Skyrock

I have the latest version of the Airbus (.105) installed in P3D v4 and v5 but for some reason, the config manager for v5 struggles with adding FS2Crew into the airbus in P3D v5. It says in the config manager that it's active but it's not. After reinstalling FS2Crew and activating/deactivating a couple of times I then added the entries in the panel.cfg myself and it works now.

Hello, I noticed that on every flight after the first, the PMs callout "1000 to go" and his subsequent action to set the TCAS to Below is not triggered. On the first flight it works just fine, but after that the PM never does it again. He will, however, call out the crusing altitude shortly after ("crusing FLXXX, check"). So it shows that he knows the CRZ level and it is correctly set, just the trigger is missing. Can you please have a look why that happens? Thank you very much!

Sounds great, thank you!

Hello, I tried Little Navmap today and so far it's awesome! However, maybe I'm missing this, but if not: is is possible to add the actual flown route when looking up a flight in the logbook? As of now I can only see the flight plan routing, but today I got so many vectors that the flown route doesn't really resemble the planned one. Thank you! Martin

Ah yes, I forgot that it's the PFs duty. Then I think I'll just switch off the option that PM controls the lights. Thanks!

Hello, so far FS2Crew works flawlessly with the Airbus. However, I have one feature request: is it possible to add an option that the PM keeps the RWY turnoff lights on when he does the after landing flow? At night they are kinda useful and so I have to turn them on again. Thanks! Martin

Ok, will check on the next trip! Thx!

Indeed it is about the PM tutorial. I see, however, then he doesn't call for the after takeoff climb checklist and also not for the Standard Altimeter stetting when passing the transition altitude. I get kind of stuck there.

Hello, I don't know if I'm really mumbling that hard, but the PF has a lot of trouble getting my readback correct. Whenever I depart as PM with Flaps 2, the command and readback for flaps 1 works flawlessly. But when the PF commands "Flaps 0" and I read back "speed checked, flaps zero", it always understands (reads in the green line) "Speed checked, flaps two". I tried pronouncing it different ways, but it will just not work. at some point it even shows "speed checked, flaps full" although that doesn't make sense at all. Only with set and checked I can proceed, otherwise he will not call for the After Takeoff/Climb checklist. Can you please check whether there is a possibility to fine-tune this or so? Or is it just me? Thank you! Regards, Martin

Congratulations, you have come up with a lengthy calculation, yet failed to provide a proof that an idle descent is less economic than having to apply thrust during the whole descent. Even Airbus states in their "getting to grips" manual (see here) that the higher the cost index - the steeper the descend path - the shorter the descent distance - the later the top of descent (TOD) But I'm sure you won't accept this since it's Airbus and not Boeing. They haven't re-invented the CI and it's not a rocket science, so this can be applied to Boeing, too. Even in our own FCOM provided by PMDG it implies that the usual descent is flown in IDLE thrust. The NGX, the 777 as well as the 747-400 prove that the above mechanic works there the exact same way, so I don't accept the "it's not a bug, it's a feature" attitude towards this VNAV behavior. I'll consider opening a ticket since this discussion here leads to nowhere.

I did not say fuel burn is the only economic determinant, but I have already learnt in the topic about ISA dev. that you tend to pick those parts in my post which suit your argumentation, ignoring everything else, so I'll leave that here. Please stop turning my statements into something I've never said nor meant.. Hopefully someone from PMDG might be able to give a statement regarding this topic.

I did. In chapter 11, it reads: For me, this sounds like applying thrust is the exception rather than the usual procedure. Again: my "problem" here is not the off-idle. Thats completely fine for me. My problem is the A/T spooling up and down in the descent due to a too shallow descent. A higher CI would result in a higher speed which can be easily achieved by delaying the descent and flying a steeper profile, in particular for a 747 which has more drag than a 777 this should be working just fine. It just doesn't make sense to me to have a rather shallow descent path where you'll always have to apply thrust which burns more fuel (besides being slower than at CRZ level given there are not better winds down there) instead of remaining at optimum CRZ level and having an idle descent. I was using CI70 all the time, so I would not consider this as particularly fast and still it had to keep the speed up (with a rather shallow V/S of around 1800-2200ft/min)

An idle descent from the T/D to the approach. If there are constraints or ATC interventions along the way which have to be met, then it can not necessarily be an idle descent, but so far my descents were without constraints... Even in reality, VNAV sometimes screws up. It most probably is more reliable than the simulation, but still not always.

Of course I don't see as much drag required messages because the A/T has to apply thrust the whole time. I did not say that the off idle descent is a flaw, I said that VNAV descents in general have some flaws, because they are not perfect and will never be.

There are certainly some flaws when it comes to VNAV descents, but it seems to be happening everytime and from what I saw, the -400 does a better job here despite it being older. Only when the -8 is forced to go into idle (directs or rapid wind changes), it seems to work, but in normal conditions, it's always spooling up and down.