falcon71

Thanks Mark, this is precisely what I'm doing and why I am asking. I would expect the descent page to be there for a reason. The FCOM is a bit ambiguous in the descent forecast page. It only mentions, that the temperature has a minor influence on the descent computations, which could mean that the winds do have at least some influence. Right now, I'm not sure if they have any in this simulation. I'm sure iniBuilds knows what the VNAV should be capable of and that's what I'd like to find out.

I can confirm, that the VOR mode does not change from capture to tracking mode. This screenshot was taken from the OIII OBRI2A departure. I captured the VOR in manual flight before turning the AP on. It tracked the VOR somewhat, bit did not switch to tracking mode.

I've had a few descends lately with very strong tailwinds (>100 knots). Prior to descend, I entered the expected winds in the descend forecast page and those values later matched the actual winds quite well. However, I observed the aircraft flew way faster than predicted to chase the path and then strayed above the path, requiring the speed brake to bleed of energy. It appeared to me, that the VNAV path calculation does not consider the wind from the descend forecast page. I heard, that the real VNAV is hit and miss as well, is this the intended behavior or is this an oversight of the simulation?

Please take a look at the GPS altitude displayed on the GPS MONITOR page. That altitude is currently the indicated altitude and even changes when the altimeter setting is changed. It should however be the geometric altitude as measured by the GPS.

I'm sorry for the confusion. Yes, the waypoint names and sequence looks correct. I'm talking about the tracks above the waypoint names: -2147483648° does not look perfect to me. Yes, I'm using Navigraph Navdata and Navigraph Charts.

Please load the approach OIIE ILS 29R with the RUS transition. The procedure includes a DME Arc, those tracks do not look correct:

The CG Indication on the left display and on the right fuel page initially display the ZFWCG. During flight, this value correctly shifts aft as fuel is transferred to the trim tank. However, this value is still based on the ZFWCG and not on the GWCG as can be seen by the actual CG display on the EFB. It appears to me, that it fails to respect the CG of the loaded fuel after entering the ZFWCG in the FMC.

Thank you for correcting the aft CG warning as mentioned here: However, the implementation is still not correct. Load 20 tonnes in the aft compartment to produce and aft CG. Then enter a ZFWCG of 25 in the FMC. The aircraft will still produce a warning, even though it should think that it's CG is well within the limit. Another issue is OPT FL and MAX FL. Those values are based on the actual weight (They change immediately when changing the load in the EFB). The should however be based on the weights entered in the FMC.

Load the cargo aircraft empty, except for 20 tonnes in aft compartment. The second you turn on the aircraft, you will receive an aft cg warning. How is this possible? I was under the assumption that the aircraft does not have a W&B system and relies on the values entered in the FMC? Same with OPT and MAL FL on the INIT page, how are those values available if the aircraft does not yet know how heavy it is? Is this a bug?

I was using this scenery: https://flightsim.to/file/44943/ltfo-rize-artvin-airport-turkey-iata-rzv The procedures are from Navigraph, Airac 2307.

I posted this on Discord, but got no answer. I hope this is the right place to post bug reports. Please take a look at the attached screenshot. This is LTFO ILS Z 06 via ARTV1. Based on the charts, the aircraft would leave ART at 254° and then make a left hand turn to intercept the ILS. As you can see in the screenshot, the ini A310 however puts the outbound leg slightly below the inbound leg, resulting in a wrong right hand turn.

My VA only cares about ZFW, so entering pax manually and then fiddling with the cargo slider until the ZFW matches is a bit annoying. I would love to be able to enter the ZFW directly and it fills pax/cargo appropriately. The runway heading on the performance page is based on a true heading. This heading is hard to verify, since the charts always depict magnetic runway heading. I would prefer if the runway heading was magnetic and the conversions magnetic/true would be done behind the scenes.