Posts by Davyy11

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

What kind of frame rates do you have in cruise? Low frame rates cause the simulation to slow down which might make it more unstable.

What kind of turbulence and wind do you have set up?

What weight was set for the aircraft?

I did a test in the A321 with no winds, at 34,000 ft, with 15,000 kg of payload and 8,820 kg of fuel. The speed started to fluctuate slowly. I was getting stable 60 FPS. This bug is very noticeable in the A321; it might be more subtle in the A320 and A319, but it’s something you should look into. This speed fluctuation is quite annoying.

Quote from Von Jack

That's how it is in real life too; in the image, maybe the speed was still increasing or already decreasing, but it can increase or decrease by about 7 knots from the managed speed.

I understand that small variations (even up to 5–7 knots) can happen in real life, especially in VNAV or with wind changes.

What I’m describing is more of a continuous overcorrection cycle, with clearly noticeable thrust increases and reductions in stable cruise conditions. It feels less like normal fluctuation and more like aggressive speed hunting.

That’s why I believe it might be a tuning issue rather than realistic behavior.

Quote from Von Jack

This also needs to happen on Boeing aircraft, and there also needs to be a way, like on Airbus aircraft, when setting a Cost Index, to increase or decrease the speed, but unlike the B737-800 which only stays at Mach 0.789, it's much better. That's too generic.

Thank you for the respectful response. Small variations are indeed normal, however the variations I mentioned are quite excessive. You can clearly hear the engines increasing and decreasing thrust repeatedly.

Instead of the system adding just a small amount of thrust to recover speed, it adds a lot of power, and once the speed exceeds the target it reduces thrust too much again. This creates an infinite oscillation cycle that becomes quite noticeable and somewhat annoying.

I’ve noticed a recurring issue with the A320 family (A320 and A321, possibly the A319 as well).

During cruise, the aircraft sometimes struggles to maintain a stable target speed. For example, when set to 230 knots, the speed drops significantly (around 224 knots), then increases above the target, and continues oscillating in a repeating cycle.

It feels like a continuous speed hunting behavior. It doesn’t happen every flight, but I’ve experienced it multiple times, especially with the A321.

Device: Galaxy M35, Aerofly mobile.

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

On mobile the tail rotor assistance is always on because it would be too difficult to control otherwise. On desktop you have the option to enable or disable this where you can have more precise controls.

I use the pedals separately on-screen, not via gyroscope, and I would really like an option to disable this assistance entirely for more manual control, even on mobile. This would let me practice proper yaw coordination while keeping full control over the pedals.

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

Are you using mobile or desktop? Which helicopter are you flying because the EC135 and UH60 do have some form of stability augmentation / fly by wire.

I’m using mobile, and I’m flying the R22.

That’s why I was a bit confused, since the R22 doesn’t have stability augmentation or fly-by-wire in real life. However, I still notice that the pedals move automatically when I change the collective, even with all assistance options disabled.

I noticed something while flying the helicopters.

Whenever I increase or decrease the collective, I can see the helicopter’s pedal moving automatically, even though all assistance options are disabled in my settings.

It seems like there is some kind of automatic torque compensation or yaw stabilization happening in the background.

Would it be possible to add an option to fully disable this automatic pedal compensation for a more manual experience?

I really enjoy the helicopter flight model.

Hi, first of all, thank you for this amazing update — the new weight & balance system, the CG changes and all the aircraft improvements are incredible.

I just had one question regarding fuel:

I noticed that we can now set fuel weight manually, and the FMS/FMC already shows fuel flow per hour/minute, estimated fuel on arrival, trip fuel, etc. However, it seems that the aircraft still doesn’t actually burn fuel during the flight — the fuel quantity stays fixed unless we change it manually.

I wanted to ask if fuel consumption is already implemented and maybe I'm missing something, or if it’s planned for a future update. Since the new weight system is now in place, having real fuel burn would make the experience even more realistic, especially for longer flights.

Thanks again for all your hard work. The sim is getting better and better every update.

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

Most customers expect the gear to toggle between up and down. And even Boeing decided to get rid of this Off position in their newer aircraft.

I guess I could animate the lever so that it automatically goes to the off position after 10 seconds or so.

It could also be linked to an existing assistance option, or have a toggle in the settings. That way, users who prefer full realism could manually move the gear lever to the OFF position for added immersion. Keeping it optional would satisfy both casual and more serious users!

Just noticed that in the 737 (-500, -800 and 900ER) and 747-400, the landing gear lever can’t be set to the OFF position after retraction. It’s a small detail, but it adds to the immersion and realism—especially for those familiar with Boeing procedures. Would be a nice touch in a future update.

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

You can zoom in and out in the cockpit using pinch-to-zoom gestures. You can also move the camera view around to prevent this.

We'll investigate if we can change the entire rudder control area so that you can't tap anything behind it on accident.

Thank you for the reply!

Yes, I already try adjusting the camera view and zooming in/out, but unfortunately that compromises the visibility I personally prefer. The position shown in the screenshot is the one that works best for me — it gives me a clear view of the instruments and outside visuals, especially during final approach. But in that position, the rudder control overlaps the gear lever, and it's very easy to accidentally retract the landing gear during flight while using rudder inputs.

This only happens in the air, of course, since the gear lever is locked when on the ground. Still, it's inconvenient and forces me either to avoid using the rudder in flight or to constantly change my view, which breaks immersion.

If it’s possible to make the rudder control a "protected area" that prevents accidental taps on cockpit elements behind it while in use, I think it would help a lot without impacting other users.

Hi, I’d like to report a usability issue I’ve encountered in the mobile version of Aerofly FS. On some aircraft — not just the 777 — the rudder control appears right on top of the landing gear lever. This can cause accidental gear retraction while trying to control yaw during approach, which is quite frustrating.

It’s not a bug exactly, but it often forces me to reposition the camera awkwardly just to avoid triggering the gear lever. Maybe a small UI tweak or an option to relocate controls could solve this.

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

Yes, these STARs have coded "manual" or "vectors by ATC" segments. In the real world you would have to fly a hold unless ATC tells you otherwise.

Thanks for the input! And speaking of that, have you ever considered adding a simple ATC system? Nothing as complex as VATSIM or full voice interaction — just a basic, structured ATC that can handle things like clearances, vectors, runway assignments, and handoffs. Even a text-based or menu-driven version would already go a long way in making arrivals and departures feel more guided and realistic. It doesn’t have to be overly advanced to be effective.

I've noticed that in many U.S. airports, there is often a disconnect between the end of a STAR (Standard Terminal Arrival Route) and the beginning of the instrument approach procedure. The STAR route frequently ends far from the initial fix of the selected approach, resulting in unrealistic routing or sharp, manual course corrections to align the aircraft.

This issue is particularly noticeable at major U.S. airports like JFK, where most STARs do not seamlessly transition into the chosen approach. It can break immersion and requires extra effort to correct manually.

While this issue isn't exclusive to the United States, it's far more common there compared to other regions in the simulator, where STARs and approaches tend to connect more logically and smoothly.

I understand that fixing STAR-to-approach transitions across thousands of airports would be a massive and time-consuming task. However, a more feasible solution could be to focus on a selected list of major international airports where this issue occurs most frequently. Improving the continuity between STARs and approaches in these key locations would already make a noticeable difference in realism and navigation flow, especially for users who fly commercial routes. Perhaps an automated check for route continuity could also help identify the most critical mismatches.

Fixing these inconsistencies would greatly improve the experience for those aiming for realistic arrivals.

Quote from ThomK

You must also adjust the third ECAM

I believe you might be referring to the standby altimeter (the third BARO setting) rather than a third ECAM, since there are only two ECAM display units in the A320.

As far as I know, in normal operations, the standby altimeter is not part of the ECAM’s logic for comparing BARO settings between the captain and first officer. In real aircraft, the "BARO REF 1/2 DISAGREE" message is triggered only when there’s a noticeable mismatch between the two main BARO selectors — not the standby one. But thanks for the input!