Litjan

See guys, this shows you how hard Tom is working on this and not browsing the forums all the time . We did indeed say that we want to release the tutorial videos prior to release, and I think that is still the plan. I am not going to stick to the time-frame of "4 weeks", though, we might show them in a faster succession. But we are not going to start the video run until we are satisfied that we have a gold candidate, and as Tom said we are not quite there, yet. Cheers, Jan

This is symbology we have in there for now to help with debugging. Later on there will be only one T/D. DCL means "decelerate" and denotes points where a speed-change is scheduled. Jan

Technically, thats not quite correct . Just like the real weather radar we depict radar-energy returns. Radar energy will be reflected by liquid water (rain) and by the solid ground (in varying strength, depending on the reflectivity). There will be a tutorial video that shows how to use the weather radar (overscanning, underscanning, ground returns, shadowing, etc.) Jan

Hi Jonas, I would love so, too. But unfortunately in V1.0 all you will hear is "traffic, traffic" (we replaced the default "TCAS alert!" sound from X-Plane). There is no symbols, resolution commands, etc. Jan

Unfortunately we won´t be able to feature the "database" holds for the many enroute holdings published, though.The holds that we have are part of procedures, for example at the end of most missed approaches. But we don´t do (YET!) the enroute holdings where you click on HOLD, enter the relevant fix, and then the database "suggests" the correct holding with inbound course, turn direction, etc. We definitely want that - if the database supports it - but for now you would just have to hold "manually", using the EHSI map. Of course you can use the FIX page already to draw the fix to hold at and the inbound radial, that helps a lot with situational awareness. The holding function is on the very top of the list for stuff post 1.0, so I expect us to tackle that right after the worst glitches you guys will certainly find are fixed. Jan

That is noted. Thanks for the feedback! Jan

I am working on that... just about 800 guys ahead of me. Give me a few years... Jan

Oh, NOW you are telling us... We actually came up with a solution quite similiar - we will allow entry at all enroute waypoints, but based on total distance along the route we will assume they are "climb" or "descent" restrictions. There is the chance that you ment a restriction to be a "climb" one, and we interpret it as a "descent" one (based on proximity to T/D), but then there is only so much mind-reading that the FMS is able to do. Some pilot sanity is required ;-) Jan

Well, I think the most important asset is that you have to be exceptionally good-looking! Jan

I think Tom meant that he won over me - speedy answer. You are right - usually ATC wouldn´t add a restriction that far out of their jurisdiction. But what if the pilot thought "oh, I know these guys, they always want me to be at FL240 at KERAX already (this is a real-world situation!), I will just put that in right now, so the FMS gives me some warning on when to descend AND an accurate fuel prediction for EDDF...

Yes, but what if you entered "At or Below 6000" really close to the end of your 2000NM route (last waypoint before the STAR starts)? While you are still sitting at the departure airport? Would you want the plane to fly at 6000 feet for 4 hours (its not very fast at 6000´) for the whole route? Edit: Tom beat me to it!

I have never flown to Innsbruck - sadly - but usually visual approaches or "circling with prescribed tracks" are also allowed at night - unless the AIP says otherwise. Then you´d find something on the chart like "daylight only". You need to have the airport in sight and be familiar with the terrain. And you also need to display some common sense and good airmanship if you want to live long enough to reap in your pension one day, so a visual approach on a moonless night in a tight-quarters valley is something that I wouldn´t do (outside X-Plane ;-) ). The landings lights only shine ahead far enough that you will be able to see if you crash into trees or barren rock... Jan

Hehe, that is our problem - we don´t know! I have never done that in 10 years of flying it - as there would be no reason to have a restriction at an enroute waypoint. But I know some of you guys will do so, so we need to cover it. Jan

The sad part is that she is absolutely right... Jan

This doesn´t even happen in real life all too often, so don´t get your hopes up . Jan

Yep, thats how my instructors tried to justify it as well ... some people said that Airbus picked design choices opposite to Boeing´s to both establish themselves as "nouvelle", and also to avoid lawsuits. No idea if that is true. Jan

Yes, this is the way for the TCAS to show the correct vertical speed to fly in a RA situation. More modern aircraft depict a "keep out zone" like a trapezoid in the EADI, or a "green and red" zone in the vertical speed indicator on the EADI (Airbus). Jan

I couldn´t have said it better . And there are some weird design choices - like if I want to see the "lower part" of a flightplan, I have to click the "up-arrow"? Or "deleting" a discontinuity - just feels strange to "delete" something that isn´t there. And going to the "fix info" page is a hassle, there really should be a button for that, instead of the workaround - lateral revision page... I do like the colouring, though! Part of my problem is also that I was brought up on Boeing FMS´s, so thats what I am used to. Much easier for someone that only knows Airbus FMGC. Cheers, Jan

Not that anyone would want to buy FMGC code... No offense, just got burned a few times with that, Jan

No Zimbabwean Dollars!

I wish so, too! But I think the licensing fee would raise the price of each copy to at least a 5-figure sum . Any takers? Jan

For now you will always see them when in "outside view" and never see them when "inside the cockpit". Might do a user preference if that is not satisfactory to some folks (like they don´t want to see them from outside). We won´t show them when inside the cockpit, that dude and his brother are just too ugly... Jan

Not initially - one tutorial is finished with a visual approach, though. This is something beyond the realm of the "basic training" we try to accomplish with our tutorials - just to get everyone up and flying while using the basic features of this aircraft. I am pondering a series of more advanced training videos in the future. In the meantime we have description of how to fly a non-precision approach in the written documentation. Jan

Hehe, I love these arguments. I think it´s perfectly acceptable to have different priorities in a product, and ideally they would all be fulfilled 100%. It is also fair to argue in favour of a feature you value very much - and we do bow to the "mass market pressure" in some way, too (3D-Pilots,...) Now clearly every potential customer vies to get his favourite aspects furthered. Some want a nice cabin, some want a step-climb functionality, some want a different coloured frame of the CRT´s. All these items would count towards the "100%", and everytime we have to say: "Sorry, not in V1.0", there is negativity. But if we´d say :"Sure, we will put it in, but it´s going to push release another 3 weeks" there is also a lot of negativity. So we can´t win In the end it´s going to be like Cameron said: We will build the airplane that we want to build, we release it when we want to relase - and you buy it if you want to. Jan