SAS443

Good question. At least visible when inbound the IAF. And you must be in NAV-mode for the "final"-prompt to be displayed in the CDU. It wont show while in HDG select (like if you are receiving terminal vectoring) Since you are flying a pure RNAV, it should prompt "FINAL X.X" where X is the pseudo glideslope coded for the procedure.

Non-ILS approach must be loaded MDA must be entered on TO/APPR page in CDU "FINAL APPR" must be selected on LSK6R now you can descend below FCU altitude while in PROF-mode. (akin to select "LAND" while shooting an ILS) That's all there is to it.

Have you heard of the Lockheed L-1011 Tristar? Direct Lift Control (DLC), moved the spoilers up/down to track the glideslope, instead of elevators. This meant a more constant pitch attitude could be held during final approach. If you were high on approach and in landing config, push yoke forward which commanded spoilers to rise from its 7 degree reference up-position to max. 14 degrees. Likewise if you were too low, pull back yoke and spoiler panels would restract and the added lift subsequently shallowed the descent rate. Ingenious concept, and a similar feature is also available on the Boeing 787 (called autodrag)

Yeah this is a quirk for the A300/310 family IIRC... The secret for a succesful RNAV approach is that you must arrive at platform altitude in either v/s or level change and not in Prof. When you are established on platform altitude in altitude hold mode, you can arm the pseudo glideslope from the FMS and select "PROF" on the FCU (the actual airbus term).

Was not a problem with Trottletek to setup the transfer. But when I bought a yoke from another manufacturer and wired them the money, my bank actually paused the transaction and called me to verify the transfer of funds and asked what kind of company the seller was and how I intended to use their product. Not sure why to be honest. It was a legit hardware re-seller in the UK...

I believe this is a tough one to get "right" compared to real world flying. Consider the following images I took earlier this fall. First one has a sky/sunlight more akin to what XP12 is showing. But the camera (my cheap smart phone) is compensating brightness due to the simple fact that the inside of cockpit is main focus On the other hand. The image below has a much toned down brightness of the sky, since the lens doesn't need to account for the darker cockpit. Same cloudscape, but vastly different appearance... I get what LR is trying to achieve, believe me. I'm a pilot flying in bloody scandinavia where the sun is always low during winter! For reference, this at 12:55 pm local time where I live, late december. My take on the default effect is that it's a work in progress, and thankfully can be tweaked, as evidenced above.

Don't own the flightbox. But I 've had throttletek products in the past (and even had a unit returned due to shipping damage, no hazzle from Throttletek). Roberto, the owner, is a genuine good guy and has been around for 15years or so. Just watch out for shipping and customs costs (and taxes!)

However both EASA (CS-ADR-DSN) and ICAO (ANNEX 14 and/or doc 9157 part 4) has extensive design guidelines for harmonising PAPI and G/S indication to pilots, irrespective of EAH (eye-to-antenna heights) ICAO ANNEX 14 vol 1 ch 5: This usually has a consequence of moving the PAPI slightly to upwind side. I work at a large intl. Airport and our PAPIs are some 25 odd meters behind the GP antennae installations for this purpose. The ambition is to have the G/S and PAPI indications coincide to the pilots as much as practically possible while not be incompliant with wheel over threshold height minimums for larger acft. On a sidenote: The aiming point markers are governed by PAPI placement, and not ILS GP location (ref EASA CS ADR-DSN.L.540)

Do you cross-reference the published altitudes along the glideslope with your altimeter? For example ENTC ILS 18, At 4.5DME your altimeter should indicate roughly 1934 ft. Keep in mind G/S angle at Tromso is 4.00 degrees. Estimated rate of descents are published for various groundspeeds on the charts and You can easily cross reference by displaying the FPV donut in the 737NG. It should rest at -4 degree angle obviously.

LLZ antennas for an ILS approach are located on the opposing end of the runway (hence the ability for an autopilot to track it during roll-out). G/S antennas roughly abeam the aiming point markers (usually co-located with DME and the PAPI installation).

regarding broken NAV in the A310. For some reason, all pilot assists were ON for me. Must've been reset after SU11 40 anniversary installation (they were not changed during regular SU11 beta ) https://forum.inibuilds.com/topic/6128-a310-stops-following-flight-director/?do=findComment&comment=23294

negative. Fix you can enter to get distance/radial in on the CDU. But not a visual range ring on ND

For me, NAV will always kick in as ACTIVE FMA mode, but the FD roll bar is indicating left/right turn, however AP will not follow FD commands in Roll. No indication that NAV is only armed (in blue), NAV is green. Basically, AP has just given up tracking the FMS route, but no warning is given.

Mine is not following the route either. Well it's 50/50...the first few wpts are tracked fine. But all of a sudden it seems like AP stops listening to FD commands, which are valid and indicates a turn towards active WPT. ND is also updated with correct bearing and distance information, but AP refuses to turn. For some reason we are a small group of users who has this. Btw I have been flying A310 since FS2004 (SSW A310) , Have the A310 for XP, and acted as former betatester another A300 suite of products. I know my way around an Airbus A300/A310. Something is def. odd here.

been tinkering with gliders and helicopters. They may not be perfect (but enough to laud praise from both communities). Looking back at FSX/P3D and how it never really materialized into proper heli/soaring sim. One must admire the versatility of the physics in MSFS (when airborne. Ground is still meh). And it's only been on the market for 2,5 years. Insane rate of evolving. Unmatched even.

The autoflight seems extremely unpolished. As a seasoned A300/A310 flyer (in XP11) , this is not the same behaviour we're seeing in MSFS. Just the abrupt transition from SRS to P-CLB (where my plane took a nosedive to initiate acceleration segment) and the NAV mode that loses track of flightplan is telling me that the autoflight needs alot of care. NAV complety broke when I did a DIR-TO command to wpt MOXAM. Right now, you can't compare them IMHO. XP-version is head and shoulders more polished and bugfree. Which isn't a surprise perhaps? Edit: Another image where NAV and FD lateral bar is on different planets...

Ah thanks for the heads up! Totally missed that.

Horrible panel quality of the A310. I have compared it to my XP A310. Especially the push buttons. I am running 4K... XP11 ---> MSFS

To be honest, I feel the area between the more advanced avionics and stand alone EFB's is getting more blurred for each year? Especially in smaller segment GA/bizjets. I mean in one of the planes I fly. It has brand new Garmin G3X-suite. So from the touch screen menus you have access to Airplane Flight manual Weight and balance /Performance Checklists (incl Emergency checklists) Jeppesen charts VFR+IFR+Aerodrome ground Flightplan uplink from external device/wifi And obviously a moving map with terrain/obstacle monitoring + weather.

Typical Rotax behaviour due to high compression. The prop is very stiff to rotate in preflight as well when performing the oil check/gurgle. It wont windmill when flying best glide, at least not the Rotax 912 100hp engine I am familiar with.

Any horisontal gust will exert a force on the airplane empennage. Gusts tends to veer clockwise in N. hemipshere so you can expect both a change in speed and direction of the wind acting on the rudder. Hence yawing motion is to be expected since the acft wants to weather vane. But not as violent as in MSFS in my opinion.

While you may be correct, the issue is persistent throughout the flight regions, not just due to variation in surface winds (which can be extremely local phenomenon btw). Just take a glance at the slip/skid indicator in any G1000 equipped plane in MSFS. It's going literally bananas whenever wind direction or speed is changing by just 2 degrees/kts or so. I have never seen that behavior on any G1000 plane I have flown IRL. Just my 2cents.

Read the OP, very carefully 😉

You make your own notes, overlaying the charts. So could draw a taxiway clearance on the ground map, or mark if some taxiways are closed , or if minimums on an approach are temporarily changed (from NOTAM). Imagination is endless. I use the feature alot in Garmin Pilot IRL, it will def. come in handy in Navigraph/FS aswell

Any word on the actual CFD model quality/resolution? I mean a fine vs coarse model is night & day regarding computational complexity. It's not like we have an abundance of CPU overhead as it is. edit: or is the heavy lifting done on Azure side?😁