Aerosoft A330 professional not really compatible with AI!

[Christian Bahr 55]

10 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

I am glad at least that posters here must identify themselves as "Commercial Members", but when their posts pertain to a product sold by a company that they work or did work for then they should be required to disclose this fact.

There is no conflict of interest, I can rule that out. It would be different if I had worked on the Aerosoft Airbus. I have not. But I would have been very proud of that 🙂
I am not a "Commercial Member"! Someone changed the label. Wonder who is responsible for that? I am a freeware developer and operate flight simulation as a hobby and I secure my livelihood through my job at my employer 🙂

[Urmel81 189]

2 minutes ago, Christian Bahr said:

There is no conflict of interest, I can rule that out. It would be different if I had worked on the Aerosoft Airbus. I have not. But I would have been very proud of that 🙂
I am not a "Commercial Member"! Someone changed the label. Wonder who is responsible for that? I am a freeware developer and operate flight simulation as a hobby and I secure my livelihood through my job at my employer 🙂

It's so easy:

https://www.aerosoft.com/de/flugsimulation/prepar3d-v4/szenerien/2019/approaching-dortmund?number=AS14056

 

Freeware??? Aerosoft charges money!

Publisher: Aerosoft

Developer: Peter Hiermeier, Christian Bahr

 

So you worked at this time for Aerosoft, so it is an confict of interest, even if you didn't worked on the Airbus. At this time you started working with Aerosoft, you never should say anything bad about another flightsim company.

Regards, and hopefully the discussion is over. It's written on the Aerosoft Productpage that you worked for them.

 

[Bob Scott 7,715]

27 minutes ago, Urmel81 said:

It's so easy:

https://www.aerosoft.com/de/flugsimulation/prepar3d-v4/szenerien/2019/approaching-dortmund?number=AS14056

 

Freeware??? Aerosoft charges money!

Publisher: Aerosoft

Developer: Peter Hiermeier, Christian Bahr

 

So you worked at this time for Aerosoft, so it is an confict of interest, even if you didn't worked on the Airbus. At this time you started working with Aerosoft, you never should say anything bad about another flightsim company.

Regards, and hopefully the discussion is over. It's written on the Aerosoft Productpage that you worked for them.

 

Our position on conflicts of interest is that so long as you are not developing a competing product, you are free to discuss sim products just as any other member.  It's especially the case in the common developer-publisher relationship, where having your work published by Aerosoft, or Simmarket, or WilcoPub certainly does not make you an employee of the publisher.

So if Christian were on the dev team for a competing Airbus, or even perhaps a competing acft add-on of any kind, it would not be considered acceptable form to critique another developer's acft add-on here.  He's not, so there's no conflict. 

Last, let me remind folks that no member here has the right to tell another member what he can or cannot comment on.  That's a staff decision...if you think someone is committing a foul, that's what the "report post" link is for.

Edit: after discussion with Christian I have removed the commercial member tag.  His freeware Dortmund city scenery was merged with a payware Aerosoft EDLW airport scenery with his permission, but it was provided free, as it is still and available from him directly on his site without buying anything from Aerosoft.  Give the guy some credit for providing some quality free scenery in a world where we see less and less of that...this sort of kick to the knees is what makes talented freeware designers go find something else to do with their time.

[Christian Bahr 55]

21 minutes ago, Urmel81 said:

So you worked at this time for Aerosoft, so it is an confict of interest, even if you didn't worked on the Airbus. At this time you started working with Aerosoft, you never should say anything bad about another flightsim company.

That is wrong. I didn't work for Aerosoft. I published a scenery on Aerosoft. There is a big difference. No, there is no conflict of interest 🙂
 

23 minutes ago, Urmel81 said:

It's written on the Aerosoft Productpage that you worked for them.

No, it says who the developers of the scenery are 😉

[Bob Scott 7,715]

OK, let's get back on topic, please.

 

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

Well, i disagree, but beyong that what about the post you wrote in our forums just over 2 hours ago?

[duckbilled 310]

There are two issue here.

1. Customer service isn't stellar from a number of payware providers. As a community, we have chosen to accept that. I like when people challenge the status quo for valid reasons. I think this a valid reason.

2. For years, well over a decade in fact, I have run a lot of AI and payware aircraft/scenery/tools... My fps do go under 18 on a number of occasions. I typically fly from large hubs to smaller airports. That way, I only deal with low FPS during taxi - not on approach. That's my workaround. I don't recall any with loss of control with any aircraft similar to what has been described here, but I have only purchased 2 airliners from AS - the A320 Pro and the original A320 for FSX. I haven't really touched the AS Pro yet, so I'm not really sure if it has issues. PMDG products are just fine.

This belief that FS enthusiasts are, for the most part, running systems that never drop below 18 isn't based on data. It is based on one's personal experience. For years, we have lived by the idea that FPS are not that important - we are looking for a smooth simulation experience and we should ignore the FPS counter. Now we are being told by one developer that there actually is a hard floor on FPS. I guess if they keep saying that long enough it will become fact. Welcome to 2020.

 

[vc10man 732]

1 hour ago, DaveCT2003 said:

Well, i disagree, but beyong that what about the post you wrote in our forums just over 2 hours ago?

Yeah a shot in the dark, as was urged by a poster in this thread otherwise would NEVER have gone there, and as was to be expected-------a big fat zero! Enough said!

Edited December 31, 2019 by vc10man

[Urmel81 189]

1 hour ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Does anyone have exact procedures on how to replicate this issue?

I've tried the following:

1. Orbx GB EGLC, enable all options and max out sliders so I'm getting about 15 FPS facing London center.
2. Using UTLive AI at 90% with 20 mins of "ramp up time"
3. HiFi AS4 weather 5 layers
4. PTA, REX SF
5. ChasePlane
6. Some memory/texture/shadow tweaks (add more load)
7. Latest version of A330 loaded

Other than some input lag I'm not see any 9000 ft/min climbs or strange behavior beyond the input lag?  Do I need to set any additional options to trigger this?

Has someone provided Aerosoft with repeatable procedures and video showing the issue?

Any reason the OP was unable to provide Aerosoft with purchase information as they requested?

I find the best way to get solutions to problems is:

1. Be able to verify your purchase with vendor
2. Provide repeatable steps that trigger the problem (including all add-ons in use and their settings)
3. Provide video evidence of the problem
4. Provide DXDiag info, OS Info, and Hardware info

In some cases the following add-ons have caused odd behavior in aircraft:

1. A2A Accufeel
2. HiFi AS4 extreme weather
3. ChasePlane

Cheers, Rob.

When I remember correctly your system is way to good to replicate.😉

After my first post the didn't ask anything. They told me that always 18 FPS are necessary, without 18, the Airbus will not work. Not everybody has an high end system, that means we will get some stutters sometimes. Mostly when you fly to an bigger airport when AI is loading (doesn't matter which altitude - I had this at 36000 ft over Calgary -around 25 AI loading maybe). At my system there are some stutters (for around 3-10 seconds - 10 for example over London or New York - 3 for Calgary) and then everything is ok (back to locked 30 PFS). The Aerosoft Airbus can't handle these stutters, all other Payware Aircraft can handle it.

After an while, more people posted, that they had this issue also with the Aerosoft A320 series. The problem is well known at Aerosoft.

 

Regards

Urmel

[Mace 1,902]

2 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Any reason the OP was unable to provide Aerosoft with purchase information as they requested?

I find the best way to get solutions to problems is:

1. Be able to verify your purchase with vendor
2. Provide repeatable steps that trigger the problem (including all add-ons in use and their settings)
3. Provide video evidence of the problem
4. Provide DXDiag info, OS Info, and Hardware info

In some cases the following add-ons have caused odd behavior in aircraft:

1. A2A Accufeel
2. HiFi AS4 extreme weather
3. ChasePlane

Cheers, Rob.

^ THIS above.  Can't be emphasized enough.  Without the above plus hardware, this whole thread looks like something else...

[duckbilled 310]

5 minutes ago, Mace said:

^ THIS above.  Can't be emphasized enough.  Without the above plus hardware, this whole thread looks like something else...

Not sure why this matters in this case. They stated that "If at any point your fps drops below 18, you will start to see weird things. This is due to the nature how our A330 interacts with P3D compilers."

No need to prove that the problem exists. They admit that this is the way the product behaves. They don't even see it as a problem.

These are the system requirements:

System requirements:
Lockheed Martin Prepar3D V4.5.x Hotfix 2 (the latest version of Prepar3D is always needed)
Operating System: Microsoft Windows 10 (64bit) (older 64bit versions not tested)
Processor: Intel Core™ i5 (i7 recommended) or AMD Ryzen 5 (Ryzen 7 recommended)
Memory: 16 GB RAM (16 GB recommended)
Graphics card: 4 GB VRAM (DirectX 11), e.g. GeForce GTX 1050 (6 GB, GTX 1070 recommended)
Requires HDR setting to be active!
Control hardware (joystick) with rudder and throttle channels
Download-Size: 1.9 GB

Nowhere on the product page or in the release notes do they clearly state that 18 FPS must be maintained at all times or the aircraft will no longer work. It should be a warning on big bold letters on the product page.

 

[ray hughes 165]

Actually jumping in late here 
I have experienced similar problems with the Aerosoft A320 series in the past.. I found out that 18FPS was the critical point at which the airbus became unmanageable by browsing their forums at the time looking for a solution.

I worked to resolve this by toning down some graphics settings and adjusting ASP 4 weather - also turned off Aerosoft Views as it conflicted with Chasplane.The results for me since then have been great. Love the new A330 - absolutely love it!!

My system is getting on, CPU 4700k overclocked to 4Ghz , 16Mb Ram, and 8Mb GTX 2080  - no great top end machine for certain.

The only areas I may have some slight chance of a dip to 18 FPS is Orbx Southern CA  and Northern CA. Then I reduce visibility distance to get around that issue. So I am pretty happy camper at the moment.

On that note, I wish all AVSIM Simmers and happy new year and hopefully a happy decade ahead.

 

[Bob Scott 7,715]

The reason that 18 fps is a magic number is that all ESP-based sims have an internal gauge refresh cycle that runs at 55ms intervals (~18 Hz).  This is the internal "heartbeat" of the sim, not to be confused with the frame rate as observed at the monitor.

That said, if the CPU isn't maxxed out but the GPU *is*, then you can have video frame rates below 18 while the CPU is still happily ticking away those 18Hz gauge refresh cycles inside the sim.  Conversely, if the CPU core running the main thread is loaded to the point where it can't keep those internal gauge refresh cycles ticking at 18 Hz, you'll also see a video frame rate drop, but in this case it's accompanied by the CPU not having enough throughput to handle the gauge refreshes on-time, so the timing of those refresh cycles becomes unstable.

Now if your automation uses PID feedback loops using the gauge system as a time reference, deviating significantly from 18 Hz may well "release the Kraken". 

I suspect that the reason some people are having trouble reproducing this problem is they are loading up the system with GPU-intensive workload to get frame rates below 18...in this case, I would not expect any aberrant behavior owing to a slowdown in the gauge refresh cycle.  But...if you load it up with CPU-intensive work...like heavy autogen and AI--if that pulls the frame rate down to below 18 you may well see the aberrant behavior being described here.

It's absolutely true that many (most) add-on acft will not depart controlled flight due to a CPU workload spike.  The reason this isn't endemic to all add-on panels is that there are other programmatic options for time references when writing panel code...I certainly would not program feedback loops and other real-time, time-critical processes based on the sim's internal gauge timer for exactly the reason that you can't count on it *always* holding fast at 18 Hz.  At least Aerosoft is honest about what's happening...but it does put a major dent in the selling point of this add-on as being an ideal lower-cost Scarebus alternative for a lower-end system.  Maybe for a mid-level system, but if you can't muster the CPU horsepower to keep that gauge refresh cycle steady with the settings you're after, you may be in for some heartache.

 

[David Roch 1,975]

I am sorry but the issue some are facing has nothing to do with fps.
I've just tried the same flight, never below 30 fps, and the aircraft is again playing yoyo during descent, without reason.
The fps or hardware's excuse doesn't work with me, I have a powerful computer, and needless to say, I do the flight preparation by the book.

DESCENT PATH IS CORRECT

SUDDENLY THE AIRPLANE GETS CRAZY

AFTER RECOVERING FROM THE PLUNGE, INAPPROPRIATE EXTEND SPEEDBRAKE MESSAGE (??)

ON TOP OF THAT, NO ILS

 

Same descent with the FS Labs 321, not a single bug, except one or two on the windshield. 🙂

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 1, 2020 by David Roch

[Urmel81 189]

9 hours ago, w6kd said:

The reason that 18 fps is a magic number is that all ESP-based sims have an internal gauge refresh cycle that runs at 55ms intervals (~18 Hz).  This is the internal "heartbeat" of the sim, not to be confused with the frame rate as observed at the monitor.

That said, if the CPU isn't maxxed out but the GPU *is*, then you can have video frame rates below 18 while the CPU is still happily ticking away those 18Hz gauge refresh cycles inside the sim.  Conversely, if the CPU core running the main thread is loaded to the point where it can't keep those internal gauge refresh cycles ticking at 18 Hz, you'll also see a video frame rate drop, but in this case it's accompanied by the CPU not having enough throughput to handle the gauge refreshes on-time, so the timing of those refresh cycles becomes unstable.

Now if your automation uses PID feedback loops using the gauge system as a time reference, deviating significantly from 18 Hz may well "release the Kraken". 

I suspect that the reason some people are having trouble reproducing this problem is they are loading up the system with GPU-intensive workload to get frame rates below 18...in this case, I would not expect any aberrant behavior owing to a slowdown in the gauge refresh cycle.  But...if you load it up with CPU-intensive work...like heavy autogen and AI--if that pulls the frame rate down to below 18 you may well see the aberrant behavior being described here.

It's absolutely true that many (most) add-on acft will not depart controlled flight due to a CPU workload spike.  The reason this isn't endemic to all add-on panels is that there are other programmatic options for time references when writing panel code...I certainly would not program feedback loops and other real-time, time-critical processes based on the sim's internal gauge timer for exactly the reason that you can't count on it *always* holding fast at 18 Hz.  At least Aerosoft is honest about what's happening...but it does put a major dent in the selling point of this add-on as being an ideal lower-cost Scarebus alternative for a lower-end system.  Maybe for a mid-level system, but if you can't muster the CPU horsepower to keep that gauge refresh cycle steady with the settings you're after, you may be in for some heartache.

 

Thanks for your explanation.

When I'm in cruise level with my locked 30 FPS my GPU and CPU are not maxed out, they are far away from that. I watched this a few times, when things are loading (AI at this case) the FPS will drop shortly for some seconds and then everything is ok. I don't think (and I don't even know) that the GPU has loading much textures in 36000ft for AI which is on the ground.

The interesting thing: I had this problem in 36000 ft over Calgary and on descent to Vancouver (maybe 20000 ft). When I'm approaching Vancouver my FPS drops below 18, but the Airbus was working fine. I think when the FPS are going down really fast he has hugh problems, when the going down slowly he has no problems.

 

Happy new Year, THANKS AVSIM STAFF FOR YOUR HARD WORK!

Urmel