Airbus reverse way too powerful

[PurdueKev 159]

Anyone else experiencing that the reversers on the Neo are WAY too powerful? Like "defying the laws of physics" powerful?  I've done a few landings now, and everytime I engage reverse thrust the aircraft just slams to a stop and starts going backwards.  The rollout is maybe 50 feet or something. Completely unrealistic and not physically possible in the real world.

I just want to see if others are seeing the same thing before I file a bug report.

 

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

The airplane as a whole is way overpowered. In the end if the engines are too powerful without reverse thrust activated, they are going to be too powerful when reverse thrust activated.

[kiwikat 506]

13 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

The airplane as a whole is way overpowered.

This. I achieved 5000 FPM climb at 80% N2... 🤣

[Slides 1,552]

They should subcontract PMDG to fix the Airbus for them. Use that MS cash.

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

8 minutes ago, kiwikat said:

This. I achieved 5000 FPM climb at 80% N2... 🤣

I had around the same! I was like.....word not allowed!!!!!!

[PurdueKev 159]

Come to think of it, yes I was seeing crazy climb rates in the Neo as well. So that would explain the unrealistic reverse thrust performance.

Hit the thrust reversers and it is like catching the wire on a carrier deck. It is kind of laughable that anyone thought that is how reverse thrust works.

The default GA planes in the sim seem to be decent, but this Neo is crying out for a Zibo-like mod.  As it is I won't be touching it much in this state. Are the 787 and 747 any better?

Edited August 22, 2020 by PurdueKev

[PurdueKev 159]

I think i have found the issue with the Airbus reverse thrust - at least in my case, the TQ6+ throttles I am using (which are controlled via external software) must be sending the wrong dataref to the sim when I go into thrust detent and causing some sort of "hyper-reverse."  When I set up my Warthog throttle instead and use the toggle switch method (hit a button for reverse toggle, then advance the throttle to apply reverse), the reversers work normally with realstic decel.  I sent a report to Virtual-Fly so they can look into it, as I don't like using the toggle switch method, which isn't the way the Airbus throttles work (you should be able to pull back past the idle detent to engage reverse). But it appears to be the only to make it work properly right now.

[FlyingInACessna 656]

11 hours ago, PurdueKev said:

Come to think of it, yes I was seeing crazy climb rates in the Neo as well. So that would explain the unrealistic reverse thrust performance.

Hit the thrust reversers and it is like catching the wire on a carrier deck. It is kind of laughable that anyone thought that is how reverse thrust works.

The default GA planes in the sim seem to be decent, but this Neo is crying out for a Zibo-like mod.  As it is I won't be touching it much in this state. Are the 787 and 747 any better?

This is an insult to the Zibo Mod, which is actually really accurate and good nowadays. See: FlightDeck2Sim videos on YT. And, best part is it’s free. Not $140. 

[PurdueKev 159]

9 hours ago, FlyingInACessna said:

This is an insult to the Zibo Mod, which is actually really accurate and good nowadays. See: FlightDeck2Sim videos on YT. And, best part is it’s free. Not $140. 

How was I insulting Zibo??? I 100% agree it is excellent, and despite being freeware it is on almost par in terms of systems accuracy with the most expensive payware airliners. That is why I used it as an example - the Zibo took a very nice looking XP default aircraft that was nonetheless missing a lot of functionality and had a fair amount of either bugs or just puzzling or unrealistic behavior, and made it one of the top 5 or 10 addons on any platform.  If someone took the MSFS Neo and did even 25 or 50% of what the Zibo has, it would be an extremely effective mod.

[FlyingInACessna 656]

2 hours ago, PurdueKev said:

How was I insulting Zibo??? I 100% agree it is excellent, and despite being freeware it is on almost par in terms of systems accuracy with the most expensive payware airliners. That is why I used it as an example - the Zibo took a very nice looking XP default aircraft that was nonetheless missing a lot of functionality and had a fair amount of either bugs or just puzzling or unrealistic behavior, and made it one of the top 5 or 10 addons on any platform.  If someone took the MSFS Neo and did even 25 or 50% of what the Zibo has, it would be an extremely effective mod.

AHH I misread! I thought you said “this neo is a crying-out-loud Zibo” haha not “crying out for a Zibo mod” 🙂 I agree with you 100%. My bad!

[Emerson67 248]

On 8/22/2020 at 12:17 AM, PurdueKev said:

've done a few landings now, and everytime I engage reverse thrust the aircraft just slams to a stop and starts going backwards.  The rollout is maybe 50 feet or something. Completely unrealistic and not physically possible in the real world.

It keeps MSFS franchise tradition of ultra mega overpowered reversal thrust.

[dave2013 1,130]

I'm really trying to remain optimistic about this new simulator.

Did no one on the MS/Asobo aircraft design team realize that the A320 thrust is too high?

What about the alpha and beta testers?  Did any of them realize this and report it to the developers before they released the sim? 

It *should* be a pretty easy fix.  You know, simply adjust the engine thrust to better simulate the actual aircraft.

But for some reason they didn't fix such a simple thing before releasing this sim.  Why not?

So far the only praise I'm hearing for this sim relates mostly to the pretty scenery.  Pretty scenery is nice, but it is only one aspect of a decent flight simulator.

I just read a report today regarding a disappointing difference in the scenery of an area that the MS/Asobo marketers showcased, and the same area in the actual release version of the sim.  This brings back memories of the famous FSX screenshot produced by Microsoft depicting a stunning mountain and lake scene in the sim which turned out to be pure marketing hype.

I have to keep reminding myself that this thing just released 5 days ago and we must be patient.  However, failure to notice obvious flaws like excessive thrust for a well-known aircraft, and other reported flaws that shouldn't exist in a release version, are testing my patience and faith in the developers. 

Let's see what happens over the coming weeks.  I'm expecting a lot of updates and patches from the developers, and soon.

 

Dave

Edited August 23, 2020 by dave2013

[dave2013 1,130]

Discovered the problem.

The reverser_available parameter in the A320 engines.cfg is set to 1.5, making the reverse thrust effect 150% of normal.  Set this to 1.0 and see if that's more realistic.

Someone mentioned that the climb performance seemed too powerful, but the engine thrust is actually set about right.  The thrust can range from 24,000 - 29,000 lbs depending on the engine variant used.

Dave

Edited August 24, 2020 by dave2013

[captain420 3,099]

It's good to see that the community are now working on improving and fixing the default A320 Neo.

[kiwikat 506]

23 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Someone mentioned that the climb performance seemed too powerful, but the engine thrust is actually set about right.  The thrust can range from 24,000 - 29,000 lbs depending on the engine variant used.

That's the concerning part here. I think the whole jet flight model is borked at the moment. The thrust values are not resulting in realistic performance.