Aircraft & Avionics Update 2 Beta Release Notes [1.33.3.0]

[kdfw__ 542]

gotta love the 787 update, HGS is a work of art.  perfect for vc flying.  

the vc light mod for the 787 beta is available https://flightsim.to/file/52209/asobo-aircraft-dimmable-vc-flood-light-mod-3-pack

 

[g-liner 388]

7 hours ago, Floaty Potato said:

Flight sim forums have taught me that I'm not missing out on anything by having no real-world aviation experience when it comes to enjoying flying on my computer 

I think if you want to know if flying (whatever) aircraft in the game is exactly like the real one then you’ll never be happy, even PMDG aircraft aren’t despite what fans here constantly tell you. 

if you want to fly a plane in the sim where most things work then the WT787 is that. 

It’s  also a fun experience even for a 787 pilot to fly it in the sim. I can operate it using my airlines SOPs etc and most things work in the way that they should. Certainly enough to replicate a real flight. This wasn’t the case before WT updated it. 

If someone else then says it’s “not much to do with a 787” then that’s great, it’s their opinion also. I’d agree the original 787 wasn’t realistic at all but this WT version is light years better than that. 
 

like I said before in terms of overall realism it’s like the longitude and more realistic than the CJ4. If you enjoy those then you’ll also enjoy this. 

[DAD 2,650]

12 hours ago, g-liner said:

flew a short challenging flight in the 787 this morning IRL and came home exhausted and actually still wanted to replicate it in the sim

Out of curiosity. Which short challenging flight would that be IRL in a 787?

[Fiorentoni 4,226]

56 minutes ago, g-liner said:

I can operate it using my airlines SOPs etc and most things work in the way that they should

I only watched videos (not in the beta yet) and I‘m not a 787 pilot, but from watching the videos I have to disagree: Most things actually don‘t work in the way they should. Just trying to use VS - a basic function we use all the time - it literally dives up/down like it was an F15. FMC is lacking half of the stuff I‘d expect your SOP would be using (secondary flightplan, set a VOR course…). Much better than default, yes, this is obvious, but not a 787.

[jcomm 5,938]

Boeing 787 First Flight | Aircraft & Avionics Update 2 BETA | Real Airline Pilot - YouTube

He focuses on some of the incomplete / inconsistent details...

[g-liner 388]

38 minutes ago, DAD said:

Out of curiosity. Which short challenging flight would that be IRL in a 787?

It was an empty short ferry flight between 2 busy airports.
 

The issues are challenges like increased aircraft performance on departure in busy controlled airspace so there’s potential altitude bust issues and TCAS considerations and then on approach eg atc wanting 160kts  till 4 dme and irl on an empty 787 that would involve flying flap 5 plus 40 speed until 4 miles and then not having enough time to slow down and be fully established by 1000ft. The short flight also has no cruise segment so setting up the aircraft and doing the approach procedure etc and all the normal procedures having to be done in a short time. Plus also these flights are normally just 2 pilots so there’s lots of things you have to do yourself in the cabin etc that would normally be done by cabin crew. 

[g-liner 388]

31 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

I only watched videos (not in the beta yet) and I‘m not a 787 pilot, but from watching the videos I have to disagree: Most things actually don‘t work in the way they should. Just trying to use VS - a basic function we use all the time - it literally dives up/down like it was an F15. FMC is lacking half of the stuff I‘d expect your SOP would be using (secondary flightplan, set a VOR course…). Much better than default, yes, this is obvious, but not a 787.

I suppose it’s about what we consider to be “most things” 

 

As ever each to their own. Obv it’s not at PMDG level but it was never set out to be and won’t be, even when the beta testing is complete. 
 

As I said I did a short flight irl in the 78 and then again in the sim using the WT beta and thought most of it worked. The video you posted is a fair summary of where it’s currently at though but obv there’s lots there pointed out that WT are fixing but some they’re not. 

[Krakin 5,766]

Hey @MattNischan, good day to you. Have you seen 737NG's videos on the 747 and 787? Do you think you guys will be able to address most of the limitations and inconsistencies he points out in time for the official release?

[jarmstro 2,402]

I've had t leave the beta. The cursor started flickering, after a while, if I loaded either plane. It continued to do so even if I loaded another plane. Restarting the sim didn't cure it. After opting out it's now fine. Has anyone else had this?

Edited May 13, 2023 by jarmstro

[Kevin_28 164]

2 hours ago, Krakin said:

Hey @MattNischan, good day to you. Have you seen 737NG's videos on the 747 and 787? Do you think you guys will be able to address most of the limitations and inconsistencies he points out in time for the official release?

I’m sure they are aware of it. It’s been posted a few times in their discord already. I don’t think Matt specifically addressed that video in particular but he’s probably addressed many of the issues brought up in that video through various conversations with other chatters. To be fair, I don’t know what issues were specifically brought up in the video as I don’t have the time to watch an hour long video. However, one thing to note is that they are not really planning to add in much more systems than what is already in there as of this moment. They were pretty clear that this project was not set out to be some high fidelity airliner. With VSD in particular, since a few people keep bringing it up, there are no plans to add that in at the moment. Apparently, ASOBO, doesn’t have a horizontal terrain API that they can use for proper simulation. They are addressing quite a few bugs though, and I know they’re throwing some things to their RW 787 pilots testing team to fine tune things a bit more.

For me, I’m just happy to have a reasonably simulated 787 and 747 to do long hauls in so I can put in some nice long APL flights. I don’t do betas, so I haven’t flown it yet, but I think this will hold me over nicely until the pmdg 777 comes out. Of course, I am still looking forward to seeing what Heavy Division will bring to the table with their more in depth version of the 787.

Edited May 13, 2023 by Kevin_28
Grammar and clarity

[Fiorentoni 4,226]

2 hours ago, Krakin said:

Hey @MattNischan, good day to you. Have you seen 737NG's videos on the 747 and 787? Do you think you guys will be able to address most of the limitations and inconsistencies he points out in time for the official release?

He posted under the 787 video from 737NG, so he definitely saw it and already said that some things will get fixed .

[pstrub 998]

3 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

He posted under the 787 video from 737NG, so he definitely saw it and already said that some things will get fixed .

Thanks, that was an interesting read. It's pinned so it's always shown as the first comment, and underlines that we're going to get a nice experience for normal flights with good avionics and FMCs, but little to none in the way of aircraft systems that you'd expect from a $50+ payware aircraft. 

There's no doubt there are open issues right now, but I'm happy with the direction they've taken, and I'm sure the bugs will get fixed. Just make sure to report new issues in the official forums for AAU2 or the WT Discord server.

[lwt1971 7,417]

Posting Matt's comments under 737 NG Driver's "787 First Flight" video here:

We're getting a number of folks reporting the same bugs to us on multiple forums based on this video, so just to address some issues and avoid duplicate reports: 1) The speedbrake checklist item was intentional, as that stock sim behavior is in the middle of being replaced but we didn't want people to be caught out with no speedbrakes during takeoff or landing operations and 2) the long (but not incorrect) checklists were provided by the manufacturer, although most operators opt for much shorter ones. We are looking into a number of operator checklists to try to come to a sensible set of common items you would see in the field. 3) The speedbrake of the 787 are massively draggy, much unlike most other airliners. You can use the speedbrakes during unusual attitude recovery (25 degrees nose down) to keep out of the overspeed band, that's how powerful they are. For slowing down 15kts you would normally just pull them out a tiny bit, definitely not full or halfway.

Finally, the focus of these aircraft is not to be $60-120 level simulations. Our focus, like it was for the CJ4 project, is to provide deep avionics, highly accurate LNAV and VNAV that you can trust, RNAV, RNP, IAN, and a deep FMC. On the systems side our target is reasonable behavior for normal flows and operations, but not for failure or abnormal configs, so things like what specific things don't work when one particular hydraulic bus is off is not really the level we're going for. Nonetheless, the vast majority of normal pilot interactions should be crisp, solid, with a super authentic avionics experience, a good flight model adhering extremely closely to book numbers; the stuff our actual long haul pilot testers cared and care most about. And, don't be fooled! There still is plenty of depth: TCAS is completely to the TCAS II spec, LNAV does all the crazy procedures you want with RF, we have our full GPS satellite simulation, RNAV and Boeing IAN, autoland, a nearly 1 for 1 HUD, pixel peeper accurate glass visuals (our guys are nerds too), a ton of the FMC, lots and lots of CAS messages, the list goes on and on. It's definitely still highly highly advanced.

But, just want to keep expectations in the reality zone. Hopefully folks enjoy the value that they're getting for the price.

----------

And 737NG Driver pinned it:
Hey Matt, thanks for the extensive explanation. I have pinned your comment for everyone to be able to see it first.
 

Edited May 13, 2023 by lwt1971

[Noel 4,501]

I've not followed AAU2, what it is other than a project WT is championing.  I'm interested in the 787 and use the HD mod when I fly it.  Will what WT is doing to the 787 be compatible with HD's work, or is it completely separate?  Thanks

[pstrub 998]

7 minutes ago, Noel said:

I've not followed AAU2, what it is other than a project WT is championing.  I'm interested in the 787 and use the HD mod when I fly it.  Will what WT is doing to the 787 be compatible with HD's work, or is it completely separate?  Thanks

Like the AAU1 (Aircraft & Avionics Update) released in January, AAU2 improves the default aircraft, and is compulsory when released. I haven't flown the 787 yet, neither with the HD mod, nor with the AAU2, so I don't know how the 787 update will compare with HD's work.

It's unlikely that the HD mod will be compatible on release, it's up to HD to modify it accordingly. Or AAU2 is good enough to make HD's work obsolete, who knows?

Edited May 13, 2023 by pstrub