Jump to content

Aamir

Commercial Member
  • Content Count

    1,119
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,598 Excellent

12 Followers

About Aamir

  • Rank
    Cookies!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Building PCs, Commercial Aviation

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    Other
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

4,437 profile views
  1. We've announced several times that a remote MCDU will come - it's NOT hardware and has nothing to do with ProSim. It's a simple question of what benefits the consumer more? IAEs or a request from a small (relative to the size of the entire customer base) portion of customers? Definitely IAEs. So our resources are there right now. This is also why we are currently hiring.
  2. I'm not sure how much time you've spent on a A320s flight deck with the engines switched on but all I will say is that the crew use noise cancelling headsets for a reason. Re the FM, well - https://youtu.be/ocWDdm825B0?t=6124 What was released was far from perfect in the FM department, with flap drag values being all over the shop. This is a significantly more accurate FM from a quantitative perspective, but also qualitative as noted by V1 above.
  3. We've been trying to find this one, but it's a tricky little bugger to get. We're still looking - just know that we're aware and doing our best to find a repeatable pattern.
  4. Yep! That's what I'm talking about it my post, it's called delta updating. We've built a new installer system to support it. Soon we'll be able to push 5kb updates to system software instead of distributing the entire 1.4gb installer.
  5. We made good progress on it this last week. We're now starting some internal testing in the coming week, and thereafter we'll send it out to our testing team to let it sit there for a while. Don't expect it very soon (read: next couple of weeks) - but it's coming along nicely. Trust me, our server costs hurt us too. One could buy a rather nice car each month with what it costs to distribute the files!
  6. I cannot make promises here - 3rd Party Hardware is, to a great degree, something limited by our licensing agreement with ProSim. Logically speaking it's a slippery slope - they're cockpit builders, we're desktop line. So, there's a blurred line between the two of "I only use one or two bits, not a whole flight deck!", but I am lobbying in the background (when not drowning in software changes to Fenix). Software, on the other hand, like remote MCDUs and the sort - they're on the radar.
  7. I mean, it does take all of 10 seconds to do this - all you have to do is have it installed on both systems and when you want to use a different system, log into your account on the website, go to settings and click RESET LICENSE. Run it on your new PC. Rinse and repeat each time you change system. https://kb.fenixsim.com/license-reset < for more information.
  8. Not a problem, sorry for the inconvenience!
  9. There is no hotfix. The latest version is 1.0.5.139. Umberto was in this thread earlier giving us some more explanation on this, so we will amend it once again. We have disabled the brake temperature simulation when we're told pushback is occuring, but there seem to be exceptions to that case where other variables are triggered to 1 and we need to disable the brake temperature modelling also. We will add this. For now, instead of waiting 15 minutes for the overheated brakes - head into MCDU MENU > MAINT > FAILURES, hit the CLR button on your MCDU and select the line with Brake Temperatures. It will clear the high brake temps instantly.
  10. Interesting! Yeah, do let me know if it happens again and ideally a video would be great to assess what's going on.
  11. PATH TOO STEEP is just a message. It does not have operational ramifications, so you can just ignore it. As for AP disconnects, there's nothing we have done to change any logic there other than change the amount of travel needed for a Disconnect and made it larger. We usually find in 99% of the cases that the AP disconnects in MSFS are caused by significant wind shifts, dumping the airplane into (or lower than) VLS - or an errant control binding that will cause/hold an input. There are also Airbus "gotchas" where in several cases the aircraft will NOT engage the autopilot. For example, it will not engage the autopilot if there is a control input currently active. i.e you cannot hold the stick left and engage the AP at the same time. You also cannot engage the autopilot whilst below VLS. If below VLS, funnily enough, your airplane will also enter TOGA LK, slamming in thrust. So, if you hit one of the numpad buttons to change view for example, MSFS also has that bound to trim or elevator, can't remember which. This will put an input in that will disconnect the AP.
  12. It's bound to AUTOPILOT OFF in MSFS, so assign the button you want to this binding and use that as the AP Disco. Not needed, it's already been seen and acknowledged in development updates channel, Dave's Updates. Will get it fixed shortly.
  13. If you own a hydraulically damped Airbus sidestick. So, something £2000+, think Brunner or the likes. Meant to go in a proper FTD or something like that.
  14. For those in the SU11 beta - please don't expect a fix in the immediate short term for the displays - we expressly do not support beta builds of MSFS because they pretty variable. We will, of course, investigate the display issue internally, but we will not be rushing a new build out to support it until we know more.
  15. Ok, thanks for that - I'll make the required changes and disable the brake simulation for all these cases too. I'm not too worried about the brake simulation being switched off during Active Pause, at least on first glance. I'll see if any unexpected MSFS'isms occur when we do this, though. I respectfully disagree. We are unequivocally not making changes to make the aircraft more accessible and non-frustrating. We're making changes to the aircraft to make it more realistic and true to the characteristics of the actual thing. At the end of the day, FLARE moved backwards instead of forwards in the last couple of updates due to unrelated changes in flap lift - this had a knock on effect. We could leave it be and just go: "It is what it is, deal with it.", but that's not really in the spirit of continued forward development. Things will change from time to time as we learn more about MSFS's aero engine that will allow us to exploit and find more areas we can bring our virtual airplane closer to the real beast - in this case it moved backward at first, then forwards. All said and done about wind changes and whatnot, mea culpa. But I would rather make these changes than just live with something that is a sub-par experience. Here is a nice overview of how Blackbox, a type rated line captain on the A320, feels about the latest changes: https://clips.twitch.tv/EnchantingPopularVelociraptorSoonerLater-Ry3uTevTWCjnHrM0 At the end of the day, I appreciate the basic sentiment of your message, however. Thankfully, we don't plan to change FLARE much past what we've done now. I think it's in a good spot now.
×
×
  • Create New...