Board index FlightGear Development Aircraft

Airbus A320 [Family]

Questions and discussion about creating aircraft. Flight dynamics, 3d models, cockpits, systems, animation, textures.

Re: Airbus A320 [Family]

Postby bicyus » Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:14 pm

mischka wrote in Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:02 pm:I don't know, but I think if I put max fuel and max passengers, the thing should reach at least fl320 right? Try it, I can't get it up there.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_(aircraft)
Service Ceiling for the A320 is about FL390, at MTOW wich is arround 162.040 lbs.

Maybe if you load full PAX and Fuel, it will exceed the MTOW. Pilot work now to adequate the load. ;-)
User avatar
bicyus
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:11 pm
Location: Bilbao
Callsign: Bicyus
Version: 2.6
OS: Ubuntu Linux

Re: Airbus A320 [Family]

Postby tuxum » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:17 pm

scotth1 wrote in Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:11 am:If you have a look at the A380, you'll see that the "LNAV" mode is engaged by pushing the HDG knob, this is called Managed Mode in Airbus speak.

The Airbus autopilot is really very simple to remember, each of the four knobs across the FCU can be either in "Managed Mode", that is the flight management system will look after it, or if you pull the knob it is in "Selected Mode", that is the number the pilot dials up is what it will do.

The tricky part is when you have some knobs in Managed Mode and some knobs in Selected Mode.
For example if you are in managed mode for speed, heading and altitude and you start your descent, what happens when you pull the heading knob and change from the course that the FMS has plotted. The FMS then assumes that you don't want to go to the planned next waypoint, so it doesn't know what distance you want to travel over before you meet the altitude constraint, so it can't managed the descent profile, it will then go into what is called "Open Descent" mode, so it will use the speed (managed or selected) to work out at what vertical speed to descend at to meet the required IAS.

Hope that helps with the understanding. I've written up a draft tutorial on the A380 in the flightgear wiki, it might also help you understand the Airbus autopilot a bit more, I really need to spend some more time updating that, it's really only half done... http://wiki.flightgear.org/A380_Tutorial


S.

I just read your tutorial. Wow, great tutorial(although I know it's not finished)! Thank you for your work! If only every aircraft would have such an detailed flying instructions page on the wiki...
tuxum
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:13 pm
Callsign: AVA0385
Version: git
OS: Ubuntu 11.10

Re: Airbus A320 [Family]

Postby clrCoda » Mon May 07, 2012 4:36 pm

bicyus wrote in Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:14 pm:
mischka wrote in Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:02 pm:I don't know, but I think if I put max fuel and max passengers, the thing should reach at least fl320 right? Try it, I can't get it up there.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_(aircraft)
Service Ceiling for the A320 is about FL390, at MTOW wich is arround 162.040 lbs.

Maybe if you load full PAX and Fuel, it will exceed the MTOW. Pilot work now to adequate the load. ;-)


Test flight of A319-111:

Besides bad lift off characteristics at max capacity, shutting off a tank, that is, switching the X in the box to blank does not stop the flow of fuel from that tank. I mean to say that it just keeps on flowing no matter if it is selected or not.

And the VENT tanks, just the opposite occurs. Switch it off, switch it on, no flow either way.

Otherwise I've had some very nice flights in the plane as I test it for my first usage with an airline.
Cool plane. Thanks very much for the great work! Now to learn the scotth1 tutorial.
Ray
Ray St. Marie
clrCoda
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:04 am

Re: Airbus A320 [Family]

Postby qhfreddy » Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:21 pm

The aircraft all yaw heavily during takeoff, can't take off without going out of the runway boundaries.
qhfreddy
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:19 pm
Callsign: AO 1
OS: Win 7

Re: Airbus A320 [Family]

Postby Flightgearex » Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:51 pm

A A318 Elite would be nice
VISIT THE GERMAN FG-FORUM -> forum.flightgear-de.net !!!!!!!!!!!
User avatar
Flightgearex
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:39 pm
Location: https://www.youtube.com/user/Flightgearex
Callsign: AEV001,FLYER,...
Version: 2.8.0.5
OS: WIN7

Re: Airbus A320 [Family]

Postby wings4passion » Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:37 pm

GearFlighter wrote in Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:42 pm:Hi, i notice when flying the A318/19/20/21-Planes, that they react very fast and hard, but i can´t believe that this is realistic. Other planes (like i wrote in my post above), like the 777-200ER, feel more fluently and more realistic. Even the 737, which is roughly the same character of aircraft (Small; made for short- and medium-Range flights) doesn´t react that strange :? Can this issue be fixed anyhow (i think it depends on the FDM, does it?) Greets,
Gearflighter


Well, of course I never had the chance to fly an A320-family-member 'live' but I know, that these aircraft are very sensible and that a just a little tip on the side-stick is enough to let the aircraft move in another direction. I think it has something to do with the fact that this is a fly-by-wire airliner and not an ordinary on with hydraulic systems everywhere..The A320 family is actually my favorite airliner on FlightGear, after all those flights that I operated I'm able to fly the plane pretty smooth. :)
wings4passion
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:26 pm

Re: Airbus A320 [Family]

Postby FGRS » Sun Jan 12, 2014 3:01 pm

Will anyone....ever fix the real problems with this aircrafts? Ever?

The real problems that seems like,only I can see here, are the crazy pitch and dive behavior of the aircraft when flying. It makes all of the A320 Family aircrafts almost unflyable. The problem comes when reaching some higher FL ,like FL 300 or higher. The aircraft out of nowhere,starts to pitch and dive like crazy.

The problems are much more increased with increased weight on (fuel,pax,cargo) and when the speed is below 250 kts IAS. That is to say that,when flying with almost empty fuel tanks and at 230 KIAS,everything is ok,but HELLO,what's the point if that,when the A320 ,thanks to very good fuel burn rate is capable of quite long flying. With some normal fuel and PAX weight on,this pitch and dive comes quite soon,at FL260 ,and it's not stoping whatever you do. Actualy, if you touch anything,A/T ,ALT,VS..things go even more violent,and then speed and alt just drop down.

The problem is here since the version 2.0 ...so I guess all of you will undertsand why I'm persistently tryng to bring this up for years. The work ,at least some is beeing done on all other planes,but the A320 family ,just like it's cursed ,no one even to touch it. Which is not fair. Not everyone here have some Hi-tech PC or Mac or whatever ,to be able to run Omega's A320Neo. I'm one of them. So please,can ANYONE in the whole FG ,tackle and fix these problems once and for all.

A320 Family is one of the most popular short to medium twin-engine airliners in the world,and it deserves to be fixed and 100% flyable. Please.

Cheers.
FGRS
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 3:04 pm
Location: LQBK
Callsign: UAV001
Version: 2.8
OS: Win XP

Re: Airbus A320 [Family]

Postby wings4passion » Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:47 pm

I've got a question...I don't have problems flying the 320 family, it's really rather fun! But ever since I used FlightGear, I had a slight but annoying problem...when reaching an altitude of about 10000 ft (I guess) a warning signal appears and it won't stop until the aircraft is in approach for destination and has reduced speed for landing...I'm used to the sound now but after all it still is pretty nerve-wracking when it's going on for the whole flight! AP is properly set, also AT, I just can't find a way to turn that signal off and I can't find the reason why it's there anyway!

Does anyone know about this problem and how to tackle it? :?
wings4passion
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:26 pm

Re: Airbus A320 [Family]

Postby Johan G » Sun Jan 19, 2014 12:42 pm

I do not know if it has such features, but cabin pressure comes to mind, as oxygen partial pressure gets a too bit low at about that altitude.
Low-level flying — It's all fun and games till someone looses an engine. (Paraphrased from a YouTube video)
Improving the Dassault Mirage F1 (Wiki, Forum, GitLab. Work in slow progress)
Johan G
Moderator
 
Posts: 5546
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:33 pm
Location: Sweden
Callsign: SE-JG
IRC name: Johan_G
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Windows 7, 32 bit

Re: Airbus A320 [Family]

Postby FGRS » Sun Jan 19, 2014 12:52 pm

Could be. You have to enable the pressurization before take off on the overhead panel.


Frankly,nobody gives a damn about this aircraft..it's just a junk that nobody wants. I'm trying for years to persuade people here that the A 320 Family is a great family of aircraft but and that is worth fixing and further developing ,but nobody gives a damn about it... :|
FGRS
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 3:04 pm
Location: LQBK
Callsign: UAV001
Version: 2.8
OS: Win XP

Re: Airbus A320 [Family]

Postby Johan G » Sun Jan 19, 2014 1:08 pm

FGRS wrote in Sun Jan 19, 2014 12:52 pm:I'm trying for years to persuade people here that the A 320 Family is a great family of aircraft but and that is worth fixing and further developing ,but nobody gives a damn about it... :|

More often than not the only way to get things done around here is doing them oneself (though often with a big learning curve ahead). :wink:

Have you, just out of your own curiosity, taken a look in this aircrafts directory in you FlightGear installation? :wink:
Low-level flying — It's all fun and games till someone looses an engine. (Paraphrased from a YouTube video)
Improving the Dassault Mirage F1 (Wiki, Forum, GitLab. Work in slow progress)
Johan G
Moderator
 
Posts: 5546
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:33 pm
Location: Sweden
Callsign: SE-JG
IRC name: Johan_G
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Windows 7, 32 bit

Re: Airbus A320 [Family]

Postby FGRS » Sun Jan 19, 2014 4:33 pm

A lot of posts here a go,I said that I'm NOT a FG developer and or any kind of programer. And don't even try to sell me the story many of you are not FG developers,cause it's worn out.

The A320 family is present in FG since,FG 2,0 which was my first version of this simulator. Since that that,this same A320 Family has the same problems. And all of you are aware that FG 2,0 was a long time a go. That's why I'm saying that nobody gives a damn about it. Also,don't give me story about the FG Wiki articles ...simply because not everyone in this world is the same. some people just can't learn some things that way. For me,all of that is quite simply the rocket science.


The reason why I'm fighting to see the A320 improved is that I have a very old PC and no money for a better one. Meaning,that I can't run Omega's A320Neomwhich just proves one more thing,not everyone around you have all the best and newest.

And one more thing,I did. Many,many times hoping that I will somehow find the problem and fix it. But every single time I give up of it,cause I have no clue,not a slightest clue about codding ,programing or scripting. AND no one here is wiling to take some time and slowly ,step by step explain everything to me.

If no one here cares about the quality of the aircraft,then why should I?

Cheers.
FGRS
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 3:04 pm
Location: LQBK
Callsign: UAV001
Version: 2.8
OS: Win XP

Re: Airbus A320 [Family]

Postby Hooray » Sun Jan 19, 2014 5:04 pm

FGRS wrote: I'm trying for years to persuade people here that the A 320 Family is a great family of aircraft but and that is worth fixing and further developing ,but nobody gives a damn about it...


If that's the case, i.e. you having spent years "trying to persuade people", you should have better used that time to ask questions on how to make some simple changes. None of this is difficult or even involves programming - most of it is just editing text files and images. There's a ton of stuff that can be accomplished like that. We've all been there and started out exactly like that: being frustrated with the way FG worked, and nobody else taking any interest in listening to our feedback - then again, how are people supposed to listen to someone who prefers criticizing stuff instead of rolling up his own sleeves and playing around a bit to make some simple experiments first ?
I certainly would not listen to such a person, and neither did anybody listen to me when I pointed out the issues I saw.
You will see a ton of other examples for this - people like Thorsten started out here being really frustrated with the way the project works, and with the way things were "just happening" instead of being planned. Fast forward ~5 years later, some of us have become contributors. While we've certainly spent a fair amount of time in the meantime, we also started out with little to zero background knowledge, many of us without any programming background whatsoever, and some still having never written a single line of code, despite having become key contributors in the meantime.

There's nothing "worn out" here at all - you will find a huge number of contributors who are neither programmers, nor fgdata committers - yet, they're contributors.
Honestly, you need to decide if you want to get involved or if you just want to provide feedback and let others act on it (or not....)

This is not intended to sound negative - I can perfectly relate to people not interested in contributing, I am myself also not interested in contributing to certain areas, and cannot imagine having the motivation to learn certain stuff (such as 3D modeling or doing FDMs for example) - then again, there are others doing these things, and I can help them by doing stuff that I am interested in.

You really don't need to touch anything in fgdata or FlightGear to become a contributor here - even if you were to just help with the forum or the wiki, your feedback would have much more weight than just being a random user who decides to point out things missing in his opinion.

There's nobody disagreeing with what you say concerning the A320 - but then again the people who worked on it, are likely to be much more familiar with existing issues than you are.
Basically you are looking for volunteers to solve a bunch of problems that you consider really important, but you do not show any incentive to roll up your own sleeves to fix certain things yourself, or even just contribute to different FG areas.
Frankly, I don't care if you don't like aircraft modeling, 3D modeling, texturing or programming - but there's certainly /some/ niche in FG where you could contribute. Even if it just involves contributing to the newsletter. That alone would allow others to see that you are a valuable member of this community, and they might actually consider helping you.

Nobody here is asking you to become a programmer or aircraft developer.
To be honest, I fully agree that FG's support for older hardware has not really improved very much during the last 2-3 release cycles, and I find it a pity too.
But to me, this is not about some outdated aircraft - it's a core problem, that should and could be tackled, and people like you could actually help with it, e.g. by contributing to the issue tracker whenever something doesn't work as expected.

IF we had more people like you contributing to the project actively, certain things would not go unnoticed.
For example, I actually contributed a tiny little patch 2-3 years ago which was intended to provide better diagnostics for OpenGL/shader issues.
It was trivial, but it actually broke FG for people who didn't have hardware supporting shaders, i.e. people with old hardware - like you.
I never noticed anything, and neither did any core developers - because we all had sufficiently modern hardware.
Then again, we cannot all have dozens of computers to test FG on, that's where folks like you come in.

I would LOVE to have 20+ people here with really outdated hardware who regularly test-run FG on such hardware and provide feedback via the issue tracker.
And I would volunteer my time to help ensure that things are kept working on such platforms.
But so far, we have very few folks actually interested in contributing in this way to the project.

If you are specifically interested in older aircraft, I'd suggest to get in touch with openflight, he's the main guy here who actually goes out of his way to improve support for older FG versions and older hardware configuration, see:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=14971
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=17521
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=19213
viewtopic.php?f=72&t=21385
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=21468
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=21612

Now, I don't entirely agree with him on technical grounds, but that guy sure is one thing: consistent, he's been following his mission for several years now, and is obviously looking into more and more ways to make it happen.

And as you can see, he's already found 2-3 other guys interested in this - ideally, all of you would really team up and document things using the wiki.
You could come up with a roadmap and milestones, you could document what's working/broken, and what's missing.
You would end up being a handful of folks, and if you can pull this off - you'd definitely have my attention, and probably the attention from others as well.

But what's typically happening instead ? People start their own threads, or even contribute to unrelated ones - so that things go unnoticed for months or even years.

Seriously, spend 20 minutes going through openflight's postings here, start a wiki article and document things - get in touch with him and others, let us know what's broken - and learn how to use the issue tracker, and I promise you the situation will be better in 12-18 months.

And PLEASE, do yourself a favor and read this: viewtopic.php?f=42&t=15267
If you should still find yourself being frustrated with the way the project works and the lack of action by core developers, just imagine for a second someone were to give you commit access to FG - all of a sudden, you'd be considered a "(core) developer" by others - but nothing would've changed for you - still, people would be asking to act on their feedback :D
Last edited by Hooray on Sun Jan 19, 2014 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11376
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: Airbus A320 [Family]

Postby FGRS » Sun Jan 19, 2014 5:22 pm

You guys just grab one thing and then talk,talk and talk about it. That's why this whole thing is like this, a complete mess. Too much talk,not much work.

I want to learn and to get involved in developing (read fixing) of the aircraft here. Since my pc is unable to run any kind of 3D modeling software,I will have to take the harder way,and that's scripting/coding /programing. So,what I need is one with enough patience to explain everything to me,slowly. Like u said,most of you came here without any knowledge about the areas above.

A320 Family ,about which this whole topic is,is the one that I want to start with. Quite simply to fix that annoying pitch/dive behavior of the aircarft and to finally have that family of aircraft fixed and working. BUT as I said,I have no clue about all that stuff. My best guess is that the problem is in it's FDM...but it could be anywhere.

So how to trace and fix that? I know the whole story about FDM,there are jsbsim,yasin,UIUC.... As much as I know ,this A320 uses the jsbsim,so,can anyone explain,where in all of the aircarft 's documents,xmls and so on,the FDM is written down? How to trace that?
FGRS
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 3:04 pm
Location: LQBK
Callsign: UAV001
Version: 2.8
OS: Win XP

Re: Airbus A320 [Family]

Postby Hooray » Sun Jan 19, 2014 5:34 pm

I don't think you actually read and understood my posting, so I am trying to remain calm and positive by responding in a very polite fashion now:
We've been exactly where you were - and in fact, I feel frustrated with the way FG works almost every single day - and that's not much different for most contributors here, it's what keeps us going probably.
For example, some of the recent Nasal related additions really are pretty frustrating, they mean a lot of unnecessary work for people like Philosopher or myself.
Yet again, we can keep pointing out certain issues, but nobody seems to bother - so we're the ones who have to roll up our own sleeves to improve things for the better.
Sometimes we can come up with a fix quickly, but more and more often we actually need to do some research and experiments first - and sometimes improvements take several months to materialize.

I think you do have a point regarding "too much talking, too little actual work materializing" - I recently talked about this with Thorsten, in the context of the Yasim vs. JSBSim thread.

Where I think this is 100% applicable and correct - typically, these types of discussions will pop up regularly, cause lots of postings being made, with very little -if any- results materializing.

I don't think it's fair to say this when responding here, especially to my previous posting. I was specifically referring to openflight here, and he's as consistent as its gets.
You could prove that you are interested in this by teaming up with 3-4 other guys having similar hardware - and you would end up actually having a "voice" here.

I don't think it's fair to use your computer as an excuse - if you are able to run an outdated version of FG, you will surely also find some 3D/graphics software that works for you.
I am also not sure if "scripting" is inevitably harder than 3D modeling - I find the opposite being the case actually.
Also asking for personal 1:1 mentoring is unlikely to be fruitful unless you already have something to bring to the table - i.e. some kinda of track record.
The wiki and lots of other resources are fairly extensive and accessible - we've all been there and went through the same experience, i.e. not knowing about XML, scripting or the property tree.
And in fact, there are countless areas where I still know basically nothing. We all ended up with /some/ knowledge because we were interested in certain things, and interested in learning new stuff.
For some, that meant learning 3D modeling, for others it meant learning XML, scripting or contributing to the wiki.

Using your hardware as an excuse for not contributing is kinda lame - one of our most active graphics contributor is Michat, who is using a 386DX PC with 100mhz on Win95, he's not even able to use FG, but still contributes actively to FlightGear, and has been doing that for many years. So please don't be pathetic.
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11376
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

PreviousNext

Return to Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests