Aamir

I'm not sure which way to go here - https://youtu.be/AiZ_YRHYjRY?t=370 - you can see the Flap 1 > Flap 2 process causes pitch change significantly enough that it triggers a momentary 400 v/s, even, but the nose is coming down quite materially.

Fair deal 😉

That is extremely weird, not heard of that one before.. Can you send in a ticket please?

Load the aircraft first, then open the assistance options. You'll see the volocopter stuff, but you can still expand each line and see the options within (and change them).

Any of the AI co-pilot options, for example. For whatever it's worth - internally there are a couple of people flying around on the betas and don't have a problem with them. Given we don't really do anything with in-sim stuff, generally SUs and such don't change much for us.

that is rather far from the truth - it has nothing to do with the AP. just opening the weather debug menu will show you in certain scenarios "realistic" turbulence will give you up and down drafts of 1500ft in a second, it's pretty insane. most of the pilots that saw this on the beta team went: "that's.. not right" and ended up setting their turbulence to low, to stop the airplane getting thrown around randomly. it then became a recommendation. but it is just that. a recommendation. do with it what you want. it doesn't really change much except how bouncy your ride is. but it doesn't really change much with AP control or such. it also has very little to do with the behaviour you see in your video. i'm not sure what causes this, but SU14 is notorious for resetting your assistance settings. this is the first place i would look.

I don't think you have an understanding of what developing Sharklets entail if you claim they can be done in a day or a week. It took FSL 2 years to release Sharklets. Clearly, if you want to do it right, it will take time.

lol

Ultimately, criticism is fine. It is what it is, I can't do much about that - it is simply a byproduct of choosing to do what we're doing. You could have had IAEs around a year ago, but with 0 actual simulation behind it. Just a skinned CFM with "interpreted" display data and a bunch of nonsense running behind the displays. But hey, it would have worked, I guess. It was our choice and our decision to build both the IAEs and CFMs to be better. Much better. We set our targets on stuff that is new and innovative. That is what our company is about - but pushing the boundaries come at cost. Both financial, and opportunity. Trust me, I stand here today sometimes wishing we did, in fact, just skin the IAEs and call it a day, followed by quickly throwing out the A321 and A319 and simply just moving on. It would have been cheaper by a factor of 10, and I'd reckon most wouldn't have noticed. But I would have. And it's not our ethos. As a consumer I believe in putting my dollars behind a company whose products I admire, but also whose ethos aligns with what I'm looking to get out of my dollars. So, that may open the door to criticism, because of how long it took to do. I think that's fair, and it does mean some customers completely disagree with it, and no longer want to spend their money with us - but we're always going to end up pushing for quality and depth over timelines, because there's no joy in what we do otherwise.

Amazing all that detail comes out in a post and all everyone cares about is one snippet with: "No, I'm just happy with what we're producing tbh.", and straight to the races with the timeline discussion again. You are absolutely right, we are certainly never giving timelines out again - but it was worth a shot, everyone was asking for them stating that they're OK with it moving and understand it's the way it goes, but at least it's better than not knowing any of our aims/goals/targets, and so we delivered a timeline. It moved and now it's all people care about as opposed to the mad stuff we're doing, and now it's a case of: "why give timelines". It is rather exhausting. Can't win, hence I state - I no longer care about timelines, only that I am happy with what we're building. Maybe it does come out end of October. It's certainly quite possible. Or perhaps I see something I don't like, and want to fix it. And it moves again. I don't know, I'm not an oracle. Our timeline is October. It remains October. It is our shooting point. But I'm not going to rush a labour of love (because we sure as heck aren't getting paid for this update, no $$$ being exchanged here for this work) just to make an arbitrary timeline I set for us. That's just me doing damage to myself, then.

Yes. It does.

There are several versions of MCDU available on the A320 series. Some produced so early that they even have CRT displays. This version has a 300x300 screen, hence you are seeing "pixelisation" - but in reality this is what it looks like. We have equipped this aircraft with it given it is a "wing-tip fence" aircraft, i.e an earlier airframe. When we build the sharklets (later airframes), we will include the newer and higher-resolution display on the MCDU. The idea overall is to allow the customer on the "journey" of the A320 series, so to speak - such that they can experience the various nips, tucks, and improvements Airbus made as the aircraft developed over its life cycle.

No, it comes shipped with a default Navigraph set. We do not use the in-sim data.

Flexibility and 10 years of having a stable platform to work on. MSFS is trying something new - it's going to move (and has moved) the goalposts a few times in the early days. This is the early days. ESP as a platform, and it's FDE hasn't really changed much throughout the iterations. Developers like stationary targets to aim towards. Right now MSFS are adding new parameters, new tuning values, etc etc as they update the sim every couple of months. CFD was released midway through, so on and so forth. It's important to note a lot of developers in ESP, toward the latter years, ended up also externalising factors into their control. I'm not sure about FSL, I've never looked into it personally, but second hand I've heard there's some externalisation going on with the FM there too. Even if they haven't - you've hit the nail on the head - it's about two things - 1) Flexibility 2) Maturity Inferior or superior is always up for debate - but factually the technology is newer and has interesting potential. Whether or not it lives up to it, is a question of both the above factors and how developers cope with growing pains. And the final fact still stands - if you want a perfect recreation of a simulated aircraft, you won't find it on current computing hardware. If you want to get darn close - externalise. Doesn't matter what sim you're in - there's a reason multi million dollar FFS don't all run the same global FDE - it's specific because the only way of getting great results is going to be controlling both input and output as opposed to simply input.

Yeah, a video is good - I remember seeing a lot of weird behaviour in alternate law, and worse in Direct Law in the FFS.

I think various opinions are okay, especially when it comes to qualitative aspects of the airplane like FLARE and whatnot, which we can always work towards, but I am extremely curious about a couple of points in your statement. 1) What "poor" parameters are you talking about, and by what metrics? There are portions of the FM that are externalised and not immediately obvious to the naked eye - if you take a look at the changelog, these should be articulated slightly further there - but I am always open to discussing parameters with someone who has questions. 2) The suggestion that the model was created with Normal Law as the main focus is definitely one I find irksome - but more to the point, could you define why you find Direct Law to be a weak point in your experience? The aircraft, flight model, and subsequent fly by wire are built layer by layer. Raw flight model first. Direct law. Then Normal Law. Each step, including Direct Law, is pilot validated before passing to the next stage, but contrary to my prior point, pilots pretty much have only ever flown the airplane in Direct Law in sim sessions, so that is the benchmark. I haven't actually spoken to a pilot that's flown the real thing in Direct Law yet given the absolute rarity of the occasion, but I'm sure they're out there. With all that being said, we got an FFS all to ourselves, and recorded the Direct Law behaviour with various weights, CGs, etc - and the pitch and roll rates in Direct Law, before pilot validation, are matched to the rates achieved in the FFS.

Pilots are taught from day 1 that during flare you're supposed to have some form of consistent backpressure on the stick, whereas in full normal law you would not have to do this, you would pitch the nose up and it would more or less stay there. This is quite unnatural to someone coming out of any other conventional airplane, so the Airbus forces you to do this too, it's a "fix" to the unnatural behaviour you can see in normal law, during the landing phase. Aircraft usually pitch down as they enter ground effect too. Interestingly, the A321Neo first had modified flare law, at 100RA with a pitch down input at 50RA instead of 50RA and 30RA, and then they further revised it to actually remove the nose down tendency just on that aircraft because it seemed to do it on its own due to the characteristics of the airframe. Frankly, I find it a dark art, all this stuff.

0.25 degrees/s is extremely low, then, mind. That's even less the Emanuel encountered by 35% or so, him having encountered 0.375 degrees/s - and he already said it "basically didn't input any nose down" - so that would then be in the opposite direction. This is the issue, it makes sense for it to be variable and dynamic, because a predetermined nose down rate wouldn't work for so many different situations. 0.25 degrees a second, variable pitch on landings based on weight, CG, flap settings, etc - with - is not going to be consistent with the design intent for the system. The higher your pitch, the more you're going to need to apply backstick as the energy dissipates in the landing phase, hence the higher your 50ft pitch snapshot is, the more backstick it induces you to use, and vice versa. For example, check out the end of Emanuel's latest video, where he tries a flap full approach and says that it is more consistent with what he's expecting. That would be more than 0.375 degrees/s (or 0.25 degrees/s) as the pitch was higher.

Classic Airbus'ism - conflicting information in documents. You'd be surprised how often this happens between FCOM, FCTM, AMM, and all else. Before the rest of it, I will say this is something we have tried, because I've seen it floating around here and there. Vehemently, every type rated pilot that tried it said it was far too strong and overpowering. I guess my ultimate question is, what is the point of taking a pitch snapshot at 50ft RA then? Seems arbitrary and fairly pointless were that the case. My other thought on this is that a predetermined 2 degree nose down rate is pretty dangerous. 2 degrees a second for 8 seconds is 16 degrees in total pitch deflection. If you floated the aircraft, you're smashing it down on the nose unless you consistently hold in backstick. While this is the intent of the system, in practise you can visually see it works quite differently. Observe this video, for example - https://youtu.be/b3KKZjfijDE?t=1003 You can see the sidestick neutral after the initial flare, followed by just small jabs of backstick here and there to keep the nose raised. At one point, a bit of forward stick is even applied to bring the nose down. 2 degrees a second of nose down input would look significantly different, I feel.

It's a compromise for now - we're fixing it in the next update by externalising some factors, but for now you have a lot less pitch when on a glideslope than you should have in Flap 3 configuration. Flap full is ok.

I will say this much. The flap 3 pitch attitude is incorrect. But, I feel strongly about his comments with "this is not how an Airbus flares", because he actually demonstrated, almost perfectly, the FLARE mode in an A320, doing exactly what it's supposed to do - and the fact that we haven't taken any shortcuts with building it, and it's as dynamic as the real aircraft. In his video, he approaches 50ft with 1 degree of pitch. At 50ft, the THS is frozen, and the aircraft takes a "snapshot" of the pitch attitude. It has now memorised 1 degree. Then, it does some math. It sits there and works out, "I need to go from this memorised, reference pitch, to -2 degrees, over 8 seconds". What does that work out to, class? It's a delta of 3 degrees. Over 8 seconds. That's 0.375 degrees a second. 0.375 degrees a second is nothing basically. And you can see it, after he floats. It's suuuuuuper gentle and the nose is just _creeping_ down. Now try again at 6 degrees of reference pitch. That'll give you 1 degree/s of nose down input. It will come down faster. The airbus isn't stupid. If you're approaching flat, it's not going to force you to land on the nose gear with some "predefined" nose down input of 1-2 degrees/s. You'll end up in a crash. It's smarter than that.

That sounds like a system crash - can you PM me your logs folder available here: ProgramData/Fenix/

It goes beyond not providing what we need, but not actually being compatible outside of a very niche portion of the SDK, so for several developers it would require an entire rewrite of some pretty core parts of the aircraft; it's just not worth putting several months and tens of thousands into something that'll lead to customer complaints for not functioning correctly (most customers wouldn't understand the difference between us doing a bad job, and a platform limitation), overall lower performance (even when not using WXR), and several features we'd have to remove from our existing simulation to support it. With that said, we'd gladly put that sort of effort into a WXR system if it were to address the aforementioned issues.

It's more consistent now, but that's negating the fact that rudder hardware goes from twist bases on joysticks, to TPRs like I have, to mechanical linked rudders some people run out of real flight decks. I cannot tune for every single one of those possibilities, in the same way I cannot tune the sidestick sensitivity for every stick on the market. If the rudder is too sensitive, I'd highly recommend opening the tuning menu and making your own adjustments to find your personal fit or liking - I can't quite do much about folks that don't want to do this, as all we can do ultimately is provide a consistent and linear control mechanism upon which the user needs to adjust their hardware to.

Okay, just ensure it's off, reboot - and try Fenix again - and in the meanwhile, are you running any Anti Virus software in the background other than windows defender?