We have at this moment problems with e-mails coming to us via Microsoft servers (Outlook, Hotmail, Live, etc). We are in contact with Microsoft to solve this issue.

Jump to content
vali

Manual flying problems

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

I tried yesterday to do more manual flying with Airbus X, tried to make a flight like this one:

(VISUAL!, 1500 AGL, A/THR on, FD off), only that I did it at Munich.

I must say that it was not possible, plane was very difficult to control, I am disspointed from this point of view related to Airbus X implementation.

For normal flights where only take off and landing is done manually it is acceptable but in the case mentioned above the flight was a mess.

If anyone else can try out and perhaps make also a movie it will be nice to show that this is possible and can be done ok and smooth.

On my case I have a lot of erratic moves, nose down, high pitch and so on.

I said maybe it's me or FS and so on, so I tried the same short flight with Wilco and it is more more easy to manage it and fly-by-wire works better (same FSX config, same joystick config, same payload, settings, MCDU config and so on).

It is written on the product page "The Fly-By-Wire flight model is totally reliable and extremely close to the actual aircraft." but in case of VFR, manual flying, doesn't seem so, that's why I ask someone else here to try it and provide feedback if possible. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello!

Yes, i have the same experience with Airbus X, i have also "tryed" to get som feedback from Aerosoft about my problems, but there is non response what so ever...?

...have also the Wilco/Feelthere Airbus vol 1, and there is NO problems with manual flying or landing, did tested the merge with wilco panel and Airbus X repaint (only 320 mdl/fd works ) and i`m happy with the result...but not the stand alone product Airbus X

Try to read Mr Paul Goldings tips, i did,..but no luck

there is a tread in "nosedive" that you can read here is the link to the whole story ... http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=40555&st=0&p=269599&fromsearch=1&#entry269599

Best regards

Christer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I'd consider (if you haven't already) is adjusting the sensitivity and null zones on your joy stick. The other thing to consider is that obviously flying an airbus is a completely different experience to flying a Boeing. I've got the Wilco, Airsimmer and now the Aerosoft Airbus', and they all implement the Airbus FBW controls differently, so its hard for a non-pilot to know what flying this bird 'correctly' really means. They have this much in common though, and that is over-controlling is a recipe for disaster (By over-controlling, I simply mean flying it as if you were piloting a Boeing) particularly on finals.

Anyway, I expect you know all this, so back to joystick settings. I use a bog standard Saitek X52. With that stick and this plane the FSX standard sensitivity/null zone settings made manual landings a nightmare. The elevators take far too long to respond and this inevitably leaves the nose lurching up and down whilst trying to stay on profile on the glideslope. The ailerons roll too slowly too, not such a problem on finals but it can make a difference. If you're using Autothrust to land, don't. The calculated VAPP speed in the MCDU is actually the VREF speed, you need to add 5 knots or more to adjust for wind and lift, and even then don't bother. Use manual thrust and come in a little fast if you have to. Having manual control of the aircraft's lift will help compensate for the slow response of the elevators.

The joystick configuration in the PDF manual is a good starting point. Just experiment and find what works best for you. I'm aware of the uncontrollable dive issue, although many deny it exists; I managed to invoke it by massively over-controlling the aircraft on a disastrous final into EHAM 36L using the underpowered autothrust. A real Airbus wouldn't have crashed (I don't think) so it's definitely a bug, but one most won't run into as long as you take care in the handling.

Also try out Mr Golding's excellent circuit training from out of Prestwick and follow to the letter. Then repeat with modified joystick settings, manual thrust etc etc

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with what you said about over control, I know it, and avoid it as much as possible.

Usually I try to command pitch or/and roll in small steps and then I release the joystick. Still, I have not so nice variations up/down for the pitch, for the roll it is better.

I tried different settings of the joystick (Logitech Attack 3) and this one works reasonable on takeoff and landing but not so well on longer manual flying (as a circuit).

joysticksettingsabx.jpg

I remembered also about some movies, you will see that pilot moves quite often(a lot) the sidestick but on PFD you will see pitch and roll pretty stable, no big variations.

One example, other better examples could be find maybe:

Also for landing (manual) it seems to me that pitch is increased too early, when I still have more than 100-200 ft to go, but here I still have to test/practice it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Individual preference is the name of the game with any add-on, indeed your settings would create havoc with an X52! I doubt I could get off the ground with null zones that big!

Anyway...it seems I have misunderstood your original question, and your problems are with maintaining level flight? Well, that might be easily explained. The Flight Director doesn't work. Not in manual flight. If you're following that for cues, then forget it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Individual preference is the name of the game with any add-on, indeed your settings would create havoc with an X52! I doubt I could get off the ground with null zones that big!

Anyway...it seems I have misunderstood your original question, and your problems are with maintaining level flight? Well, that might be easily explained. The Flight Director doesn't work. Not in manual flight. If you're following that for cues, then forget it.

Ok, understood, thanks for your feedback :cheers_s:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi !

I also have problems with manual landing with aerosoft airbbus x. The controls slow respond. I have logitech joystick.

Also,

1. ILS problem ( LOC is ON and HGD flight, Aircraft going to capture ILS, but aircrat was too far to did it. Right way : The aircraft should continue flight , reach properly distance form ILS then capture ILS )

2. no TCAS (no aircraft displayed on FD, OK no support from aerosoft)

3.CTD (after exit filght, OK when loaded default aircraft first, then airbus x)

4.logo light on tail (cannot switch off, light always on)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I would not suggest changing your controller settings just to try and make one add-on "feel" how you want it too; that just messes up all the other add-ons!

The bottom line is that the Airbus X flight model isn't very good for hand flying, but, it is was it is and no amount of complaining about it will change that until hopefully and all new "advanced" version comes along.

Having said that, if you accept the above and learn to live with it, manual flight can be done as smoothly in the AirbusX as it can in the default 737 and like any real pilot, you need to learn how to fly a new aircraft and understand how your controller reacts. Also, if you find some youtube video that shows the pilots hand on the control stick, you'll see that during any manual flight, there's an awfull lot of small control inputs being given! So.....practice repeated circuits like you're in a big Cessna and you will be able to fly this by hand.

The other kind of obvious thing to point out is that of course the Airbus isn't actually supposed to be flown by hand in the first place, not an excuse I know, but if you use it like an airline does, things are very nice indeed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I would not suggest changing your controller settings just to try and make one add-on "feel" how you want it too; that just messes up all the other add-ons!

The bottom line is that the Airbus X flight model isn't very good for hand flying, but, it is was it is and no amount of complaining about it will change that until hopefully and all new "advanced" version comes along.

Having said that, if you accept the above and learn to live with it, manual flight can be done as smoothly in the AirbusX as it can in the default 737 and like any real pilot, you need to learn how to fly a new aircraft and understand how your controller reacts. Also, if you find some youtube video that shows the pilots hand on the control stick, you'll see that during any manual flight, there's an awfull lot of small control inputs being given! So.....practice repeated circuits like you're in a big Cessna and you will be able to fly this by hand.

The other kind of obvious thing to point out is that of course the Airbus isn't actually supposed to be flown by hand in the first place, not an excuse I know, but if you use it like an airline does, things are very nice indeed.

Agree Paul, this is why I ended up with that big null zones for my controller, in that way I also have to do many small corrections and keep it as stable as possible, this is all what I could do, the rest, hopefully Aerosoft in an Advanced version, but here I don't know, better wait for guys which do the A320 for FSX too.

For the other addons, seems to work also (I don't fly Boeing at the moment) but in any case, I can keep setups for each one if necessary.

Yes, it is not supposed to be flown manually, still pilots do it pretty often (during trainings), landing and approach.

Since its launch, I learnt to deal with the missing stuff of Airbus X and till an Advanced version will come out in FS world I will enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but the idea that an Airbus isn't supposed to be flown manually is absolute rubbish and an insult to professional pilots who fly Airbus for a living. Why do you think the Airbus engineers bothered to develop the EFCS? To make it easier for the aircraft to be flown manually!

The amount of disinformation flying about here as an excuse for a bad implementation of FBW is ridiculous. And that is the crux of it, it's not really FBW its Microsoft's version of it. Aerosoft really need to remove that nonsense about it being a realistic representation...it isn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but the idea that an Airbus isn't supposed to be flown manually is absolute rubbish and an insult to professional pilots who fly Airbus for a living. Why do you think the Airbus engineers bothered to develop the EFCS? To make it easier for the aircraft to be flown manually!

The amount of disinformation flying about here as an excuse for a bad implementation of FBW is ridiculous. And that is the crux of it, it's not really FBW its Microsoft's version of it. Aerosoft really need to remove that nonsense about it being a realistic representation...it isn't

Maybe my use of the word "supposed" isn't quite what I meant. The product produced by Aerosoft was meant to be "lite" enough for anybody to use it without spending days trying to figure things out and to include enough system depth for the user to be able to carry out typical day to day flights in the way that an airline would operate the Airbus. With that in mind, I think it mostly works as intended, including the FBW. Yes the FBW is an adaptation of what Microsoft introduced with FSX and in terms of flight envelope protection it does actual work i.e. over banking is limited, commanded pitch is maintained without the need to trim etc. Things like alpha floor are also included.

The big issue (and I raised this repeatedly during the beta testing) is the way the basic flight model behaves under manual control and in particular, the aircrafts reaction to pitch inputs from the controller. This is most certainly not correct and not how the real thing is, but, one could say this is the only (main?) flaw in the overall flight model and that the other things are actually working close to how they should. Sadly, control of pitch is probably about the only part of a flight model that you would want to be spot on and I even suggested that this "lite" version be released with a non FBW flight model on the basis that the vast majority of users (and for that matter, real Airbus pilots too), would never actually see the effect of the flight envelope protection in normal use! Simply using a very good non FBW flight model with maybe some kind of auto-trim function would have been far safer IMO. But, then users would complain that the FBW features are what makes it an Airbus.

Basically, I don't think it's right, but equally, it certainly isn't anywhere near as bad as some claim and the AirbusX can most certainly be flown with a normal controller with default settings without the aid of the AP. OK, it might take a little practice and might not react to pitch inputs in the same way as the real thing, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it seems that we all agree that for implemented fly-by-wire, control of pitch is not as it should be (under manual control), by taken into account your feedback and my experiences also.

The only question from my side is, will be improved in the future or this is a thing to live with and the subject is closed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it seems that we all agree that for implemented fly-by-wire, control of pitch is not as it should be (under manual control), by taken into account your feedback and my experiences also.

The only question from my side is, will be improved in the future or this is a thing to live with and the subject is closed?

My understanding is that there will be no further development of the current flight model.............but that of course is not an official quote. However, as the beta forum for the AirbusX is no longer in existence, it seems like a reasonable assumption.

It would of course be nice to think that an advanced version comes along with a much nicer flight model and if nothing else, that this newer flight model would be available to current users too. Whether that will be the case or not, I don't know.

So, for now at least, I can only suggest that users enjoy the AirbusX for what it is and despite a slightly annoying pitch issue with the flight model, it is at the end of the day a very, very nice add-on I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, for now at least, I can only suggest that users enjoy the AirbusX for what it is and despite a slightly annoying pitch issue with the flight model, it is at the end of the day a very, very nice add-on I think.

Airbus X isn't a bit enjoyable to fly, actually it is completely uncontrollable. Pitch and thrust model is very bad simulated.

If the AP could add up for the manual flying bugs, this could be a mediocre product. But the AP is a joke.

Airbus X is disaster - actually i prefer to fly the Microsoft A320...........

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have really given this product a lot of chances. I am now able to perform a fully manual approach and landing without assistance from the AP. How is this possible? The answer is simple; I´ve learned to compensate for the many deficits this product carries with it. I must say, as an old pilot, if i ever flew an airplane with this kind of lack of responsiveness to rudder inputs; inappropriate functioning of the AP and, on top of all this, suddenly appearing configuration changes without me even touching the joystick: I would never set my foot in this airplane again, i.e, if I don´t long for a kamikaze kind of experience. I think it´s rather pathetic when representatives of aerosoft are trying to defend these obvious shortcomings of this product. It´s slick; it´s visually beautiful but the bird can´t fly. I´ve returned to my old wilco pic 737-500. That airplane, despite some minor bugs, at least follow your commands.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...