PSS A330/A340 poor flightdynamics

[t_a_h 0]

Hi all,just in case PSS doesnt release my message in there moderated forum, I post what I wrote here as well. I'd like every one to know what I feel about them with reason. I see there flightdynamics are poor and not well tested. Even the Airbus 330 from POSKY flys better and more stable.What do you think and experienced? I dont wanna see any flaming and alike. So, please do not use bad words or unplaced behavbiour.#################################Hello PSSplease address this issue about the defect flightdynamics.Your Loader loads the planes just at ONE station, what is realy very un-realistic. ACLoader 4.x and higher versions load much more realistic as can be within FS limits. Not one station but every row like in the real aircraft.As a beta-tester, I know how ACLoader works and does so for ALL FS aircrafts. Just your Airbusses are tough to load, because your dynamics are so buggy. I cannot get it not to pitch up/down around flightlevel. That there is a error with the dynamics shows when I set simrate to more than 1x, but 2 or 4 times. As you can see at my sign I have a about highend system and should have no problem flying your aircrafts in both sims, FS2k2 and FS2k4. Well, somehow your gauges drives my framerates down to 7 to 10 fps in 2D panel view.Ah, so when I set simrate to 2 x I get a pitchin about +/-400ft/min. and at 4 times about more and more. It gets out of control flying with simrates higher than 2 times. That does not happen with ANY other aircrafts in FS2k2 and FS2k4. I am used to test about all there are for ACLoader frequently because Scott sends me about frequently beta-files to test...So, please do not tell me to only use YOUR loader. If you have trimmed and fine-tuned your aircrafts just and only for using your unrealistic loader, you are not realy professional. Sorry to say so. Do not wanna flame you, it's just the truth in my mind.

[Shaka 2]

It sounds more like a pitch for ACLoader, than a critique of PSS. I do not have those problem with pithing when at accelerated time, but if you are experiencing this, do you really beleive that it is due to how the aircraft is loaded? Also I am getting better framerates than you have seen, but there may be other factors there, since no two systems are ever the same.I'm not sure what the big deal about the loader is. It's simply not true what you said about the aircraft being loaded at one station. A quick check at the aircraft.cfg file will confirm this. You are basing your assumption only on the loaded within FS itself. This is the wrong way to change the load, since if you use PSS's loadedit utility, it will load the aircraft properly. Well, it was a nice try to promote your software, but you should have at least tried to get some of the facts straight. I don't blame PSS if they don't release your message in the other forum, since you are not telling the truth about their product, and only trying to promote your own. Do not want to flame you, it's only the truth.- Martin

[Guest tascaso]

I really think you need to discuss this with customer service and get maybe get your money back.I have purchased all of PSS products over the years. I find them to be pretty much on the mark in recreating a simulation. I have gotten what I have paid for! Are they perfect of course not have they needed patches of course just like all the other software we purchase. When wwas the last time you ran your Windows Update program?I do not think that your post will be very constructive as you have presented your case in a rather negative way. I have not found that the current loader is a problem. I have not found that the BUS porpoises about the pitch axis when time compression is enabled.As far as the frame rate issues are concerned there is a post by PSS addressing that it is being investigated. On my rather dated AMD XP2100 I have tuned FS9 to deliver average 15-19 FPS with the PSS BUS and PMDG B737.I have been happy with PSS customer service they have always responded to my questions and problems promptly and courteously.Good luck and happy flightsTony

[t_a_h 0]

Hi,ok, you are right, it does not load only at one station:#########################[WEIGHT_AND_BALANCE]//do not changereference_datum_position=0.000000,0.000000,0.000000max_number_of_stations=50station_load.0 = 0450, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 //Weight Crew (lbs) LEAVEstation_load.1 = 3000, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 //Weight Galleys (lbs) LEAVEstation_load.2 = 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 //Weight Baggage (lbs) Baggagestation_load.3 = 12000, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 //Weight Cargo (lbs) Cargo station_load.4 = 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 //Weight Psgr Sect OA (lbs) Firststation_load.5 = 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 //Weight Psgr Sect OB (lbs) Coachempty_weight = 265057.1empty_weight_roll_MOI = 3900000empty_weight_pitch_MOI = 13000000empty_weight_yaw_MOI = 11500000empty_weight_coupled_MOI= 0.000000empty_weight_CG_position= 0.000000,0.000000,0.000000max_gross_weight=568571.5##############################BUT it load at just ONE coordinate within the aircraft scaling.Do you see any differencies with the x, y, z axes????It is ALL at one spot, even thou it has more than one station.If you use ACLoader, you will probably experience a different behaviour than when loaded with PSS own loader. ACLoader does load more realistic and I never had a major problem with ACL4.x. So, I can load with ACLoader any other commonly used aircraft, no matter if GA or Airliner in FS2k2 and FS9 and it flies more real. But not so with the latest PSS aircrafts.Do you use ACLoader? If not... You seem not to know about how something gets loaded by ACLoader, FS9 or PSS and how in real life a aircraft gets / must get loaded.

[Shaka 2]

>Do you see any differencies with the x, y, z axes????>>It is ALL at one spot, even thou it has more than one>station.Big deal. All this effects is balance, not MOI, so we will have to set our trim a little differently. Besides, in the real world, a load master will try to balance an aircraft this way, for reasons of safety and to make it easier to keep the plane in trim. If this is the worst thing you can come up with, then PSS must be doing a great job. What do you think about the aircraft add-ons that don't come with a load utility? Maybe you should take Tony's advice and ask for a refund?- Martin

[HawaiianCondor 0]

There is much discussion at the PSS site about issues with flight dynamics, but the focus is the FDE's for the 330 and 340 models, not the AC loader. The 330 and 340 both have excessive NU pitch (8-10 degrees) when flown on the numbers for weight/airspeed/flap settings on approach, and the 340 has climb and speed capabilities WAY outside what it should on takeoff, even at MTOW. PSS has acknowledged these shortcomings and has committed to fixing them. These to me seem much more critical than any issues with how the loadedit routine applies the station loads...regards,

[t_a_h 0]

Hi,just because MS has a bad habbit releasing never finished and open products to the normal user/customer and as well to guys like me as a webmaster and computer tech., that doesnt mean that it is right and I should not be angry about that and that many others seem to think they may do same way. Yes I do not call PSS lords and kings and praise them god-like. Well, the A32x was not bad bad it took them loong time and a lot of pressure to release some needed patches, even today it could be better.Let's not talk too much about framerates because every sim system is differently configured...The loader PSS has released loads just one spot with some stations. The one spot is the center of the aircraft. From there it is easy to tune the flightdynamics. But what if the loading happens all over the plane cabin and where in FS2kx the cargo bays are? Just near alike like in real? ACLoader just does that and very well. If you use ACLoader (which can load all and any FS aircraft), you will see and feel the difference with any other aircraft. If you take a look into the aircraft.cfg, you will see the difference compared to what PSS does with there loader.PSS has already experiences with a airbus series for FS2k2. So to get a new seriese working for both sims now is not as new and spectacular as the A32x for FS2k2. They had a week to get some major bugs fixed but never answered my message about the dynamics I posted befor. They probably do not like if someone, who knows about how Sim aircrafts should get loaded and how the dynamics than should be, talks about there latest products. I know 120% for sure that ACLoader works just right and if a A320 to A340 gets correctly loaded, it should handle right without pitching up/down while cruzing. The best test was to download a A330 from POSKY and load it with ACLoader, take the PSS panel for the PSS 330 into the POSKY and have a testflight. The difference is feelable and seeable within the testflight and the aircraft.cfg files of both compared to each other.What a shame that POSKY developes better flightdynamics than PSS...!

[t_a_h 0]

Hi,well, they should address all of the dynamics. Do you wanna fly a airliner aircraft empty just for the unreal fun of it? If that is your goal with the SIM, it is ok and totaly up to you.But if you look at if the aircraft behavies right in the air, even when it got loaded like real, then you are a more serious simmer. I dont just wanna fly them and have fun, but I wanna learn by MS FS2kx how a aircraft flys and why, than all about navigation, ATC rules, etc.The way how a loader loads the aircraft is critical for the dynamics of the aircraft. If all weight gets loaded actualy at ONE center zero point of the aircraft, than that is both unrealistic and cheats, and it has not a lot to do with dynamics because it than is the "empty_weight_CG_position" the center gravity point of the aircraft. If much load got loaded at the nose of the aircraft, it would tend to pitch down at the nose without correcting. if the aircraft has only cargo at the rear end, it would be unbalanced and too heavy at the rear - oriented from the center gravity point (CG). The faster you fly and the higher you are the more a effect would such unbalances play. So now, if the aircraft gets loaded balanced but realistic by a software like Shareware ACLoader 4.x, you can see if the developers where developing the dynamics realistic or if they just bypassed that and are cheating by using and releasing a ow loader which just loads at the CG point ALL weight.So, do you still think correct loading is not a major issue like the others, which are well major bugs and problems?ALL of them shall be addressed and fixed ASAP.I see that some are again outside of the "different-customers-systems" and should have been found within the beta-phase.>.... PSS has acknowledged these>shortcomings and has committed to fixing them. These to me>seem much more critical than any issues with how the loadedit>routine applies the station loads...>regards,

[t_a_h 0]

Well,I have no reason to repeat the already know issues we all can read in the PSS moderated forum. I see and have experienced all of these problems myself within my first testflights.It is all about balance of PAX and Cargo. And when they get loaded, they should be positioned balanced along the x-axe of the aircraft, with the CG as the balance center point. ACLoader just does that without me having to care about it. But as a beta-tester I know hwo ACLoader works inside. So, why does the PSS A330 and A340 pitches even after it got loaded balanced by ACLoader in both sims and ONLY PSS shows this problem? I tested ACLoader with default and freeware aircrafts. POSKY, Ariane, FDS, DF, Flight1, name any and I tell you I tested it.Because I know PSS will need some more weeks to understand all issues and as well fixe them, I will wait what they'll do befor I would go ahead for a refund. I hope they see that there dynamics need much more work and a new developement all over again and fixes that as well as all other issues. I do not expect them to do it within two days, but it should not take as long as CaptainSim needed for fixing all issues about there Legendary B727 - half a year!>>Do you see any differencies with the x, y, z axes????>>>>It is ALL at one spot, even thou it has more than one>>station.>>Big deal. All this effects is balance, not MOI, so we will>have to set our trim a little differently. Besides, in the>real world, a load master will try to balance an aircraft this>way, for reasons of safety and to make it easier to keep the>plane in trim. If this is the worst thing you can come up>with, then PSS must be doing a great job. What do you think>about the aircraft add-ons that don't come with a load>utility? >>Maybe you should take Tony's advice and ask for a refund?>>- Martin

[LAdamson 240]

>just because MS has a bad habbit releasing never finished and>open products to the normal user/customer and as well to guys>like me as a webmaster and computer tech., that doesnt mean>that it is right and I should not be angry about that and that>many others seem to think they may do same way. I guess I just think "deeper"I can't imagine a "finished" MSFS anymore than I can imagine where deep space ends....At what point would it be finished? Someone would ALWAYS want an addition or improvement...I've even seen request's for items as gradual season changes instead of abrupt. And this is just one small item out of thousands, and thousands, and thousands!As to FS2004, it seems to work as well and in many instances, better than FS2002 on my nearly two year old computer, even though that's not the case for everybody. And as usual, some of FS9 is an improvement, and some is a setback compared to FS2002. Are the FS9 flight dynamics perfect? Of course not! When I can't tell the difference between sitting at a PC or sitting in the left seat, then I'll know they got it right. But then someone else would have a different opinion than me.......... anyway..L.Adamson

[Guest Darren Howie]

G'day TAHDon't really know what you are getting at here at all.All aircraft have a range available for cg location for normal flight.Given that now mattera)how much you carryb)where you carry itc)whether its pax,cargo,dog,cats,birds.At the end of the day flying a large aircraft the only information you are after really isHow heavy am i and am i in balance.It is all balanced by your load controller so when you fly the aircraft you should not notice any real feel difference in the aircraft after the trim is set for take off..Given that FS9 does not come with an accurate load simulation the only thing which really effects flight is the all up weight of the aircraft.I am sure you get a very pretty looking cfg file using your program with all the bits sitting in their appropriate places but what difference does it make to aircraft handling?Given ALL 747-400's must take off with the CG within a given range the only difference for take off apart drom performance is the trim setting.If the cg ends up in the correct place why would it matter where you place the weight in the cfg file?All the best

[LAdamson 240]

>>The way how a loader loads the aircraft is critical for the>dynamics of the aircraft. If all weight gets loaded actualy at>ONE center zero point of the aircraft, than that is both>unrealistic and cheats, and it has not a lot to do with>dynamics because it than is the "empty_weight_CG_position" the>center gravity point of the aircraft. If much load got loaded>at the nose of the aircraft, it would tend to pitch down at>the nose without correcting. if the aircraft has only cargo at>the rear end, it would be unbalanced and too heavy at the rear>- oriented from the center gravity point (CG). The faster you>fly and the higher you are the more a effect would such>unbalances play. So now, if the aircraft gets loaded balanced>but realistic by a software like Shareware ACLoader 4.x, you>can see if the developers where developing the dynamics>realistic or if they just bypassed that and are cheating by>using and releasing a ow loader which just loads at the CG>point ALL weight.>Aside from what PSS has or hasn't done, requesting of flight dynamics for poor loading outside the fore & aft CG limits is like requesting the proper flight dynamics of flap deployment and possible destruction at too high of an airspeed or perhaps, what happens with improperly rigged trims.You're talking loads forward of the fore CG limit. And what happens in real life? The aircraft is technically more stable with a heavy nose, but can also run out of elevator/trim when landing. With an aft CG, the aircraft might even get improved fuel economy, but stands a chance of no recovery during a stall & spin, or an un-recoverable pitch up on takeoff.Since MSFS is "faking" everything to start with, these out of bounds CG loads are just "additional" faking/programming. I remember a case of a DC-8 Cargo simulator that didn't fake a deep stall realilistic enough, and the crew was actually killed when un-able to recover from the same type of stall in real life, while testing fore & aft CG loading limitations.L.Adamson

[Guest tascaso]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Good nightTony

[t_a_h 0]

Hi,sorry to correct you. I have learned some by asking more deeply my friend Scott, who realy knows that stuff.Here is what we all could learn:-----------------------------Torben,It matters because of inertia. The more weight in front and back, even if it is in balance, will slow response for pitch. If you have 4 tons of weight at the tail, and 4 tons at the front, although the plane is in balance, it takes longer to pitch up and down simply because you have to shift 8 tons of weight. Also, that weight affects the CG as you pitch since it alters the MOI (moment of inertia) points. You also have more drag with more weight, so you will have to pitch up more to maintain your altitude. The writer is incorrect when he says it doesn't matter where the weight is as long as it's in balance. This is because of the inertia changes and added drag with the distributed weight, neither of which you get with the load at 0,0,0.As for the writer's comment that you have to have the CG in a certain range, that's true. And that's what ACLoader tries its best to calculates. But it also calculates the MOI changes, even if those aren't reflected in the aircraft.cfg file, then balances with that in mind.You can actually do a little experiment. Pick up a couple 3 metre 2x4's and hold them out from your sides from the ends. Now try to lean one way or other fast then stop fast. Now hold the 2x4's half-way and lean to one side or other. You're in balance with the 2x4's all the way out. You're in balance with them half-way out. But which were you able to lean and stop faster? The aircraft handling is a lot different with the weight distributed correctly than all at 0,0,0. It's all inertia. The best way to test it in FS is to load up one of the Cessna's to MTOW and see how differently it flies.This goes for fuel as well. Load up all the wing tanks of an airliner. Use one with auxiliary tanks included (in the correct positions). Does the plane turn faster or more slowly? If you have no payload and minimal fuel, how long does it take to take off? How long does it take to climb to altitude? How easy is it to pitch up and down and turn? Is your fuel burn better or worse with the load distributed correctly or at 0,0,0?ACLoader takes all this into account and does balance correctly because it does make a difference.Feel free to use this as your response.Cheers,--Scott----------------------------------

[Shaka 2]

>It matters because of inertia. The more weight in front and>back, even if it is in balance, will slow response for pitch. Well, again, this shouldn't matter a whole lot, unless you have an extremely unbalanced airplane. The "Moments of Inertia" (MOI) for the empty plane and fuel are calculated seperately. The SDK is specific, that the MOI calculation should not include fuel, passengers, cargo, ammo, etc. The passengers and cargo should be balanced near the COG, it just becomes a matter of how far from the COG they are. When you realize that this stuff makes up a minority (20-30%) of the extra weight, and that this is centered near the COG anyway.... yep, it just doesn't matter a whole bunch.The irony is, that if you had brought this up in a positive way, instead of just thrashing a good quality product, then I might have been convinced that your program was worth buying. Instead, I think you've turned a lot of potential customers into enemies. For 17 Euros, I think I'll spend the 15 seconds it takes to move my cargo 30 feet foreward (or aft) of the COG. Nice work. :)- Martin