Aerosoft official retail partner for Microsoft Flight Simulator !! 
Click here for more information

Jump to content
Mathijs Kok

A330 flight model work

Recommended Posts

I would like so say the updated controls file has resulted in a great improvement, possible the elevator trim is still a bit sharp but that's only my opinion. I would also like to say that this product is absolutely stunning. I have a range of the Pay ware Aircraft Adds-Ons, in fact all of them and I believe this product is equally as good if not better. The cockpit lighting in particular, which I read was a subject of concern during development, deserves mentioning as the result is fantastic. Sure it has a few minor things to change, which has already been confirmed will happen via the very useful updater in the future. But I find it very encouraging that Aerosoft are listening to us, the customer's, and providing updates and acting on feed back so quickly. 

 

I have flown many flights now and weight is around 170,000kg.

 

Thank You for an awesome product and keep up the good work.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11.12.2019 at 10:10, Mathijs Kok sagte:

All the work is being checked with real pilots but how they feel it should fly does not always match with what customers expect

 

I don't want my expectations to be met. I want it to be realistic. If the real pilots with real experience say it should handle such and such, then I want that reflected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Farlis said:

 

I don't want my expectations to be met. I want it to be realistic. If the real pilots with real experience say it should handle such and such, then I want that reflected.

 

Somehow...I agree with this..that's why I backed up the .DLL.

 

Now the A330 feels and flies like a super stable narrow body :(. I meant to ask @Mathijs Kok about this. Was this update because there is something fundamentally wrong about the physics, or this was released to address the instability complaints? Because if it's yes, I'd happily stick with original DLL as it was published.

 

I think a good number of those complaining about its handling are actually just getting themselves in PIOs and blaming it on the product.

 

Pilots in real life spend a good amount of time training to fly the A330. And here people already dis on the product as unstable within 24 hours from its release. Not sure what to feel. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update 1.0.0.2 is now available. Which includes the fixes for the FBW. We made small additional improvements on the pitch logic compared to the file available here earlier.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Romano Lara said:

Now the A330 feels and flies like a super stable narrow body :(

 

Yes, and that's in good compliance with Airbus' philosophy: If you can fly an A318, you should, without too much training, be able to fly an A330 or an A380. Why is this? Because Airbus FBW basics are implemented in all their models, and to keep responsiveness the engineers just beef up the systems moving the control surfaces.

 

Legendary Concorde captain John Hutchinson once got asked how he found the flying characteristics of the "bulky" (interviewer's word) 747. He just quipped: "It was very responsive despite its size. It handled beautifully".

 

The first fix from Aerosoft improved stick input massively, can't wait to try the new update!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently on my way from LSZH-KBOS and hand-flying the departure felt MUCH better! Won't be touching down for another ~8 hours but I'm looking forward to seeing how it handles on the approach. So far so good! Kudos to the Aerosoft team for making quick adjustments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, According with a friend who flies A330, the difference between the Airbus family should be minimal because of the Airbus philosophy. The differences are more in performance, response time, INERTIA (is a big deal) etc. He also mentioned that their simulators are more touchy/sensitive than the real A330.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, parsec71 said:

 

Yes, and that's in good compliance with Airbus' philosophy: If you can fly an A318, you should, without too much training, be able to fly an A330 or an A380. Why is this? Because Airbus FBW basics are implemented in all their models, and to keep responsiveness the engineers just beef up the systems moving the control surfaces.

 

Legendary Concorde captain John Hutchinson once got asked how he found the flying characteristics of the "bulky" (interviewer's word) 747. He just quipped: "It was very responsive despite its size. It handled beautifully".

 

The first fix from Aerosoft improved stick input massively, can't wait to try the new update!

 

I'm sorry but I quite disagree with this. Being consistent with a philosophy does not equate to consistency in handling.

 

None of my friends who've flown A330/340s agree that it flies much like an A320. The A350 and A320 handles similarly, according to them. But not the A330.

 

Even two small LSAs like the Quicksilver and S-12 fly very differently from each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Secondator said:

Update 1.0.0.2 is now available. Which includes the fixes for the FBW. We made small additional improvements on the pitch logic compared to the file available here earlier.
 

 

 

Ok sorry for my ineptness, but just confirming that if I update to 1.0.0.2 then I don't need to install the Airbus_ECAMD2D.dll file?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Romano Lara said:

 

I'm sorry but I quite disagree with this. Being consistent with a philosophy does not equate to consistency in handling.

 

None of my friends who've flown A330/340s agree that it flies much like an A320. The A350 and A320 handles similarly, according to them. But not the A330.

 

Even two small LSAs like the Quicksilver and S-12 fly very differently from each other.

 

Likewise, A330 pilots I've heard state that it really isn't a whopping difference between an A320 and an A330. If anything, the additional inertia of the A330 makes it easier to land in difficult conditions. Unlike a "super stable narrow body"...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gjgriff said:

 

Ok sorry for my ineptness, but just confirming that if I update to 1.0.0.2 then I don't need to install the Airbus_ECAMD2D.dll file?


Correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I installed first ECAMD2D.dll file. Then when v1002 update became available, I updated to v1002 with AS updater. Is that ok?

 

Haseen Ahmad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 9 Stunden , parsec71 sagte:

 

Likewise, A330 pilots I've heard state that it really isn't a whopping difference between an A320 and an A330. If anything, the additional inertia of the A330 makes it easier to land in difficult conditions. Unlike a "super stable narrow body"...


This is exactly the case...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Romano Lara said:

I'm sorry but I quite disagree with this. Being consistent with a philosophy does not equate to consistency in handling.

Greetings,

Keep in mind, most jets will fly the same and will only differ in inertia and characteristics. I flew C-141Bs, KC10s, DC10s, G3s and now current and qualified in the Gulfstream 5 and 550. Three heavies and three light aircraft. All of these jets flew the same, but had some differences in inertia and characteristics. The C141 flew like a giant Cessna. It had big ailerons and felt as if you were flying a mack dump truck when slow. It didn't feel that way because it was a heavy, it felt that way due to the feel springs/cartridges and the artificial feel system for the pitch. It only had those ailerons so it felt sluggish when slow and when flying in turbulence or in formation wake turbulence. During minimum interval takeoffs or in formation being #3 on back, you routinely had to input full aileron input to keep her stable and stop rolling moments.

 

The KC10 and DC10 was a more modern jet compared to the old C141. It had inboard and outboard ailerons and roll spoilers. The elevators were sectioned in a way that each side had two panels giving the ability to fly with only one panel. The rudder was segmented and sectioned giving you upper and lower rudder panels. You could fly it with one section and offset 52500 pounds of thrust from each can under the wing. Even at 590,000 pounds, she was responsive to input. Sensitive actually. Easy to over control even though the yoke was rigid. You had to fly it with light hands using your finger tips and wrists. Inertia was the only way to know it was heavy. It responded to thrust input slowly at heavy weights causing you to anticipate thrust changes. If you chopped the throttles to slow and waited to see airspeed changes before adding power back in, you're too late because she will slow more than you thought. When landing, you flared earlier when heavy because of the lag in response. When light, leave the power in longer because she will slow quickly from the power pull. But as a heavy, it was nimble.

 

The G3 and all the other Gulfstreams had a heavier yoke than the DC10. I had to add a tad bit more input to get the same response as a DC10, but they were responsive to thrust changes.

 

G5/550 are very slippery and you have to pull power at 100ft on the 550 vs the G3 and G5 at 50ft. The G3 took a 3 degree pitch change on the flare and the 5/550 barely took 2.

 

I canvassed these planes to demonstrate that size in modern jets don't have anything to do with handling, it's the design that matters. Airbuses are designed with commonality in mind so that from a pilot stand point, you fly them the same. Similar to 757s vs 767. They are actually the same type though the weights are different. The 757 is only considered a heavy due to the wake turbulence it generates. They lowered the heavy numbers to include it. I hear the 757 can get a little sporty during landing compared to the 767 because of the amount of roll spoiler use per yoke degrees of input.  Even when you think about fly by wire in the airbus, the pilot feels what the computer directs. Looking at the side stick while an a320 is landing , it appears it would feel heavy also. There's a lot of input with the stick compared to the way the jet responds.

 

Rich

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, haseen said:

I installed first ECAMD2D.dll file. Then when v1002 update became available, I updated to v1002 with AS updater. Is that ok?

 

Haseen Ahmad.


Yes, the update will overwrite the old ECAMD2D.dll file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, g5flyer said:

Greetings,

Keep in mind, most jets will fly the same and will only differ in inertia and characteristics. I flew C-141Bs, KC10s, DC10s, G3s and now current and qualified in the Gulfstream 5 and 550. Three heavies and three light aircraft. All of these jets flew the same, but had some differences in inertia and characteristics. The C141 flew like a giant Cessna. It had big ailerons and felt as if you were flying a mack dump truck when slow. It didn't feel that way because it was a heavy, it felt that way due to the feel springs/cartridges and the artificial feel system for the pitch. It only had those ailerons so it felt sluggish when slow and when flying in turbulence or in formation wake turbulence. During minimum interval takeoffs or in formation being #3 on back, you routinely had to input full aileron input to keep her stable and stop rolling moments.

 

The KC10 and DC10 was a more modern jet compared to the old C141. It had inboard and outboard ailerons and roll spoilers. The elevators were sectioned in a way that each side had two panels giving the ability to fly with only one panel. The rudder was segmented and sectioned giving you upper and lower rudder panels. You could fly it with one section and offset 52500 pounds of thrust from each can under the wing. Even at 590,000 pounds, she was responsive to input. Sensitive actually. Easy to over control even though the yoke was rigid. You had to fly it with light hands using your finger tips and wrists. Inertia was the only way to know it was heavy. It responded to thrust input slowly at heavy weights causing you to anticipate thrust changes. If you chopped the throttles to slow and waited to see airspeed changes before adding power back in, you're too late because she will slow more than you thought. When landing, you flared earlier when heavy because of the lag in response. When light, leave the power in longer because she will slow quickly from the power pull. But as a heavy, it was nimble.

 

The G3 and all the other Gulfstreams had a heavier yoke than the DC10. I had to add a tad bit more input to get the same response as a DC10, but they were responsive to thrust changes.

 

G5/550 are very slippery and you have to pull power at 100ft on the 550 vs the G3 and G5 at 50ft. The G3 took a 3 degree pitch change on the flare and the 5/550 barely took 2.

 

I canvassed these planes to demonstrate that size in modern jets don't have anything to do with handling, it's the design that matters. Airbuses are designed with commonality in mind so that from a pilot stand point, you fly them the same. Similar to 757s vs 767. They are actually the same type though the weights are different. The 757 is only considered a heavy due to the wake turbulence it generates. They lowered the heavy numbers to include it. I hear the 757 can get a little sporty during landing compared to the 767 because of the amount of roll spoiler use per yoke degrees of input.  Even when you think about fly by wire in the airbus, the pilot feels what the computer directs. Looking at the side stick while an a320 is landing , it appears it would feel heavy also. There's a lot of input with the stick compared to the way the jet responds.

 

Rich

 

I agree with you, but here's the thing...you cannot feel anything while flying a computer based simulator. Unlike irl where you can anticipate changes before the FD commands it, because you feel certain things, like when an aircraft loses momentum, wind changes, thermal effects, etc. None of those are observable in the sim, everything is visual. Can't fly by the seat of your pants in the sim.

 

And here is where I disagree with sim pilots about how an aircraft should be. People are confusing stable and unstable with the aircraft's normal flight control responses.

 

I'm simply comparing how a good majority ruled that this product is unstable and demanded immediate changes, when most people's experiences are flying the A330 from seat 30A .The fact of the matter is, the A330 is a heavy aircraft. It will fly as such. People here want it to fly like a 152 with horizontal axis in their FD moving immediately as soon as they move the stick. But the reality may be that it would take a few seconds delay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Romano Lara said:

 

I agree with you, but here's the thing...you cannot feel anything while flying a computer based simulator. Unlike irl where you can anticipate changes before the FD commands it, because you feel certain things, like when an aircraft loses momentum, wind changes, thermal effects, etc. None of those are observable in the sim, everything is visual. Can't fly by the seat of your pants in the sim.

 

And here is where I disagree with sim pilots about how an aircraft should be. People are confusing stable and unstable with the aircraft's normal flight control responses.

 

I'm simply comparing how a good majority ruled that this product is unstable and demanded immediate changes, when most people's experiences are flying the A330 from seat 30A .The fact of the matter is, the A330 is a heavy aircraft. It will fly as such. People here want it to fly like a 152 with horizontal axis in their FD moving immediately as soon as they move the stick. But the reality may be that it would take a few seconds delay.

 

The unfortunate fact then is that most sim aircraft follow the "majority rule" of let's call it "augmented realism".  If the delay is indeed how it operates, then I'm all for that in the sim, although it will conflict with how every other aircraft is modeled - and I suffer enough from jumping between types every day lol.

 

I'm not sure how it could be implemented, but perhaps it would be possible to provide both "feels" and let the user select which one they want, say in the MCDU3 aircraft options?  It might be problematic for support (but what isn't) but it would in theory satisfy both the purists and the armchair pilots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another aspect that people forget is that aircraft are designed to a standard for certification. The FAA will tell you that a certified aircraft will not require exceptional flying skills. They mention this when discussing engine out performance and abnormal control situations. The aircraft has to meet minimum standards in regard to handling and responsiveness. The control authority, roll and pitch rates has to be sufficient to allow the aircraft to remain flyable in varying situations. For example, think of an aircraft that's miss trimmed, an engine out, a jammed flight control with a fuel imbalance. Throw in a little crosswind and you surely will have your hands full. This is the reason why modern aircraft have to be responsive. In your mind, you may think, that scenario is impossible. Well, it's already happened and very possible. All you need is a catastrophic engine failure and you're in that scenario where shrapnel has damaged a flight control and caused a fuel leak. It's that easy. That's why they have minimum standards for certification. 

 

Looking back at my beloved C141, they always recommended doing controllability checks anytime you suspected a control issue, because extensive flight testing wasn't done. In fact, we had a tab operable system in case you lost all hydraulics. Cables went to a tab on each flight control. The aircraft was responsive, but took effort on the controls and the roll rates were slow. They warned never go below 180kts operating this way because the test pilots refused to do so. You flew the approach at 180kts.  That's military aircraft for you.

 

Lastly, the heavies and light jets I've flown took about a half second to respond to input. It has always felt to me that the jet is out of control and you are just trimming and putting in small inputs to keep her on a straight and narrow path. Unlike a car that grips the road and attempts to do what ever you tell it immediately. During my Air Force time and my second civil flying gig, I did what we called functional check flights and acceptance flights. When our jets went down for heavy depot Mx, we did those flights to return it them to service. We did flight control and trim checks, shut down/restart engines inflight, max pressurized to check the safety valve, single generator and down to battery checks, manual flight control checks without hydro, adjusted the AOA system and then stalled them to ensure the warnings and stall recovery systems activated on cue. I learned a lot about controllability during those flights. Routinely you had to fly it two to three times until they got the trim set properly on the flight controls and speed brakes. Good times and a great confidence builder.

 

Though modern aircraft are responsive, we don't fly them at full rates day to day. Normally you use small gentle anticipated inputs unless you are slow and dealing with rough air. Here's a good one for ya. We had a crew down at Edwards AFB doing some F22 air refueling support while the F22 was in flight test phase. Right down the middle of the area is a supersonic corridor that you would pass through on your way to certain areas. The whole area is pretty much VFR with a controller that called out traffic, basically low budget flight following. TCAS was just put in the jet and it was still new to military airlift. The crew was crossing the corridor when ATC informed that a supersonic F18 was opposite direction closing in on their position. At the same time the controller announced, the TCAS gave the a climb and then a immediate climb now callout. The pilot flying instantly pulled back hard on the yoke. The jet pitched up instantly and entered an accelerated stall. Once climbing like a banshee, they realized the jet had a tendency to continue climbing. That's when they realized that the horizontal stabilizer was jammed and pitch trim would not move it. After talking with Boeing, they dumped fuel, moved some fuel to the forward body tank and landed on the salt flats. They found that two elevator panels were missing from the elevators and the horizontal stab was very wrinkled on both sides. Instead of using vert speed to get the VVI into the green, he clicked off the AP and pulled with might. The jet pitched quickly from the data recorder, but loaded up the airframe and the violent accelerated stall damaged it. Of course this led to everyone having to redo TCAS training, but the plane was repaired and I flew it while deployed. The elevators were still shiny, they hadn't bothered to paint them yet.

 

Rich     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mason2304 said:

Is this file not available for download now when ever I click on it, it says it wasn’t found.

As I understand it, the file has already been incorporated into the 1.0.0.2 updates and later. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2019 at 7:10 PM, Mathijs Kok said:

As discussed we are working on the flight model of the A330 because we agree there is something wrong there. All the work is being checked with real pilots but how they feel it should fly does not always match with what customers expect so we like to send out a few files here. Please let us know your comments so we can tweak it some more. Do mention how heavy your aircraft is because a fully loaded A330 flies VERY different from a empty one.

 

Unzip this file in /Aerosoft A330 Professional/SimObjects/Airplanes/Aerosoft A330 Professional Base/Panel_Fallback/ overwriting the file that is there.

 

One possible side effect of this trial is thet X8 might not be stable anymore

 

Better now after the update but still a work in progress. We get it. Thanks guys. Fun to fly, and yes Mathijs, it can be heavy. I feel it during take off, and that engine roar oh. Awesome.

 

 

Airbus_ECAMD2D.zip 760.23 kB · 1475 downloads

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2019 at 5:10 PM, Mathijs Kok said:

As discussed we are working on the flight model of the A330 because we agree there is something wrong there. All the work is being checked with real pilots but how they feel it should fly does not always match with what customers expect so we like to send out a few files here. Please let us know your comments so we can tweak it some more. Do mention how heavy your aircraft is because a fully loaded A330 flies VERY different from a empty one.

 

Unzip this file in /Aerosoft A330 Professional/SimObjects/Airplanes/Aerosoft A330 Professional Base/Panel_Fallback/ overwriting the file that is there.

 

One possible side effect of this trial is thet X8 might not be stable anymore

 

 

 

 

Airbus_ECAMD2D.zip 760.23 kB · 1491 downloads

 

 

Would there be any great issues if I reinstalled this file following update 1.0.0.4 ??

 

I don't know if I'm feeling it but it just seems the aircraft was more stable and more to my preference than what it feels like following the 1.0.0.4 update...  That's if there could be any difference in handling at all following this update?

 

Thanks

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, gjgriff said:

 

 

Would there be any great issues if I reinstalled this file following update 1.0.0.4 ??

 

I don't know if I'm feeling it but it just seems the aircraft was more stable and more to my preference than what it feels like following the 1.0.0.4 update...  That's if there could be any difference in handling at all following this update?

 

Thanks

Greg


There are very fine adjustments made in released in version 1.0.0.2 after that file was published but nothing really major anymore and I think you would not even notice there was a chance unless you really focused on it or knew about it.

What comes to installing that file after 1.0.0.4 update. Highly not recommended because that file controls many other things as well and you would lose on many other fixes and in worst case because of compatibility issues with other files the aircraft could become completely unflyable and we cannot provide support for that anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...