Posts by danielzhao0120

Dear Aerofly FS Development Team,

First of all, I would like to sincerely thank you for your continuous hard work and dedication in developing Aerofly FS. As a long-time user and aviation enthusiast, I truly appreciate the incredible performance, visual quality, and smooth experience that Aerofly provides, especially on mobile platforms. The level of optimization, stability, and overall flying experience are truly impressive.

I mainly fly the Airbus A320 in cockpit view and focus on realistic instrument flying, flight procedures, autopilot management, approaches, and manual landings. I would like to share some feedback and suggestions that I hope could further improve the realism and long-term value of Aerofly FS.

One area that I believe could be improved is the Airbus FMGS navigation logic, especially the DIR TO function and lateral flight management behavior.

In the real Airbus A320, the FMGS does not simply command the aircraft to turn directly toward a waypoint using a fixed bank angle. Instead, it calculates the most appropriate turn based on aircraft speed, altitude, flight phase, and required turn radius.

For example, during high-altitude cruise, the aircraft normally uses smaller bank angles to maintain passenger comfort and efficiency. During lower altitude operations and approaches, larger bank angles may be used when required. However, in Aerofly FS, the aircraft sometimes appears to maintain a similar turning behavior regardless of altitude, which can result in unrealistic flight path management.

Another important feature in real Airbus operations is waypoint turn anticipation. The FMGS calculates when to begin the turn before reaching the waypoint, allowing the aircraft to smoothly capture the next flight segment. In some situations in Aerofly FS, the aircraft seems to begin turning too late, which can cause overshooting or difficulty completing tighter turns, especially at higher speeds.

Improving these areas, such as:

• More realistic DIR TO behavior
• Altitude and speed dependent bank angle management
• Improved turn anticipation logic
• More accurate lateral navigation calculations

would greatly enhance the Airbus experience for users who enjoy realistic operations.

In addition, I would like to suggest another direction that could make Aerofly FS unique among flight simulators: gradually introducing more advanced aircraft system simulations and training scenarios.

Many professional pilots use simulators not only for normal flight operations, but also for practicing procedures, decision-making, and handling abnormal situations. If Aerofly FS could gradually introduce more realistic aircraft procedures and failure scenarios, it could become an extremely valuable training-oriented simulator while maintaining its excellent performance and accessibility.

Possible future features could include:

• Engine fire procedures
• Engine failure and single-engine operations
• Windshear warning and escape guidance
• Rejected takeoff (RTO) scenarios
• Tire failures and abnormal landing situations
• Hydraulic, electrical, and flight control system failures
• Smoke and fire warning scenarios
• More realistic ECAM messages and checklist procedures

I fully understand that implementing these systems requires significant development effort. However, adding these features step by step would greatly increase the realism and long-term value of Aerofly FS.

One of the greatest strengths of Aerofly FS is its outstanding optimization, smooth performance, and beautiful visual experience. If the aircraft systems and operational procedures could gradually reach a deeper level of realism, Aerofly FS could become not only an excellent flight simulator for enthusiasts, but also a highly valuable platform for serious aviation training and procedure practice.

Thank you again for your passion, effort, and commitment to continuously improving Aerofly FS. Your work has already created one of the most impressive flight simulation experiences available, and I look forward to seeing how Aerofly FS continues to evolve in the future.

Best regards,

A passionate Aerofly FS user and Airbus enthusiast

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

A320neo vs. A321neo according to Airbus' aircraft airport planning manuals.

4

A321ceo vs. A321neo:

The wings, engines, mid fuselage are pretty much identical between all three versions. No change in wing sweep that I can see, only changes in flaps, which we already model in the sim. So for all I know our 3D models are correct.

I knew that the A320neo approach speed is about 5kt slower than on the A320ceo because the aircraft is certified with the lift increase of the sharklets taken into account and because of the higher flap angle, lift improvement package as standard and so on. That is already simulated.

Do you have any data that backs up that the A321XLR approach speed, with the new single slotted inboard flap vs. the double slotted one on the A321neo or A321ceo is still significantly lower? I would assume that the A321neo has the lowest approach speeds but the A321XLR probably has a slightly higher or equal one because of the reduced max lift coefficient on the inboard flap. Unless they gave the flap a that much longer chord length or have to other tricks like modified tailstrike margins, then basic physics would speak against a higher lift coefficient and thus lower approach speed.

At this moment it's very hard to get any real world data for the A321XLR. For the A321neo it's probably easier, but the XLR is still so new and there are so few examples flying around that just not that much data has been published.

Display More

I usually fly the A320 family, including the A320ceo, A320neo, A321ceo, and A321neo. I haven’t flown the A321XLR, and my airline hasn’t introduced that aircraft type yet. However, during normal operations, I’ve noticed that the A321neo’s approach speed is significantly lower than that of the A321ceo.

Another point I’d like to mention is regarding abnormal procedures. If these procedures could be integrated into the ECAM system display in the simulator, and if the logic matched the real aircraft as closely as possible, it would greatly help pilots during recurrent training.

The reason I suggest adding abnormal procedures is because the other aspects of your simulator are already extremely well done. The handling, operational feel, and overall experience are all very realistic and impressive. Every time I use your flight simulator, I feel that my flying skills improve noticeably.

Questions about the new A321neo aircraft

First of all, I would like to sincerely thank the developers for bringing us such a wonderful game, as well as so many beautifully made airports. I truly appreciate all the effort and hard work that has gone into this.

Regarding the A321neo, its wing geometry and wing sweep angle are different from those of the A321ceo. One is around 20 degrees, while the other is around 30 degrees, and the angle of the winglets/sharklets is also different. As a result, their lift-to-drag ratios are not the same.

From this perspective, in the game, when we compare the A321ceo and A321neo at the same weight, their approach speeds appear to be the same. However, in real life, they are not the same. In reality, the A321neo’s approach speed is significantly lower than that of the A321ceo. I hope the developers could look into this and consider improving it.

In addition, the flight control laws of the A321neo are also different from those of the A321ceo. For example, the trim is frozen at 100 feet AGL, if I understand correctly. This is another area that could perhaps be improved.

In real-world flying, the A321neo handles somewhat differently. I would not necessarily say it is difficult to fly, but it does feel less familiar and requires some adjustment. I hope the game can reflect these more realistic details.

Also, the managed speed of the A321neo should be considerably lower than that of the A321ceo.

Finally, I would like to say that if Aerofly could implement the ECAM procedures, I feel the game would come very close to perfection. Every pilot goes through these procedures during recurrent training and uses ECAM to help manage and resolve abnormal situations. If Aerofly could include this feature, I believe it would make the simulator stand out even more compared with many other flight simulation products currently on the market.

Thank you again to the developers for your continued hard work and dedication.