lonewulf

Well, that's exactly the issue! Then the focus is again on the FMC. The green box pops up but it won't show any of the keyboard's inputs. Oskar

When using the FMC on a second screen input from the keyboard is not possible. I usually move it out of the cockpit sight onto a second screen. Now as long as the focus is on the (primary) cockpit screen the input is working holding the TAB key but hitting one of the LSKs of course changes the focus to the FMS and then the keyboard input doesn't work anymore. Its not a real big issue but nevertheless annoying to alyways change the focus back and forth. Could there possibly be a workaround for this ? Oskar

Well, I would use it even to manipulate the fuel levers for engine start/shutdown. So for this I need to switch to VC each time. As you said - no big deal but just uncomfy and very uncommon ... Oskar

I experience a similar problem with the GoFlight LGT II module. While all trim axes and the flap switch work correctly I can't get the gear switch working. There is no reaction at all. Oskar

Is anybody using the mentioned GoFlight LGT II module? I would be interested in some feedback about the Gear Lever. I can't get it working. All other features like trim & flaps are ok, just not the gear lever. Is there maybe a workaround available or do we have to wait for GoFlight to update their software?

Ok, ok :( I'm not so quick ... As I see I have to check which SP I actually have. Yesterday I downloaded two different SP's under the same link. iFly is not really exemplary in providing reliable information. I guess I have to implement the Linda-Update on a trial-and-error basis... :( Oskar

I have installed SP1 for the iFly737 and now the whole iFly-setup for the MCP Combo is not working anymore. Could it be that the SP1 has changed call addresses that are set in the iFly-Macro? Anybody else experiencing that?Oskar

Well, I think you got it to the point! And this is in my opinion one of the major achievements of A2A (admittently among others ...) to definitely turn FSX into a SIMULATION rather than just use it as a game with nice aircraft. I wish Microsoft would get that point too and realize that MSFS has the capability of not only entertaining but also teaching the willing simmer to quite an extent (provided the add-ons have the in-depth to do so...)Nevertheless it must of course also be said that by far not all simmers have the same dedication to complex A/C and still take the easiest way to get an aircraft airborne. However the presence of such aircraft like the B377 and now also the P47 Razorback give many simmers the opportunity to make a step ahead into the world of simulation. Not a bad thing at all.... :( Oskar

I see that many of the B377 simmers encounter the same problems -> flying the airplane :( In my opinion this is one of the greatest achievements of A2A to model an airplane which is far from the standard 'push the throttle and rotate after a while' flying. It gives a much closer feeling to the what's and whereabouts of a vintage propliner than anything else that I have seen so far. Yes, wintercon, you might definitely have a closer look at the manuals. but I assure you that you will not cease flying this incredible bird so quickly once you got grip onto it. I for myself can say that this is one of the only few A/C that I regularly take out of the hangar for some fun flying to tricky airports. You really need to properly prepare your flight .... :( Something that I was used to do for the last almost 40 years of my life and I'm happy to continue that in a certain way in my office chair now .. :( ... with much fun I can assure you.Oskar

I'm wondering a bit about the fact that no more postings have been done in this thread. I happened to come across this incredible piece of aviation when I entered A2A's forum to ask for some specific information about the handling. Fortunate enough they even invited me to act as a beta-tester for the Servie-Pack1 upgrade and that's how I got involved in this great piece of simulation in the FSX world. I should state at this point that my flying career stopped a few years ago after 37 years of aviation accumulating 15'000+ flying hours spread on 70+ different A/C types. Unfortunately the B377 is not on my list :( . As far as radials are concerned a short episode on a DC3 was my only experience.Yes, at first sight the B377 may look ugly but after a very short time I became really attracted to it. There's one thing that I found out quite quickly: it's not the A/C that you just load, smash the throttles forward and eventually get airbone. It really need to be operated within it's operating envelope and that's what makes it so interesting. I wonder if some of you guys have really taken it to the end and studied the manuals thoroughly to e.g. make a real transatlanctic crossing, maybe even with real weather/winds or go for a continental crossing based on simple VOR/NDB navigation, maybe ending up with oil levels getting too low but still with enough fuel in the tanks?I have crossed the atlantic a few hundred times in a modern jetliner but admittenlty none of those cossings was as exciting as the ones I did on the Stratocruiser - and be it only sitting in front of my computer, calculating new headings to stay on the minimum-time track as accurately as possible, watching the fuel consumption and so on....I would like to share my experience with this wonderful bird with others and maybe encourage some of you to expand your knowledge in complex piston aircraft.Oskar

ok ok :) Thank you for your extended explanations about FBW. In fact I'm a retired Airbus Captain with some 6000+ hours on A320/330 ;-) When I first purchased the A320 I was quite impressed on how the "pure flying" part was implemented i.e. autotrim, stable bank when releasing the stick (roll rate zero..). I am still convinced that it was performing better on FS8 than on FS9 I only wish I could verify that. I was of course not so impressed when I noticed about the missing envelope protection although some of the features like "alpha floor protection" was showing up including "thrust lock".IMHO it is not so important how you model the FBW concept. If you can do it based on the true issues as you properly described for g-load in pitch axis and roll rate in roll axis that's even better. It can't be that hard to implement at least the pitch limits, AOA limits, bank limits of 33/66 degrees etc. All these factors ARE PRESENT in the flight dynamics model of FS. I consider this as a very weak point when it comes to advertising the PSS Airbuses.Flight Guidance, FMGC usage are nicely implemented so why not do some homework to REALLY make the Airbuses a bit more than they are now. It's this attitude towards the customer which is quite embarrassing. It's kind of an "we made it and it's perfect. Take it or leave it" attitude that should be corrected. There's soo much to be improved. So why not do it?Oskar

Well, I'm not sure what we are talking about now..:-) I'm simply complaining about the bad handling characteristics in manual flying. Interestingly flying with FPV results in almost perfect fly-by-wire behaviour. With FD however - especially after T/O - it's almost impossible to keep a more or less constant pitch attitude as autotrim is not or only veeeery slowly working. The only remedy is actually put in some trim (which really hurts me....)Unfortunately I don't have FS2002 anymore on my machine but I'm almost 100% sure that it was much better there. Maybe some of the flight guidance characteristics have changed within the two FS generations so it would need some redesign of the flight model by PSS.BTW it sounds a bit strange to me that PSS people simply answer that fly-by-wire would not be possible in FS!! I'm afraid they don't even know that it actually is kind of implemented. It would just need some improvement.Oskar

Hi all. Did someone (besides me) notice that elevator trim is working when flying manually? :-hmmm I was really kind of shocked when I noticed that. And it does on all types, be it A320 or A330. THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG!! There are no trim buttons on any sidestick! There is always autotrim as long as you are in normal law.Besides that: is there any fix/update planned for the very poor behaviour of all Airbuses when flying manually in FS2004? I remember that in FS2002 it was much smoother. In FS2004 it is almost impossible to manually follow flight director commands. In FPV it's ok.Oskar

Unstable GS is usually a matter of a unstabilized approach. Try to be established on configuration (landing flaps set + gear down) and speed (approach speed) at least on 4 NM final. The pitch should become stabilized at around +2

Thank you guys for all the replies to this thread. As a resumee I must - unfortunately - conclude that my intention to improve a few things on the default A/C cannot be achieved. But nevertheless following the discussion was very interesting.So let's take the lesson as I learned it:- Whether MSFS is regarded as a game or as a simulator is not really important. It's the way you look at it.- MSFS has the potential for quite accurate flight dynamics. The way it is handled by the developer team is in some cases a bit doubtful (I'm trying to be very careful in using these terms..;-) )- MS is not very helpful nor does it provide any significant help in developing flight dynamics or (especially in my case) altering flight guidance spec which are very A/C dependend. To be honest: They don't have to. It would just be very nice.......Nevertheless in my opinion MSFS still remains an excellent game/Flight Simulator and is by far worth it's price.Oskar

> CFS2 had all the FD things working. Though the not generally>used autopilot was messed up.>> Those FS guys generally damage as much as they fix in each>new version. Flight Dynamics coding doesn't have to change>like the grapics, ATC, etc does. So, why can't they get it>right and leave it along? --->I fully agree. Why is nobody telling them? ;)> I think MS got 'above it's head' in MSFS programming. >People want more and more realistic simulation, and I don't>think the group understands aircraft and aviation well enough>to handle the task. Exactly my opinion too. But my guess is that it's even worse. It's that strange attitude that you can observe in many large companies (including MS..) which basically means "why should I improve it when I sell it anyway...."!!And when they set up a new version the literally EXPAND it's capabilities rather than IMPROVE it. > BTW, I've heard the MS FS guys 'hate me'. Wonder why.>> RonFit's exactly into what is said above, doesn't it? ;) Oskar

Shad you are of course correct and I'm pretty well aware that FS2004 is a game rather than a Simulator. But OTOH I can say from my own flying experience that it is a really good game and in some respect very close to some kind of Simulator. It has every provison needed to come even a bit closer to "real" flying but the crucial thing is that some of these provisions are not accessible any more.Look, in that specific field where I was trying to gather some information - actually one autopilot and one autothrottle item - everything is working but it would only be a matter of changing some parameters to have it working as it should!! I think until FS2000 those parameters were accessible until somebody decided for any (unknown) reason that they shouldn't be accessible anymore.Think of buying a new car - a real fantastic one, the one you were dreaming of - but the manufacturer decided that it would only run in first gear! Although you know that there's a 5-speed gearbox the manufacturer just decided not to provide you with a gear lever. Wouldn't that leave you a bit frustrated although it looks great, runs smooth and the Airco is working flawlessly........?Of course I know that more than 90% of all issues of third party applications deal with visual effects, be it fantastic panels, well modeled A/C, photorealistic sceneries and MS did a great job on the wireframe to allow mutiple hot shot's to improve everything to the limit. But obviously nobody really cared about the A/C handling shortcomings although they could be improved quickly and easily. Obviously this is just lower priority at MS as only less that 10% really care for accurate A/C behaviour....So you see it's only this part which leaves me a bitter taste: I know it could be improved easily but nobody cares....How many of you did realize that on constant speed props the engine sound pitch still varies with the throttle lever (=power) position rather than with RPM ?!?! Had only one of the developer team ever been sitting in a C182 or similar he would know.......Oskar

Hi Ron> If you discover useful things about the FS9 [autopilot]>lines let me know. You bet I will...... However as I see it now there's obviously no chance to work around an improved speed/heading capturing which is - see my note at the end of this text - simply ridiculous.> However, one or more of the 'instruction' files have some>adventure programming language code that does speed control>independent of the FS autopilot.Are you referring to the *.ABL files? They look very much like PASCAL source code. However I wonder about that as PASCAL is not an interpretable language.> BTW, MS messed up the SPD hold in FS2K2, especially for IAS>hold. They apparently use GS rather than AIR speed (IAS or>Mach) for the Derivative FB. This is especially bad when>there are winds aloft: the AC speed will increase or drop>untill the GS Rate of change is low so it no longer messes up>the D feedback.>> Nor did they fix it in FS9. I have to wonder how much>these MS guys really fly FS AC. They should have noted the>problem before FS9 was released. A few people in the FS Forum>have noted the problem.>> RonYoure exactly right. I think we have to deal with a main problem here. As my background is purely flying (I'm a retired airline captain) I am of course more concerned about oddities in respect of dynamic behaviour of the flight model rather than of scenery issues or shiny surfaces..:) IMHO the FS developer team has a few shortcomings which are not easy to define: Either they don't have competent beta-testers or they simply ignore their inputs. Maybe also the timelines are too dense for significant changes after beta-testing. There are a few real "stupid" errors/misbehaviours in FS9 (also in earlier versions) with regard to the "real" flying world which - given the many parameters involved in the flying model - could easily be corrected. So the simple question remains: Are they not aware of the most simple issues of flying? Arey they just ignoring any inputs to detected errors/misbehaviour? Or - most likely - do they simply not know about some weak spots in FS?:-hmmm Oskar

Thank you RonYour comment is highly appreciated. I've downloaded your 'comments on aircraft.cfg' and I see my own findings confirmed so far. I have looked up to the XML-gauges of the default A/C (B747) and it might well be that there's something like a proportional control in the autopilot speed control section. But unfortunately I'm not familiar with XML programming so it looks rather chinese to me. So it could well be that this simple control is responsible for the veeery sluggish behaviour of the autothrottle. After all it looks like a worst-case scenario to me as I have to learn about XML programming and that will be a nightmare as I see it....;( (My highest level of programming being Visual Basic, but maybe I'll find a decent tutorial which will not overload my old brain...)BTW for better engine response I have changed record# 1505 to a more linear function with impressive results.As I would figure with the much faster throttle response a P-I control could work quite fine whereas the D control would only be necessary if oscillations occur.Oskar

Thank you Ron, that's what I was afraid of... x( . Have you any information about kind of PID variables for heading and speed control available in the CFG file? MIcrosoft's SDK doesn't mention any of these.Oskar

Well, if you check the latest version of AAM.ini there's quite some information which parameters have been transferred to the CFG file although it is not complete. I prefer AAM ( www.aircraftmanager.com )rather than AirEdit. However I PRESUME that CFG entries have higher priority than AIR entries but there's no reliable information on that except for the hint in MS' Aircraft Container SDK which lists aircraft.CFG in highest priority.I myself am struggling heavily on the issues of the AIR file. It seems that almost nobody has proper knowledge (or is unwilling to share the secrets) on the "whats' and whereabouts' " of this mystery file :-)The drag coefficient for the landing (CDg) gear is obviously set in record #1101 but can also be set in record #1540 (the latter not being used in default A/C).So much for today. It's all I've got till now ;( Oskar

Thanks Bill! But obviously again nobody seems to know anything about these specific issues..... ;(It's the same strange thing that I observed many times. Everything must be polished-up tp the max but when it comes to flying parameters nobody seems to care. Maybe it's my own fault. I'm seemingly still too much into the FLYING thing rather than the PLAYING thing ;-) Oskar

Hi all. I'm new to this forum and I hope I'll find my questions answered here. I'm desperately trying to improve some of the autopilot (and autothrottle) behaviour on the default FS2004 heavies. AAM shows some relevant parameters in record #1199 but unfortunately changing of these parameters have no effect whatsoever. My primary concerns are the sluggish heading rollout and speed adjustment. Although there ARE some specifically mentioned parameters for heading hold/rollout and for autothrottle none of them shows any effect when I alter them.Where's the secret?:-hmmm Regards Oskar