CAB825 3 Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 Hi All, Having an issue with the Aerosoft Airbus X, specifically the departure at EGLL. Using Navigraph AIRAC 1308 and you can see below that the Aerosoft SID is not correct. There is also a PMDG 747 shot showing the correct layout. Anyone else had this issue? I know others have raised similar issues, namely here http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/69491-egll-lam3a-ils-27r/?hl=%2Begll+%2Bsid+%2Bproblems#entry511334 back in August, and which claim to have been resolved. Any info greatly appreciated, very frustrating. Thanks in advance. CAB ----------------------------- FSX - SP1&2 - AS_AIRBUS-X-EXTENDED_FSX-P3D_V116 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Sheriffs mopperle 4162 Posted December 15, 2013 Deputy Sheriffs Share Posted December 15, 2013 When you made a fresh install of the AXE 1.16 the NavdataPro database, AIRAC 1309, has been installed and will be used automatically due to a change in the database format. If you want to use a Navigraph database you have to use the latest AIRAC and make sure that you switched to Navigraph , by using the Airbus X Configurator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAB825 3 Posted December 15, 2013 Author Share Posted December 15, 2013 Thanks for the reply. In the Airbus X configurator, Navdata Pro is selected and yes, as you can see in screen shot, AIRAC 1309 is active as you have suggested, indicating my old nav data is not being used. However the same issue exists for the DET2G departure. Considering that the correct nav data is being used, as installed from the the latest version of the product, then I can only assume there is an issue with the product, not the set up. Are you able to replicate this issue? (or are you SIDs for this airport OK?) Thank again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubersu 23 Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 The real question is... does the aircraft fly the path that was drawn? Graphic anomalies are not uncommon, but so far I haven't had the aircraft fly the path as displayed. DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAB825 3 Posted December 21, 2013 Author Share Posted December 21, 2013 The real question is... does the aircraft fly the path that was drawn? Graphic anomalies are not uncommon, but so far I haven't had the aircraft fly the path as displayed. DJ Unfortunately it does...Any one able tor recreate this issue???? No developer responses to date. You know it seems the developers have very little regard for their customers. Having had time to browse this forum a bit more I have read many posts where users have provided constructive criticism only to be shot down by the 'developers' and then the forum locked out for others to post replies. See here for an example - http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/63278-some-bugs/?hl=%2Blower+%2Beicas Do we really need to tell you Mathijs Kok why Joshua Che.'s post received negative votes, maybe go back and read it again. This is so close to be being a great add on but it fails in some fundamental areas, this navigation issue being one of them (for me anyway), a lot as listed by airone in the post above and others like no descent indicator (referred to as a hockey stick on the forum) one of the best tools available on other sims and you 'have it under consideration' ???? Seriously guys, listen to your customers, they are the ones that cough up the cash for these things, and if you want them to come back for your next latest and greatest, you have to hear them now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Che. 1601 Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 Unfortunately it does...Any one able tor recreate this issue???? No developer responses to date. This issue has never been forwarded to me, until I take notice of this post myself. I am now handling this personally. Note: Developer earn their keep by developing. Not by doing forum support. Forum support is done by helpers, testers and support staff. Apparently this issue was not forwarded to me in the usual support time period and I will bring this up with management. You know it seems the developers have very little regard for their customers. Okay. If that's what you think, so be it. Hopefully that will mindset will change over time, but regardless, I am here to solve issues, not to argue. Do we really need to tell you Mathijs Kok why Joshua Che.'s post received negative votes, maybe go back and read it again. I will quote Mathijs post : This is a medium priced product where we never intended to simulate all systems. I think that explains pretty much everything. Users expected more of what it should be. Hence the negative votes, nothing surprising there. Besides, that post is way outdated by now, many things have changed since then. The forum locked out for others to post replies This was a forum policy for a new major update, to prevent confusion of which is old support issues vs new. If you need evidence, find the picture below post that have been hidden since then as it became obsolete. This is so close to be being a great add on but it fails in some fundamental areas, this navigation issue being one of them (for me anyway), a lot as listed by airone in the post above and others like no descent indicator (referred to as a hockey stick on the forum) one of the best tools available on other sims and you 'have it under consideration' ???? I believe the addon is currently where we envisioned it to be. Not too complex, not too simplistic. Okay, you claim the tool to be avaliable in other sims, well, name me one other Airbus Sim that has been released with the named tool in proper full working condition. Seriously guys, listen to your customers, they are the ones that cough up the cash for these things, and if you want them to come back for your next latest and greatest, you have to hear them now. Oh, I am pretty sure we listen, like how I am replying to your post now. If you look at our changelog since version 1.00, you will realise we listen ALOT and we will continue to do so, even if you do not feel that we do. Note: Listening does not mean agreeing with the criticism nor does it means guaranteed change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAB825 3 Posted December 22, 2013 Author Share Posted December 22, 2013 Joshua Che. firstly thank you for responding and your assurances that you are looking into this. I simply would like to know if it is a common issue i.e. can you replicate it. If so it as an issue to be resolved by yourselves, if not then it is something I need to investigate more. The following images show the SID as flown in the Aersoft A320 and the same SID as flown in the PMDG 777. You can see that there is a difference, however just to confirm, I am now not so sure the path flown is totally in-correct, as suggested by ubersu but I am also not convinced it is just a graphic anomaly. You can see that it weaves around more than the PMDG and without a lot more testing I cannot confirm it. Either way the original issue of the representation problem on the ND still stands. Secondly, I am not going to pick your previous post to pieces but please take on board that not doing something due to limitations, technical or otherwise, can be conveyed a lot better than is being done on your forums currently. I am sure that most would understand if a brief explanation was given. I am not expecting you to respond to everyone’s random requests but, in particular, the post by airone was a well thought out, well worded polite example of constructive criticism from an obviously advanced user. I do not believe responses like “No. We will not do this. We will keep it as it is.” is satisfactory, let alone polite. Lastly, regarding the ‘hockey stick’, I am not sure why I have to show you another example of an Airbus Add on product with this functionality. Is it not enough that A) it exists in real world and B ) other programs have successfully implemented it C) your users really want to see it on your product? If it is beyond the capabilities of the Aersoft product, for whatever ever reasons, or you are no longer developing it at this level, then maybe just say so. As I have said, I think this is a very good product and I am big fan of it and look forward to seeing future products from yourselves. There are not many that are as stable and well-rounded as this is. Please let me know how you get on with the above SID issue. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Che. 1601 Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 Joshua Che. firstly thank you for responding and your assurances that you are looking into this. I simply would like to know if it is a common issue i.e. can you replicate it. If so it as an issue to be resolved by yourselves, if not then it is something I need to investigate more. I can confirm/replicate your issue and looking into cause and of course solution to this. I am not expecting you to respond to everyone’s random requests but, in particular, the post by airone was a well thought out, well worded polite example of constructive criticism from an obviously advanced user. I do not believe responses like “No. We will not do this. We will keep it as it is.” is satisfactory, let alone polite. I am sorry you do not feel its not polite, but as I said earlier in my post, I earn my keep by developing code, not by typing forum replies. The explanation is best done by Forum Staff, Support Personnel as that is what they are there for. There is even a FAQ for this: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/67367-newrequested-features-and-policy-towards-it/ Lastly, regarding the ‘hockey stick’, I am not sure why I have to show you another example of an Airbus Add on product with this functionality. Is it not enough that A) it exists in real world and B ) other programs have successfully implemented it C) your users really want to see it on your product? If it is beyond the capabilities of the Aersoft product, for whatever ever reasons, or you are no longer developing it at this level, then maybe just say so. It is certainly within MY capabilities and Aerosoft capability to develop such a feature. However, I will honestly tells you that it irks me when someone says "others have it, why do you not have it?". Its an apples to orange comparison, and absolutely unfair to compare it that way. Besides, I am very sure there is no one in the FS Market that has done the full Airbus indicators in full working condition, and there is a reason why its not done yet. If you are comparing it to Boeing Descend Indcators, I can tell you the complexity of the Airbus one are much much much higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Che. 1601 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Issue have been resolved. Will be in next update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Fantastic Joshua. Is the next update planned before/after the A319 release? Best and happy new year. Miquel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Che. 1601 Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Fantastic Joshua. Is the next update planned before/after the A319 release? Best and happy new year. Miquel. There will definitely be an update AFTER the A319 release, but it is highly unlikely we will do one more update before that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2014 Share Posted January 6, 2014 Thanks. Best. Miquel. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAB825 3 Posted February 15, 2014 Author Share Posted February 15, 2014 This same issue also exists at LOWS using the TITIG1V departure. It seems the FMS cannot follow the 'intercept' type SIDs. Looking forward the this fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.