Cammac

Hi, Please make sure you have your AI assits off as they can be set back to on and will trim the aircraft causing the issues you are seeing.

Engines can be started in the real aircraft with the IRS off as they play no part in engine start.

This issue seems to be related to the core FPS. If the FPS is as low as video the FCTL and FBW system will not be able to function. I would file a direct support request for this as it will be the root cause. Others are seeing good FPS in the 350 so they should be able to help narrow down what is going on. Thanks

Hi, thanks for taking the time to post I will go over each of your points as listed just to keep it becoming from a wall of text. 1) Do you have any specifics of when this happens? As many users are doing 15+ hour flights without issues, which is what we have seen during the testing phase of the aircraft as well. Any route or sequence of events that brought this on? Without the WASM running the effectiveness constants are now not limited by the code so yes the roll rate will be too high and pitch rate is too high this is also present on other aircraft in the sim and will not be adjusted. Comments on handling need to be undertaken in normal law or direct law with of course the code running. 2) Would you also happen to have repo steps for this one? As I have not seen it reported and just checking you are loading in the aircraft with the FUEL AND LOAD page filled as without it the manage modes can’t work as it needs ZFW etc. 3) The FM for both MSFS2020 and MSFS2024 use the new CFD style FM and will be more reactive to wind / weather if you find it too much you can select this setting down in the sim. But this gives more realistic handling across the board and with MSFS 2024 using the new fuselage technology to map that and the engines. The handing in terms of response is correct, the 350 is far more sensitive than other airbus family aircraft. You need almost no flare to land and very small inputs for roll. https://youtu.be/8JjuksTvMRg?t=197 Here you can see a bit of an over flare but still a tiny input https://youtu.be/I3Nnt2d3dt0?t=5115 the 350 is very easy to over control. But don’t take my word for it here is 330Driver saying the same thing as he spent time with a TRI on the 350 to check handling is as expected https://youtu.be/XNTuK-Bi6CY?t=5589 and the explanation check with Pablo about handling https://youtu.be/3cjLdfEfTow?t=5435 4) The cabin in MSFS 2020 was reduced to what you see now and was communicated on the store page under the features section. This is due to the fact the product was made with MSFS 2024 using the new LOD system so giving that level of cabin in 2020 is simply not possible. 5) I will pass this on for the team to check as I did see a logged report of the gear being too loud in MSFS 2020 only.

Hey, Thanks for the post. It should be correct yes we took the spool up and spool down values from reference videos we have of the CF6 engines. Many thanks

Hi, Thanks for your post. The A300 and A310 are using the CFD FM over both the wing and elevator it means that the aircraft will move around a fair bit more than a standard MSFS addon even when it seems like you have calm conditions as the overall FM is more reactive to the environment. You can normally see this at the higher levels more due to the fact MSFS is adding in higher levels on en-route turbulence than the lower FLs which can be quite reflective of real life. Here you can see the VSI going up and down a fair bit showing this can be quite normal. Many thanks, Cammac

I would have to double check this. But I would think so.

Hi, Thanks for your post. The A300's PROFILE mode will not respect CST in CLB only DES. It's a strange system but from what I understand the reason for this is the level off is not command in the same way. So when you are in LVL change you will get ALT* and then ALT. In P.CLB you have no transition mode and with the very high climb rates of the A300 it will bust the level-offs in P.CLB, so the system was never made to level off for CST in CLB. Many thanks,

Hi, Thanks for the post. We will look into this and check the calculation for GREEN DOT above 20,000ft. Many thanks,

Hi, Thanks for your post. -For your first point could you clarify the situation? If climbing in LVL change it would be expected to go ALT* ALT HLD and then selected speed on the FCU. If climbing in PROFILE would expect no transition mode it go directly into P.ALT and P.SPD with the speed coming from the FMS. -That seems like it might be a sound bug as I would expect it to stay rumbling all the time the speed brake is out. -I tried to replicate this but was not able to see the same cooling effect from the brake fans. I did an RTO brakes got up to 725c and I waited 5 minutes after brake application to set the brake fan and it took 6 more minutes to reach 345c. Many thanks,

Hi, Thanks for the post. As posted above the GD speed seems correct but the A300s wing is rather old so getting up to the higher FLs mean you can be very close to the GD speed margin. But in the picture you posted it's still safe to keep flying. Many thanks,

Hi, Thanks for you post. Just checking that you tried this with the IRS in ATT phase and the pitch trim switches on? As even with HYD on and PITCH TRIMS off the trim wheel will not move. Many thanks

Hi, I do but we can't share those documents the video linked are those SOPs but in video format. And for the RNAV approach into NZQN in the real aircraft you would not be allowed to fly the approach LNAV only. As it contains RF legs which the real A310 is not allowed to fly. So for a real pilot on the line flying into NZQN they would simply not be allowed / be able to select those complex circling approaches even if flown LNAV with FPA cage setup. And approaches with curved final approach tracks will be set as RNP (AR) approaches and they can't even be flown by most A320s that are currently flying so would be well outside the A310 using either LNAV only or LNAV/VNAV coupled. Thanks,

Hi, Thanks for the reply. From my understanding you are correct that Profile mode can't fly things like RF legs etc at NZQN but it can be used for guidance down to MDA. The QRH / FCOM you might be reading could be referenced to an aircraft without FINAL X.X mode. This was a customer option and did allow flight crews to fly in VNAV coupled down to MDA and was the SOP for airlines with this fitted.

Hi, Thanks for your post. We have not actually modeled this part of the AFS. You might ask why not and why leave the EFIS FPA knob working. Flight crews actually use the knob on taxi out as a reminder for the trim to set. So they put 1.4 in the FPA window to remind them to set 1.4 UP or DN trim. One of the reasons this feature is not as needed for the ini 310 is the fact we have the FINAL X.X mode. This was a customer option on the A300/A310 series but we did model it. What is it? This system allows VOR approaches and NDB approaches to be flown as an RNAV approach. The mode allows the VNAV to be coupled to the final descent path down to the runway so you then monitor the given altitude VS the approach plate. Please see below for a video of the system in action. Warning it's a bit complicated to setup. Many thanks,