A321 fix or simply a change?

[Mace 1,927]

I noticed this file in library: a321_b738_gauge_fix.zipIt's "fixes" to the FSX A321 and FSX B737 PFD's.The question I have, regards the wind pointer on the PFD. The "fix" makes the wind pointer point the direction of the wind relative to the aircraft's heading.The default A321 PFD wind pointer points the direction the wind is actually blowing from.So, my question is, which A321 PFD wind pointer behavior is true-to-life? Does a real A321 PFD wind pointer point relative to the aircraft heading, or does it point relative to true north?RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Mace 1,927]

bump!No one knows? I just need to know how the REAL A321 wind arrow is.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Pro Avia 4]

Hi RhettThis is my first post here at Avsim. I'll admit to being a long time lurker here though - for the better part of five years. :-shyThe file you reference is my "fix". In addition to correcting the track indicator on the A321 ND, I also corrected the wind indicator arrow. Here's the reference picture on A.net that I used - showing the MFD (ND) and PFD on the copilot's panel of an A321.http://www1.airliners.net/open.file?id=0437763&size=LThe wind on the ND displays the wind direction in relation to the aircraft's nose (heading). Displaying the wind relative to true north would diminish situational awareness for the crew.Forecast winds aloft are given in degrees true. However, a pilot would report the wind in degrees magnetic. And, the wind given by ATIS/ATC for an airport is in degrees magnetic also.The "fix" changes the displayed wind from degrees true to degrees magnetic (which is what the aircraft heading is displayed in). Additionally, it also corrects the wind arrow display from relative to north (360

[Mace 1,927]

hello GeneThank you for your response, and for your fix to the A321 wind gauge.You should post more often here. This forum always benefits from knowledgeable people.It is good to know that you fixed the gauge based on how it really is.Also the purple altitude hold, where it cut off part of the numbers, was a needed fix too.I noticed the A321's standby altimeter will display the thousands of feet wrongly sometimes. At least I think it is. 29000 feet displays as 39000.have a good night...RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Guest Chris1973]

Have you recognized that the ECAMS Fuel Flow data is wrong, too?There is a decimal display error, instead of showing e.g. 122.8 / 122.8 lbs/hour it should display 1228 / 1228 lbs/hour. At least, the correct amount of fuel is actually USED, it's only displayed with that weird decimal error.And the FF data should not be labeled as "%" like N1 or N2, it's lbs/hour, of course.

[Pro Avia 4]

***** Hi RhettI believe the standby altimeter is indicating the correct altitude. However, the digits are moving while the altitude needle is rotating (which is not correct). The digits should stay fixed until the next thousand/ten thousand foot increment. I'm looking into it, but not having much success.In your example above, the ten thousand foot window has moved the number "2" ninety percent of the way toward the next digit ("3"). In so doing, when the standby altimeter is trying to display 29,000', it appears that the "2" has already become a "3" (and looking as if it's displaying 39,000'). Okay, so I've almost confused myself in trying to explain what is happening - but just try it out and I think you'll see what I mean (I hope - :-) ).***** Hi ChrisThanks for pointing out these two items. After looking at the default ECAMS files, the FF data as "%" is easily changed by editing the appropriate BMP file.I think the fuel flow indicators are totally incorrect. It's not just a decimal point error. Obviously a fuel burn of only 122.8 PPH on the ground it way too low. But I thought that 1228 PPH was a little too high. After looking at the ECAMS XML file and referencing Arne Bartel's tutorial again, it appears the "GaugeString" line referencing fuel flow in the "ecams.xml" file contains an incorrect parameter. I'm still playing around with finding the correct entry. So far I can get the FF per engine to 975.0 PPH (notice the decimal location) at idle on the ground at LAX.***** AllIf I can successfully "fix" the fuel flows and the standby altimeter, I'll release a new version of the fix. I guess I should clarify that I know very little about how to program any of these gauges. So far I've just been lucky in finding the errors and correcting them. No promises on if/when the new "fix" will be available.Anything else in the A321 gauge set that might need tweaking?CheersGene

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

> ...............>***** Hi Chris>>Thanks for pointing out these two items. After looking at the>default ECAMS files, the FF data as "%" is easily changed by>editing the appropriate BMP file.>>I think the fuel flow indicators are totally incorrect. It's>not just a decimal point error. Obviously a fuel burn of only>122.8 PPH on the ground it way too low. But I thought that>1228 PPH was a little too high. After looking at the ECAMS XML>file and referencing Arne Bartel's tutorial again, it appears>the "GaugeString" line referencing fuel flow in the>"ecams.xml" file contains an incorrect parameter. I'm still>playing around with finding the correct entry. So far I can>get the FF per engine to 975.0 PPH (notice the decimal>location) at idle on the ground at LAX.>>Gene I had mentioned the "backwards arrow" in the A321 and wrong TAS in the 737 in my "Good, Bad, Ugly" thread. Others noted you had fixed them. The correct fuel flow should be easy to set from the appropriate XML A: fuel flow variable. However, I wouldn't be surprised but what it shows too high in cruise (possibly also a bit high in idle). Zero Lift Drag of the A727 and B737 are about 3X realistic at cruise Mach. The correct indication will drain the tanks in the appropriate time. If there is 10,000 lb of fuel remaining, and each turbine is using 5000 lb/hr then the tanks should run dry in one hour. Ron

[Mace 1,927]

>***** Hi Rhett>>I believe the standby altimeter is indicating the correct>altitude. However, the digits are moving while the altitude>needle is rotating (which is not correct). The digits should>stay fixed until the next thousand/ten thousand foot>increment. I'm looking into it, but not having much success.>On closer inspection, I too have noticed this behavior with the stby altimeter. But, do you think the digit moves slowly by design? Or do you think in real life, the gauge is supposed to wait until you hit 30000 feet to tick over to '3'?RhettAMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Pro Avia 4]

>>***** Hi Rhett>>>>I believe the standby altimeter is indicating the correct>>altitude. However, the digits are moving while the altitude>>needle is rotating (which is not correct). The digits should>>stay fixed until the next thousand/ten thousand foot>>increment. I'm looking into it, but not having much success.>>>>On closer inspection, I too have noticed this behavior with>the stby altimeter. But, do you think the digit moves slowly>by design? Or do you think in real life, the gauge is>supposed to wait until you hit 30000 feet to tick over to>'3'?>>Rhett>>AMD 3700+ (@2530 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS>A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, WD 250 gig>7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster PraetorianHi RhettHere a link to another A.net picture - http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0859042/L/In this pic, the standby altimeter is indicating about 20,500'. The zero to the right of the "2" is not rotated at all. In the FSX default A321 it would show about half way between "0" and "1".I'm hoping to have time this weekend to look into this further.Gene

[Pro Avia 4]

>> ...............>>***** Hi Chris>>>>Thanks for pointing out these two items. After looking at>the>>default ECAMS files, the FF data as "%" is easily changed by>>editing the appropriate BMP file.>>>>I think the fuel flow indicators are totally incorrect. It's>>not just a decimal point error. Obviously a fuel burn of>only>>122.8 PPH on the ground it way too low. But I thought that>>1228 PPH was a little too high. After looking at the ECAMS>XML>>file and referencing Arne Bartel's tutorial again, it>appears>>the "GaugeString" line referencing fuel flow in the>>"ecams.xml" file contains an incorrect parameter. I'm still>>playing around with finding the correct entry. So far I can>>get the FF per engine to 975.0 PPH (notice the decimal>>location) at idle on the ground at LAX.>>>>>Gene>>> I had mentioned the "backwards arrow" in the A321 and wrong>TAS in the 737 in my "Good, Bad, Ugly" thread. Others noted>you had fixed them.>> The correct fuel flow should be easy to set from the>appropriate XML A: fuel flow variable. However, I wouldn't>be surprised but what it shows too high in cruise (possibly>also a bit high in idle). Zero Lift Drag of the A727 and B737>are about 3X realistic at cruise Mach. >> The correct indication will drain the tanks in the>appropriate time. If there is 10,000 lb of fuel remaining, and>each turbine is using 5000 lb/hr then the tanks should run dry>in one hour. >> Ron>Hi RonThanks for refreshing my memory on your "Good, Bad, Ugly" thread. I had remembered reading about the B738 TAS and A321 wind arrow, but couldn't find your post. If it's okay with you, I'd like to credit you with finding these errors in the readme of my download (if/when I release an update).The fuel flow gauge string is as follows in the default:%((A:TURB ENG1 FUEL FLOW PPH, PPH) abs)%!5.1f! I can't find a valid reference in the "units.txt" file in Arne's tutorial for the second "PPH" in the above string. However, there is a "pounds per hour" reference. If I substitute as follows:%((A:TURB ENG1 FUEL FLOW PPH, pounds per hour) abs)%!5.1f! I no longer show an idle FF of 122.8, but of 975.0. This new value seems more plausible as it's in the same ballpark as the B738 at idle and 122.8 is way off. I still need to do more testing though over the coming weekend. I'll start by using your method above...Again, thanks for bringing to light the B738 TAS and A321 wind arrow anomalies.Gene

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

......... Hi Ron>>Thanks for refreshing my memory on your "Good, Bad, Ugly">thread. I had remembered reading about the B738 TAS and A321>wind arrow, but couldn't find your post. If it's okay with>you, I'd like to credit you with finding these errors in the>readme of my download (if/when I release an update). You fix came out so fast I didn't know if it was based on my comments or not. Sure, you can mention my name, though you also found and fixed other things.>The fuel flow gauge string is as follows in the default:>>%((A:TURB ENG1 FUEL FLOW PPH, PPH)>abs)%!5.1f! >>I can't find a valid reference in the "units.txt" file in>Arne's tutorial for the second "PPH" in the above string. There are various 'unit's that work, 'PPH' doesn't seem familiar.>However, there is a "pounds per hour" reference. If I>substitute as follows:>>%((A:TURB ENG1 FUEL FLOW PPH, pounds per hour)>abs)%!5.1f! 'pounds per hour' sounds familiar. I used the correct units in my Test Gauges, but it's been a while since I checked.>I no longer show an idle FF of 122.8, but of 975.0. This new>value seems more plausible as it's in the same ballpark as the>B738 at idle and 122.8 is way off. I still need to do more>testing though over the coming weekend. I'll start by using>your method above...>Gene Near 1000 lb/hr seems reasonable for idle. Though I'm not very familiar with Airbus. I think a 437-400 runs a total of 4500 to 5200 PPH in cruise. I'm afraid the new B737-800 may run too high with its high drag when the fuel flow rate is fixed. Regardless, that's a different problem. Ron

[Guest Chris1973]

Gene,your investigations are much appreciated, as I feel that those "small" bugs won't be fixed in the coming FSX SP1. But I could be wrong. I e-mailed a personal A321 bug list to Aces, in the meantime I am looking forward to your next fix. Especially the FF annoys me.Cheers,Chris

[Guest Chris1973]

Another bug:In the VC, it isn't possible to tune the first 3 digits of the COM/VOR/ILS frequencies as there are no clickspots for the outer knob rings.Quality management on the default 321 was a joke.

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>Gene,>>your investigations are much appreciated, as I feel that those>"small" bugs won't be fixed in the coming FSX SP1. But I could>be wrong. I e-mailed a personal A321 bug list to Aces, in the>meantime I am looking forward to your next fix. Especially the>FF annoys me.>Chris I checked the fuel flow in the 737-800. It ran as high as 4.3*2 thousand lb/hr. That's too high to give rated range, which I think is 3200 nm (reserve should add to that). Seems a 737-400 I did ran 4400 to 5200 PPH total. The real -800 shouldn't take a lot more. But, with zero lift drag about 3X realistic at Mach 0.78, it's no wonder PPH is high. Maybe I'll make some quick 'n dirty changes to the 737-800 AIR file to get the fuel flow closer. Though, it would be nice to know just what it should be. Similar for the A321, it has about the same excessive zero lift drag. OTOH, the Lear 45 drag isn't all that bad. Guess there is no telling what comes out of the Aces' AC factory. ;) Note: a simple way to drop drag is to set the 'parasite_drag_scalar' in aircraft.cfg to something like 0.40. Not the best approach, but better than nothing. Further, elevator authority seems high in many of the FSX AC. That can be reduced by setting "elevator_effectiveness = 1.0" to a lower value. Ron

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

> I checked the fuel flow in the 737-800. It ran as high as>4.3*2 thousand lb/hr. That's too high to give rated range,>which I think is 3200 nm (reserve should add to that). > ............> Note: a simple way to drop drag is to set the>'parasite_drag_scalar' in aircraft.cfg to something like>0.40. Not the best approach, but better than nothing.> Ron I checked into this more, and set "parasite_drag_scalar=0.60". That makes fuel flow more realistic, further, descent speed is more reasonable at idle thrust. However, N1 then runs only 65% or so in cruise; too low. One of the turbine tables in the 737 AIR file appears to be inappropriate. So, it appears there is no simple way to improve the 737's fuel flow. One could set the 'ThrustSpecificFuelConsumption = 0.6' to a lower value to reduce PPH, though 0.6 is probably a bit low as it is. The CFM turbines used in the 737-400 ran 0.625. Similar comments apply to the A331. Ron