LecLightning56

Does the new v3 version have a steep approach capability for e.g. London City Airport?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have just been experimenting with RNAV approaches with the E195 in P3D v4. In particular, I have been using a challenging approach, the RNAV to runway 02 at Kathmandu (VNKT). The initial stages of the RNAV course, by way of a STAR arrival, appear to have been conducted faultless. However, in the latter stages, the aircraft seems to have extreme problems following the LNAV course and executes a series of rather rapid S-turns in order to attempt to regain the correct track. This is worsened a few miles out from the runway itself, whereupon the aircraft still has serious problems maintaining a controlled flightpath laterally (still under FMS control and autopilot, NAV and VNAV selected and operative), rendering manual take-over to land safely when one might have hoped that, particularly with low visibility, the aircraft should have followed a more accurate profile. Has anyone had any experience of RNAV approaches and have you experienced similar issues?

I suddenly realised that I had the Project Magenta pmSounds GPWS sound files available as a substitute for the default with the Feelthere/Wilco models. By removing the GPWS callouts which are standard with the ERJ-170/190 and using the pmSounds files instead, I have found that nothing above 1000 feet is called and, strangely, the 500 feet call is not made (similar to the default GPWS). So, the question to the Feelthere team is, has the 500 feet GPWS call been removed from the E-Jets models (despite the existence of a 500 feet GPWS sound file)? Is there any user control over the choice of the GPWS callouts?

I am having a strange issue with the ERJ-170/190 whereby not all the GPWS callouts are made on the approach. I seem to be missing the 500 feet radio altimeter callout approaching a runway. This occurs in P3D v3 and P3D v4. Any clues why this is, or isn't it implemented in the simulation?

One further thing, the control knob in question is not rotatable, you either click one side to increment, the other side to decrement or scroll up and down with the mouse to do both. Where scrolling is concerned, is an axis assignment to a game controller possible, or is it only possible to use buttons/switches/key presses with mouse macros in FSUIPC?

I have now managed to create a mouse macro in FSX-SE for the Feelthere E195 (which also works with the E170). The macro works correctly for these aircraft. Unsurprisingly, the mouse macro also works in P3D v3, but I cannot create mouse macros in P3D v3 itself (why?). Rather obviously the macro will not work in P3D v4, unless there is some other way of getting the required information from the gauge file. Forgive me if I am wrong, but are you looking at mouse macros for FSUIPC5, Pete?

Reinhard, I have just tried the Feelthere 195 in FSX-SE and cannot use mouse macros in FSUIPC. If you have succeeded with this, then please let me know what you did.

Thanks, Reinhard. I think I have reached that conclusion too. Unfortunately mouse macros seem to be dead for me at the moment, even with aircraft they are supposed to operate with!

Pete, Firstly, the knob on my USB game controller is recognised by Windows as a joystick axis. The knob itself is seen by both FS and FSUIPC. The Feelthere control knob in the virtual cockpit is only a mouse-controlled item. Hope you can direct me from here, if at all. Many thanks in the meantime.

Pete, Not sure if I explained myself properly. The Feelthere model has an FPA button and a control knob to select either a positive or negative flight path angle. Am I still hamstrung by your original comments?

Hi, I would like to control the adjustment of flight path angle from the Feelthere ERJ-170 MCP in P3D v4 with a moveable control knob on a USB game controller (Thrustmaster TWCS Throttle). Can anyone advise how best to achieve this, please? I have a registered version of FSUIPC5 installed.

A question to the Feelthere development team: If the use of FPA and selection of flightpath angle manually results in continuous tracking of the glideslope, why does the approach mode (APPR) fail to capture the glideslope angle accurately when the glideslope is alive (say, intercepting the glideslope at 2,000 feet on approach to London City Airport)? There is a definite lag between tracking the glideslope position in the PFD and how the aircraft responds to such changes, resulting in this case in failing to capture the glideslope correctly for this approach, using APPR mode (the aircraft is always too high and above the glideslope on the descent under APPR mode as a result of this lag). Finally, I appreciate we can never really simulate how the Embraer jets actually fly into London City, on account of the unavailability of the spoilers for the steep approach, except of course on touchdown.

Just tried the technique recommended by the aviation professional and it works a treat! The Embraer aircraft which do actually use London City are probably all the modified variant which have spoiler deployment for the steep descent on the glideslope to control speed. Feelthere's aircraft are true to life in that, in the absence of the modification for steep approaches, they inhibit spoiler deployment at flap settings of 2 and beyond whilst airborne (but deploy automatically on touchdown without the requirement to arm for the landing). If there was a clever way to use spoilers in the steep descent then the glideslope could potentially be captured for such descents. Interestingly, British Airways's Airbus A318s which used London City were also specially modified for spoiler activation in the steep descent. The BAE 146s, however, required manual deployment of the airbrakes for the landing.

I have tried the London City approach with the E175 and did sort of get it to work with a little jiggery-pokery. You are correct that it seems to be above the glideslope but in my case I found that this was rectified closer to the runway, however the final approach does require manual handling which is a little fraught on account of the vertical speed and the necessity to pull out of the descent. Perhaps it is a little disappointing that one of the few candidate virtual airliners which can use this airport does not seem to behave adequately for this type of approach. A little further technical elaboration as to why the feelthere model is not up to this type of approach might help the user community to learn about its limitations.

Is there any correspondence between the centre of gravity position shown in the fuel planner of P3D v4 and the actual model itself? From these, one should be able to determine the nose-up trim from literature for the ERJ-175 series on the internet. What does the P3D v4 centre of gravity in the fuel planner of P3D v4 equate to physically as a percentage, as applied to the E-jets v2?

I have just got back into the Feelthere E-jets E175/195 in P3D v4 and would like to know how I can set the take-off trim correctly. I have been practicing with the tutorial and the example given does not define how the nose-up trim of 6 degrees had been determined. I have checked the performance data and there is no indication of how to set trim appropriate to the centre of gravity based on weight and its distribution. If anyone can throw any light on this, then please let me know.