10 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

would this scenario change your mind? (this is based off real data)

 WET runway,
15kt tailwind
 ISA+30(!)

Boeing 777-200 ER at MLW (213.2 MT), vref30 140 kts.

Unfactored landing distance is 2.100 meters. with all the penalties listed above.

 

Compared that to the extremely favorable conditions on @Cpt_Piett scenario. He is  53 MT lighter, with a headwind, ISA-10C and 15 knots slower approach speed.

You still think that would be a blatant physics law violation?
 

 

 

Sir, you're comparing a lost airport in Liberia with one of the most dangerous airport in the world surrounded by more than 10000ft high mountains. I don't know what are you refering to when you're talking about of "based off real data", when we are trying to simulate Lufthansa, British Airways, Qatar Airways, Air France, etc. in their daily and safe routes. Is there any other A350 expert here? 🤣

13 minutes ago, Claudius_ said:

Sir, you're comparing a lost airport in Liberia with one of the most dangerous airport in the world surrounded by more than 10000ft high mountains. I don't know what are you refering to when you're talking about of "based off real data", when we are trying to simulate Lufthansa, British Airways, Qatar Airways, Air France, etc. in their daily and safe routes. Is there any other A350 expert here? 🤣

Not all of us are trying to simulate real life flights - I am certainly not. Also - I tend to trust @SAS443 as they provide useful facts without much or any hyperbole 🙂

Btw quite a while ago I made a video landing the 777 at LOWI, and got quite a bit of heat for it by pro simmers as it was not realistic enough 😅 Fair enough, but it's a sim, so we do what we want/like to do. 

Edited March 15, 20251 yr by Cpt_Piett

1 hour ago, Claudius_ said:

No Sir, a liner with a GW 160/200 tons cannot land on a 6500ft runway, especially at LOWI. If this A350 can do it, it's a blatant physics law violation.

 

The performance limit at LOWI would be something like 190.000 tons for landing and 219.000 for take off.

I just calculated that with the SImbrief Performance Calculator.

1 minute ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Not all of us are trying to simulate real life flights - I am certainly not. Also - I tend to trust @SAS443 as they provide useful facts without much or any hyperbole 🙂

I know that, and you're the majority of them, for the same reason the devs are selling their good looking unfinished flight sims, unfinished airplanes with fantastic hyperbolic physics.

1 minute ago, Farlis said:

 

The performance limit at LOWI would be something like 190.000 tons for landing and 219.000 for take off.

I just calculated that with the SImbrief Performance Calculator.

here we have another aviation expert directly from LOWI. 😁

Ok guys, I'll surrender, you won!

17 minutes ago, Claudius_ said:

Sir, you're comparing a lost airport in Liberia with one of the most dangerous airport in the world surrounded by more than 10000ft high mountains. I don't know what are you refering to when you're talking about of "based off real data", when we are trying to simulate Lufthansa, British Airways, Qatar Airways, Air France, etc. in their daily and safe routes. Is there any other A350 expert here? 🤣

Those values are from Emirates 777 operations.

No airplane tend to bend the laws of physics, the playing field is actually quite equal weither it's an Airbus or Boeing. That's why I thought your statement was somewhat surprising.

And your originial statement was runway length only. And you had zero variables to support it.

(and as always,  practically achievable, vs legal/compliance to safety regulations is not the same thing)

17 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Not all of us are trying to simulate real life flights - I am certainly not. Also - I tend to trust @SAS443 as they provide useful facts without much or any hyperbole 🙂

Btw quite a while ago I made a video landing the 777 at LOWI, and got quite a bit of heat for it by pro simmers as it was not realistic enough 😅 Fair enough, but it's a sim, so we do what we want/like to do. 

For the record, I would be able to stop my 777F at LOWI Innsbruck using sensible braking and thrust reverse procedures, but I generally land with a 40% fuel load and an empty cargo hold when I conduct my airport circuits. Of course, finding a suitable parking spot would probably be a bit more difficult

thanks so much for taking the time to do those external view landings @Cpt_Piett, it shows there is an issue and looks like this is acknowledged by inibuilds

no way I'm paying full price for this whilst it behaves like that

19 minutes ago, EGLD said:

no way I'm paying full price for this whilst it behaves like that

Funny that this is the issue that stops you from paying the high price.

It should rather be that it plays in the same league as the big boys of study level system depth but only delivers basic system depth that simply does not accurately model system interdependencies and results of faults.

A lacking gear suspension is just a speck compared to the other issues that disqualify it as a high price add-on.

My biggest gripe with the A350 is definitely performance. I get up to 30 FPS more in the Fenix, depending on the circumstances. 

I just completed a flight from KLGA to KDCA. I did the RNAV 19 approach and was hoping that someone more knowledgable than me could explain what the FMA readouts mean (F-G/S and F-LOC). 

The aircraft seemed to want to fly the whole approach in NAV and managed descent mode, so once I was at DA, I just deactivated the autopilot before landing. 

And no - there aren't any suitable parking spots for the A350-900 at either of these airports 🙂 I just wanted to see how the aircraft would handle this flight (with FSHud ATC) - and in particular the RNAV approach. 

Edited March 15, 20251 yr by Cpt_Piett

7 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

My biggest gripe with the A350 is definitely performance. I get up to 30 FPS more in the Fenix, depending on the circumstances. 

Strangely that is the one field were I don't have anything to critsize. I have a 4 year old system (with the exception of the GPU) and it performs great on my system.

7 minutes ago, Farlis said:

Strangely that is the one field were I don't have anything to critsize. I have a 4 year old system (with the exception of the GPU) and it performs great on my system.

Well, other people have mentioned better performance with 1.0.4. Thinking it might be related to my MSFS2024 installation, I did a reinstall yesterday. The last flight was perhaps pushing things a bit though, flying from payware KLGA to KDCA in heavy weather with FSHud. 

Are you on 2024?

4 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Are you on 2024?

Yes. I use AutoFPS set quite agressively. LOD is not great but at least performance stays fluid. I found that sometimes it helps to clear the rolling cache if performance is bad.

Edited March 15, 20251 yr by Farlis

1 minute ago, Farlis said:

Yes. I use AutoFPS set quite agressively. LOD is not great but at least performance stays fluid. I found that sometimes it helps to clear the rolling cache if performance is bad.

Thanks, I'll try that. I'm on the latest test version of AutoFPS which makes it possible to reduce several parameters - trees, clouds, RT shadows etc - to off / minimum. So I did the last flight with relatively low graphics settings and TLOD. 

41 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

My biggest gripe with the A350 is definitely performance. I get up to 30 FPS more in the Fenix, depending on the circumstances. 

I just completed a flight from KLGA to KDCA. I did the RNAV 19 approach and was hoping that someone more knowledgable than me could explain what the FMA readouts mean (F-G/S and F-LOC). 

The aircraft seemed to want to fly the whole approach in NAV and managed descent mode, so once I was at DA, I just deactivated the autopilot before landing. 

And no - there aren't any suitable parking spots for the A350-900 at either of these airports 🙂 I just wanted to see how the aircraft would handle this flight (with FSHud ATC) - and in particular the RNAV approach. 

Standard RNAV..RNP "without the AR component and temp compensation" You're Good ! 🙂

Please review this link  below to see all the modes to know what to expect !

https://airbus-win.com/guidance-modes/ Select the aircraft type and proceed from there 🙂

and yes typically these things are set up to fly the approach fully automatically with it being turned off at DH or when the captain has runway visual because they cant be used for auto lands (for the most part)

Edited March 15, 20251 yr by Maxis

7 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Thanks, I'll try that. I'm on the latest test version of AutoFPS which makes it possible to reduce several parameters - trees, clouds, RT shadows etc - to off / minimum. So I did the last flight with relatively low graphics settings and TLOD. 

Try the basic setting first. I had used the advanced settings and went way above what my system was happy with and it became a stuttering mess.