737-800 ILS approach

Every airport has a different ILS intercept altitude. You can find them on the airports charts. However: I'm not sure if they are accurate, since AeroFly uses old nav data.

Make sure to set your Baro/Radio to the correct value (also located in the charts)

And that you've programmed your FMC correctly. Including the Vspeeds.

You must think that the ILS glidepath and the PAPIs are supposed to agree? Look up real world approach plates and see that they warn even competent instrument rated pilots against such presumptions. Being one PAPI dot out when on a stable precision approach is completely trivial.

The THRESHOLD CROSSING HEIGHTS are different for the PAPIs and the glidepaths even though they agree with their descent angles. Imagine / /, same angles but displaced.

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

Make sure that the autopilot actually captures the glide-slope, which it should usually be able to do from 10NM out, 3000ft or better 2000ft above the runway elevation. This is indicated on the primary flight display (PFD) at the top as green "G/S" mode. Once the ILS glide-slope is captured the autopilot does no longer need the selected altitude, the barometric altitude or anything like that.

Which airport and which approach are you using? Can you show us a screenshot of the issue please?

You should put the purple GS more dark

Looking at the FPV in your images it appears to be on exactly 3 degrees. I don’t see the problem here.

You particularly interested in field of view? how zoomed in you are? what your view’s aspect ratio is?

Your last image is more or less square and they are all zoomed in excessively so any impression of excessive height could be from an unnaturally narrow field of view.

The approach plates with their visual glideslope indication warnings that you found boring were to show you that the PAPI lights ‘showing high’ are not being followed exactly if you are on the ILS glidepath. If you freeze an Aerofly approach and view the plane from outside you can see how a minor change of viewing position changes the number of white and red lights visible.

The glidepath antenna are small UHF transmitting elements up on a mast well off to the side of the runway, higher than the ground based PAPI light projectors. Their projected back-paths would inevitably cross the runway surface at different distances down the runway. For the two miles long runway 28R at SFO’s 3 degree glidepath the 13 feet OCH difference might represent approximately 6080 X 13/300 or a separation of about 260 feet horizontally. The nominal distance would be much less because the pilot’s eye point would be several feet above the glideslope antenna.

An airliner would ‘see’ the SFO ILS glideslope perfectly on its receiver antenna in the nose radar dome but it would need a camera mounted on a long nose probe to simultaneously see a perfect two whites and two reds of the higher but same angle PAPI beam if they were both exactly on 3 degrees. During a perfect descent both sensors on the plane would receive an unchanging perfect signal as both would be on a 3 degree descent angle.

The PAPIs in Aerofly are not perfect.

Narrow runways and those with long displaced thresholds also give a visual illusion of being too high. There is a list of similar phenomena.

Quote from Danielfrw36

As you can see below, it is on the glide path according to the PFD, but is visibly too high and the Papis are showing 3 whites.
Using auto land it hits the touchdown markers, but the glide angle seems to have been modelled too steeply?

It's really strange because from the images you are exactly descending through the glide slope as shown on the PFD, but the aircraft is very high. Is this a bug? Where did you do this ILS approach?

I normally use the LNAV approach