Jump to content

dectenor2

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by dectenor2

    Aircraft does not follow speed and altitude restrictions properly during approach - Serious VNAV problem

    in Systems

    Posted · Edited by dectenor2

    35 minutes ago, iniSteven said:

    Also @dectenor2 we've gone through some discussions with our SMEs regarding the behavior at hard altitude constraints, and from what we can find it is accurate behavior that the aircraft attempts to level off in ALT CST*. So you can rest easy that when the aircraft gets high on path in that situation, you are truly immersed in the real Airbus experience 🙂

    Hi, good to hear from you.

    I think that what the aircraft ACTUALLY DOES is very good, it’s just a lot of the indications and information provided on various systems pages about what the aircraft is GOING TO DO is incorrect.

    For example, I have actually never had a problem with an aircraft meeting altitude constraints or being at the correct speed. It’s just the indications given about these are broken. Things like the ND and level-off arrow indicating you’re not going to make a constraint, but the F-PLN page saying that you are going to make it. You do actually make it, it’s just you can’t actually tell that from the various sources you would use to check if you are going to because they’re broken.

    Or on PERF pages, the aircraft does in fact target the correct speed restrictions, but the PERF page gives the completely wrong target speeds.

    Or the aircraft actually does target a MACH, but the FMA and FCU are telling you that it’s targeting SPD.

     

    Etc., etc., there are many examples of behaviour like this.

     

    I hope this makes sense, I think that what the aircraft does is very nice, and has certainly improved with recent updates, it’s just the information provided about it is incorrect.

     

    A lot of this stuff I have already documented (dectenor1, I had to make a new account as the forums stopped supporting Facebook login). But more than happy to go over it again. I have a lot of free time at the moment and would be more than happy to go through all of this again, or do it and send it to you directly if that’s more useful.

     

    It’s exactly the same situation with the A340 as well, in terms of lots of indications and information displayed being incorrect, but the aircraft itself does a good job.

     

    It would be great to really try and get this stuff fixed and I’m sure it could be easily applied across the entire fleet once the logic is correct, which would really enhance all aircraft.

     

    Of course, thanks for all the work as always. And please, please, do reach out if you need further information, or I can be of any assistance at all in these matters. Both the A350 and A340 would be a joy to behold for me and many others if these things could get fixed, rather than always having that feeling of looking at something displayed on the F-PLN page for example and knowing that it’s just incorrect.

     

    Sorry, long message, but as you can see, I’m passionate about this project and really willing to spend plenty of my own time helping it improve!!

     

    Thanks again!

     

    Good, but could be better

    in Systems

    Posted

    3 hours ago, SAN738 said:

    Yeah, I'm disappointed. I imported from SimBrief and then NAV wouldn't engage and it said I would land with -99.9k of fuel. Once again, we seem to be paid beta testers.

    Yep, but you forgot to add paid beta testers whose reports then aren’t actioned upon.

     

    There are so many things I reported on the A350 that have been left unfixed. And then surprise surprise, the A340 comes with exactly the same bugs.

    If it was just fixed properly once and for all, it could be applied to the whole fleet, and would improve all of them dramatically. 

    • Like 2
    • iniBuilds 1

    Too many collision boxes

    in Modelling & Texturing

    Posted

    Completely agree with this.

     

    It’s exactly the same in the A330, the seat is too close to the panel, and we all have different size monitors and sit different distances away. With my setup it’s impossible to got a nice field of view because I can’t move the camera far back enough because I get blocked by the seat.

     

    Interestingly, I don’t think this is an issue in the A350.

    A340 First Impressions

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Many thanks for the release of this aircraft, I can certainly say that I enjoyed my first flight.

    I particularly enjoyed hand flying it, so congratulations to those working on the flight model. Just a few weird pitch changes when changing vertical modes with the AP engaged, for example going from OPEN DES into VS.

    Really enjoyed the sounds once I had turned down the environmental slider down a bit, though it could do with some touchdown sounds. (Maybe I didn't hear them due to the turning down of the aforementioned slider...).

    Also, things like fuel burn was great, really matched well with simbrief and with the predictions given by the FMGC at the start of the flight, likewise with the ETA. Nice work.

    Quite a few basic bugs though, and while these are to be expected for a first release, it is a little bit sad that they are all the things are also wrong with the other airbus aircraft in the iniBuilds fleet, one can't help but wonder if they had been fixed properly, or the bugs not been there in the first place, the entire fleet would benefit.

    I really hope that they can be quashed once and for all and then this common airbus logic distributed as fixes to the A330, A340, and A350. (Presumably also the A320N and A321LR, though I haven't flown those (in the sim) so you never know they might not suffer from the same issues...) 

    I have made a few reports for some of this stuff in the Systems section, as ever, please do reach out if you require any further info, and know that I am always happy to be contacted in this regard.

    Again many thanks, a great start, and I really hope we can get these basic niggles sorted, it really would elevate your fleet of aircraft so much if these basic little things could be tidied up.

    Dare I say it, looking forward to the -600....

    Best, 

    Dectenor 2(and 1).

     

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

    Constraint Logic Needs Work

    in Systems

    Posted

    The constraint logic needs some work.

    Here you can see the aircraft is indicating it will be at FF24L at 2500ft.

    1.png

    You can see in the second capture, that the constraint here is AT 2500. 

    2.png

    So it is incorrect that the aircraft should indicate this constraint will not be met.

    FCU showing MACH when targeting a SPD

    in Systems

    Posted

    Same old iniBuilds bug as on all aircraft.

    As you can see the aircraft is now targeting speed as it has reached the conversion speed in the descent. We know this because the aircraft is flying almost perfectly on the speed bug (nice work btw!), and that is equal to .770, as shown at the bottom of the speed tape, so the aircraft has  already passed through the conversion speed and instead is targeting 288 as shown on the DES PERF page.

    The FCU (and FMA if the aircraft was adding thrust) should show SPD not MACH.

    Please can this fix be applied across the whole airbus fleet. At the moment it is just changing from SPD to MACH on the way up, and MACH to SPD on the way down, at an arbitrary altitude, rather than being based on what the aircraft is actually doing.

    image.thumb.png.718f378da5973cc0d01d8091f83db698.png

    (SPD) (LIM) Pseudo-Waypoint - Question not necessarily a bug

    in Systems

    Posted

    Let me frame this one by saying that I am much more familiar with the Honeywell FMGC from my flying days, so I am not definitely saying this is a bug.

    However...

    Here the (SPD) (LIM) pseudo-waypoint is shown despite there being a restriction of 250kts on the STAR before the aircraft would normally decelerate to meet the 250kts @ 10,000ft restriction. In this case, the aircraft will never decelerate to met the 250@10000 restriction as it will already have decelerated to slow for the restriction at D356T at FL139.

    Therefore, I would not expect the (SPD) (LIM) pseudo-waypoint to be shown on the F-PLN page, nor a magenta change of speed dot to be shown on the ND. I would expect it only to be shown if the aircraft was ever going to have to decelerate to obey this restriction.


    image.png.828d6b8cd8d4e016042d0ced379168ae.png

    PRED TO values on CLB page incorrect

    in Systems

    Posted

    The PRED TO values on the CLB PERF page is incorrect.

    As can be seen on the ND we are just under 40nm away from TOC (FL400), but the PRED TO FL400 on the CLB PERF page is showing 560nm, basically same distance as the entire route. And also the predicted UTC time, is the same as the destination.

    It seems to work for custom entered altitudes, but when left at the default FCU selected Altitude it is just showing the total remaining flight distance and time.

    image.png

    Takeoff Behavior

    in Systems

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Eddie said:

    Hello,

    We are looking into this concern already, yes. I don't have an ETA or guarantee when or if this will change. 

    Thank you 🙂

    Fingers crossed it will be fixed as the aircraft is very VTOL like at the moment.

    v1.1.6 Update Feedback

    in Systems

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Swisspilot1986 said:

    Hopefully you'll be able to make the same with the A343

    I won’t be buying it until they have fixed these things I bring up in the A350. Because I would guess that exactly the same issues will be in the A340.

    Hopefully if they can fix it in one aircraft, they should be able to easily transfer the lessons learned of this basic Airbus logic.

    • Like 2

    v1.1.6 Update Feedback

    in Systems

    Posted

    38 minutes ago, limbo said:

    Do the ra callouts sound different at all or no, saw in changelog they changed the tonality apparently? 
    Also wondering if the TCAS sounding like boeing is going to be sorted cause i'm 99% sure it shouldn't sound like boeing.

    I wasn’t really focusing on the sounds as understand they are going to be completely redone by Echo 19, so I was just focussing on the basic systems.

    • Like 1

    v1.1.6 Update Feedback

    in Systems

    Posted · Edited by dectenor2

    Sadly I had to make a new account as it is no longer possible to sign in via Facebook weirdly. So there we are. I was dectenor1 previously, it seems I have been demoted to 2...

    Thanks for another update today. Lots of stuff I reported has been fixed. Brilliant thanks.

    • In the flights I have done so far, the GSX PAX number matched the number on the Loadsheet OIS page, with all weights correct when simply loading through GSX and doing nothing on the Loadsheet OIS page itself, which is awesome, and unexpected because I didn't see this on the changelog - maybe I was just lucky...


    Scrap the above, just done another test flight, and the passenger numbers don't match....

     

     

     

    • TCAS going straight to TA/RA when turning on the XPDR, fixed - awesome thanks.

     

    • LDG INHIBIT memo did disappear at the correct time (1 min after slowing past 80kts), I didn't actually time this, but it certainly wasn't on anywhere near as long as before. Again, I didn't see this on the changelog, so that was a pleasant surprise. I didn't check when the LDG MEMO actually appeared in the first place, though (the LDG MEMO itself, not the INHIBIT message, from memory I recall it felt a little late, so maybe worth confirming this comes on at the correct time - when passing through 2000ft AGL. Anyway, thanks for the unexpected LDG INHIBIT fix.

     

    • The changelog says 'FIXED Fuel values removed when page manipulated (see desc)' - but this is only partially fixed, whilst TAXI, ALTN, AND FINAL keep custom values if ZFW or ZFWCG etc. is edited, the value for RTE RSV, still resets to default.

     

    • There is also a problem with 'FIXED Cabin VS constantly fluctuating'.  In cruise the CABIN V/S stayed at +50ft for the entire flight, this isn't correct, this value should generally be 0, with minor deviations to keep the cabin altitude constant. Also concerning was that despite the CABIN V/S being +50ft for hours and hours, the actual CABIN ALT displayed next to the CABIN V/S stayed constant at 5920ft for hours as well. If the CABIN V/S was +50fpm for 4 hours, that's gone up by 12000ft, so the CABIN ALT should also have gone up, (obviously it shouldn't have done this). So the CABIN V/S either needs to stay 0 for the entire cruise, or its needs to fluctuate, but not constantly fluctuate like is was blinking before, rather spend like 95% of the time on 0 and then 2.5% each on +50 and -50, but the CABIN ALT also need to be tied to the CABIN V/S during cruise. Hope that makes sense.

     

    • The changelog also says 'FIXED Changing sim time erroneous ETA calculations' but this is not fixed. The issue as outlined by @lukevo79 here still very much exists.

     

     

    • You can see that the ETA for the next waypoint, 32NM away, ESBUM, is showing 31 mins in the past.....


                     The times did correct themselves when I opened the POSITION/TIME page on the other Lower DU...

     

                              Flight-Simulator2024-2025-10-03-22-39-08

     

     

     

    • Another bug that either has appeared only recently is that the REFUELING IN PROGRESS ECAM memo is not synced properly anymore. It stays on much longer than when the refuelling panel door has closed.

     

    • Of course, numerous vertical navigation issues are still present, such as information displayed in relation to constraints, predicted altitude and speeds, and managed target speeds, on the ND, F-PLN, and PERF pages, but I was not expecting this to be fixed as not mentioned in the changelog, though I look forward to it being fixed as a priority, and hopefully the lessons learned it and the logic and coding can be then easily applied across your whole airbus fleet, improving those aircraft as well.

     

    • One new one related to this that I haven't noticed before is that the SPD CSTR line of the DES PERF page is showing the final SPD CSTR in the flight plan rather than the next up on the descent, whether that be one on the STAR or the 250KTS at FL100 restriction. Basically the next magenta dot to appear on the ND route in descent indicating the next upcoming speed restriction should be the one displayed as shown below.

     

                                 Flight-Simulator2024-2025-10-04-12-09-16

     

    • This also seems to be affecting what is shown as the managed speed targets on the same page. The aircraft is now showing this speed constraint as the conversion speed as well. The managed targets should be the econ Mach, then the econ conversion speed. The managed target here should only change from the conversion IAS to a speed constraint once the aircraft has begun to decelerate to that speed. Clearly in this case the 185 is a bug as if that was the conversion IAS, the aircraft would already be targeting that (it isn't as can be seen on the PFD) as the current IAS of 261 is above 185. 

     

    • In this case it should show .84 300(ish - a typical conversion at this CI), then the SPD CSTR should be 230KT/VUTEB. When beginning to slow to 230 for the restriction, i.e., at the same time as passing the magenta dot on the route on the ND, this 230 will move up to the above line, as the active target replacing the .84 and 300. I am now away from my FCOM, but from memory the mach number becomes dashed out, so it woudl show MANAGED - 230. Then the next speed constraint along the route should appear in SPD CSTR.

     

    • Incidentally the (SPDLIM) pseudo waypoint should not appear at all on the list of waypoints on the F-PLN page on the left lower DU, as because there is a slower speed constraint above 10000ft (VUTEB at 230), this 250@10000 is never a factor because the aircraft is meeting a slower restriction above 10000ft anyway.

    Anyway, many thanks again for the work on the A350, and I look forward to seeing further fixes soon.

    @Eddie sorry for the tag, I had messaged you on discord, mentioning the forum issues, but seem to have been able to get in, and I'm sorry that I had to create another account.

     

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...