A32NX and A320 NEO

[Watsi 2,574]

Be cool guys 🙂. He just didn't fly our plane. So he doesn't know what he's talking about.

[kokelas1 8]

I am dissatisfied with the Airbus A32NX, stable v.6.1, flight features and screen refresh rate. I have always installed the latest version and no development is happening. Externally, the machine looks good but it still has a fault.

1. The autopilot sometimes deviates from the route unexpectedly or does not follow the route when the direction changes.

2. The FS2020's screen refresh rate on this Airbus is much lower than on the simulator's standard propeller aircraft. When I take off from Helsinki-Vantaa Airport over the city, the flight is pounding, ie the screen refresh rate is usually less than 20. In the Alpine region, where there is a 10 meter DEM in Austria, the screen refresh is only about 10-12, ie flying is almost impossible.

Propellers like the Cessna have a screen update of 30 to which I have limited it and the flight is digestible.

What can be done about it? I don’t want to adjust the simulator graphics to a low level.

[Watsi 2,574]

7 minutes ago, kokelas1 said:

I am dissatisfied with the Airbus A32NX, stable v.6.1, flight features and screen refresh rate. I have always installed the latest version and no development is happening. Externally, the machine looks good but it still has a fault.

1. The autopilot sometimes deviates from the route unexpectedly or does not follow the route when the direction changes.

2. The FS2020's screen refresh rate on this Airbus is much lower than on the simulator's standard propeller aircraft. When I take off from Helsinki-Vantaa Airport over the city, the flight is pounding, ie the screen refresh rate is usually less than 20. In the Alpine region, where there is a 10 meter DEM in Austria, the screen refresh is only about 10-12, ie flying is almost impossible.

Propellers like the Cessna have a screen update of 30 to which I have limited it and the flight is digestible.

What can be done about it? I don’t want to adjust the simulator graphics to a low level.

I really think you should try the development version. It's far from unstable and I think you will be more satisfied.

Edited June 3, 2021 by Watsi

[Moria15 950]

2 minutes ago, Watsi said:

You really think you should try the developement version. It's far from unstable and I think you will be more satisfied.

Yeah, this is going to be an issue now that the stable version is in the marketplace but those in the know can get the dev version.. theres going to be issues with people having problems in the stable version that have already been fixed in dev 🙂

Graham

[hansb57 493]

I feel thats a general problem with dev made add ons.

Not everybody is following every possible channel to know if an update is available.

And then there are devs that dont update the manifest.sjon so it's hard to see what version your on.

If you install the FBW installer (and start it every day, takes only seconds that problem is solved (for the FBW a320)

[Watsi 2,574]

You can check for the latest implementations on our github:

https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx/commits/master

 

[Bobsk8 12,706]

4 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Are you a real life certified A320 pilot?

Well, BlackBox711 is a real life certified A320 pilot and he streams on Twitch.  If the FS Labs A320 gets a 10 out of 10 for their modeling of systems, BlackBox711 currently rates the FBW A320 about a 6 out of 10.  In fact, BlackBox711 will fly the FBW A320 on his stream from time to time because he quite enjoys it.  BlackBox711 would probably rate the default A320 about a 1 out of 10 or 2 out of 10.  So the FBW team has made considerable progress on the A320 from the default A320 if BlackBox711 can give it a 6 out of 10.  It's not perfect yet and still needs more features to be implemented, but getting a 6 out of 10 by a real life certified A320 pilot after some 9 months of work is pretty impressive by the FBW team.

But let me guess, you are not a real life certified A320 pilot.

PS. Kudos to the FBW team for the great work they've done!  You guys are becoming the MSFS version of Zibo!

Probably the only thing he is certified in is being rude and making stupid comments. 

[RaptyrOne 1,408]

3 hours ago, Moria15 said:

Yeah, this is going to be an issue now that the stable version is in the marketplace but those in the know can get the dev version.. theres going to be issues with people having problems in the stable version that have already been fixed in dev 🙂

It's a good point. Probably 1,000's of 'simmers', and especially those new to the MSFS brand don't know anything about Github, Avsim, Discord etc. They will see the Stable version in the Market Place and be unaware of what is going outside of that. A wild idea could be to place the FBW Installer Application in the Marketplace, not the aircraft. Guess that won't work for upcoming Xbox though. Maybe the Stable will need more frequent updates to limit the gap between it and the Dev. 

[RaptyrOne 1,408]

3 hours ago, Watsi said:

You can check for the latest implementations on our github:

https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx/commits/master

I have booked marked this. I have gotten into the habit of updating the Dev version every time I fire up the sim but never really know what has been changed. This link highlights those changes. For example, I wonder how many people realise even after updating the Dev version over the past few days that that the A320's Hydraulics system and ECAM page has been brought online and that the braking system has been custom built and "wired" into that hydraulics system.

[JimBrown 596]

3 hours ago, Watsi said:

You can check for the latest implementations on our github:

https://github.com/flybywiresim/a32nx/commits/master

 

Ah Ha! Thanks for the link. Now I know why the parking brake detection in NeoFly stopped working when using the A32NX (NeoFly thinks the parking brake is always released). Will there be further work done on this? I'm assuming it has something to do with a simconnect variable not being updated correctly.

...jim

 

[Farlis 2,287]

What I find interesting about the development is that the custom Fly-By-Wire system seems to be similarly programmed than the one in the Aerosft Airbus family for FSX and P3D.

When the frames drop below 17FPS the flight becomes unstable.

Granted MSFS performs much better, and going down to 17FPS is not as common as it was in the old platforms, but as a VR flyer that was quite a common occurence near airports and with lots of clouds and this can also happen quite more frequently in MSFS when using VR.

And then the same kind of osciallation on the vertical level that I'm so familar with from P3D starts.

[Bobsk8 12,706]

16 minutes ago, Farlis said:

What I find interesting about the development is that the custom Fly-By-Wire system seems to be similarly programmed than the one in the Aerosft Airbus family for FSX and P3D.

When the frames drop below 17FPS the flight becomes unstable.

Granted MSFS performs much better, and going down to 17FPS is not as common as it was in the old platforms, but as a VR flyer that was quite a common occurence near airports and with lots of clouds and this can also happen quite more frequently in MSFS when using VR.

And then the same kind of osciallation on the vertical level that I'm so familar with from P3D starts.

The FPS required for VR is about twice what most would consider an excellent FPS without VR. Using VR really taxes the system, and some bad side effects can be the result. 

[Farlis 2,287]

13 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

he FPS required for VR is about twice what most would consider an excellent FPS without VR.

Since that is still unattainable with modern hardware asynchronous timewarp is a thing. 45FPS is the minimum to have a seemingly fluid experience, which means you can go as low as 22.5 Frames with ASW without side-effects. That is usually not a problem in MSFS, but there are instances when it is. And then you get the same problems in the Airbus that you get in P3D and the thing will fall out of the sky because the fly-by-wire is for whatever reason linked to the fps.

Edited June 3, 2021 by Farlis

[MDFlier 2,031]

15 hours ago, Nuno Pinto said:

The A32NX is a project that focuses in improving on the existing A320 NEO. As it is right now it adds mostly simple missing things from the original, but they intend to make it an actual flying and usable A320. In all honesty as soon as FSL (or even Aerosoft for that matter) release their versions, this will become obsolete probably.

I don't think so. Some of us will never buy anything from FSL. Ever.

The FBW 320 is coming along nicely and will be around for a long time.

[MattNischan 3,778]

27 minutes ago, Farlis said:

because the fly-by-wire is for whatever reason linked to the fps

It's linked to the FPS because the simulator doesn't provide information at any other rate. If you were you ask for position (or acceleration, or any other simvar) twice per frame, you get the same value twice. Similarly, you can't set information at any other rate and have it be used in the simulation more granularly than at the current frame rate. So, there's no way to run an autopilot control loop faster than the information you're receiving: if you get the same values the control loop will calculate the same output.

-Matt