canuck21a 17 Posted September 23, 2018 Share Posted September 23, 2018 Hello, I reviewed the posts related to the flight management system failing to comply with published SID's. I too have been struggling with this using the new pro bus 318 & 320. A little info on my test setup: 1) i7-2600k 16GB RAM, OC 4.0 GHz, nVidia GTX970, Windows 10 Pro all the latest updates 2) P3Dv4.3 clean install with only a few ORBX addons; Global and LC. 3) Aerosoft A318/319 & A320/321 with all of the latest updates via the updater (A320/321 ver: 1.2.0.2) I set up a simple flight from EGKK to EGUN simply to test the MCDU and the flight. The departure was 26L using CLN4X like another user had with a single waypoint at cruise (FL070) and a transition to Rwy29 via TUSMU. I started the sim in turn-around mode and loaded the pax and cargo then closed the doors except the main. The main MCDU was used to enter the flight plan manually. The departure was reviewed using a commercial chart system and compared to the 1809 Navigraph proc for EGKK. Navigraph: NAVIGRAPH 1809 SID,CLN4X,26L,5 CF,KKW02,51.137656,-0.266325,0,DET,253.3,34.1,258.0,2.0,2,1500,0,1,220,0,0,1, CF,KKE09,51.195533,-0.206644,2,DET,258.2,31.0,78.0,3.0,2,3200,0,1,220,0,0,0, TF,KKE11,51.202697,-0.154894,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,3,4000,0,1,250,0,0,0, TF,KKE15,51.213975,-0.073089,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0,0,0,1,250,0,0,0, TF,SUNAV,51.260250,0.194389,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1,5000,0,1,250,0,0,0, TF,KKE42,51.227028,0.568528,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1,5000,0,1,250,0,0,0, TF,DET,51.304003,0.597275,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1,5000,0,1,250,0,0,0, TF,KKN52,51.385000,0.627611,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1,6000,0,1,250,0,0,0, TF,DAGGA,51.821944,0.794167,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1,6000,0,1,250,0,0,0, TF,CLN,51.848472,1.147589,0, ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1,6000,0,1,250,0,0,0, ************************************************************************************************************* COURSE TO FIX KKW02 +1500 @ 220 OVERFLY COURSE TO FIX KKE09 +3200 @ 220 FLYBY TRACK TO FIX KKE11 -4000 @ 250 FLYBY TRACK TO FIX KKE15 NOALT @ 250 FLYBY TRACK TO FIX SUNAV 5000 @ 250 FLYBY My interpretation of the SID TRACK TO FIX KKE42 5000 @ 250 FLYBY TRACK TO FIX DET 5000 @ 250 FLYBY TRACK TO FIX KKN52 6000 @ 250 FLYBY TRACK TO FIX DAGGA 6000 @ 250 FLYBY TRACK TO FIX CLN 6000 @ 250 FLYBY ************************************************************************************************************ SID (SimPlatesX Ultra) Please login to display this image. The details confirm that the first two waypoints can/should be above 1500 & 3200 while the third is limited (constrained) to 4000 feet It was interesting that there is no altitude for KKE15. Loading the MCDU flight plan: The plan was loaded using the dep/arr runways and stated STAR and Transition. The next image shows what the screens looked like right after loading (A), after modifying some waypoints to add constraints (B) and finally after the fuel prediction was activated. Please login to display this image. It can be seen that KKW02 shows an altitude that is clearly less than the required +1500 while KKE09 shows an altitude that conforms to the +3200 value. KKE11 displays the correct altitude and speed constraints. KKN52 is supposed to be 6000 but shows nothing so I entered it manually (B) CLN is supposed to be 6000 but it displays as 6100. The rest of the items appear to be correct. . . Now we turn to the A320 plan display to see what it shows: Please login to display this image. Viewing these all the constraints appear to be correct. Now looking at the DET plan versus display: Please login to display this image. Clearly it shows that one display is somehow wrong. After having set up the flight the full Checklist with copilot was started. The aircraft took off as expected and after reaching a suitable altitude the autopilot was turned on. The plan then proceed to climb immediately @220kn to the 4000 restriction. Once it passed KKE11 it decided to climb to cruise altitude blowing away all of the speed/altitude constraints; furthermore the flight plan changed all of the SID constraints to FL070. My past experience suggests that this aircraft now has a HAL9000 running in the background as it wants to do things that I or Navigraph do not want it to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted September 24, 2018 Aerosoft Share Posted September 24, 2018 Are you sure you see this issue with the latest version of the A320? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck21a 17 Posted September 24, 2018 Author Share Posted September 24, 2018 Here is the updater screen that was checked before I started the test.: Please login to display this image. Are there any specific files that I might need to send to you to confirm if the update is as expected ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted September 25, 2018 Aerosoft Share Posted September 25, 2018 It seems that indeed you found a bug. Robert is working on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck21a 17 Posted September 28, 2018 Author Share Posted September 28, 2018 Just dropped in to see if anything had changed. When something does I will re-run the test using the same procedures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted September 28, 2018 Aerosoft Share Posted September 28, 2018 We are about to send up a new version that has changes to these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck21a 17 Posted September 29, 2018 Author Share Posted September 29, 2018 Yesterday I noticed that a new version of both the busses was available. I removed both from my test and regular systems and followed the prescribed methodology for re-install. Once I had updated Navigraph I decided to re-test the previous flight again. Using the provided A320 Lufthansa CFM I set up at a gate at EGKK. Once again the flight plan for cruise at FL070 was entered manually with one intermediate waypoint (WTZ) between the CLNX4X SID for 26L and TUSMU Transition for ILS29. After everything was set up and the systems were active I checked both the MCDU values and those shown on the ND which generally seem to display the constraint values. I placed these values in a table to make it easier to review: Please login to display this image. Those values in red show where the MCDU displayed things differently than the ND and the underlying constraint values. Perhaps these apparently contrary display values are simply part of the weird and wonderful Aerosoft Airbus logic? Now on to the actual flight............ Following the fully managed with copilot procedures the takeoff went without a hitch. At a suitable altitude and before the first waypoint AP was turned on. The MCDU and ND were watched closely to see if any strangeness happened. The aircraft passed KKW02 above 1500, KKE09 above 3200 and held at 4000 before KKE11. After KKE11 it climbed and maintained 5000 @ 250kias. After DET it climbed to 6000. At CLN it climbed to 7000 and held until TOD Descent and landing were normal. The SID profile was flown as expected and nothing strange (for me anyway) happened. It appears that the changes to the coding have corrected the previously encountered behaviour. Thanks for the fixes ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted October 1, 2018 Aerosoft Share Posted October 1, 2018 Thanks for the detailed report! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.