spottersim

1st image was taken during landing (flaps) and second one prior to THS reset after landing. Feel free to check any A343 image during landing. The left side of the THS also features a ‘GND SET’ marking which is an excellent reference when comparing it to the inibuilds A340. Furthermore, irl F/D footage shows the aircraft re-trimming for a few seconds after landing to re-establish the GND SET setting. This is not the case in the ini A340 as it lands which roughly that trim setting. This behaviour has proven to consistently occur during landings in the ini A343. Not sure how weight, fuel loaded, and distance from threshold have an effect on the THS trim setting. I think it should largely depend on flap setting and CG, perhaps minor differences based on G/S angle and wind additive.

Will the takeoff roll and rotation be improved in v2? The aircraft acceleration is excessive (compare PFD trend vector) and the initial climb rate is too high (compare video footage and ADS-B readout). As mentioned here, the pitch attitude also can’t be maintained. During landing, the aircraft seems to require much less nose up trim than the real one, suggesting that the aerodynamic characteristics are implemented inaccurately.

Please note that this issue is also present on the A350 and A330 Series.

The real A343 seems to land with more nose up trim set. Comparing the trim setting during landing to irl references will immediately show this. Sim: IRL: D-AIGZ | Airbus A340-313X | Lufthansa | Martin Nimmervoll | JetPhotos D-AIGN | Airbus A340-313X | Lufthansa | Emil Zegnalek | JetPhotos Will this be addressed in an upcoming update?

The issue is the same for the A380, not necessarily profile-related.

Same here... I would really appreciate it if the team actually committed to fixing these bugs.

I don’t think that this will fix the issues. As mentioned, the Fuel flow itself seems off and so do the MCDU predictions. I might even suggest that the SB profile is the most accurate of the three models.

Hi, would it be possible to look into this issue again, now that the bug has also appeared in the A380 and A350?

Negative, I don’t think so. Certainly not on the PFD.

Also note that the distance and time calculation seems off.

Does the vertical profile of the A380 correctly account for deceleration requirements on idle segments? I initiated the descent at the T/D and ended up almost 6000ft too high on profile. I suppose that it commanded the deceleration to the 250kt and 220kt constraints, but did not account for these restrictions in its idle descent computations. ARAMA1B into WSSS 1B

The PFD shows .820, PERF CRZ shows .82, and the FPLN shows .81 for the next and all subsequent waypoints. Does it consider varying ECON speeds as the ISA deviation, head-/tailwind component, FL, and weight change?

I did some further testing and noticed that the specific range increases with cost index, basically buying time for free. Segment Mach TAS Actual burn Specific range (nm/t, normalised to 392 t) CI15 0.831 484 11.06 t/h 44.1 CI150 0.851 496 11.24 t/h 44.3 CI500 0.862 503 11.28 t/h 44.7 CI15 (return) 0.831 485 10.99 t/h 44.2

Any news on this? As discussed here, simply adjusting the profile might not be sufficient, in fact even counterintuitive.

Usually, the the actual position is at the tip of the triangle. In the A380, it seems to be in the middle of the triangle symbol.

Can’t reproduce this. Inserting the step climbs does change the EFOB.

I have noticed that a higher cost index results in a higher EFOB, even though the opposite should be the case. I reported this some time ago for the A340, it's highly disappointing to see that it has not been addressed.

I've observed that the consumption seems a lot lower than planned at CI200: Estimate at T/C:/D: Close to T/D:

The position of the aircraft seems to be in the middle of the symbol, whereas it should be at the top of the triangle.

The vertical profile and the VSD seems heavily distorted when an intercept to the FAP is set up. Also note that the MAP should show before the FAP is sequenced. https://youtu.be/qcXQKQukxkI?si=yeNYCb1By2fIGAvm&t=189 I have also noticed that the FMS predicts a speed below VLS at the FAP (in this case 121kt)

It seems that the OANS does not consider magnetic variation when in plan view. Please also check that the OSS considers this as well on charts.

Asobo has recently added new weather radar control features. Would it be possible to add these and also add the vertical view to the VSD?

Has the team been able to look into this? I recently performed a flight at CI112 and noticed similar issues. The aircraft ended up using nine tons less than planned. OFP FT 12:45h, EFOB DEST 11.5t

Hi, it is obviously not possible to do a 1:1 comparison, but even when taking off at MTOW the ini A340 climbs away faster than it should.

Thanks for the reply, the videos show the CG value in the lower ECAM. It is usually similar or even further aft than in the ini A340.