Chris Smith 9 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Hi everyone, I still think the roll on this Airbus is too long especially for transcontinental flights where I almost run out of runway. I am disappointed that you have yet to fix this Aerosoft. I know you attest to to the numbers but this cannot be possible. I just tried to fly from KSFO to KBOS at nearly MTOW and almost ran out of runway (I even used TOGA and flaps 3). From what I see from the A320 in the real word doesn't seem to match up. Does anyone else suspect the runway distance needed by this plane? Could it be the ground drag which has been brought up in other forums? Regards, Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Smith 9 Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 Oh no, not again, apparently you 2 don't give up, do you, sigh.... If you want to do transcontinental flights in the US then this particular version of the Airbus A320 is not cutting it. I realize this aircraft has a large European customer base (for the FS community) where flights don't typically exceed 3 hours.. I'm surprised there aren't more people talking about this. I'm not usually hypercritical but this is just an obvious flaw that should be remedied..... I don't have this with PMDG 737NGX or 777 where the numbers are spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Smith 9 Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 Is there a way to adjust the ground drag so the plane moves at IDLE? The ground drag may be too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewulf47 83 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 If you want to do transcontinental flights in the US then this particular version of the Airbus A320 is not cutting it. I realize this aircraft has a large European customer base (for the FS community) where flights don't typically exceed 3 hours.. I'm surprised there aren't more people talking about this. I'm not usually hypercritical but this is just an obvious flaw that should be remedied..... I don't have this with PMDG 737NGX or 777 where the numbers are spot on. Funny enough I just did a Take-off at KSFO's RWY 28R under standard conditions at MTOW. I really wonder how you could eventually run out or RWY. I had an estimated >1000 m left upon lift-off.... (> 3280 ft for US aviators) which also seems more than reasonable for a take-off abortion at V1. Therefore again my question: how can you run out of RWY unless you overload the A/C by several tons... Oskar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Sheriffs mopperle 4162 Posted January 18, 2014 Deputy Sheriffs Share Posted January 18, 2014 So speaking 2 real world Airbus pilots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewulf47 83 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Is there a way to adjust the ground drag so the plane moves at IDLE? The ground drag may be too high. Why would you want to reduce roll drag? At the weight you will have for a transcontinental flight the A320 will definitely NOT move at idle power. Oskar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Sheriffs mopperle 4162 Posted January 18, 2014 Deputy Sheriffs Share Posted January 18, 2014 Is there a way to adjust the ground drag so the plane moves at IDLE? The ground drag may be too high. You might adjust it by using FSUIPC. But be aware that it effects also other aircraft. And I would not recommend it, as roll of course depends on you taxi weight and there fore might become totally unrealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewulf47 83 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 After reading this again and again the most probable explanation for this misbehaviour is that you had an undetected oberweight condition. Next time this happens please check the weight indicated in the MCDU vs. the actual weight in the FSX menu. While the weight should not be adjusted in the FSX menu (you should use the Airbus X FuelPlanner instead) it still gives the correct readings and is suitable for a quick comparison. Oskar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheyenne Chief Pilot 829 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 If you want to do transcontinental flights in the US then this particular version of the Airbus A320 is not cutting it. I realize this aircraft has a large European customer base (for the FS community) where flights don't typically exceed 3 hours.. I'm surprised there aren't more people talking about this. I'm not usually hypercritical but this is just an obvious flaw that should be remedied..... I don't have this with PMDG 737NGX or 777 where the numbers are spot on. Any chance you're not on v1.16 (+ HF019) yet? In former versions the pre-calculated V-speeds were way too high (admittedly ...), resulting in too long takeoff rolls, but that has been fixed. Check your AAX version; v1.16 is the current one, with fairly correct takeoff speeds. Is there a way to adjust the ground drag so the plane moves at IDLE? The ground drag may be too high. The FSX ground friction model is flawed. If you fiddle with it; other well-balanced figures, already compensating for that flaw (like the acceleration rate during takeoffs) will be adversely affected. Definitely NOT recommended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NineLives 4 Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Even without messing with the weight (I just use the FSX default) it does seem very long but I counter this with elevator trim to +0.8 or +1 and set the thrust to half way and wait a few seconds to spool up before releasing the brakes then immediate full thrust as soon as I start rolling. I still unstick too near the end for my liking but I have yet to find a way to get off any sooner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Smith 9 Posted January 19, 2014 Author Share Posted January 19, 2014 Thanks for the possible fix suggestions. I wont edit the ground drag scalar per the above suggestions. Yes, you would have plenty of runway from 28R. Try a 1R departure at SFO (MTOW) and it's nearly impossible. When you watch any real world video of a transcontinental departure from 1R they are off near the 28 intersections, not the end of the runway. I realize that there are other considerations for this difference (weather/weight), but why would the Aerosoft Airbus performance be so different? I've observed this at countless other airports with shorter runways and long transcontinental flights. Is it because the Aerosoft is modeling an Airbus A320-100 and not an A320-200? Does the A320-200 have more thrust? I use the Aerosoft fuel planner and I manually look up V speeds because the FMC calculations are not accurate. PS Aerosoft, how come I received negative reputation points? I haven't posted anything out of line and I am a paying customer. Can you turn off this forum feature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Sheriffs mopperle 4162 Posted January 19, 2014 Deputy Sheriffs Share Posted January 19, 2014 When you watch any real world video..... OK, it's enough now. Do not take videos as proof of something you obviously do not understand. Better listen to real world pilots, like "---" or "lonewulf47". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Smith 9 Posted January 19, 2014 Author Share Posted January 19, 2014 Don't be derogatory. I obviously understand this. You're not being helpful and you're being a bully. You're attitude and over defensiveness of this product when there are obvious flaws doesn't make me want to run out and buy another Aerosoft product. Just look at the Vspeed inaccuracies, poor cockpit night lighting, spotty vnav descent.. I could go on. It's OBVIOUSLY not a perfect product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marvic 183 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Hello Chris, I did for the first time experience exactly what you are talking about today in PAFA. It was my first time and restarted the flight with the same results. The only was I can replicate it is if I use READY for taxi setup. If I use the Cold and dark setup, then thrust is normal and takeoff distance is realistic. I do not know if this is the same issue as yours but I hope it helps. Good luck with you Quest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick1246 353 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Chris, when two real Pilots write in this Thread, AAX Performance is correct, why you can't belive them? And Vspeed are not inaccurate, at least not with V1.16. And about videos, you know the GW from those Planes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Che. 1601 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I think what Mathijs said in this post is very true: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/59569-f-14-x/page-11?p=555036#entry555036 In FS add-ons the trick is to provide what the customer expects and that does not always match what the actual aircraft is. and hence, I will provide an option of a more power takeoff option here, to solve this once and for all. This will only affect takeoff performance, other performance such as climb,landing etc are not affected Note, this is an option. Those who prefer the more realistic option need not download anything here.AirbusXE.zip Place in the SimObjects\Airplanes\Aerosoft Airbus X Extended Base\Panel_Fallback Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Smith 9 Posted January 20, 2014 Author Share Posted January 20, 2014 I think what Mathijs said in this post is very true: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/59569-f-14-x/page-11?p=555036#entry555036 and hence, I will provide an option of a more power takeoff option here, to solve this once and for all. This will only affect takeoff performance, other performance such as climb,landing etc are not affected Note, this is an option. Those who prefer the more realistic option need not download anything here.AirbusXE.zip Place in the SimObjects\Airplanes\Aerosoft Airbus X Extended Base\Panel_Fallback Thanks Joshua.. What does this file change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Smith 9 Posted January 20, 2014 Author Share Posted January 20, 2014 Hello Chris, I did for the first time experience exactly what you are talking about today in PAFA. It was my first time and restarted the flight with the same results. The only was I can replicate it is if I use READY for taxi setup. If I use the Cold and dark setup, then thrust is normal and takeoff distance is realistic. I do not know if this is the same issue as yours but I hope it helps. Good luck with you Quest. I'll try this. I am not sure if this is the issue but I will let you know what I find! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheyenne Chief Pilot 829 Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I think what Mathijs said in this post is very true: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/59569-f-14-x/page-11?p=555036#entry555036 (...) Thanks a lot, Joshua, that was the "quote of the year"! I remember people complaining about the soundset of the Aerosoft Huey, claiming it was too far off the sounds they had been accustomed to by watching Hollywood movies. So Aerosoft did them a favour ... but it didn't help enhancing realism!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Che. 1601 Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Thanks Joshua.. What does this file change? Takeoff thrust is increased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Smith 9 Posted January 20, 2014 Author Share Posted January 20, 2014 Takeoff thrust is increased. From what to what? Thanks in advance for your help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Che. 1601 Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 From what to what? Thanks in advance for your help. It is increased by approximately 20%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NineLives 4 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Thanks to Joshua for the file which has certainly helped without it appearing to be unrealistic. However, after finding the rolls still too long I decided to take a look at my weights etc and to be honest it is something I never bother to pay proper attention to before with FSX but have to here because of the realism factor with this model. My preferred flight is from Liverpool UK and normally a short flight of a few hundred miles so when I looked at my FSX (not the models) fuel/weight panel I found it was way too high for the journey. Purely my fault by ignoring it. For example I might enter (say) 5 tons of fuel into the FC but FSX would show 100%. This is especially so if you go for the unlimited fuel option in FSX. So I reduced the fuel and pax weight to more realistic levels and guess what? I am now unsticking at 50-75% of runway length with far better climbs so for me this is now resolved. Pay attention to those weights! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheyenne Chief Pilot 829 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Actually the weight issue was mentioned in posts #6, #7, #11, #18 in this thread already - just saying ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NineLives 4 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Yes we gather that but positive help is far better than sarcastic nasty unhelpful comments which litter this thread and put people who come here for help off from posting again. In all the years of flying FSX I have NEVER messed with the weights. I fly default and been very happy with it. The A320 model here is far more realistic and clearly the weight has to be adjusted. I have learned that now and I came on to admit I made a mistake. It's better to pass on knowledge gained to help others than to come back with 'you are stupid we told you so' type remarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.