Jump to content

concerns about missing features of FMGC


Camille MOUCHEL

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 6
  • Thanks 1
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.

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 6
  • Thanks 1
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 8
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
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 7
  • Thanks 2
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.

  • Like 1
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

  • Haha 1
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
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 4
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
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 4
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 2
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 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
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
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 9
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 3
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 5
  • Sad 1
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

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
  • 3 weeks later...
Phillip Morgan
On 5/31/2020 at 10:07 AM, Camille MOUCHEL said:

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

I agree, however as a brand new user to the FSLabs I have to say that I'm a little disappointed that these features are missing to begin with. I'm also very concerned that they have been missing for nearly 2 years!

The FSLabs is advertised with "lateral and vertical flight management which follows the ARINC 424-19 specification in full detail; the entire range of aircraft systems....". As it says in full detail etc.. one would assume that the FMGS is completely modelled with all features especially considering it is the most expensive aircraft on the market (as far as I know).

Given that the main selling point of this aircraft appears to be its systems depth, I personally feel that more development resources should be spent on adding missing systems than adding things like sharklets (I know how unpopular that opinion will be, but it's just my thoughts).

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Peter Pukhnoy
1 hour ago, Phillip Morgan said:

nearly 2 years!

4 years - the first version was released in August 2016.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Marc Fuolega
8 hours ago, Phillip Morgan said:

The FSLabs is advertised with "lateral and vertical flight management which follows the ARINC 424-19 specification in full detail; the entire range of aircraft systems....". As it says in full detail etc.. one would assume that the FMGS is completely modelled with all features especially considering it is the most expensive aircraft on the market (as far as I know).

I agree it’s... not okay to claim “in full detail” when some pretty useful and non-exotic features have been missing for years. 
 

The sad thing is they can make money by selling sharklets. But they can’t really charge for adding things that should already be implemented based on their own advertisements. 
 

So we get the sharklets. 

Link to post
Phillip Morgan
6 minutes ago, David Porrett said:

But ... they're sharklets .... B)

So what?

What's so great about sharklets? You get a few extra minutes out of your fuel and little bit more of a challenge with crosswind landings.

Personally I'd rather be able to use the FMGS to avoid storm cells for example.

The biggest question, and one I think I'd like the mods or devs to answer isn Why is an expansion coming before core FMGS functionality?

  • Like 1
Link to post
David Porrett
36 minutes ago, Phillip Morgan said:

So what?

What's so great about sharklets? You get a few extra minutes out of your fuel and little bit more of a challenge with crosswind landings.

Personally I'd rather be able to use the FMGS to avoid storm cells for example.

The biggest question, and one I think I'd like the mods or devs to answer isn Why is an expansion coming before core FMGS functionality?

You clearly missed the sarcasm...:wacko:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Andrej Ropret

STEP ALTS

It is quite simple rule of thumb method to determine if you can climb 2000 ft higher, let’s say FL360 to FL380,  by looking how much speed margin you have before flying too fast or falling into stall, therefore difference between VLS and VMO.

On A320/321 we loose 10 kts of speed margin every 1000 ft, therefore for 2000 ft climb we will loose 20 kts of margin.

We want to have at FL380 approximately 30 kts margin, -15 kts until we stall and +15 kts until we overspeed.

30 kts margin + 20 kts margin lost = 50 kts

When we fly at FL360 and we have 50 kts margin between VLS and VMO, then we are lightweight enough to request climb to FL380.

 

I hope this makes some STEP CLIMB decisions easier.

 

I do agree this feature should be implemented almost 4 years into product cycle, but considering FS world went through drastic changes FSX Directx9 into Directx10, then P3d v1, then v2, then 32bit into 64 bit, then v3, v4, then PBR, then v5 with Directx12, now heading into FS2020... well progress 2013-2020 is much more then 2006-2013 if you agree and developers were very busy

Link to post
Koen Meier
9 hours ago, Andrej Ropret said:

I do agree this feature should be implemented almost 4 years into product cycle, but considering FS world went through drastic changes FSX Directx9 into Directx10, then P3d v1, then v2, then 32bit into 64 bit, then v3, v4, then PBR, then v5 with Directx12, now heading into FS2020... well progress 2013-2020 is much more then 2006-2013 if you agree and developers were very busy

V3 was still 32 bit. 

Link to post
Phillip Morgan
10 hours ago, Andrej Ropret said:

well progress 2013-2020 is much more then 2006-2013 if you agree and developers were very busy

I have no doubt they were busy, as a developer myself I know that certain situations require you to change spec at the last minute. However that doesn't excuse the simple fact that they are advertising a product that has "full detail" when it does not. The missing features should have been included in the original release if the goal was to provide a simulation (and advertise that simulation) with "full detail".

More to the point if those features were put on the back burner due to other issues, as is evident from the other posts, any decent developer should know you need to deliver those promised features before you embark on adding new features (such as sharklets). Bottom line is, why are we getting new features when they still haven't finished the old features yet??

  • Like 2
Link to post
Lefteris Kalamaras
1 hour ago, Phillip Morgan said:

I have no doubt they were busy, as a developer myself I know that certain situations require you to change spec at the last minute. However that doesn't excuse the simple fact that they are advertising a product that has "full detail" when it does not. The missing features should have been included in the original release if the goal was to provide a simulation (and advertise that simulation) with "full detail".

More to the point if those features were put on the back burner due to other issues, as is evident from the other posts, any decent developer should know you need to deliver those promised features before you embark on adding new features (such as sharklets). Bottom line is, why are we getting new features when they still haven't finished the old features yet??

No doubt you're one of those people who constantly argue that the sun is too warm or the absence of the sun makes the day too cold?

Bottom line is, we've been continuously updating the product- without charge since the P3Dv3 days (not to mention that any new features found in the 319/321 addons eventually find their way into the 320 - again, for free). There has been TONS of new functionality in the product. There will ALWAYS be missing features, I guarantee you this. Obviously, if you are not satisfied by the missing features or you consider that they make the product less than "full detail", you are free to voice that opinion and as long as you're respectful, we will never delete your posts or comments (like some others do).

We do have roadmaps, but life is dynamic. That makes those roadmaps change. Things get done on priority, others are put on the backburner. If you don't feel you're getting your money's worth on a $139 product (compared to the next better A320 out there which is... hmmm.... lemme see...  a class-D sim at $20 million?) then I am genuinely sorry on behalf of our developers.

  • Like 13
Link to post
Phillip Morgan
1 minute ago, Lefteris Kalamaras said:

No doubt you're one of those people who constantly argue that the sun is too warm or the absence of the sun makes the day too cold?

Bottom line is, we've been continuously updating the product- without charge since the P3Dv3 days (not to mention that any new features found in the 319/321 addons eventually find their way into the 320 - again, for free). There has been TONS of new functionality in the product. There will ALWAYS be missing features, I guarantee you this. Obviously, if you are not satisfied by the missing features or you consider that they make the product less than "full detail", you are free to voice that opinion and as long as you're respectful, we will never delete your posts or comments (like some others do).

We do have roadmaps, but life is dynamic. That makes those roadmaps change. Things get done on priority, others are put on the backburner. If you don't feel you're getting your money's worth on a $139 product (compared to the next better A320 out there which is... hmmm.... lemme see...  a class-D sim at $20 million?) then I am genuinely sorry on behalf of our developers.

Hi Lefteris,

Thank you for commenting. I am not the type to argue where there is no argument to have. As I've already said, being a developer myself I can fully appreciate the position the developers are often put it by a highly dynamic environment. As you've read, my opinions are not those against the product itself and I do not question that it is worth every penny of the £139 I recently spent on it. It is not a question of product quality or customer satisfaction. I believe you've taken my tone to be negative which is not the case.

I have made no direct demands for features to be added, I have simply raised a couple of questions on a topic that has been open for a significant amount of time. You say that things get done on priority and that is a great stance, and allows me to expand my question and give it some more context:

Why have sharklets been prioritised over missing FMGS features?

If the motivation is business orientated (i.e cash flow), then I completely understand and won't argue this either. At the end of the day you're running a business and have to keep the money rolling, that's how the world turns these days. All I am looking for is some kind of official communication as to why an expansion has been developed before a 4 year old "bug" report has been addressed, and reassurance that the topic has not been forgotten and is still very much "on the road map" as previously communicated. I am sure you can appreciate my position as a recent buyer, that finding a very old topic showing missing features of what I thought was a complete FMGS simulation is very concerning.

From my own experience I have often found it very beneficial to be completely transparent with my own user base, and often take the approach of displaying a public development road map so that my users can set their expectations appropriately, even if such a road map is fluid and subject to massive change. It negates the need for speculation and questioning as the answers are already a matter of public knowledge, to see your bug report on a chart shows that you've not been forgotten.

Again, please do not mistake my tone for that of complaint or negativity, I am simply seeking answers to my own questions and clarification of where the next development phase will take us.

Thanks again for weighing in.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Ju_li_en Ke_ml_er
16 minutes ago, Phillip Morgan said:

From my own experience I have often found it very beneficial to be completely transparent with my own user base

They have done exactly that since the first release.

When the 320 released for fsx it had missing features, like secondary flight plan.It was explicitely mentionned in the forum and in the release announcement, yet people complained that they were lied to. They weren't, they just couldnt bother reading a few paragraphs.

They promised the most accurate and in depth a320  for fsx and they delivered just that.

They promised to continue developement for the years to come, and they have done just that.

They said some of the missing features would come at later date, and we got them,  sec fpln, more recent fmgs revision, etc.

The others, if possible, will come   in their own time.

 

 

Link to post
Phillip Morgan
Just now, Ju_li_en Ke_ml_er said:

They have done exactly that since the first release.

When the 320 released for fsx it had missing features, like secondary flight plan.It was explicitely mentionned in the forum and in the release announcement, yet people complained that they were lied to. They weren't, they just couldnt bother reading a few paragraphs.

They promised the most accurate and in depth a320  for fsx and they delivered just that.

They promised to continue developement for the years to come, and they have done just that.

They said some of the missing features would come at later date, and we got them,  sec fpln, more recent fmgs revision, etc.

The others, if possible, will come   in their own time.

 

 

As I new user I have not yet had the opportunity to experience this but I'm certain its true, however quoting that comment on it's own is out of context. I was not suggesting that they are not transparent, my suggestion was to display their roadmap so that new and old users alike can physically see what's coming, and what's not, rather than having to dig up old topics like this for answers to questions.

Link to post
Koen Meier
1 minute ago, Phillip Morgan said:

As I new user I have not yet had the opportunity to experience this but I'm certain its true, however quoting that comment on it's own is out of context. I was not suggesting that they are not transparent, my suggestion was to display their roadmap so that new and old users alike can physically see what's coming, and what's not, rather than having to dig up old topics like this for answers to questions.

they do display their roadmap. the last one was in april of this year. and i suspect by the time we see the sharklets we are in need of an updated roadmap perhaps. perhaps it could be more clear and perhaps it could be more expanded on with what has been delivered so far. but that is for fslabs to decide on what they want to share.

Link to post
Phillip Morgan
13 minutes ago, Koen Meier said:

they do display their roadmap. the last one was in april of this year. and i suspect by the time we see the sharklets we are in need of an updated roadmap perhaps. perhaps it could be more clear and perhaps it could be more expanded on with what has been delivered so far. but that is for fslabs to decide on what they want to share.

Do you have a link to this road map? I've been unable to find it, I'm still finding my way around the forum so perhaps I've missed it.

Indeed what FSLabs chooses to share is their choice, however if every voice stayed silent nothing would ever change :) (of course we should not expect change just because we've asked for it)

Perhaps something as simple as "known issues + missing features" as a single sticky topic so if we find something missing or not quite right, we can just take a look in one place rather than search the forum and dig up historic posts :)

Link to post
Koen Meier

latest news post which goes in the the roadmap up untill the sharklets.

before that which has a short section on the upcoming projects of which the a321 has now been delivered.

and the oldest which was just when v4 launched i believe and only mentioned the a320 for v4 and the a319 that was in development at that time.

The annoucement section is always a good place to follow when you want to read about the latest updates and the changelogs.

Link to post
Phillip Morgan
16 minutes ago, Koen Meier said:

latest news post which goes in the the roadmap up untill the sharklets.

before that which has a short section on the upcoming projects of which the a321 has now been delivered.

and the oldest which was just when v4 launched i believe and only mentioned the a320 for v4 and the a319 that was in development at that time.

The annoucement section is always a good place to follow when you want to read about the latest updates and the changelogs.

That's great thanks for the detail. Looking through I can see lots of good info about upcoming changes and new features which is fantastic. I think the only thing missing from the picture are "known issues" as a more generalised topic, but that's probably not appropriate for an announcement section. Still I'm pleased to see an extensive list of whats to come.

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction :)

So, as a suggestion (not a demand) I think it would be great to see issues such as missing features displayed in some kind of area, something like a todo list, so we know that things like this are still on the radar even if they have no date for general release :)

Link to post
  • 3 weeks later...
Markus Hahndorff

I would like to kindly add that:

  • HLD AT PPOS
    Holding at present position also seems to be not implemented (and is missed at least by me. YMMV).

Regards,
Markus

 

Link to post
  • 2 months later...
Felipe Widmano

Has anyone ever considered this, one of Airbus' favourite features on their planes?

  • FLS (F-LOC/F-GS) approach
    ability to fly "99% of all approaches that are not ILS", as Airbus claims, with ILS-like guidance.

 

A350 and A380 have it as a default (as I understand it) and it's an option on the A320 and A330, replacing FINAL APP. It's got one great advantage over FINAL APP though, and that is temperature compensation...FLS will adapt barometric altitudes for the approach if the temperature is below ISA which renders OAT limits for certain approaches negligible. (that being said, it is a very common feature on modern bizjets which often have more advanced avionics than airliners)

 

Link to post
Camille MOUCHEL
20 hours ago, Felipe Widmano said:

Has anyone ever considered this, one of Airbus' favourite features on their planes?

  • FLS (F-LOC/F-GS) approach
    ability to fly "99% of all approaches that are not ILS", as Airbus claims, with ILS-like guidance.

 

A350 and A380 have it as a default (as I understand it) and it's an option on the A320 and A330, replacing FINAL APP. It's got one great advantage over FINAL APP though, and that is temperature compensation...FLS will adapt barometric altitudes for the approach if the temperature is below ISA which renders OAT limits for certain approaches negligible. (that being said, it is a very common feature on modern bizjets which often have more advanced avionics than airliners)

 

thats like an RNAV/GNSS approach then

Link to post
Felipe Widmano

Well, yes and no, it's not a new approach, it is just another way to fly existing, published approaches. (And, as that, really isn't the great innovation Airbus marketing folks claim it to be but since marketing is everything nowadays...)

You can also use it to fly any other non-precision approach, like LOC, VOR, NDB...

Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...