"you seem to have a vested interest as if you might actually be a participant in this debacle."Whatever Bob... :-roll Mr. Johnny come late on this whole debate. I think most are done with this topic at this point including myself. I agree with Chris the original poster was trolling, some are going to hate FeelThere no matter what and everyone else is going to see what FeelThere ultimately does to address the lingering bugs.One thing we all can agree on is FeelThere needs to drop Wilco...

DONE...Vic Kill the APU Sound in the upcoming patch... :-)One bug down, 5 more to go according to your list.

classy response to Bobs post Dillonmaybe you can add these bugs to the list that needs to be sorted in addition to Joes 5:http://www.iemit.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6920oh wait, you picked those up when you were testing the bird right?nice oneAlex

>Mr. Johnny come late on this whole debate. >Yeah, I just fell off a turnip truck into the hobby yesterday.>I think most are done with this topic at this point including>myself. I think a lot of folks want to be done with the topic, particularly the ones that are going to continue being tarred and feathered until this gets made right.>One thing we all can agree on is FeelThere needs to drop>Wilco...On that we are in violent agreement.But I want Vic and the boys at Feelthere to answer me this one simple question: how did this partially complete product end up in Wilco's hands for a premature release? Did it wrap itself up in an installer and mail itself to Wilco? I just cannot accept Wilco as the lone culprit in this fiasco, and frankly I think less of FeelThere for not publicly accepting responsibility for their role in this customer service nightmare.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

>Dillon wrote:>>>You can't>>praise the PSS 777 and put down the FeelThere 737's FDE when>>the same designer has done both projects. >>Sure I can. Just like I can praise Tom Cruise for his work in>The Last Samurai and at the same time tell him he>sucked in Eyes Wide Shut.After reading this again, I want to make it clear I don't think Rob Young's FDE work on the FT ScareBus is bad...on the contrary, it's pretty good...only flaw I see is that it does need some work on the somewhat overpowered thrust curves.My point was to refute the flawed logic that good work on one project necessarily leads to the conclusion that work on any subsequent project has also got to be good. RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Agree, fde is pretty nice, Like I've written in another post, edit in the air file the cd_ds value to 0.13 and the speed brakes have a better effect. I also adjusted the parasite drag to 1.12 to make the plane slightly less slippery together with a thrust_scalar of 0.96 to make it less overpowered.Just a do-it-yourself patch till the first sp comes out ;) (This is for the 320, didn't experiment with others yet)CheersMartin

MartinVery helpful...where do I find the cd_ds value? is that an add line--I found the other two--thrust scaler and parasite drag but could not locate cd_ds. ThanksRake

Rake, the cd-ds (drag coeff spoiler) is in the air file, you need to edit with a program like AAM or aired. It's in the 1101 section.Martin

You'll have to go into the airfile for that one methinks and modify it using AirEd.On a totally unrelated subject, I have just done a CLN8M departure from Gatwick: no SIDs at all for Gatwick (the navdata FT provided is seriously useless) and the database didn't even have the ACORN waypoint but did have DET so at least I could enter PBD fixes from DET for the SID. The -4000 altitude constraint at DET D29 was not adhered to (I had entered it as -4000 as I do on the PSS) and I crossed it at 4600 feet. This makes me think - and + constraints are ignored and perhaps I should have entered 4000. But the 5000 feet constraint at ACORN (DET/281/15) was kept to as was the same constraint at DET itself so those seem to be OK although they display slightly incorrectly on the F-PLN page. Does anyone know if FT have implemented a way of entering "less than" and "more than" constraints as for example -4000 or +4000 doesn't seem to work?Rob Elliott, EGPE InvernessPSS Airbus Support andAirbus Fleet Training Captain, British Airways Virtual [email protected]http://www.speedbirdonline.co.uk/airbus.htmlhttp://www.bavirtual.co.uk

Rob, I've noticed this also. The navdata however seems to be a ms acces style like database. I will try tonight if it is possible to simply import some text file (with all the correct data) into this database.Martin

RobI experienced similar--climbout altitude restrictions are a bit dicey--I found that I have to "hand massage" autothrust and re-enter altitude restriction on the MCP and press the ALT button to intercept a reasonable lead level off altitude--would be nice if FMGC managed intermediate level offs better--suspect some interface issue with AUTOTHRUST--as you mentioned, if you're in a climbout power setting, the aircraft overshoots the altitude restriction. Not sure how to remedy that in the software.Rake

The 0610 airac from feelthere.com seems much better although the CLN8M SID out of Gatwick needed some adjustment as it had lots of errors and couldn't be used "as is".I've just noticed that on the F-PLN page, after setting up everything correctly in the MCDU, that the estimated flight time is far too long. The PSS has always been very accurate when it came to this but the FT A320 is, shall we say, conservative. An A320 EGKK-BIKF flight is not 4 hours 11 mins even taking the north sea route!Nevertheless, there are things I'm beginning to like about this aircraft once you get over the niggles and the apparent lack of testing.Rob Elliott, EGPE InvernessPSS Airbus Support andAirbus Fleet Training Captain, British Airways Virtual [email protected]http://www.speedbirdonline.co.uk/airbus.htmlhttp://www.bavirtual.co.uk