Support overload. We are currently seeing 65% more demand for support then we normally see. We can only assume this is because more people are at home due to the corona crises. Our complete support staff is online and they are working flat out, but it will take some days before we can scale up resources. Please be patient.

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mad_X

CTD, VNAV problems, ILS problems...

Recommended Posts

So it is almost 3 months now since the release and after a pretty disapointing experience at the beginning I took the CRJ out for a few flights today. And yeah what shall I say I feel like an unpaid beta tester again. So I flew a few circuits at EDDP, tried a short hop between EDDP and EDDM and flew from EDDM to LUKK. Some things I encountered during the three flights (ok it was more like 2.3 flights but more on that later):

  1. CTDs
    I had 2 CTD during normal operations. One as during preflight in the FMC and the other literally when I said "hey, this thing is fun" during the EDDP-EDDM flight at climbout when I tried to change the map range. My P3DV4 is rock solid with all other planes. Yes I can abuse it and then i might CTD but never during normal operations.
  2. VNAV advisory
    On the BUSE6E STAR into LUKK there is an ARC. Which seems to throw off the VNAV. I had two TOD points and when I approach the first one, the snowflake jumped from top to bottom. But that was not so bad because that TOD was way to close to the Airport when following the programmed route so I calculared that 5000ft per minute for the .74/290/250 decent would not be enough to reach the 2500 ft that were the first alt constraint. 
  3. The ILS stall
    This one is completly unaccaptable by ANY standards. During the ILS approach in LUKK with a stable 160 kts  and flaps 30 shortly before intercepting the GS (while in FMC1 (blue) mode but later switched to NAV1 (green)), the AP decided it would be a good idea to kill everybody on board by rasing  the nose to 20 degree up and let the plane stall. The only thing to safe the situation was to apply max power and take over. 
  4. Brake Temp "0"
    After landing and applying quite some brake the temp reading was 0 on all brakes.

 

So how long was this thing tested again? I observed all of this during three flights. 

 

But one good news: During a long leg the plane stayed on course. Wow.

 

I expect Aerosoft to not follow its reputation and fix this bird ASAP. This in not the "pay for bugfix"  and "pay for something that should have been in a service pack in the first place" Airbus again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next flight and the AP got creative. This time we did want to kill everybody with a stall, thsi time we wanted to slam the plane into the ground directly durign the ILS...

 

The CRJ as we in German say: Gesehen, gelacht, gelöscht. If it wasn't for my 50 Euros... But lesson finally learned. Never again Aerosoft.

2017-11-2_2-51-46-684.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, start reading first the manual. Flaps 8, GS/loc captured, 234 kts... something wrong here. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, blahhh said:

Well, start reading first the manual. Flaps 8, GS/loc captured, 234 kts... something wrong here. :)

I'm willing to bet the 234kts was a result of the dive. I also doubt flying the ILS at 230kts would cause the sort of situation he was talking about anyway. Reading the manual isn't going to fix a broken plane. I would think the issue stems from control settings or weather engine, possibly FSUIPC interfering or also Active Sky, as I've noticed that the aircraft does not respond well to turbulence from Active Sky. At least it didn't in the earlier builds when I last flew it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3.11.2017 at 02:02, blahhh sagte:

Well, start reading first the manual. Flaps 8, GS/loc captured, 234 kts... something wrong here. :)

Of course the flaps were extended at a proper speed. And yes it was flaps 8. It would have lowered more flaps later during the approach. The dive begins the second the plane intercepts the Gs.

But that is not the point and just a attempt to distract from the fact that the plane is not following GS and either deviates heavily above or below the path. That is not acceptable. 

 

On 3.11.2017 at 02:21, XFalcon750 sagte:

I'm willing to bet the 234kts was a result of the dive. I also doubt flying the ILS at 230kts would cause the sort of situation he was talking about anyway. Reading the manual isn't going to fix a broken plane. I would think the issue stems from control settings or weather engine, possibly FSUIPC interfering or also Active Sky, as I've noticed that the aircraft does not respond well to turbulence from Active Sky. At least it didn't in the earlier builds when I last flew it.

Points taken. There was no turbulence by AS. Also my controls are NOT mapped via FSUIPC. As I pointed out above and you also noticed ;) the plane accelerated during the dive because of more than 4000ft/min decent rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had the stall situation as well as the try to slam the plan into the ground too; hope this is getting a rid of with the next update early this week where the route following should be fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im havin the same problem, now the plane cant hold the ILS banks to the right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...