ILS should be an independant receiver, most high FS addons have this as standard. Within FS you tune the independent ILS, the remaing two VOR receivers update the FMGS along with the GPS.. On the A3xx you want to see GPS primary displayed and have both VOR's independently updating the FMGS.

 

 

I was puzzled at first, but on 2nd thought:

 

If you enter your ILS freq when still 30-40 nm out of your destination, and if you want to maintain map integrity up to RNAV precision - yep, in that case position updating up to final approach does make sense to me.

ILS should be an independant receiver, most high FS addons have this as standard. Within FS you tune the independent ILS, the remaing two VOR receivers update the FMGS along with the GPS.. On the A3xx you want to see GPS primary displayed and have both VOR's independently updating the FMGS.

 

Thanks, Rob.

 

Dirk.

Guy's,

 

What happens when you take off and you have both VOR's manually tuned for your departure SID? Do you still see RWY guidance on your primary flight display? RWY guidance comes from the Localizer signal.

Guy's,

 

What happens when you take off and you have both VOR's manually tuned for your departure SID? Do you still see RWY guidance on your primary flight display? RWY guidance comes from the Localizer signal.

 

 

May test this in a couple of hours, Rob.

Thanks, I would check this myself but I am away for a few weeks. Would be interesting to see how the sim behaves.

 

Cheers

Wow! to the OP: I hope you get the plane and judge for yourself.  Any given simulated model will have its strength and weakness.  I was looking for the same thing as you, something in between to wait for T777 and FSL but I now removed the AXE because of the stuffs that are not there, and you are the only one that will know if you will like the AXE or not.  I bought the AXE thinking, ok let's play the role the AXE was designed to fill, boy I was wrong.  It's all the stuffs that are not there that does not give you the same experience as, says the NGX.  I am nowhere near proficient with the NGX and most of the time I just flew it with as little setup as possible, but the overall experience is very different.  Good luck if you decide to give it a try.  I bought mine when it was 25% off, flew two routes, installed the 1.1, still no joy after two more routes and that was it for me.

@@Anxu00

 

Was it technical problems that caused you to uninstall ?

 

If not, could you list the things that were 'not there' that you feel needed to be there for 'the role it was deigned to fill', as you put it?

 

Every view is valid, of course, but I just cannot think of any aspects of the AXE that make it not do 'the role it was deigned to fill'.

I get equal enjoyment out of the NGX and AXE and starting to get to grips with the Q400.

It's all about personal taste.

No-one else can answer this for sure except for you.

Was it technical problems that caused you to uninstall ?

 

I am afraid I am not qualified to assess that there are people way more technical inclined to answer, but I can list what is not there or there but should not:

 

1. The right MCDU used for non MCDU function, they are always there and to me it's a turn off after a while

2. VNAV, still can't get it right

3. Take off roll seems too long for me

4. No convenient route import

 

Among others...

 

The chief turn-off for me was deviating from the role that AXE was designed to fill: Captain Pilot flying, you will start hitting areas where the AXE is not designed to fill like encounter a non-functioning knob, I can screw things up royally in the NGX and it was stupid of me, but the NGX reacted and taught me to go read more. As I said it's a personal thing after flying the NGX and PMDG MD-11 the AXE feels different and it's not an AirBus versus Boeing thing. I just don't feel an interest to go back to it. It just feel monotonous to me.

He may be talking of his own definition of 'role', not Aerosoft's. In that case it's a valid statement: The AAX is not 'hardcore'.

(...)

2. VNAV, still can't get it right
3. Take off roll seems too long for me
4. No convenient route import
(...)

 

These issues could still be resolved for you - if you still liked to see them resolved ...

Points 2 & 3 make no sense at all. Take off roll seems too long? C'mon!

Points 2 & 3 make no sense at all. Take off roll seems too long? C'mon!

 

 

2.: Managed descent only works within 200 nm of his destination - as IRL. And it doesn't start automatically as in a Boeing - it has to be initiated by him, the pilot.

 

3.: Vspeeds calculated by the AAX FMGS (a 'cheat' as compared to RW) are too high, thereby lengthening the T/O roll

 

Well, we could help with that, if he wanted us to ...

http://www.avsimrus.com/f/fs2004-utilities-45/popular-calculator-to-calculate-takeoff-parameters-in-from-airbus-type-36340.html

 

http://secure.simmarket.com/topcat-take-off-and-landing-performance-calculation-tool.phtml

 

http://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content/documents/events/2011-cda-presentation-pilot-view.pdf

@Vu Pham: Rob wants you to re-install!!! (version 1.10 + HF015 + HF016b)

 

A freeware TPC is linked on the AAX forums, too.

 

Left click the ALT knob to initiate managed descent, Vu ...

Olli what is TPC do you have a link buddy - than kyou