenery on my last flight. Especially on Ground and lower flightlevel are the FPS down to 10. Further, the AP doesn't reduce the Thrust or to low in managed mode, when you're going into descend. Conclusion of that is, that the Airbus is in overspeed. The next thing is, that the nosedip-problem (when deactivating the AP and at 100ft) is still existing, but not so strong as in Version 1.11 Grz
  7. Wow, I see a cruise speed of M0.78 Grz
  8. Hello, most of these points already wrote. My 'wishlist': - An Advanced Version - Sid/Stars - VNAV - editable F-Plan (Alt, Speed) - Navigraph Database - keeping up the good FPS, insofar as possible - proper FBW-model - fair price for the standard-version customers Grz
  9. I hope not, this issue is actually not acceptable. It can't be true, that i have to avoid a nearly crash on every landing. Thus, i disconnect the AP at about 1000ft so that i have enough space to recover. It would be nice, when Aerosoft express oneself to this issue. A word if you registered this problem and if you work on this, would be nice. Grz
  10. ehm, i have to correct my last reply. After my flight with M0.78, the last two flights doesn't reach values over M0.705. These last flights had a steplclimb, could this be a possible reason? Grz
  11. Hello, in my opinion, the last update was a good step forward. I can't subscribe Craigs view, because the climb-performance is much better than before. Also the cruise-speed reachs now M0.78. Be sure that you download and install the Version 1.11 and don't forget to deinstall the previous version first. Grz
  12. Hello, thanks for your replay, indeed that was the problem. I've copied now the files to the correct folder and now its worked. Thanks! Grz
  13. Hello Mathijs no, when i choose any (equal if cold&dark, ready for taxi or what ever) state, there is always an cold and dark situation. In addition, a few knobs does not working any longer. when i click on this knobs they're not "moving" and shows no interaction. At the beginning, when i loaded the aircraft, the knobs are still working. Grz
  14. Hello, when i load the Airbus the systems and engines are running. Now i want to load the cold & dark state. When i choose this state on the MCDU, the Cockpit is cold and dark, but after this a few knobs and are not working. The same result at the other states. What is wrong? Grz
  15. Im really wondering that in fact, a few customers are bying before they're read the product description or this forum. Andy shows you, how you can use SID and Stars anyhow. It is'nt very optimal, but an acceptable alternative. I use it in the same way. Grz
  16. I would not say that this flight plan was very complex (Cologne to Palma), but sure, a few more waypoints like from Cologne to Berlin. I think this route is typical for this type of aircraft. Is there an upper limit for the use of enroute waypoints? I planned my FP with FsCommander, added Sid and Stars and loaded the plan with the FSX-Planner. Grz
  17. Hello Mathijs, it seems there no relation between these things. At the moment, i fly with more or less full tanks, after reaching the TOC, the autopilot is out of service. But i observed, that the transponder code has changed from my 2000 to 1200. ??? very strange.
  18. Hi, and another Problem. I don't know if there is a relation between these things, but i observed that for the second time. On a two hour flight this warning turned up (after ~1.5h): "L+R Wing TK Lo LVL" After a couple of minutes, the content of the outer wingtanks shows a negative value. Referring to this (?) the autopilot doesn't follow the NAV-Route any longer, does not receive any ILS-Path and there is no way to climb or descent. The AP shows no more reaction! Also after switching off and on the AP and Autothrottle, the problem exits. Can you help me? grz
  19. rolle


    I can cofirm that case. Altitude ist set and the knob is pushed, but the climbspeed is only up to 400 ft/min. ( N1: ~95%)
  20. Thanks for your reply. I'll keep an eye of this topic So, constraints are not simulated. Well, then i have to do a little mental arithmetic for a great descend!
  21. Hello! At first, nice aircraft. On my last flight, i have to cross an intersection at 4000ft. A look to my MCDU F-Plan shows me, that it is planned for 16.000ft. Is there any chance to edit the F-Plan in the MCDU, so that i can cross the intersection at the correct flight level? Furthermore, calculates the MCDU my Top of Descent and shows it me on the ND? Is this the case, what could it be the reason why i cant see it?
  22. So, what's going on? Are there any further problems?
  23. No, no, i look deep into my crystal ball and predict the release for the next 60 minutes. ... i hope so!
  24. Hallo zusammen, ich finde es ebenfalls sehr bedauerlich, dass man den kleineren Flugplätzen nicht mehr so die Beachtung schenkt. Wirtschaftliche Überlegungen und leider auch mangelnde 'Man-Power' die zur Einstellung der Serie geführt haben sind zwar einleuchtend, für den Kunden aber mehr als unbefriedigend. Die Kombination der VFR-Germany mit den GAF's war für mich DIE Kombination um realitätsnahen VFR zu simulieren. Die bereits veröffentlichen Teile erfreuen sich bei mir immer noch vieler Starts und Landungen, ich merke aber, dass einige Plätze sehr oft andere dagegen so gut wie gar nicht von mir angeflogen werden. Das "Herauspicken" der Plätze, wie bei den GA, wäre daher nicht uninteressant. Zur Qualität: Ich gehöre nicht zu denen, die die Grashalme an jedem Platz zählen. Denn erstens ist mir die Zahl in z.B. Hartenholm nicht bekannt und zweitens ist es mir auch schlicht egal. In erster Linie zählt der Wiedererkennungswert und die Atmosphäre die einem den Eindruck vermittelt, auf einem Flugplatz in Deutschland zu stehen. Wer achtet bei Start und Landung auf richtig positionierte Straßenschilder oder ob der Farbton des Hangars stimmt? Setzt diese Beschwerden im Verhältnis zu den Verkäufen, Leute die immer was zu meckern haben gibt es leider immer (wird aber wohl bekannt sein ). Ebenfalls einleuchtend ist, dass nicht jede Buckelpiste für die breite Käuferschicht interessant ist. Mein Vorschlag wäre daher folgender: Vielleicht siedelt man anstatt den GAF's eine Serie unter den German Airfields an, in denen gebräuchliche und nicht allzu kleine VFR-Flugplätze enthalten sind. Plätze wie etwa Essen-Mülheim, Sylt(GAF1), Memmingen etc. Zum Teil bedienen diese ja auch größeren Regionalverkehr. Vielleicht kann man dies auch anhand der jährlichen Flugbewegungen o.ä. festmachen. Dies könnte ja auch mehr Käufer ansprechen als diejenigen die nur in ihrer C152 zu Hause sind. Diese ließen sich vielleicht auch gut einzeln verkaufen!? Viele Grüße
  • Create New...