Donstim

The A320 is a part 25 airplane, not a part 23 airplane. Part 25 does not have an explicit degrees per second roll rate requirement.

There was a bug in that update. It has been fixed thanks to reports like yours. Please update your dev version of the airplane again.

Double oops for me. Realized that the A320 has only 2 after I had written the original post, then mistakenly subtracted one from the number of 737 autobrake settings as well. Thanks for noticing and correcting it. Good point about "no autobrake" effectively being a setting as well.

Oops, I meant 3 and 2 for the number of autobrake settings that can be used for landing (and that target a specific deceleration rate).

Neither the Boeing autobrake RTO setting nor the Airbus autobrake Max setting target a deceleration rate. They both deliver max hydraulic pressure to the brakes. The Boeing autobrake system has 4 different landing settings, while the Airbus system has 3.

Keep in mind that both CFD and the new ground handling parameters of SU 15 can still have issues that make them either unnecessary or unsuitable for at least some airplanes. The A32NX does just fine, in fact better, without CFD than with. In preliminary tests so far with SU 15, the new ground handing parameters do not appear to adequately replace or improve upon what can already be done pre-SU 15.

Not that it changes your conclusions, but the axes scales are not the same for your comparison. This makes the SU14 spikes twice as large what is used for the SU15 beta graph. (They will still be large compared to the SU15 beta spikes, but you should at least show them using the same scale.)

Some testing of the ground parameters using the default Asobo A320NEO...Starting at EHAM 36R with wind set to 18 m/s from 271 degrees in MSFS weather UI, so about 35 knots crosswind from the left with the airplane pointing straight down the runway. First, SU14 with flight model cfg altered to not cancel out crosswind at any speed: SU14 Asosbo A320NEO Ground Xwind.mp4 Next, SU15 with same flight model cfg as for SU14 (new ground contact stuff not added): SU 15 Old ground contact parameters Gound Xwind 2.mp4 Then, SU15 with the new ground contact tuning parameters copied over from the C172 (not suggesting the exact same values would be appropriate for the A320NEO): SU 15 New ground contact parameters Asobo A320NEO Gound Xwind 2.mp4 New ground contact parameters from the C172 are as follows: ground_new_contact_model_rolling_stickyness = 0.5; default = 1.0 ground_new_contact_model_up_to_speed_lateral = 1000.0 ; default = 0.1 ground_new_contact_model_up_to_speed_longitudinal = 1000.0 ; default = 1.0 ground_new_contact_model_gear_flex = 0.005 ; default = 0.0 ground_new_contact_model_gear_flex_damping = 5 ; default = 0.0 and finally, SU15 with the old ground contact parameters again, but this time with the default cancelling of crosswinds at low speed: SU 15 Old Ground Contact parameters but with Xwind cancelling Ground Xwind.mp4 So, there does not appear to be anything new in this case between SU14 and SU15 without the new ground contact parameters included. (The default values for the new ground contact parameters are low enough that they don't really have any effect if they are indeed used when not included in the cfg file.) This airplane will weathervane into the wind, and the airplane will skid the nose wheel to go in that direction when you have the wheel turned all the way toward the other direction What is of some interest is that with the new ground contact parameters, you get a similar effect to cancelling out the crosswind at low speed for this case, but with some major differences. First, you need a lot more thrust to make the turn against the crosswind, and secondly, once you start turning, if you idle the engines the crosswind will cause this airplane to start turning in the opposite direction from which is started. That, of course, does not happen with the old ground contact parameters with canceled out crosswind. (Caution about trying this yourself. For some reason, in SU 15 when I selected to start on the runway at EHAM 36R, it started me on 27. I had to taxi to 36R to do the test. I would have changed locations, but I had already done the SU14 test on that runway.)

Read the linked posting I provided. There is no need to delete the community folder.

As I said, Vapp already includes an additive of at least 5 knots on VREF. So if you're going to add 5 knots to VREF, add nothing to Vapp.

Be aware that Vapp in the A320 is not the Vref (which he refers to as REF) that G550flyer is referring to. Vapp already includes a minimum 5 knot additive to Vref. FlyByWire recommended control settings can be found here: https://docs.flybywiresim.com/fbw-a32nx/settings/#controllers (though this is not meant to stop you from experimenting with your own controller to find the best settings for you)

You said you've tried 3 clean installs. Have you tried https://docs.flybywiresim.com/fbw-a32nx/support/reported-issues/#test-with-only-the-a32nx-add-on-in-community and https://docs.flybywiresim.com/fbw-a32nx/settings/#utf-8-support?

This is usually due to an abrupt weather change in MSFS. To return to normal law, turn on ELACS 1 and 2 in the overhead and then turn them back on again.

If you have the New Lights light enhancement mod, you will need to uninstall it. It is incompatible with the FBW A32NX and causes this behavior.

We published such validation quite some time ago for the FBW A32NX flight model....https://flybywiresim.com/notams/a32nx-flight-model/