A380 Support - Models & FDE Issues

[Tranceaddict]

I think we've said it often enough, we cant help you with a problem that we cant recreate.

Every FS user has his own mods in the game etc and the sheer variety in setups etc has its influence. I cant explain why the RPM limit would cause a problem for one but not the other.

For peoples knowledge, i myself have put this model & FDE through 6 real world flights at various stages & all 6 were completed in REAL TIME and from taxi out to taxi in. In addition there were specific conditions/phases of flights which i loaded as standalone scenarios and tested them out.

When we ran into issues with the AP/AT it was well revealed to you guys much to the annoyance of a few because it came about as an unexpected finding & delayed the final preparations. However we got around it & a lot of testing followed that to ensure it was stable.

But it's like Derek said, it doesnt appear to change anything our end. Sure there could be issues that some people have with it.. but from most of what we've seen here.. it's been with people who dont know how to fly an airplane by the basics even.

Also people posting with merges/FSX setups and what not.. "tuning" the FDE to their "interpretation" of how the thrust should respond.. how the flight characteristics should be etc.. well we cant duplicate those scenarios.

This is not to say that we've made the perfect FDE or it cant be improved.. as far as i know.. hell i'd love it to be as good as it can get, but given the fact that we have NO FULL TIME FDE designer.. this is downright a good effort. So keep that in mind & you're welcome here to post objectively.. not with a know it all fix it all attitude and accuse us of not wanting to listen to stuff or accept stuff etc. Help us help you & everyones free to contribute, but leave the attitude out of our forums.

Irrespective, theres no way to tell if there are other addons that modify the behaviour of our release by their own modifications of FS's files or control behaviours.

So i'll repeat our point, we can help you if the problem you face is posted here with enough detail of the systems in use, the addons etc & the exact major parameters under which the odd behaviour is experienced.

I can for the record say that i've flown our pre-release test mules pretty much by the numbers & yes, for all those who "cant" control her on descent or t/d @ 138knts or 135knts... it's possible. But before you get to T/d .. you need to start off rightly & that's what most people dont do in the first place.

[LN-OSS]

There are no problems what so ever with the fde.. I have flown her some hours and have done many landings etc etc, with real weather...

She flies great!...

Thanks PA

Stian

[Tranceaddict]

thanks for the feedback Stian. Appreciated.

[sknepper]

Some people think they know everything. Others pretend to know everything. Well let me say that as a real-world pilot I think the chaps from PA have done a wonderful job on the FDE and have got things very realistic. Compliments to the team.
So here are a few facts for the people who want to know more;
Jet engines take time to "spool-up" and do not give 100% in the blink of an eye, as some people think. Also the air gets thinner as you get higher which means less oxygen for the engines at higher altitudes. Also as temperature gets higher the air gets less dense, also less lift and less oxygen.
Now, if you consider all those facts you will start to appreciate the realism of the FDE.
Also, there is allot of work that goed into getting the FDE as good as this A380 one. Factors have been weighed and evelopes of performance finely tuned.
So please think twice before making critical comments, please.
Constructive comments would save so much space and time. Thanks.

[cka411]

Noticed some alignment issues with the aileron, probably associated with the wingflex, on both sides.

[Derek Mayer]

Yeah it's caused by the wingflex. The flex cuts were made early on and aren't placed very well, causing alignment issues ever since I ramped up the flex amount. I did my best to compensate for them but it isn't perfect. This is also the cause of the bleedthrough in certain areas.

With more work I'm sure it can be improved. Whether or not I'll ever get to it remains to be seen though.

[mseaton]

I was wondering if there's a easy tweek to make it so when you're taxiing to turn the rudder off when making turns?

[Derek Mayer]

Nope, the compiled models can't be edited I'm afraid. Sorry.

[LN-OSS]

Derek and PA...

Thanks for a great release ... I wont fly anything Else in fs for a loong time!!

I know that you have worked on this bird a long time... And still do..

I just hope that you can take some time to also fix the wing bleed and maybe the small glitches reported above...

This model really desserve the last bit of attention to get even better than she already is!!

You guys have nailed it... She flies and looks awsome!!

If needed... I would liked to donate just to get that servicepack
Hmm maybe others to??

Thanks
Stian

[esg]

If needed... I would liked to donate just to get that servicepack

That's not how we work.

[airplan3z]

OK, I downloaded a panel from flightsim.com meant to be used with the robert versylus A380, along with the sound pack. Hey, I can manually fly this thing and it goes perfect, I can use autopilot and it goes perfect, the only problem I saw the first time was nearing stall upon climbing to high altitudes, but I changed the max RPM and raised it abit, problem solved, nothing's wrong with this plane, the people who have problems are either using FSX which the plane is NOT designed for, or they really just can't do anything right . I can see why none of the Project Airbus members have had trouble, because there is nothing wrong with this plane. So really, I don't know what these people are complaining about... this plane handles perfectly and there is absolutely nothing wrong. Maybe just the wing bleed through, but it you have to be on a very precise angle to see it. I also agree with what sknepper said! The FDE is very real. Took two years too make a plane, and it shows. I thank you guys for this plane! It's the only thing I fly now.

[LN-OSS]

If needed... I would liked to donate just to get that servicepack

That's not how we work.

Understand!

But hope there will be a fix anyway...
The model desserve it

Thanks for the plane of the year PA

[matsuman]

Some may work on using the MS default B744 panel.
So far I’ve tested the long haul flights (real time) on this great model using the PSS Airbus A340 panel (closes I can get to a Airbus dashboard)....
Tested the landing four times (2 auto and 2 manual) and this fde doesn’t want to land this plane. I can’t control the sink rate and unable to get the flare on “retard” which causes the nose to slam hard on the deck first. The same results using ILS auto land, it has no problem capturing the localizer and it is right on the center line. But the speed is too fast (w/ full flaps) and unresponsive to speed intervention on the glare shield, pull joystick to nose up a bit, get as much flare on touchdown and again too much speed the nose slams on the runway.

On the long haul flight, the right tank fuel burn is more than the left tank (even with auto fuel transfer is enable on PSS panel). Thus getting an engine shutdown on # 3 and # 4 engine on a long haul flights (usually around 11 hrs elapse time).
Next flight, I’ve changed the fuel tank parameters using the PSS aircraft cfg A340 data format, using the A380 fuel capacity.
Again, the right tank is burning more fuel amount than the left tank and this time # 3 engine stop after 11 hours of flying time.
I will test this again on another freeware panel (no PSS panel FMC style), just a regular panel and see the results on fuel tank burn and landing.

Positive Note:
Looks good on taxi, turns and take-off using the FLX power, Thrust climb, FMC Climb phase and Level flight. Also tested okay on speed/altitude intervention on the glare shield during cruise phase.

[sknepper]

Just to add a bit of a new dimension to the already great FDE, I enabled the fly-by-wire function in FSX to the PA A380. My first opinions were that the controls reacted a bit sluggishly, but after doing a few touch and go's, found that the stability did get a new dimension. It seemed to trim the elevators automatically and keep the aircraft stable in turbulence doing a bit of auto aileron. I will try it some more. One thing which got my hairs on my neck to stand up was the slow reaction time of the elevators when pulling out of an accidental dive, which happened when I sneezed and knocked the yoke forwards while on the glide-slope for landing .
I am interested in how other PA A380 pilots experience this.

[Daveo]

Well just my 2 cents worth. First test flight LFBO-OMDB currently enroute @FL350 had alot of the porpousing. Flying in FSX , Active Sky Evolution and with Ken Mitchells FS2004 panel. Swapped out a few of the old FS98 backup altimeter and airspeed gauge with ones from the CLS A340.Deleted the old callout gauge and also modded the panel with ISG avionics. After finally adjusting the payload settings which took about adding 80,000 pounds to the front compartment and reducing the back by 40,000 the AC handles very well at mach .82 FL370.

[David Anderson]

I've read Derek's flying tutorial for the A380. I wanted to ask why you list the range with max payload at 6,500 when YSSY-KLAX exceeds this number? Surely that flight is frequently full. According to Airbus' numbers, 8,200nm is the range with max pax. YSSY-KLAX is not 8,200nm, so with max pax, it's still well within the range of the A380. I actually haven't found 6,500nm for the A380 anywhere on the internet.

I haven't tried YSSY-KLAX in FS yet, but given the numbers you provide, it's not going to work. Will it?

[Matt Tank]

I flew SYD-LAX and i made it with about 15% fuel on landing. I departed Sydney at MTOW.

Regards

Matt

[Derek Mayer]

I've read Derek's flying tutorial for the A380. I wanted to ask why you list the range with max payload at 6,500 when YSSY-KLAX exceeds this number? Surely that flight is frequently full. According to Airbus' numbers, 8,200nm is the range with max pax. YSSY-KLAX is not 8,200nm, so with max pax, it's still well within the range of the A380. I actually haven't found 6,500nm for the A380 anywhere on the internet.

I haven't tried YSSY-KLAX in FS yet, but given the numbers you provide, it's not going to work. Will it?

Page 112 of this PDF gives range VS aircraft weight. These are official numbers from Airbus.

It's important to distinguish between max payload and max pax. Since the A380s in operation are only using ~500 seat configurations, even the fullest loadout still falls quite short of the "max structural payload" mark. Unless you're carrying Fort Knox in the cargo hold or something, you should make it to 8,200nm no problem.

[David Anderson]

I'll have a look at that. I was just using the default loadout and 69% fuel, which is the only time the aircraft will not go overweight.

[David Anderson]

I'm pretty sure you guys have this FDE messed up. I have the QF, AF, and SQ official releases, and all three have different maximum fuel capacity values, and all of them fall far short of what Airbus.com says is the maximum fuel capacity, which is 82,000 gallons.

I also referenced the .pdf you linked. Max passenger payload is right around 117,000 pounds, with a range of 8,000nm. Where and when does cargo (baggage) fit in? FS combines the two, and the default value is 106,725 pounds. If Airbus' number includes cargo, then we are below the max passenger payload, which would mean the range should be 8,000nm or more.

So where we are obviously falling short is fuel capacity. Why did you guys set it so low, with different values for three releases?

For instance, with the AF model, I have to set the fuel to 69% to get just under MTOW. 69% is like 5 pounds shy of what you've set the maximum fuel capacity to, 58,988.22 gallons. Which according to Airbus.com is wrong. Immediate logic says, hmm, 69%, that ain't full. No wonder I can't make it all the way.

I'm confused.

Also, the QF release has a higher MTOW than the AF and SQ models. Why so wishy washy?

[esg]

I have the QF, AF, and SQ official releases, and all three have different maximum fuel capacity values

So where we are obviously falling short is fuel capacity. Why did you guys set it so low, with different values for three releases?

Just checked the FDE's, all three have the exact same fuel capacity—and it's exactly what it should be

For instance, with the AF model, I have to set the fuel to 69% to get just under MTOW. 69% is like 5 pounds shy of what you've set the maximum fuel capacity to, 58,988.22 gallons. Which according to Airbus.com is wrong. Immediate logic says, hmm, 69%, that ain't full. No wonder I can't make it all the way.

You got to reduce the payload to keep the range. The fuel capacity is 85,471.81 gallons

Also, the QF release has a higher MTOW than the AF and SQ models. Why so wishy washy?

QF's aircraft have a higher MTOW

[David Anderson]

Odd. I'll redownload I guess.

[David Anderson]

Fail.....

I just downloaded the official Lufthansa release, never had it on my system before.

Default values:
Empty Weight : 611,000
Payload: 106,725
Fuel: 51,545.22 gallons (roughly 63% of what max fuel should be)
Gross Weight: 1,290,403
MTOW: 1,124,400 (according airbus.com it should be 1,235,000)
MAX ALLOWABLE FUEL: 60,704.84 gallons (that definitely ain't right, Airbus.com gives a nice round figure of 82,000 gallons)

If I set the fuel to 100% I get 85,484.32 gallons, which is higher than what Airbus.com says, or Wikipedia.

The 100% fuel put me overweight by 166,003 pounds. So, according to you, I have to reduce payload. Well I would have to kick everybody and their stuff off the plane, and then some to come underweight. Do you see where you guys screwed up now?

I can appreciate the fact that you guys may have pulled some really technical documents to get your data from, but it is still way far off. I would never assume that Wikipedia is right, but the manufacturer's website? C'mon now. I know they are rounded numbers, but still. Your numbers don't even come close.

And btw, my FS9 install is still pretty fresh. I did a complete reinstall some time ago. The only modifications I've made are adding the old modules section to the FS9.cfg, and various scenery.cfg edits, which should have no effect on the aircraft.

[esg]

I was wrong about the payload. It was fine; I just rushed into editing the FDE without thinking it through first.

MTOW: 1,124,400 (according airbus.com it should be 1,235,000)

1,235,000 is for the -842 variant operated only by QF (it's a tiny bit higher, actually)

MAX ALLOWABLE FUEL: 60,704.84 gallons (that definitely ain't right, Airbus.com gives a nice round figure of 82,000 gallons)

The "MAX ALLOWABLE FUEL" reported in FS is the max fuel you can take on to not exceed the MGW with your payload remaining what it is

If I set the fuel to 100% I get 85,484.32 gallons, which is higher than what Airbus.com says, or Wikipedia.

This is correct, it's taken from reliable sources

he 100% fuel put me overweight by 166,003 pounds. So, according to you, I have to reduce payload. Well I would have to kick everybody and their stuff off the plane, and then some to come underweight. Do you see where you guys screwed up now?

Yep, you got to reduce the payload to keep the range. The A380 simply can't fly to its maximum range with full load (refer to the PDF Derek linked earlier). Keeping the default payload it can only fly to about 8,200 nm and with full load it can only fly to about 6,500 nm (-841 variant)

All in all, nothing to see here. Nothing wrong with the FDE. Your confusion confused me too

[Derek Mayer]

EDIT: Demetris beat me to it. I'll leave my post here anyways since it goes more in depth.

I'd just like to point out some things that haven't been mentioned yet. Please note I'm not calling you a liar or brushing you off. The FDE isn't perfect, that's already been established. I just want to clarify some things.

First off, as you rightly pointed out, the figures on the Airbus site are simplified for the casual enthusiast. Most of our figures were not taken from airbus.com, and came from more detailed documents. That being said, we never had access to an official FCOM, AOM, or similar all-encompassing manual, so we had to make due with what was available.

I think Demetris sent you an updated FDE. Note that he'd maxed out the cargo bay weights, which would make you much heavier unless you thought to reduce the load yourself. His value gave a payload of 180000lbs; the cargo portion of that translating to roughly 150lbs of bags per person instead of a more realistic 50lbs.

You posted the default Lufthansa loadout a few posts above. I'd just like to point out a few things regarding that.

Default values:
Empty Weight : 611,000
Payload: 106,725

Here's how we arrived at our default payload figure of 106,725:

The seat map we used is based on SIA's cabin setup.

Our default load-out adds up to a total pax weight of 74725lbs (assuming 175lbs/person), giving a total pax count of 427 out of a possible 471 (90% load), and a total cargo weight of 32000lbs; which equals approximately 1.7 bags per person (based on 20kg/44lb per bag). 74725+32000=106725lbs.

Fuel: 51,545.22 gallons (roughly 63% of what max fuel should be)
Gross Weight: 1,290,403

Sorry, but that's just wrong. Assuming FS's standard 6.7lbs/gal of fuel, 51545 x 6.7 = 345351lbs. Add that to the rest of our numbers (empty weight + payload + fuel) and you get 611000+106725+345351=1,063,076lbs. Not sure where your gross weight figure is from, perhaps you mistyped it?

MTOW: 1,124,400 (according airbus.com it should be 1,235,000)

Well that depends, there are 3 variants of A380: The A380-841, A380-842, and A380-861. The red numbers are key here. If the variant ends with a 1, the max gross weight is indeed 1,124,400. If it ends with a 2, it's 1,254,400. As of yet, I believe QF is the only airline to use the second variant. Yes, that means that they'll be able to take more payload and/or more fuel than the other airlines. According to the info we have that is accurate.

MAX ALLOWABLE FUEL: 60,704.84 gallons (that definitely ain't right, Airbus.com gives a nice round figure of 82,000 gallons)

That figure is simply FS's estimation of how much fuel you can take on board based on your current payload. It does not indicate the max fuel capacity.

If I set the fuel to 100% I get 85,484.32 gallons, which is higher than what Airbus.com says, or Wikipedia.

Indeed. All I can say is our source on the fuel figures is very reliable. The only thing worth mentioning is that FS appears to overestimate fuel weights. As you may or may not know, fuel weight for a given volume varies with temperature/density. FS uses 6.7lbs/gal, whereas our source used something more to the effect of 6.55lbs/gal. That means full fuel in FS will weigh about 12,000lbs more than what our source had listed. Just some food for thought, I have no idea if this was a contributing factor towards the discrepancy.

In the end, I'm not seeing a problem here. It appears our numbers are all in line with the real world figures, not sure what else there is to say.

[David Anderson]

Soooo confused. What about what I showed you, that to have full fuel for a long trip, there would have to be next to nobody on board? Whatever. I'm not angry, just very very confused.

[David Anderson]

I think aliens have taken control of my computer, lol. Just kidding. I am now well enroute YSSY-KLAX, with the payload, fuel was only limited to 90% and using a fuel flow and range gauge that I have, I'm going to land in LAX with fuel to spare. I wonder why it failed me so many times before?

[zaflyer]

Just to add a bit of a new dimension to the already great FDE, I enabled the fly-by-wire function in FSX to the PA A380. My first opinions were that the controls reacted a bit sluggishly, but after doing a few touch and go's, found that the stability did get a new dimension. It seemed to trim the elevators automatically and keep the aircraft stable in turbulence doing a bit of auto aileron. I will try it some more. One thing which got my hairs on my neck to stand up was the slow reaction time of the elevators when pulling out of an accidental dive, which happened when I sneezed and knocked the yoke forwards while on the glide-slope for landing .
I am interested in how other PA A380 pilots experience this.

Hi SKnepper (and anyone else reading) First time here...
I've experienced a similar thing. I'm quite new to the Airbus AC and love them...I've got a query. Just installed the excellent A380 for FSX...installed the A340-600 VC as instructed by "Airnewzealand" (I think) Anyhow, had the same 'problem' as you and with some of the AB panels ..I couldn't get the The Flight Control Buttons (ADIR) on both left and right upper panels to respond to the 'click' to turn them ON from OFF.
A guy (from another Forum) advised/suggested to me that I should go to the:
[airplane_geometry] section and delete the 2 // in front of the //fly_by_wire = 1.; Did this and the buttons worked. But like you I've experienced a sluggish response. Btw...couldn't find the above 'line' in the cfg for the 380 and I added it..with out the 2 // Prior to doing this on a 'test' flight, the response was more 'crisp'
Q. is...is this common to all AB AC...i.e. sluggish response when these buttons/switches are activated? personally preferred it without the FBW...but the constant 'OFF' light unerves me Hope this is clear. Other than this..these AC are superb. The tips on views are really good too. I'm quite new to this DL and install business...so mistakes happen..but the help here seems really good.
Best wishes
ZA

[ajrulez]

Hi guys, my first post here; and I am mighty glad I have something positive to say - both about the PAirbus staff, and couple of guys who posted some troubleshooting tips in this thread.

1. I am a n00b when it comes to flying and totally rely on the Auto Pilot - ALT hold, AT hold, APP hold so yeah basically I don't do anything. I just love to watch the bird take off and touch down. When I first downloaded the A380 models for FSX, I did not have a great experience. The plane did look awesome, one of the best A380 models I have seen for FSX, and it's free on top of that - can't beat it! When I started flying, I had one major problem, that is the plane wasn't able to hold the altitude, and was being pretty turbulent. This meant I was unable to perform an ILS landing with APP hold because I'd never intercept the glidescope because of the ALT hold problem.

2. I read this thread, and blindly followed a couple of troubleshooting tips shared here by PA staff and couple of other guys who had similar issues. I made the following tweaks:
a. Ensured that I reduced my payload and\or fuel load to negate the excessive weight.
b. Copied the [autopilot] section from default 747 to aircraft.cfg file for PA380.

I don't know which one of the two - or both - did the trick, but now I am able to have my ILS landings, and all Auto Pilot functions are working as expected.

Thanks to all that gave troubleshooting tips.

Cheers
AJ

[jetpilot132]

The aircraft now rocks forwards and backwards after 30,000ft meaning i cannot get above that on autopilot. Please help.

I have that same problem. I switch to autopilot and the aircraft's pitch changes dramatically and i gain and lose lots of altitude (+- 900ft~5000ft) and i don't know why. i have tried everything in my power to resolve the issue but nothing works. The aircraft has recently started doing this. It was fine up until now...I fly at a cruising alt of 30,000ft at a IAS of 300k...hope these stats help in finding the source of the issue...

[Jan_Prins]

I have a question. By the OpenSky planes, which are only Boeings, the 2004 planes look smaller than those who have a FSX model. The FSX model is bigger. Is it here the opposite by the airbus that the FSX model looks more compact and smaller in the FSX? I am a bit confused in that area. I have downloaded a KLM virtual A380 from Project Airus and I have passed a model from the FSX instead of the FS2004 (=original) in it. This plane is really new for me although I am known by flying the A380. But my question is; do I use the right model for the right flightsim? I can fly this baby also with the old model in teh FSX, but than the plane is looking way bigger. I hope somebody can answer me that question. What I see is that I see by the IOpenSky Boeings aswell and also in more FS2004 A380's aswell that what you see as FSX model (RR Model) he fights to get on FL 390 and when I fly the plane in a 2004 model than he is bigger (what is normal to me) and the planes goes to FL 425. Is somebody able to command on this? Thanks so much, Jan.

[Jan_Prins]

Fail.....

I just downloaded the official Lufthansa release, never had it on my system before.

Default values:
Empty Weight : 611,000
Payload: 106,725
Fuel: 51,545.22 gallons (roughly 63% of what max fuel should be)
Gross Weight: 1,290,403
MTOW: 1,124,400 (according airbus.com it should be 1,235,000)
MAX ALLOWABLE FUEL: 60,704.84 gallons (that definitely ain't right, Airbus.com gives a nice round figure of 82,000 gallons)

If I set the fuel to 100% I get 85,484.32 gallons, which is higher than what Airbus.com says, or Wikipedia.

The 100% fuel put me overweight by 166,003 pounds. So, according to you, I have to reduce payload. Well I would have to kick everybody and their stuff off the plane, and then some to come underweight. Do you see where you guys screwed up now?

I can appreciate the fact that you guys may have pulled some really technical documents to get your data from, but it is still way far off. I would never assume that Wikipedia is right, but the manufacturer's website? C'mon now. I know they are rounded numbers, but still. Your numbers don't even come close.

And btw, my FS9 install is still pretty fresh. I did a complete reinstall some time ago. The only modifications I've made are adding the old modules section to the FS9.cfg, and various scenery.cfg edits, which should have no effect on the aircraft.

I have the same problem aswell. Now I need to put the fuel on 50% and than by flying the plane from Los Angelos to Sydney I am out of fuel half way. Now it doesn't need to be a problem, because you can `refill' also the tank in the air or put the plane on continious fuel, but when I am doing that I can't fly that baby for `real'. With full tanks he cant even lift up from the ground and the -plane doesn't go well in the air. It can't get the speed which that plane needs to have and become even stalled. Further the plane on it self is a beauty.