Thoughts of a project manager after SP3

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Sure, in my picture all the windows are undocked and can be dragged to another screen. What you see there IS a screenshot of two screens. I think you are not fully aware of the flexibility of the FSX view system.

We simply do not like 2d panels because they are unrealistic without good shading and colors. And if you do not have the overhead on a monitor high above your main screen the viewpoints are simply wrong. This is simply as product not intended for home cockpits and we have no plans to change that.

[gkertesz 1]

Yes, maybe I don't know all the possibilities of the FSX view system, but I'm afraid if I open all these windows as a new view, for FSX it will mean to display lots of virtual cockpits and it will reduce FPS...If I'm thinking wrong could you please light up the bulb in my head?

[kaktus018 7]

Thanks Mathijs for this clarifying post.

I have to agree that especially those little bugs you see on almost every flight are at least to me the most annoying - and they diminish the joy flying your buses.

I'm going to keep it short and list the two main issues I have (Win7, FSX SP2, A320 CFM):

- Fixes:

At least for me (and some others here in the forum), the fix info page still isn't working properly. Input radials sometimes just disappear, when I input them too often FSX crashes.

- LOC approaches:

Flying a go around is not possible when APPR isn't armed. The MCDU shows "Go Around" as active, but AP doesn't change its modes. Since Innsbruck is my homebase, I fly the LOC East procedure quite often and I never have the chance to fly a proper missed approach.

Talking about adding functions: I think you have created a well-rounded aircraft that allows the simulation of RW operations with a high level of detail. So there is really no need to introduce new things.

However, as it has been mentioned here, the most crucial thing to add would be holding entries. It doesn't really make sense to have a holding function when the plane is flying random circles to somehow enter the pattern - it's probably better to fly it yourself and time the legs.

Again, it's amazing that you are still working on this aircraft and offering upgrades for free. Many other companies probably would do that only for paying subscribers.

If the new SP is fixing the mentioned issues, you can definitely count me as A330 customer.

Keep up the great work!

[Wolf0 35]

Hello all.

In the spirit of the user input regarding the small little things that could have a last look at I have one that bothers me that I would like to see improved.

When approaching the end of the flight, if the total fuel falls below a certain limit, the ECAM message: "OUTER TK FUEL XFRD" is displayed, but no effective action is done by the system. This is annoying because I tend to go click on the fuel ecam page whenever I see the message and always end up frustrated when checking that the fuel hasn't moved...

What we should see when this message appears is the wing outer (tip) fuel tank content empty, and the amount of fuel that was once inside it added to the main wing fuel tanks (in the Airbus A320 family the outer fuel is unusable unless the valves that connect the outer with the main wing fuel tank are opened to let the outer fuel flow into the main wing tank, where the engine is being fed from).

I know this is low priority, and has virtually no effects on the simulation. But since the developers (thankfully) gave us the ECAM message, it would be nice to have the implementation of the end of flight auto fuel transfer function. I don't think it would be a major issue to develop. Basically it's just subtracting a value from one tank and adding the same value to another (if possible not all at once, but slowly during a few minutes, like in real life).

Aerosoft can even take this job as a "test" for the incoming A330 trim tank fuel transfer function that will be needed shortly.

Well, this is my 2 cents.

Anyway, a great job is already done with what we have now.

Pedro

[The Dude 6537]

Flying a go around is not possible when APPR isn't armed. The MCDU shows "Go Around" as active, but AP doesn't change its modes. Since Innsbruck is my homebase, I fly the LOC East procedure quite often and I never have the chance to fly a proper missed approach.

The NPA GA has already been looked at and works correctly now.

[bbarreiros 3]

Looks much better, great work.

Just a note, after you applied TOGA did you push to NAV? Asking because immediately when you place thrust handles at TOGA detent the NAV activates and normally the GO AROUND mode goes to RWY TRK first and the pilot will need to performed the so called push to NAV.

Thanks great work guys.

[The Dude 6537]

The newer models go to NAV directly. Ok, they will have GA TRK for 0.5 sec but the process is automatic now and that is also what we model.

ps, removed the video as I didn't want to clutter the thread with non topic stuff.

[bbarreiros 3]

Apologies for asking as it's not related with the thread.

But the reason is there, looks like I'm not flying the newer models

[Martinair50 4]

It is not easy to find whether bugs are being solved or not on this forum. My real annoyance is the complete break down of the autoflght system after initiating a go around. Example ILS approach http://www.twitch.tv/martinair50/b/661680448 at 2:44:10. Missed approaches are everyday business, it should be just as well simulated as for example takeoff and landing. An autopilot going nuts after every go around is just unacceptable. I would like this to get officially fixed.

[Kwakadilly 10]

- Fuel in lbs

I know this has been brought up several times, but you did ask what annoys us the most and is something we notice every flight, and this is it for me. Honestly I see absolutely no good reason to not give us pounds. There are 550+ Airbuses operating in the US with pounds between Delta, United, and American, and that isn't including jetBlue, Frontier, Virgin America, or Spirit. Despite claims I have seen in these forums, none of these carriers have any plans to switch to kgs nor do any of them use a mixed fleet. This is really a simple thing to give us and I think the fact that it does come up on a regular basis is as good of a reason as any to just give it to us.

- Weather Radar

I'd honestly like to see the weather radar system get some work done to it. This seems to be the root of most FPS issues and I think it would go a long way for both the A32X and A33X products to get it fixed. Two ideas of the top of my head are to either rewrite this part of the plane so that when you switch it off it is truly off, or to give us an option in the configurator to have, or not have a weather radar (replacing the gauge or dll with one that does or doesn't have the weather radar in it). If the weather radar is off, it shouldn't be scanning in the background.

Other than that, it's a solid aircraft so far. Keep up the good work!

[Cheyenne Chief Pilot 829]

(...)

- Weather Radar

(...) rewrite this part of the plane so that when you switch it off it is truly off, (...). If the weather radar is off, it shouldn't be scanning in the background.

(...)

This would be the superior solution, as you could turn the radar off when approaching your destination and frame rates are being affected by the addon scenery. Would be beneficial for departure airports, too. Even more so, when TerrOnND takes precedence over wx scanning when departing from mountainous areas: Why should fps be affected by wx radar algorithms when the ND is set to 'TERR'?

[Sycke 3]

- Fuel in lbs

I know this has been brought up several times, but you did ask what annoys us the most and is something we notice every flight, and this is it for me. Honestly I see absolutely no good reason to not give us pounds. There are 550+ Airbuses operating in the US with pounds between Delta, United, and American, and that isn't including jetBlue, Frontier, Virgin America, or Spirit. Despite claims I have seen in these forums, none of these carriers have any plans to switch to kgs nor do any of them use a mixed fleet.

I agree with weights in pounds. I Simbrief in pounds because all other add-ons are setup for it, but I have to convert to enter it into the MCDU.

[marcoF78 0]

Hello Mathijs

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us virtual pilots ...

I like the bus, it is a great model, nice looking and great to learn a little bit how Airbus work from the pilot's perspective. I like the sound of the engines, and the fact that in real life I travel from time to time in an A320, which is much more frequent than the 737 from ..... that I love to fly as well.

Only 2 things that keep me from having a true virtual pilot experience (at least "my way") with the bus :

1- The problem with radio autotune (CFD related) thats sucks Pro-Atc-X sessions (see thread http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/96068-hotfix-13e-problem-with-automatic-radio-tuning-a320-grounded/?p=684570).

2- Then, the other one, I still have a hard time to master the manual flying of the bus in final, especially in cross wind conditions (10+ kts), when you need to do small corrections to keep in the axe while the plane is "crabed". I find the bus reactions slow and not precise, and I end up over correcting as a result, and doing a messy approach. I am using FSUIPC profiles and for the moment I use the same for the bus and the 737, than I master in almost all conditions. I will setup a FSUIPC with all the sliders to the max on the controls (with the slope) only for the bus and see how it works. EDITED : just tried this, and got a much better experience So my first point really is the only major problem.

All the rest is fine and let me fly the way I like it !

Marc

[Simicro 8]

That’s why I am simply asking you about the issues that annoy you. The issues that you notice every flight.

Hi Mathijs,

Thank you for asking.

I wish there is a way to disable cleanly custom Aerosoft views to avoid conflict or side effects with EZCA.

Thanks.

[Martinair50 4]

Great to see the Go-Around and drag issues on the IAE model have been fixed!

Something that bothers me is that is that F/O does not switch the transponder to XPNDR before engine start and after landing. It is a normal procedure so that the plane is visible on ground radar. Another small annoyance that reoccurs every flight is the brake check during the taxi checklist where I have to really floor the brakes before the F/O moves on to the next item on the checklist while a small tap should be fine. Occasionally when the autobrakes are switched to MAX before takeoff they instantly engage, this often happens after doing a turnaround. Furthermore the checklist occasionally does not notice we've reached cruise alt. 

Kind regards,

Martinair 

[togo 0]

I stayed with the AXE for a very long time. I was not eager to get the weather radar (accepting many people do not share my opinion). While the radar is nice offline, for online flying it is quite useless. As long as eveyone has the TS cells at different positions, ATC get nuts with all the deviation requests into different directions.
Over the time, somehow I got used to the AXE and knew how to cope with all the bugs and flaws.
Or as Shakespeare would say: "And makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of"

Eventually I moved to the new A320 this week. Honestly I have to say I was really really impressed. It is true when you say it is a new plane instead of an updated AXE with weather radar and terrain on ND.

I have not spend too much time testing, but there are a couple of great things I noticed in a blink and I am very happy with:
- new look and feel - The cockpit textures and the sound gives you the feeling of sitting in a different aircraft.
- enhanced MCDU (Offset, RAD FIX, no need to enter the intersection point between 2 airways)
- IAE engines
- enhanced hockey sticks
- correct fuel tanks for the A321 instead of using the A320 ones like in AXE
- calculation of MAX FL

 A few things I noticed which did not work as expected:
Some are bugs, like sometimes hockeysticks behave crazy. An other issue I have seen after putting a higher cruise speed into the MCDU and got a calculated mach number of .15, only after pushing the speed/mach button on the FCU this was updated to a reasonable value.
Other findings are related to the depth the systems are moddled, e.g. the APU works with empty fuel tanks. Also the outer tanks do not spill into the inner tanks, instead it seems that engines use the outer tanks, while the inner tanks remain at 750kg.
All of the "issues" are NOT annoying and even these minor bugs are ok for a mid priced plane with medium system depth.

Comming back to the topic, there are two things I think it is important to see them working correctly and I would be happy to see in SP4:
- correct entries into a Holding
- I did not test in detail yet but I have the impression, the fuel prediction page has still room for improvement.

Keep up your good work.