Jump to content

holland786

Members
  • Posts

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

Reputation

516 Excellent

2 Followers

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. First, thank you for your feedback! We're working on an update to the 4K texture pack which should be available shortly. This may improve your experience. For the sake of our own data, what are your specs? The example you give is a known bug, but this is in an unguided path, meaning it would not be trying to follow the path on the ND anyway. This happens in a number of scenarios, inlucidng course-to-fix legs in procedures, overfly waypoints, some cases where you overshoot a turn, etc. This is accurate to the real FMS behaviour and the result of intentional tweaking. The drawing bug is not intended, but because it does not affect guidance is not a priority at the moment. If you have other examples of LNAV issues, feel free to let me know or open a GitHub issue: https://github.com/flybywiresim/aircraft/issues I've forwarded this feedback to the dev who worked on VNAV. The level off point missing is a known bug due to it not being able to placed on MANUAL legs at the moment. This is a known issue that the engine model is currently overpowered. This will see continuous work going forward. Feel free to open an issue on GitHub if it doesn't already exist: https://github.com/flybywiresim/aircraft/issues There should be some improvements coming in the next release, look out for that.
  2. Curious to hear more about your experience (and what matters most to you), always helpful to near what people are looking forward to the most.
  3. Load/save is far from a basic functionality. It requires ensuring all systems save and load a consistent state that can occur in the real aircraft (made challenging by the fact that many of the IRL plane systems we design around are not made to spawn in flight - this is a problem that has to be designed around even in real full motion sims). At an alpha stage on both aircraft it simply does not make sense to spent so much time designing support for this around systems that are constantly changing and being improved. But it is an alpha release problem. In the past 4 years we have moved systems between different programming languages, rewritten them dozens of times, changed the architecture of the avionics along the way, all while having to take into account extensive future system development, performance considerations and feasability while running entirely in-process. Adding yet another level of complexity that has to span multiple technologies and frameworks while we already have to address bugs and performance concerns early in the release cycle is not a good idea. I'm curious to know on which information you base this claim. If you have identified a basic restructuring we could do to implement load/save, we'd love to hear about it. Furthermore, with all the code being freely available to use and modifiy, contributions to it would be very welcome. To be clear - we would definitely like this functionality to exist. But it's not as simple as it seems, especially during alpha.
  4. Not quite the case - fms-v2 is available to the public in the development version, but it was decided to merge it without FINAL APP so that the rest of the features would be available to users without delay. See my above response regarding FINAL APP itself.
  5. No one has "lost focus", and FYI, the A380 project was started 4 years ago. So certainly not a new distraction to avoid working on FINAL APP. Otherwise, we'd have been distracted for a long time. The reality is just that the person working on FINAL APP is on vacation, and that it was previously waiting for fms-v2 to be merged (which it now is). We thank you for using our aircraft, however. Glad you enjoy it!
  6. Could you try out the Stable version and see if there is any difference? Are you on the SU15 Beta? And are you using DX11 or DX12?
  7. Almost, it's actually a difference between the Thales and Honeywell FMSes. So either behavior is right for both ceo and neo, as long as it's consistent with the FMS version used in that particular product. In this case, it is correct for both since Fenix does the Thales FMS and we do the Honeywell FMS. Note that the A380 version of the same FMS behaves like Thales, even though Honeywell produces it.
  8. I don't think this is quite completely true, the quote I've gotten from pilots is that it doesn't work well, but I'm sure it's used a fair bit. I did however hear that intervention is quite frequent though. BTW, VNAV is more than managed descent. It provides more accurate predictions and extra symbology on the ND.
  9. Glad you found the performance to be good. It's been an area of focus recently and we are going to bring even more optimizations going forward. it is much easier for us to optimize things now that we have a somewhat established idea of how we want to structure the aircraft's code and approaching three years of experience developing for MSFS😉 I'm currently working on a major, commonly requested feature for the A380 that involves very complex display rendering and animation - and performance has been my #1 priority since the start. So we really do want to bring all of you the smoothest experience possible. It is a challenge to do that in Alpha, but we try our best!
  10. Out of curiosity, what's wrong with the LNAV? While I'm obviously biased as having developed large parts of it, last time I checked it is one of the only LNAV systems that properly model the real life capabilities and limitations of the FMS - other sim aircraft trying to fix every path no matter how broken an inserted flight plan is - which does not occur in real life on an Airbus. The only flaw I can think about right now is the excessive TAD value during path capture turn generation on some leg pairs. Other than that, I have myself compared it with the real plane and they both mess up in the exact same spots.
  11. Keep in mind the A32NX models the Honeywell FMS computer while Fenix has the Thales version. One of the differences is that Thales creates temporary flight plans for more modifications than the Honeywell one does, which will often let you delete stuff without confirming. Either versions could be on CEO or NEO in real life.
  12. Did you try this recently? Curved DTO paths have been in for more than a year. This is how this FMS works in real life. DME arcs are fully supported, but keep in mind both aircraft use different navdata sources. It might be a navdata issue. Do you have navigraph data installed in the base sim?
  13. I have attempted to contact you to get you to test various builds for a while now with no answer... There is also no "bubble" to "burst". We are not under the impression that this will fix all problems. There are other fixes on the way, and so far the feedback is much better than we anticipated.
  14. You need to post the error message if you want a chance of someone being able to find the issue.
  15. That is absolutely our goal. Since we have recently ported the last screen (apart from the MCDU) to be entirely comprised of our own code, it is now much more practical for us to optimise them.
×
×
  • Create New...