Hello

i have a problem : i can't make a descent approach to airports. How you can see in image, the next fix has a constraint (150kts 3000 feet), but the autopilot maintain 210kts and a ridicolous descent rate ... this happens always in any approach...can someone help me???

Thanks in advance

Patrizioi

PS : would be possible to see on the ND the point at which will be reach the altitude currently in MCP window(the green altitude range arc that you see on the B737 ND)?? This can be very useful in both climbs and descents for seeing if you'll be able to make restrictions.

Did you do the tutorial flight?

Yes...maybe my bad english...

And did it work well?

Disregard my previous...I read the tutorial, I have not flown...any suggestions about my second question??

Thanks

.any suggestions about my second question??

Thanks

The Airbus is not a Boeing.

Excellent answer

Also please give me your flightplan to Bari.

Excellent answer

Ciao Patrizio, ti consiglio di dare un'occhio al forum di supporto italiano qui, potresti trovare qualcosa, dalla figura che hai allegato credo tu possa risolvere come ho spiegato qui, riguardo alla seconda domanda, sulla macchina reale c'è, sull'AXE ancora non c'è, forse nel service pack successivo avremo qualcosa.

Saluti

A.

The Airbus is not a Boeing.

The REAL Airbus has blue arrows called "Hockey-Sticks" for this.

http://inral.com/Atto/indicating_recording/nd_rose_mode.htm#rose_nav_mode-arc_mode (scroll down for point 3 (Waypoints))

Maybe you want to tell the costumer of this product that the developers failed to implement it correctly instead of giving funny answers?

CAT3Dual, on 28 Mar 2013 - 19:19, said:

aybe you want to tell the costumer of this product that the developers failed to implement it correctly instead of giving funny answers?

Maybe you want to tell yourself that you shouldn't give false info because the product page never said anything about hockey sticks?

The REAL Airbus has blue arrows called "Hockey-Sticks" for this.

http://inral.com/Atto/indicating_recording/nd_rose_mode.htm#rose_nav_mode-arc_mode (scroll down for point 3 (Waypoints))

Maybe you want to tell the costumer of this product that the developers failed to implement it correctly instead of giving funny answers?

Link not working.

@cgentil

Ok, another link.

The other site went offline...

Here is another very useful webpage: http://efbdesktop.com/flight-instruments/sys-8.2.0.html

Just browse around a bit and you'll find many interesting information.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ Mr. Che.

1. There is a system like the one that the topic starter asked for in the real aircraft

2. It isn't implemented in the Airbus X Extended

3. I never referred to any product page or if it should have been implemented or not, I simply stated that THE DEVELOPERS didn't implement it (correctly=according to the real world counterpart).

4. Mopperle (calling himself "support" for this aircraft) gave a funny but useless answer instead of saying something explanatory like "sorry, this isn't implemented by now (because), (maybe in future). But there is a function like that in the real aircraft"

I don't care if you implement it or not and if any "fully featured" product page says anything about that at all.

It just bugs me how costumers are treated by the "support".

@cgentil

Ok, another link.

The other site went offline...

Here is another very useful webpage: http://efbdesktop.com/flight-instruments/sys-8.2.0.html

Just browse around a bit and you'll find many interesting information.

Had already found this link before, I forgot to mention it.

Thanks to it.

@ Mr. Che.

1. There is a system like the one that the topic starter asked for in the real aircraft

2. It isn't implemented in the Airbus X Extended

3. I never referred to any product page or if it should have been implemented or not, I simply stated that THE DEVELOPERS didn't implement it (correctly=according to the real world counterpart).

4. Mopperle (calling himself "support" for this aircraft) gave a funny but useless answer instead of saying something explanatory like "sorry, this isn't implemented by now (because), (maybe in future). But there is a function like that in the real aircraft"

I don't care if you implement it or not and if any "fully featured" product page says anything about that at all.

It just bugs me how costumers are treated by the "support".

@Mr CAT3Dual,

1. True

2. True

3. Your exact words are "failed to implement it correctly" NOT "isn't implemented"

4. Neither is your answer very useful either. Morpperle answered the question by saying its not a boeing - you cant see the green arc. Its not a funny answer intended to ridicule the user either.

I dont care what your true intentions are: to inform the user or just to troll the support team.

This question is answered by a support personnel and I think he answered it just fine although he could be a bit more informative.

Sorry but CAT3Dual is absolutely right in complaining about that completely useless answer.

It indeed leads to the impression that an Airbus doesn't have such a feature and that is NOT correct.

Be serious the topic starter asked for a feature like the green arc on the B738 and the A320 has it. Just it's not a green arc but a Blue hockey stick and it isn't implemented yet. That would have been a correct answer and anything else is nonsense.

Sorry but support really needs to stop being defensive all the time. Mopperle's answer was inadequate and it was corrected by CAT3Dual who explained it how it is in real.

Just to make it bit clearer: I do not feel that my answer was inadequate and I'll tell you why:

The TO wrote: "(the green altitude range arc that you see on the B737 ND)"

And this is an indication, that the TO has no clue how it looks in the real Airbus, otherwise he would have something written referring to the hockey stick. And so my answer was simply that the Airbus is not a Boeing (and I guess you will agree ).

I often tend to give answer like this (some call it arrogant). And the reason therefore is, that there are too many "wanna be pilots" around complaining about missing features, because they have seen something on pictures on the web or on other aircrafts, but have indeed no clue what they are talking about. Those like you, a real world pilot, or others with deep and proofen knowledge will answer back with a valid explanation, the others keep quiet.

But then we get to the next point: Yes, there are many, many functions of the real Airbus that are not implemented and will never be implemented and therefore it is not OK, when somebody like CAT3Dual writes:

...

Maybe you want to tell the costumer of this product that the developers failed to implement it correctly...

The developers didn't fail, it was simply not planned!

And so we get to the last point:

There are different opinions about what is necessary and what not. That's OK, but you should be aware, that Aerosoft got advisors in the Beta Team, which are also real world pilots on the Airbus, and they gave a lot of feedback and that is the reason, why meanwhile feature have been/and might be included, that were never planned in the beginning. But the feedback was also that features can be skipped, especially under the premise, that the Airbus X Extended was never ment to be a highend, full featured Airbus simulator.

So if you come back and tell us that there is an important feature (especially in day by day operations) missing and you can proof that, you're always welcome and and the develoment team will decide whether it might be added in the future. And if they decide not to do so, simply accept it.

But people should not post comments like CAT3Dual's "the developer failed".

jm2c

For me, Hockey Sticks and other ND symbols are part of the flight guidance and should be present in a serious simulation of the "day to day operation".

(...)Managed CLB/DES, OP CLB/DES, heading and NAV modes. VNAV and LNAV included. (...)

But we had this discussion for ages now ("what is *managed* descent?) and that is the reason because I wrote "failed to implement feature XY correctly".

I don't know if you planned it or not and if you plan it for the future, especially because I don't care anymore. As English is neither my nor your first language, maybe there could also be a different understanding of the "heaviness" of the expression "failed". I never intended to open another battlefield about wordings, so maybe I should have used another, more neutral, expression.

But I still state that your answer was the very opposite of the answer the TO wanted.

He didn't ask for the green range arc, but for a similiar system referring to the Boeing as an example.

PS : would be possible to see on the ND the point at which will be reach the altitude currently in MCP window(the green altitude range arc that you see on the B737 ND)?? This can be very useful in both climbs and descents for seeing if you'll be able to make restrictions.

Anyway, this discussion will not lead anywhere as we are all adults and won't change our behaviour because of forum posts in a flightsim forum.

Anyway, this discussion will not lead anywhere as we are all adults and won't change our behaviour because of forum posts in a flightsim forum.

Indeed. All sides had their says, let's leave it here on a lighter tone.

Will this feature be implemented? Maybe, maybe not. If we knew, we'd tell everyone. This specific feature wasn't planned to begin with, but if you know the AXE, you'll know that plans can change.

Might be best to close this one down, as it really is as simple as my statement above.