You are not logged in. Please login or register.
JARDesign Group Board → Beta-versions (Download & Discussions) → v.3.2 beta public tests
Today I tested v.3.2 beta4. When I taxied from the RCTP C9 apron to the 05R runway, Xplane11.35 crashed. I have everything to follow the Checklist step. attach the .log to you, please refer to it, thank you.
Log.txt 7.27 mb, 268 downloads since 2019-06-25
Today I tested v.3.2 beta4. When I taxied from the RCTP C9 apron to the 05R runway, Xplane11.35 crashed. I have everything to follow the Checklist step. attach the .log to you, please refer to it, thank you.
Usually, when aircraft is a reason for crash - we can read info at the last string of log. As for this log - no info exist. Nothing can say.
i have 2 problem during takeoff:
-when I set the throttle to flex thrust, it appears in the pfd, CLB THR and flashes (on ground);
- after or during takeoff mcdu say incorrect trim , flap position and other 2 error from MCDU . it's so strange . sometimes these errors come out, sometimes they don't come out with the same trim and flap config;(suggestion, could you create an application for takeoff performances only?)
THX
Look like you not enter Thrust Reduction Alt to MCDU or not set initial Alt at FCU, may be not set THS at MCDU PERF Page and so on
Giuliano pennetta wrote:i have 2 problem during takeoff:
-when I set the throttle to flex thrust, it appears in the pfd, CLB THR and flashes (on ground);
- after or during takeoff mcdu say incorrect trim , flap position and other 2 error from MCDU . it's so strange . sometimes these errors come out, sometimes they don't come out with the same trim and flap config;(suggestion, could you create an application for takeoff performances only?)
THX
Look like you not enter Thrust Reduction Alt to MCDU or not set initial Alt at FCU, may be not set THS at MCDU PERF Page and so on
everythings are set correctly , thrust reduction alt appear on perf page as blue es. 1500/3000, so i need to re-write it again?
"Warning: s330 systems (VA) plugin error occur
please contact support,jardesign.org with log txt file"
I also have this issue and error code 1114 in win.xpl in sound 2d, 3d. But the issue cannot be too many plugins, the latest non-beta version works just perfectly. And even with nearly all plugins disabled, it remains. This is obviously a bug.
"Warning: s330 systems (VA) plugin error occur
please contact support,jardesign.org with log txt file"I also have this issue and error code 1114 in win.xpl in sound 2d, 3d. But the issue cannot be too many plugins, the latest non-beta version works just perfectly. And even with nearly all plugins disabled, it remains. This is obviously a bug.
latest non-beta version works just perfectly - is not a reason
plugins disabled - is not a way
Only described way will work for actual beta. If you need direct help - please skype j.a.romanov - we will check this issue on your side online
Ok, about incorrect active waypoint switching..
I just rebuild FMGS plugin to avoid incorrect (for some cases) active waypoint switching. If you use beta 4, you need just put win.xpl ans mac.xpl files (attached) to your /JD330/plugins/FMGS/ folder
mac.xpl 1.42 mb, 246 downloads since 2019-06-28
win.xpl 1.78 mb, 255 downloads since 2019-06-28
Will any of you please check why/test FBW if/is messed up ? Here there it does not work and the dev does not answer/comment.
Thanks
Are the holding pattern improved in this 3.2 version?
FLAP LEVER CONTINUOUS MOVEMENT
I have had this issue for some time. With a controller axis assigned to FLAPS the lever moves continuously and rapidly from up to down. Only when I deselect the controller axis does it stop.
Any ideas please as to why this is occurring? and no I dont have duplcated axes assigned to flaps.
Thanks in advance
Rob
FLAP LEVER CONTINUOUS MOVEMENT
I have had this issue for some time. With a controller axis assigned to FLAPS the lever moves continuously and rapidly from up to down. Only when I deselect the controller axis does it stop.
Any ideas please as to why this is occurring? and no I dont have duplcated axes assigned to flaps.
Thanks in advance
Rob
Looks like whatever hardware you assigned the axis to is „noisy“. Maybe defining a null zone could help prevent the effect.
Really good work! I had a really fun flight as MK62 FIMP-EHAM.
However the two things that still seem as a bit of a realism killer are:
1) Fuel consumption, I landed with 17 tons while I was planned only to land with 8.5
2) After departure, the aircraft seems to prioritize speed over climb, which results in low flight acceleration instead of a normal climb.
Hopefully you can look into this,
Thanks for your work!
Really good work! I had a really fun flight as MK62 FIMP-EHAM.
However the two things that still seem as a bit of a realism killer are:
1) Fuel consumption, I landed with 17 tons while I was planned only to land with 8.5
2) After departure, the aircraft seems to prioritize speed over climb, which results in low flight acceleration instead of a normal climb.
Hopefully you can look into this,
Thanks for your work!
To 1: It doesn't say to me anything unusual. Consumption depend as you know on Payload, Weather, winds, flight level etc. Even simBrief calculation cannot predict exact fuel consumption because fo parameter change during flight. 8.5t in relation to 84t estimated consumption makes 10% saving (CI, AVG wind )- not unusual under certain conditions!
To 2: Airspeed increase usually after 10.000ft to cruise speed (if ATC aloud and according to your setting). Climb rate according same conditions. What is wrong (Rate, Angle)? Define "normal climb"?
To 1: It doesn't say to me anything unusual. Consumption depend as you know on Payload, Weather, winds, flight level etc. Even simBrief calculation cannot predict exact fuel consumption because fo parameter change during flight. 8.5t in relation to 84t estimated consumption makes 10% saving (CI, AVG wind )- not unusual under certain conditions!
To 2: Airspeed increase usually after 10.000ft to cruise speed (if ATC aloud and according to your setting). Climb rate according same conditions. What is wrong (Rate, Angle)? Define "normal climb"?
Hi ilankrt,
Fuel consumption wise it really does seem too anomalous. I can take the PMDG 777/747 for long hauls and the deviations in prediction vs actual consumption are very slight, maybe a ton or two max. The Jar330 consistently under uses fuel to the extent where I personally don't think it can be blamed on weather/ cost index/ etc every time.
For climb I mean that the plane doesn't seem to climb very far initially because it wants to reach 250 knots first. While taking off from FIMP it was heading straight to the mountain because the plane doesn't climb as much as it should, it literally leveled off at 2000 foot to accelerate. Meanwhile, other airbus addons seem to climb well, where altitude isn't sacrificed for speed. When looking at this A330 footage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91Uyo4wn-F8 the plane climbs initially at 3000fpm and then slowly v/s decreases to about 900 fpm at 3600 feet where it then starts to collect speed. But it never levels out to gain speed.
Other than that, great work! As we speak I'm taking her home as MK73 EHAM-FIMP.
Thanks for you fast reply!
To 1: It doesn't say to me anything unusual. Consumption depend as you know on Payload, Weather, winds, flight level etc. Even simBrief calculation cannot predict exact fuel consumption because fo parameter change during flight. 8.5t in relation to 84t estimated consumption makes 10% saving (CI, AVG wind )- not unusual under certain conditions!
To 2: Airspeed increase usually after 10.000ft to cruise speed (if ATC aloud and according to your setting). Climb rate according same conditions. What is wrong (Rate, Angle)? Define "normal climb"?
Hi ilankrt,
Fuel consumption wise it really does seem too anomalous. I can take the PMDG 777/747 for long hauls and the deviations in prediction vs actual consumption are very slight, maybe a ton or two max. The Jar330 consistently under uses fuel to the extent where I personally don't think it can be blamed on weather/ cost index/ etc every time.
For climb I mean that the plane doesn't seem to climb very far initially because it wants to reach 250 knots first. While taking off from FIMP it was heading straight to the mountain because the plane doesn't climb as much as it should, it literally leveled off at 2000 foot to accelerate. Meanwhile, other airbus addons seem to climb well, where altitude isn't sacrificed for speed. When looking at this A330 footage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91Uyo4wn-F8 the plane climbs initially at 3000fpm and then slowly v/s decreases to about 900 fpm at 3600 feet where it then starts to collect speed. But it never levels out to gain speed.
Other than that, great work! As we speak I'm taking her home as MK73 EHAM-FIMP.
Thanks for you fast reply!
21.05 minute on video aircraft levels of near 0 after THR CLB until FLAPS UP 0 reaching near 250KT. JAR airliner are usually levelling slightly less at 250kt/FL100 (restriction that can be changed) BTW, Very good video example, clear view of instruments...
I can see at 18:18 of the video that go from Heading to Nav mode only changing the range knob. How it can make this?
I watched the video and while the pilot flying (PF) did change the range knob for the nav display, it was just a matter of coincidence. ATC gave them a "direct to" waypoint and the pilot monitoring (PM) was making that change in the CDU (which you couldn't see). But, you can hear ATC providing the waypoint name. Once the PM set the "direct to" in the CDU, the NAV mode automatically changed from heading select to managed navigation which was indicated by the dashed lines on the FCU or flight control unit. If you look at the primary flight display at the same time, you can see the change from "HDG" to "NAV" which indicates the change in navigation mode.
Thanks mate! This video was killing my brain! loool... 
danielbrehling wrote:Really good work! I had a really fun flight as MK62 FIMP-EHAM.
However the two things that still seem as a bit of a realism killer are:
1) Fuel consumption, I landed with 17 tons while I was planned only to land with 8.5
2) After departure, the aircraft seems to prioritize speed over climb, which results in low flight acceleration instead of a normal climb.
Hopefully you can look into this,
Thanks for your work!
To 1: It doesn't say to me anything unusual. Consumption depend as you know on Payload, Weather, winds, flight level etc. Even simBrief calculation cannot predict exact fuel consumption because fo parameter change during flight. 8.5t in relation to 84t estimated consumption makes 10% saving (CI, AVG wind )- not unusual under certain conditions!
The fuel consumption is clearly wrong, no doubt about that. That has been stated many times and i sent the proof to the author based on real performance tables that take into account all parameters you mention (weight, temp, pressure, alt etc.).
The main problem is that NOTHING changes although the author promised over a year ago to take a look at it. There are other basic things that are still wrong after 7-8 years or more: the fuel quantity FOB should be indicated in 100kg-steps. And the MDA entered into the MCDU is still not working. The author prefers to develop eye candies and/or doesnt know how an Airbus is suppose to work. But why? Why isn't he able to fix these simple basic things? For real interested flight-simmers who like to reproduce the pilots-workload this aircraft sadly cannot be taken seriously anymore. It was quite good at the beginning but didn't moved forward although other made huge jump in repdroducing the system deeply (Flight Factor, FJS, Toliss, Rotate etc.).
ilankrt wrote:danielbrehling wrote:Really good work! I had a really fun flight as MK62 FIMP-EHAM.
However the two things that still seem as a bit of a realism killer are:
1) Fuel consumption, I landed with 17 tons while I was planned only to land with 8.5
2) After departure, the aircraft seems to prioritize speed over climb, which results in low flight acceleration instead of a normal climb.
Hopefully you can look into this,
Thanks for your work!
To 1: It doesn't say to me anything unusual. Consumption depend as you know on Payload, Weather, winds, flight level etc. Even simBrief calculation cannot predict exact fuel consumption because fo parameter change during flight. 8.5t in relation to 84t estimated consumption makes 10% saving (CI, AVG wind )- not unusual under certain conditions!
The fuel consumption is clearly wrong, no doubt about that. That has been stated many times and i sent the proof to the author based on real performance tables that take into account all parameters you mention (weight, temp, pressure, alt etc.).
The main problem is that NOTHING changes although the author promised over a year ago to take a look at it. There are other basic things that are still wrong after 7-8 years or more: the fuel quantity FOB should be indicated in 100kg-steps. And the MDA entered into the MCDU is still not working. The author prefers to develop eye candies and/or doesnt know how an Airbus is suppose to work. But why? Why isn't he able to fix these simple basic things? For real interested flight-simmers who like to reproduce the pilots-workload this aircraft sadly cannot be taken seriously anymore. It was quite good at the beginning but didn't moved forward although other made huge jump in repdroducing the system deeply (Flight Factor, FJS, Toliss, Rotate etc.).
On one side I can understand unfulfilled wishes like those you mentioned (that I personally don't care about) on the other side I cannot accept your critic mentioning FF " huge jump" that since years didn't fulfilled his promises to complete the FF A350 MCDU and left the FF A320 fans after big promises in the prick. Concerning fuel consumption I would like to see your performance table parameters.
ilankrt wrote:danielbrehling wrote:Really good work! I had a really fun flight as MK62 FIMP-EHAM.
However the two things that still seem as a bit of a realism killer are:
1) Fuel consumption, I landed with 17 tons while I was planned only to land with 8.5
2) After departure, the aircraft seems to prioritize speed over climb, which results in low flight acceleration instead of a normal climb.
Hopefully you can look into this,
Thanks for your work!
To 1: It doesn't say to me anything unusual. Consumption depend as you know on Payload, Weather, winds, flight level etc. Even simBrief calculation cannot predict exact fuel consumption because fo parameter change during flight. 8.5t in relation to 84t estimated consumption makes 10% saving (CI, AVG wind )- not unusual under certain conditions!
The fuel consumption is clearly wrong, no doubt about that. That has been stated many times and i sent the proof to the author based on real performance tables that take into account all parameters you mention (weight, temp, pressure, alt etc.).
The main problem is that NOTHING changes although the author promised over a year ago to take a look at it. There are other basic things that are still wrong after 7-8 years or more: the fuel quantity FOB should be indicated in 100kg-steps. And the MDA entered into the MCDU is still not working. The author prefers to develop eye candies and/or doesnt know how an Airbus is suppose to work. But why? Why isn't he able to fix these simple basic things? For real interested flight-simmers who like to reproduce the pilots-workload this aircraft sadly cannot be taken seriously anymore. It was quite good at the beginning but didn't moved forward although other made huge jump in repdroducing the system deeply (Flight Factor, FJS, Toliss, Rotate etc.).
How much "The fuel consumption is clearly wrong" you find for actual beta-version for you, please? Sure, please measure it in zero-wind condition.
Hi,
I've tested beta 5. Plane is climbing very slowly and at cruse level, speed is 230 kts, not more, with all PA et A/THR.
Have you an idea ?
Regards
Franz007 wrote:ilankrt wrote:To 1: It doesn't say to me anything unusual. Consumption depend as you know on Payload, Weather, winds, flight level etc. Even simBrief calculation cannot predict exact fuel consumption because fo parameter change during flight. 8.5t in relation to 84t estimated consumption makes 10% saving (CI, AVG wind )- not unusual under certain conditions!
The fuel consumption is clearly wrong, no doubt about that. That has been stated many times and i sent the proof to the author based on real performance tables that take into account all parameters you mention (weight, temp, pressure, alt etc.).
The main problem is that NOTHING changes although the author promised over a year ago to take a look at it. There are other basic things that are still wrong after 7-8 years or more: the fuel quantity FOB should be indicated in 100kg-steps. And the MDA entered into the MCDU is still not working. The author prefers to develop eye candies and/or doesnt know how an Airbus is suppose to work. But why? Why isn't he able to fix these simple basic things? For real interested flight-simmers who like to reproduce the pilots-workload this aircraft sadly cannot be taken seriously anymore. It was quite good at the beginning but didn't moved forward although other made huge jump in repdroducing the system deeply (Flight Factor, FJS, Toliss, Rotate etc.).
How much "The fuel consumption is clearly wrong" you find for actual beta-version for you, please? Sure, please measure it in zero-wind condition.
I did not test the latest beta but read all of the update-notices. And you never mentionned anything about improved fuel-burning values. So i am pretty sure they are still wrong. I sent you last year all the informations based on real performance tables. You promised me to look at it. So can you please answer the follwing question: did you change something to these values? If yes i will test it.
Franz007 wrote:ilankrt wrote:To 1: It doesn't say to me anything unusual. Consumption depend as you know on Payload, Weather, winds, flight level etc. Even simBrief calculation cannot predict exact fuel consumption because fo parameter change during flight. 8.5t in relation to 84t estimated consumption makes 10% saving (CI, AVG wind )- not unusual under certain conditions!
The fuel consumption is clearly wrong, no doubt about that. That has been stated many times and i sent the proof to the author based on real performance tables that take into account all parameters you mention (weight, temp, pressure, alt etc.).
The main problem is that NOTHING changes although the author promised over a year ago to take a look at it. There are other basic things that are still wrong after 7-8 years or more: the fuel quantity FOB should be indicated in 100kg-steps. And the MDA entered into the MCDU is still not working. The author prefers to develop eye candies and/or doesnt know how an Airbus is suppose to work. But why? Why isn't he able to fix these simple basic things? For real interested flight-simmers who like to reproduce the pilots-workload this aircraft sadly cannot be taken seriously anymore. It was quite good at the beginning but didn't moved forward although other made huge jump in repdroducing the system deeply (Flight Factor, FJS, Toliss, Rotate etc.).
On one side I can understand unfulfilled wishes like those you mentioned (that I personally don't care about) on the other side I cannot accept your critic mentioning FF " huge jump" that since years didn't fulfilled his promises to complete the FF A350 MCDU and left the FF A320 fans after big promises in the prick. Concerning fuel consumption I would like to see your performance table parameters.
Ilankrt, seriously...we already had a talk about this issue. I gave you all informations that proved the fuel values being wrong:
http://jardesign.org/forum/viewtopic.ph … 081#p21081
Why do you keep asking the same question again and again, although i already explained it to you?
J.A.Romanov wrote:Franz007 wrote:The fuel consumption is clearly wrong, no doubt about that. That has been stated many times and i sent the proof to the author based on real performance tables that take into account all parameters you mention (weight, temp, pressure, alt etc.).
The main problem is that NOTHING changes although the author promised over a year ago to take a look at it. There are other basic things that are still wrong after 7-8 years or more: the fuel quantity FOB should be indicated in 100kg-steps. And the MDA entered into the MCDU is still not working. The author prefers to develop eye candies and/or doesnt know how an Airbus is suppose to work. But why? Why isn't he able to fix these simple basic things? For real interested flight-simmers who like to reproduce the pilots-workload this aircraft sadly cannot be taken seriously anymore. It was quite good at the beginning but didn't moved forward although other made huge jump in repdroducing the system deeply (Flight Factor, FJS, Toliss, Rotate etc.).
How much "The fuel consumption is clearly wrong" you find for actual beta-version for you, please? Sure, please measure it in zero-wind condition.
I did not test the latest beta but read all of the update-notices. And you never mentionned anything about improved fuel-burning values. So i am pretty sure they are still wrong. I sent you last year all the informations based on real performance tables. You promised me to look at it. So can you please answer the follwing question: did you change something to these values? If yes i will test it.
Yes, we done this several times since you contact me. Sure, LR change their engines parameters several time too.. Every time when this happen - all engine parameters are gone a little. As result - every X-Plane beta or version may give as different value. but for me - it look like Ok on test stage. Please inform me.
JARDesign Group Board → Beta-versions (Download & Discussions) → v.3.2 beta public tests
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.