Jump to content
Camille MOUCHEL

concerns about missing features of FMGC

Recommended Posts

Camille MOUCHEL

Hi everybody

I'm a bit concerned about some features of the FMGC that are not (yet ?) implemented after 3-4 years the A32X family has been released. It's nice to get new features like PDC, CPDLC and in the close futur, the sharklets version with all the nice candies it will bring in addition, however, it would be nice if some missing feature can be added espcially thosed use often in every day pilots life such as :

  •  The Offset (LAT REV page):

even if the OFFSET appears in the LAT REV page, it doesn't seem to be functionnal. This is quite helpful espcially in wet weather to avoid cells and epspecially when flying online, instead of zig zagging and need to request several heading changes, the offset function would prevent that.

 

  • The Alternate page (LAT REV page):

Normally in the LAT REV page, you should be able to review your alternate if entered for example. This is currrently not possible.

 

 

  • STEP ALTS

I think this is used quite oftenand i'm astonished to see this is still not implemented ??

 

 

  • UTC Constraint (VERT REV page): 

May not be used that often, but would be nice to have it anyway, currently not working

 

 

 

 

  • ALT CONST (ALT ERROR)

When an ALT CONST is entered but can not be made ( missed), we should be able to see the delta. Granted the software version is not the same so the layout may be different have I have yet see a delta figure appeared when having an amber circle on the constrained waypoint so far

 

 

  • G/S crossing ALT

 

 

  • Required Time Arrival (RTA)

Not implemented.

 

 

Source: http://www.smartcockpit.com/docs/Smiths_Thales_A_1_0_1_FM_Pilot_Guide.pdf

 

 

I know that the source is from an older software version but I believe that all these function are still avaiablabe in the S8 but maybe under another layout. i would like to knox if there function will ever be implemented in the A320X and if yes, will it be before or after the sharklet version?

Edited by Norman Blackburn
Removed copyright material
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Ju_li_en Ke_ml_er

If i remember corerectly i think they said the offset would be implemented with the sharklet. Not sur about the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL
Just now, Ju_li_en Ke_ml_er said:

If i remember corerectly i think they said the offset would be implemented with the sharklet. Not sur about the rest.

didn't say here regarding offset

 

 

I really think that offset and step alt should be implemented, i mean that is the basic and used quite often irl, the other function are not used that much I think so if its notimplemented not a big deal.

because i find it like not logical to have a very realistic failures system, PDC, CPDLC, ATSU, 3D fluids modelled and not having the Step ALT and OFsset function implemented after 4 years of release, especially that those are quite important, usefull and often use irl

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Andrew Wilson

It requires a significant amount of work to refactor our infrastructure to support many of the features requested. It’s on our road map.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Antti Salo

Good thing these aren’t forgotten.

As someone who likes ”self-vectoring” and visual approaches, one of the features I miss the most is energy circles. I hope that’s still coming somewhere down the line too.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL
16 hours ago, Andrew Wilson said:

It requires a significant amount of work to refactor our infrastructure to support many of the features requested. It’s on our road map.

i understand but it's been 4+ years now. it's more about choice I guess

 

Why did you add PDC and CPDLC before those features then ? why adding the sharklet variant ??

 

I would rather have an A320 with all features of the FMGC implemented rather than different variants with missing features.

 

Anyway nice to read that they will be added later on and still fly only with fslabs :)

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Antti Salo
18 minutes ago, Camille MOUCHEL said:

Why did you add PDC and CPDLC before those features then ? why adding the sharklet variant ??

FSLabs is a company, therefore their main objective is of course to make money. Things like PDC and CPDLC are pioneering features that do have a certain wow-factor in the flightsimming world, so I believe they have a far better money-making potential than missing FMGC features.

Share this post


Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL
1 minute ago, Antti Salo said:

FSLabs is a company, therefore their main objective is of course to make money. Things like PDC and CPDLC are pioneering features that do have a certain wow-factor in the flightsimming world, so I believe they have a far better money-making potential than missing FMGC features.

yeah I know, that's why all the new features in the sharklets ie the EFB will be added to the others after 6-12 months so that customers will have to pay haha

Share this post


Link to post
Peter Pukhnoy

What's more irritating than these missing features are bugs with already existing features: https://forums.flightsimlabs.com/index.php?/topic/15321-my-report-about-fmgs-logiccomputation-build-202347/

The worst one on that list is the last one, in my opinion. I first noticed it in the first few days of using the very first 'Early Adopters' version. I didn't even care to report it because I'm sure FSLabs knew already - it's impossible not to notice even for an amateur like myself. I was also sure they would fix it with the first update :D Yet here we are, almost four years later.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
NilsUnger

It is what it is. I prepare myself to not expect too much in this regard in the foreseeable future. Most simmers seem to be happy with the system depth and don't miss the features we would love to see. I feel we are a minority. New sims and hotfixes slow things further down. I try to stay positive, progress is clearly being made, albeit not in the direction I would prefer.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL
On 5/19/2020 at 7:59 PM, Peter Pukhnoy said:

What's more irritating than these missing features are bugs with already existing features: https://forums.flightsimlabs.com/index.php?/topic/15321-my-report-about-fmgs-logiccomputation-build-202347/

The worst one on that list is the last one, in my opinion. I first noticed it in the first few days of using the very first 'Early Adopters' version. I didn't even care to report it because I'm sure FSLabs knew already - it's impossible not to notice even for an amateur like myself. I was also sure they would fix it with the first update :D Yet here we are, almost four years later.

yeah agree with you, still basic issue not fix that even aero***** would have get them fixed by now lmao

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Markus Hahndorff

I don´t give up the hope that some of these issues will be corrected in the S8 update and some of the essentiel features mentioned above will get added.

It´s surprising to me that the "Sharklet Hype" thread has thousands of views and >1700 replies while the topics in this thread seem to interest only very few people.
And that in a study level sim...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
NilsUnger
59 minutes ago, Markus Hahndorf said:

It´s surprising to me that the "Sharklet Hype" thread has thousands of views and >1700 replies while the topics in this thread seem to interest only very few people.

Maybe this thread should have been called "the FMGC hype thread" to attract more attention. :)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Kamil Juvat

What is annoying is that these features seem to be pushed further down the roadmap.

Offsets where supposed to come along with A321

ETP and offsets were supposedly coded last year but had some issues

Then these features were worked on in parallel with Sharklets

Now they are “on the road map”.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL
6 hours ago, Kamil Juvat said:

What is annoying is that these features seem to be pushed further down the roadmap.

Offsets where supposed to come along with A321

ETP and offsets were supposedly coded last year but had some issues

Then these features were worked on in parallel with Sharklets

Now they are “on the road map”.

I feel you.... :(

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
B_r_u_n_o-R_o_l_o

I feel the same, Offset is being used IRL, matter of fact I just saw it in action a few weeks ago while jumpseating on a 320. I created a thread a few weeks ago, but no response from FSL.

Personally I care more about the missing features that @Camille MOUCHEL described at the top of his post than PDC/CPDLC (good luck finding this in the U.S) or EFB, Sharklet, etc. I understand that it makes more sense commercially for FSL to release Shacklets, however these missing features have been requested since the early adopters days.... 

</rant>

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL
11 minutes ago, B_r_u_n_o-R_o_l_o said:

I feel the same, Offset is being used IRL, matter of fact I just saw it in action a few weeks ago while jumpseating on a 320. I created a thread a few weeks ago, but no response from FSL.

Personally I care more about the missing features that @Camille MOUCHEL described at the top of his post than PDC/CPDLC (good luck finding this in the U.S) or EFB, Sharklet, etc. I understand that it makes more sense commercially for FSL to release Shacklets, however these missing features have been requested since the early adopters days.... 

</rant>

agreed, especially the one that are quite used ie Step/climb, desncent, ETP and offset:

I would easily pay 20e more to get those 3 features

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Markus Hahndorff
On 5/28/2020 at 4:18 PM, Camille MOUCHEL said:

agreed, especially the one that are quite used ie Step/climb, desncent, ETP and offset:

I would easily pay 20e more to get those 3 features

Personally, I´d be a little hesitant to pay extra as it´s pricy enough, thus I would expect these features working. They are not exotic. But they don´t sell copies, right.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL
On 5/29/2020 at 5:50 PM, Markus Hahndorff said:

Personally, I´d be a little hesitant to pay extra as it´s pricy enough, thus I would expect these features working. They are not exotic. But they don´t sell copies, right.

I know but if i had to pay for an expansion pack, i'd rather pay for this features

Share this post


Link to post

×
×
  • Create New...