Jump to content
The simFlight Network Forums

LecLightning56

Members
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About LecLightning56

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Yorkshire

Recent Profile Visitors

437 profile views
  1. Probably stating the obvious, but if you disable the First Officer's PFD and MFD gauges in the VC by way of commenting out the appropriate lines in the panel.cfg file, there is a fairly hefty FPS gain on my quite high-spec system. This is akin to what you can do with most of e.g. the PMDG range of aircraft and it can help FPS significantly.
  2. I have done a little experimentation with the steep approach to London City. Clearly the real world aircraft has a ventral speedbrake to facilitate the steep approach which we cannot obviously simulate. So, what I have done is I have modified the aerodynamic coefficients for maximum flap deployment in the .air file for e.g. the 170 to account for the effect of a speedbrake in this configuration. If you initiate a 8nm final to London City at a VAPP of approximately 120 knots, the glideslope is captured by the aircraft with initially speed increasing by a few knots, then speed reducing to VAPP once the glideslope is stabilised correctly (the aircraft is initially high and lags a little in manoeuvring to establish on the glideslope which results in initially a steeper approach path and hence increasing speed: this is corrected later with the speed reducing back to VAPP). I cannot recommend that anyone fiddles with the .air file for these aircraft, but what I have done only applies to full flap deployment. The use of full flap is presumably more advantageous for the London City approach to achieve the slowest speeds for the shorter runway. The changes to the aerodynamic coefficients do not apply to other flap settings e.g. flaps 5 if the definitions of CL, CD and Cm in the .air file are correct. If anyone is interested in what changes I have made then please PM me.
  3. Thanks raam123. I deleted my FSUIPC config file and retested, this time with success (no problems with glideslope capture and adverse behaviour). It is puzzling why profiles not associated with the E-Jets (in my case) have caused conflict with its approach behaviour where glideslope capture is concerned.
  4. I have not tested in all variants (I have all of them). I have just tried a 195 and the aircraft amusingly executes a pitch oscillation once having captured the glideslope. No violent pitch down with this aircraft, but unflyable all the same.
  5. I get the same thing with the aircraft in altitude hold establishing on the glideslope. Once the glideslope is centred, the aircraft pitches down violently. This is just WRONG and a serious shortcoming of the current product. Aircraft is the Embraer 170 v3.
  6. I might be interested in the product if you feel it can stay at Vapp on e.g. an ILS approach to London City (approximately 5 degrees glideslope?), and not deviating above or below the glideslope path. What is your experience?
  7. Confirm you can deploy spoilers with full flap gear down?
  8. Saddened by that news since the approach to London City is good fun to practice if the aircraft is modified accordingly.
  9. Does the new v3 version have a steep approach capability for e.g. London City Airport?
  10. I have managed successfully to use FSUIPC in P3D v4.5 to setup a single throttle lever to use the full detent range of the Aerosoft Airbus Professional A318/319/320/321 (including reverse thrust). It took a little (blind!) experimentation but it seems to work very well. I have posted my findings on avsim.com to this effect: http://https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/561341-aerosoft-airbus-professional-throttle-settings-using-fsuipc/ It would be nice if I could display a message in P3D at the top of the screen which identifies which of the throttle detents has been selected, rather than to rely on animations and audio confirmation. The FSLabs A320 has this option available (by way of a message), but their throttle setup has far greater flexibility than is the case for the Aerosoft Airbus. Can anyone can point me in the right direction for how this could be done, possibly using a lua script? I presume that the physical throttle position would have to be used as a cue for such a message being displayed.
  11. I have now put the E195 through its paces on the Zurich (LSZH) RNAV 14 approach in P3D v4. RNAV seems to work well initially on this approach (the final part is a 12nm straight-in approach on runway heading to RW14), but things go wrong on the final 3.5nm to the runway threshold under LNAV/VNAV control. Before minimums are called (200 feet above threshold), the aircraft drops below the VNAV path suddenly but if left alone climbs slightly later to get back on the vertical profile (again under full LNAV/VNAV control). This does not seem normal behaviour compared with other experiences and disconcerting if the weather is marginal and subject to a decision at minimums. Finally, once autopilot is disengaged, the aircraft has an unusual tendency to track to the left of the runway centreline under conditions of nil wind. Again this tendency seems rather abnormal (what is the driving force for this?). Please explain whether or not my experiences are not untypical, or if the E195 shouild be more capable of a more accurate flightpath with respect to the VNAV profile defined in the FMS.
  12. Pete, Many thanks for your responses. One thing that I cannot get to work is mouse macros in P3D v3. I am having to use FSX-SE to create the macros and then copy the macro files into P3D v3 whereupon they do work succesfully. Confirm that things should be working similarly in P3D v3 as in FSX-SE? I don't believe that I am doing anything differently in P3D compared to FSX-SE where the creation of the mouse macro is concerned. Any thoughts/suggestions here greatly appreciated.
  13. I admit that I have not tried an RNAV approach at another airport, but this does not detract from the fact that the RNAV 02 at Kathmandu is possible with accuracy in P3D v4 using an A320, Boeing 737 and Boeing 757. I believe that the Embraer E-Jets are in a category rather lighter than A320 and should be equally as capable of reproducing similar results to the aircraft quoted. It is this consideration which is being contested here and I shall only be satisfied if somebody can provide evidence that the Feelthere aircraft is up to the job for this procedure. If the real-world aircraft is capable of this approach without special modification, the Feelthere model should also be similarly compliant and as a user of the Feelthere model I don't expect to pick and choose an approach procedure at another airport specifically to match the peculiarities of the model itself which have no regard for real-world operations. It is good that the Feelthere aircraft has an RNAV capability but disappointing that one's enjoyment of this facility could be compromised by other issues which are only encountered by trial and error. My challenge still stands and I await with interest for any user-feedback or from Feelthere themselves which demonstrate compliance for the specified procedure at Kathmandu.
  14. Thanks for your reply. I appear to have an issue with the E-jets and other aircraft whereby the 500 feet GPWS callout is not activated (including with the use of the pmSounds software). This needs further investigation which is probably outside the bounds of this forum.
  15. Tried this again, this time with FMS-managed speed, and the aircraft just is not capable of keeping to the correct track between successive waypoints. I shall throw down the gauntlet to anybody who believes that they can fly a satisfactory automated RNAV approach to runway 02 at Kathmandu with, e.g. E195, all the way to minimums (which you might have to do in poor visibility), without the issues that I have experienced. One thing that does occur which is odd with the E195, is that a pronounced freeze occurs in P3D v4 (and P3D v3) just before a deviation in the flightplan occurs which is identified by a bearing which starts with a highlighted 'L' symbol in the FMC (e.g. L344 degrees with the L highlighted, presumably meaning a left turn to 344 degrees). Anyway, I have thrown down the gauntlet for anybody to prove that this RNAV approach (runway 02 to Kathmandu) is possible fully automated with the E195 to minimums (other unnamed products are successful, particularly the smaller more agile twin jets). If you are successful with the E-jets on this RNAV approach, then a video to show how it is done may be of interest.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. Guidelines Privacy Policy We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.