All Activity
This stream auto-updates
- Past hour
-
Ah ok, that makes sense. I'll adjust the code, thanks.
- Today
-
Any Satcom Inclusion News?
Norman Blackburn replied to Brian McCumiskey's topic in General Discussion
Hi Brian, For now there is no change. Whilst your pilot friend might say they feel no difference, for planning I know that the airframes with are treated different to those without. The company I have use both and the fuel burn on the ones with is higher than those without. I'm sure performance - albeit so tiny - is affected also. -
Kai Lin joined the community
-
Hello, I'm Brian and first of all, I'd like to thank FSLabs for making the Airbus so beautiful! I was hard core Boeing but ever since I got the 320 and 319 into my fleet, I can't stop flying them! Crazy how much a good developer can change what you fly like that Just a quick question on inclusion of Satcom. I searched news on it and saw the Satcom was spoken of in other discussions but was responded with "not at this time". It's been about a year since I've seen a topic on this so was just curious of if there is any news on it. I know a real Airbus pilot that flies your aircraft and asked him about differences of flight dynamics between with and without satcom and he said he didn't feel any difference nor ever realize any fuel difference with or without it. Is there any possibility of including this into a future upcoming update? Thanks again so much for making the airbus such a beautiful plane! Brian McCumiskey
-
Taking off from Taipei, Taiwan.
- Yesterday
-
I have used both extensively starting with ASCA when it first came out and then switched to SkyForce when it was released over a year ago. Due to an update issue with SF recently I went back and tried ASCA again using Full Dynamics and I have not gone back to SkyForce. ASCA gives a much better representation overall, especially up at altitude they convey a nice 3D effect and I think they are scaled better so you have more feeling of altitude. Summer flying with storms around look great with ASCA. SF storms look like mushroom clouds and a bit silly. Also, SF has a problem with transparent cloud textures and you can see right through them when you are close to them. I did prefer the REX sold overcast though. I also use a few sky textures from SF though as I prefer them over ASCA sky textures. Hifi is working on an update for ASCA and REX is working on an update for SF so things could change. Right now ASCA/ASP4 is the winner in my view.
-
The normal setting is for it to be used for data. Since it wasn't and is not part of your scan since it is above the FO's head, the reminder is placed on the ECAM.
-
It just means that - VHF3 is selected to voice and ACARS is on standby. If you flip ACARS back to active the ecam memo will disappear.
-
odd thing to need on the ecam but ok. makes more sense than the thought of someone trying to talk to me in flight sim at least
-
Its telling you that your VHF3 radio is being used for voice (just like the other two radios) rather than data. Flick the toggle to make ACARS active instead.
-
did that and dont see or hear anything. radio 3 was on 121.5 with acars as standby (default) but after turning on and up the volume didnt hear anything on either. doesnt really answer any of my questions
-
Have a look at the overhead panel.
-
I was messing with the acars messaging on the hoppie network and suddenly looked up to the ecam and saw a message for "VHF3 VOICE" and have no idea if that was me or something else. tried turning on the audio but no sound came through. what was this message for, what activated it in sim, and how should I react to it normally?
-
Michael Friedrich joined the community
-
Carson McManus joined the community
-
Daniel Case joined the community
-
Thank you very much! I did tried to Google it without success.
-
Hwang Jihyun joined the community
-
Laden Index (the position of the ZFW CG/TO CG in inches aft of the datum, which is normally the nose).
-
Fredrik Johansson joined the community
-
Since we're discussing these terms, I have one small question: On the final loadsheet there are two terms - LICZFW and LICTOW. What does LIC stand for?
-
sampowell joined the community
-
Hi All, I agree with Peter, surely the Limiting number is the one that you will come across first. In the example above, should it not be the MLW? As he says if you added the underload to the ZFW you would then be outside the MLW. THis doesn't make sense to me. I would have thought the Limiting figure was the closest one of the 3 to the maximum. But what do I know! Would love to understand this better if I've got the wrong end of the stick, highly likely. Cheers Neil
-
שחר מיכאלי joined the community
-
Norbert Bade joined the community
-
From my understanding the limiting weight is the one of the three that has the smallest difference between the maximum and the actual weight, in other words the first limit you would bust if you kept adding payload. 64500 - 60955 < 62500 - 57240 If I added the underload value to the ZFW then the LAW would exceed the MLW.
-
It's the limiting of your MZFW/MTOW/MLW which in those two examples is your MZFW, 62500kg.
-
-
Can you show me an example? The code looks ok...
-
Thanks for the correction, Xander. In that case, there is an issue with the loadsheet logic because the ZFW is always marked as being the limiting weight on the loadsheet even if the LW is the limiting weight @Andrew Wilson Because of that, the underload is always MZFW - ZFW.
-
Underload is the weight difference between the actual specific weight (either ZFW, TOW or LW) and its respective limit weight. For example, on a very long flight, you will have high TOW, but your trip fuel is high, so your LW relatively speaking will be low. In this scenario, chances are high that the TOW will the closest to its limit. Conversely, if you are on a short flight, the chance is slim that the TOW is closest to its limit. Rather the LW (if you’re carrying a large payload) will be more limiting than the TOW because even at maximum ZFW, you can still fly for quite a distance. So anything less requires less fuel and thus a lower TOW. So in general on short flights, LW is more often the limiting weight compared to TOW. ZFW stands completely on its own and there is no typical trend. Rather it just means that depending how full you are, your ZFW will be closer to its limit than either of the above and it then becomes limiting. Whichever of the three is more limiting will have an “L” (if I remember correctly) next to it on the load sheet. That L means that the UNDERLO value given on the loadsheet will be the difference between that weight’s actual and limiting values. In practice that value gives the flight crew instant information as to how LMC (last minute changes) or enroute shortcuts (increasing the LW due to more arrival fuel) etc affect limiting weights. Cheers,
-
- Last week
-
The loadsheets your receive in the A320-X are pretty well exact replicas of the ACARS provisional and final loadsheets used by a large UK operator. The ACARS loadsheets are somewhat abbreviated compared to the paper version for ease of formatting/cost efficiency (I believe ACARS is still charged by the character?) and contain only the essential items required by the flight crews. It is possible for the real crews to request an 'extended' version but only the 'brief' versions are used in normal operations (though even the 'extended' version only has a breakdown of the cargo compartment loads and not a total traffic load figure). Other operators' systems could vary!
-
Why i have only 20fps and not 100% work
Peter Pukhnoy replied to Angelo Ebner's topic in General Discussion
I hope you aren't expecting a performance increase in P3D of the same proportions because P3D is more reliant on single-thread performance whereas those scores are multi-thread.
