!! Windows 7 no longer supported !!

As Microsoft will stop supporting Windows 7 on Jan 20th we will be unable to test any of our
products on that platform. It may work, or it may not, but no guarantees from our side. 

Jump to content
Meyerflyer

climbs like on 3 engines (try 1.2.0.1 for a fix)

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

as often described, the Aerosoft Airbus Professional is climbing way too fast. It's almost like on three engines instead of two. It doesn't feel realistic for me at all this way. :(

 

I will make a comparison. I took off with the A321 IAE in Frankfurt to Hamburg with a take off weight of about 71t (6.4t fuel, 188 pax, 2.2t cargo) and CI 30. While the real A321 climbed to 21.200 ft within 10 minutes, I was already at final 32.000 ft. That's a huge difference and means an average climb rate of 3200ft/min up to FL320!

 

I can just recommed to all report this, because it already has been an issue with the A319 and hasn't been improved so far.

 

My flight. FL320 after 10min.

 

2018-9-10_20-55-31-662.thumb.jpg.90a109d69220cb6eab729c661481ca81.jpg

 

The "real" flight, that took off 2min after me on the same SID. Reached only FL210 within 10min.

 

1094683171_Screenshot_20180910-205833_Flightradar241.thumb.jpg.36dcd757cc98e689fdfb8049720257ab.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

And this only happnes with that high CI? Because i didnt have that in my last 3 flights. Usually i use around 18 to 20  what brought me to nearly 18 mins to reach FL320.. With climb rates starting around 3k going gown to 900 near toc.

Seemed right for me. Thoug its another engine type and i had more fuel but lower cargo, same pax. probably around same weight

 

Unbenannt.thumb.PNG.1b1ca11dd40184b687496eccf503471f.PNG

zzz.PNG

Share this post


Link to post

I think CI 30 is an average Cost Index. I was sure, I heard one day, that Lufthansa uses CI of about 30 on every fight. But I'm sure, too, that a difference in CI of 10 would never ever make such a big difference in performance. My engines are only running at 88% N1 with the IAE engines.

Share this post


Link to post

Im really no airbus guy but from what i saw the CI is quie different all over. §0 i didnt see yet, usually i find 5 to 25, around that. But really, i dont know much....

As can be seen here: Lufthansa isnt in though. You can find that pdf on aviationlads.com

 

 

tztzt.PNG

 

BAW: Airbus Fleet: A319 / A320 / A321 Climb at CI = 0 Cruise at CI = 20

 

Condor: A320 CI = 15 A321 CI = 33

 

EtIhad A319 CI = 18 A320 CI = 16 A320SL CI = 18 A321SL CI = 15

 

Thomas Cook A320 CI = 10, A321 CI = 21

UAL: A319 and A32X CI = 27

 

.... and more

Share this post


Link to post

Even worse with the last 320/321 ECAMD2D.dll. Now the aircrafts (both 320 CFM and IAE) mantain easy +3000fpm while accelerating to managed speed. Climbing to FL18 in 6 minutes. 66T TOW. Wow, what a climb.

Share this post


Link to post

Just a thought guys, to check. OP had 188 pax and 2.2t cargo. Thats pretty underloaded id say. MTOW is almost 95t. Joan, only 66t. Thats almost only 66% full load. Im not saying they are always at MTOW, but i wonder if this relatively light TOW is causing the high climb rate. Also, OP CLIMB gives you max climb at max thrust for given speed. I wonder if they are more controlling when they are "light" in real world? Not saying its not a bit off, just adding a thought..

Share this post


Link to post

Just tested. 74TOW, reached FL18 in 6' 30'' in managed mode. The same that happened with 66T. No matter how many tons I put on it, I feel like flying a big fighter jet. 

I've been complaining about this behaviour since the little bus came out. The answer has always been the same, more or less: "there's nothing wrong with the bus, your system is causing this, we will fix the descent problems". Then I thought, ok, let's see how the bus reacts for other users (Youtube): The result, yes, the bus climbs way too fast and way too easy for everyone.

 

So, my conclusion is that most people feels ok flying P3D in Arcade Mode and thinking, wow, how fast I'm climbing with the A321, what a performance! I don't, nor others here, because it is not how it is in RL.

And of course, I paid for a simulation of an Airbus for a really good price, I do not expect a highly detailed parameters in the fuel temps, if they are modeled, fine, thanks, but let's see how the aircraft climbs first because it takes me completely out of the simulation.

 

As a curious fact, I never had this problem with the old buses. So, it would be more or less easy to compare data between the the two versions of the same aircraft. Just saying.

 

I thought days ago on giving up, now that the big ones are out there's more people complaining about this and I really hope someone in the dev team considers this important enough to look at it thoroughly.

 

P.S. What I got with the last .dll is that the aircraft does not pitch down too much in order to catch the new managed speed. So it smoothes the ALT/SPEED pitch changes. Now It slowly pitches down a little bit, the funny thing is that the bus does not cares if she is climbing 600fpm (like with the old .dll) or maintains climbing 3000 fpm with the new one, it is really easy for her to reach any speed with any rate of climb.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I agree. The climb rate is pretty ridiculous. I work A321's all the time as a RW controller, and they are easily one of the worst climbing planes out there. 

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that the unrealistic flight dynamics really hurts the immersion.  It was less obvious to me on the A319, given that they are somewhat "sportier" from my understanding.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm running my first flight of the A321 IAE right now.  I wouldn't say that my climb rate was what I would term ridiculous, but it was certainly a bit faster than it would have been in FSX.  It felt like taking a Boeing 757 up to cruise, to make a comparison.  It took a little over 15 minutes to climb from essentially sea level (KJFK) to FL350, maintaining a steady 2000-3000 v/s most of the way, with a rate of about 1600-1700 right up to ALT*.  In the previous version, I would have expected to struggle to surpass 1200 at the most above FL300 at taking say 20-23 minutes.  All in all about a consistent 25-30% too fast.

 

Perhaps an interesting indication that the aircraft climbs a little faster than the FAC/MCDU expects it to:  Note the calculated T/C is well in advance of the aircraft's current location, which is about where I would have expected to top out in FSX (as others have alluded, the FSX A321 could sometimes best be described as sluggish, especially when loaded up); it remained in about that spot from preflight through FL340.  Visibility on the ground was very poor (near RVR minimums) but I woudn't suspect that weather/winds had any significant effect.

 

Another potential bug:  Based on the altitude calculations you can see for the interim waypoints, the computer maintained its original calculated point despite the performance clearly exceeding expectations; i.e. logically shouldn't the T/C point have gradually advanced closer to the current position based on the climb performance?

 

2018-9-11_20-45-20-122.thumb.jpg.1b5d5fccbd8e31d49b6889a686b9824a.jpg

2018-9-11_20-45-34-516.thumb.jpg.584a21ba05c733a0baf9f192f71956af.jpg

 

Flight Plan:  N0463F350 KJFK DCT SHIPP DCT JETZZ DCT BLUUU DCT DUMPR DCT ICCEY DCT OHRYN DCT BEHHR DCT ROLLE DCT ATUGI L454 ELMUC DCT IDAHO RTE6 SJU DCT TJSJ

 

Departure Time:  11 SEP 2018 13:35Z; Takeoff ~ 13:45Z; ActiveSky historical weather locked to sim time; RWY 22R.

 

Take-off Weight:  80264 kg; CI 060

 

That said, she handles quite beautifully otherwise and is quite the treat to look at.  I did have one little hiccup not long before capturing these images where I had an unexpected hard left roll but I suppose I can't rule out a stutter.  Wasn't fully paying attention; just caught it out of the corner of my eye and it was corrected just as quickly as it happened.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just completed the flight; also experienced some of the open descent rates in excess of -5000 - enough to trigger the "sink rate" alert from my FS2Crew First Officer.  What was odd is it was descending that fast and still couldn't hit its target speed.  (Edit:  Trying the approach again to see if I fixed the suspected scenery loading issue, and I got descent rates as high as -6700 in a sustained open descent.)

 

Also, to add some more anecdotal evidence to the excessive climb rate (and its attendant fuel savings), using my actual SimBrief fuel factor with the A321 in FSX (yes, I track these things):

 

Min = 0.98, Max = 1.10, Weighted Average = 1.03

Today's flight = 0.94

 

What I don't track is variance between flights (i.e. short vs. long, east vs. west, etc.) but as this flight was largely N/S with bits of both headwind and tailwind, it would seem those things should cancel out.

 

Next up, probably Thursday, I'll be trying out the A320 for a flight back to the mainland, either to KDCA or KMCO.  Depends on where/when Florence decides to make landfall!

 

(I also had 3 instances of the rapid uncontrollable jerking movements of the plane on descent, but couldn't get any pictures because it was that choppy.  I have no idea what caused them - never had them before - but a case of the blurries that I thought I had squashed seemed to have come back, so it very well might have had something to do with that.  My FPS was otherwise in the 40s-60s aside from those instances.)

Share this post


Link to post

Hi, we are currently reviewing the performance of the aircrafts. It is a bigger task. Please be patient.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Just as an FYI. Posting of RW Airbus documentation here will result in it getting removed due to copyright issues. Thank you all for the help but we have the charts ourselves. 

 

Also “helpfull” graphs that show that the A320 flies in FL410 get removed. ;)

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

For now I am closing this topic. There will be an update this afternoon that should change this (confirmed bug) behavior. I will re-open the topic when it is available.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Mathijs, you got it! :)

Did a test flight yesterday with the update and back from Hamburg to Frankfurt. Climb behaviour was much more realistic and slower. After reaching 250kt below 10.000ft, the max climb rate was about 3.700fpm instead of 5.000fpm. It took 13 minutes to reach FL310. So it seems your fix did well and it now felt like an A321 and not like a rocket.

 

Can you please do the same with the A319? It has the same issue with too high climb performance.

 

Btw. the A320 CFM climbs like I would expect it, so issue needs to be only with the A321 and the A319.

 

Thank you very much for adressing the issue with the A321 so quick!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

And I was curious, if you made some changes to the aircraft's drag? Because on approach the speed seemed to decrease a little bit faster, which made it easier to slow down on the final approach. I was always struggling with the A321 (even in the old one) to lower the speed on the glideslope, because it slowed down so slowly, even with spoilers deployed.

Share this post


Link to post

Well. After testing the update, unfortunately I have not seen any remarkable change. Yes, maybe the A321 feels more heavy, as it is supposed to be, but IMHO it should be even more. Glad to know that this is finally being reworked, hope that it is for all family.

 

Just to add something, the climb "problem" is specially noticeable below 10,000 and after rotation. When rotating to almost 20º after take off the speed tends to increase as the pitch up was not affecting at all. This happens with all variants, when the "standard" behavior would be the speed stop increasing when pitching up so sharply. In fact, an A320 with let's say 65TOW i think would need to rotate no more than 15º more or less before seeing the speed trend going down.

 

Being two totally different aircraft in RL and two different developers, the best flight dynamics I have ever seen are the PMDG NGX. Can not comment on other PMDG models, but I guess it would be the same. With the NGX you can feel almost every single ton that you put in it. The way the autopilot performs climb and descent is superb. The autopilot is dependent of the weight, pitch and thus applicable thrust with a little margin with a standard load, the Airbus now seems to have a really huge margin until noticing the weight is affecting the climb performance. Being the Aerosoft bus the Airbus par excellence in flight simulation I'm just asking for a similar accuracy with flight dynamics, maybe the most important aspect of the sim aircrafts, with such a great features added and the vc reworked in the new versions the flight dynamics is the only thing that puts me completely off of the sim. 

 

So again, thanks for looking at it, and take the time you need to dig deeper into those figures. ;)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I redid my takeoff from the other night (see previous posts/pictures) and the climb performance was much closer to what I was accustomed to in FSX.  Stabilized at cruise after 23:30, about midway between OHRYN and BEHHR.  Again, however, the TOC calculation was incorrect.  Originally it was in about the same place as pictured above, between ROLLE and ATUGI.  After I passed FL340, however, the arrow on the ND began moving back further away and disappeared.  Also as noted by @Joan Alonso, the initial climb did seem to be a little too powerful but certainly improved from before.

 

I also redid the descent but got close to the same results.  Initiating an open descent from cruise, it wasn't until I reached about -3800 v/s that the speed trend began to rise.  It eventually stabilized at about 5 knots up, but wasn't catching the target because that was rising by almost the same rate.  VS topped off at about -6000 before finally catching the target speed after losing about 10,000 feet of altitude and stabilizing around -4000.

 

So while it's still not quite there (almost as if there's too much drag on descent, especially initially), it's definitely much more workable than it was.  Thanks!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

To add to the above, trying out the A320 IAE tonight and seem to be having a similar problem.  Maintaining +2200 all the way up to FL350, completing the climb in only 13:30 - which strikes my non-expert opinion as being maybe 3-4 minutes too fast.

 

Although, in this case the TOC behaved as expected:  continually creeping closer to the present position and disappearing when and where intercepted.

 

2018-9-13_20-30-23-451.thumb.jpg.afa82b521a4fb34a1240c2e89736a1c6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Joan Alonso said:

Being two totally different aircraft in RL and two different developers, the best flight dynamics I have ever seen are the PMDG NGX.

 

Are you a pilot Joan? I ask because the pilots we use to advise us quite often tell us that what simmers expect is not what how it actually is.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Mathijs, 

 

No, I'm not. I only speak from a simmer point of view, and seeing other flight dynamics by other developers from multiple aircraft (the other bus also) the first thought is that the AS flight dynamics are pretty off from what are supposed to be.

Why? Well, how close they are to RL? I have no idea, but I can only speak subjectively form YT videos and personal feeling after years of FS. And the easy conclusion with all this "subjective data" is that the other developers numbers are more accurate than the AS. Maybe the others are wrong, maybe.

But even if the others were wrong, wouldn't be easier to rework the FD to be closer to simmer expectations? It would save AS a lot of time from discussing this topic with fussy guys like me.  

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...