Posts by Davyy11

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 A350dabest

even if they fixed it i'd bet no one would know until they look at a update log

I understand your point, but I think even small details are important. Aerofly FS is well known for its focus on realism, and things like the thrust reverser animation help to create a more authentic experience.

Of course, the airplane will still fly the same way, but since IPACS often implements even minor improvements for the sake of realism, I think it makes sense to point this out. After all, if realism is one of the main strengths of the sim, then every detail that gets closer to the real aircraft adds to the immersion.

And IPACS has shown that they listen to feedback, even on small things – so I believe it’s worth suggesting.

747 🤨

I’ve noticed that on the A319 in Aerofly FS, the thrust reverser animation opens much less compared to the real aircraft. In the sim, the reverser cowls barely move, while on the real A319 the reversers open significantly wider, as you can see in the comparison screenshots below.

A319 in the game:

A319 real: Would it be possible to improve this in a future update so that the reverser deployment looks more realistic?

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!

I’ve noticed two recurring issues with the A320, A319, A321 and A350 in Aerofly, and I’d like to report them here:

1. Barometric Setting Mismatch Warning (ECAM):

Even when both the captain’s and first officer’s baro settings are identical (e.g., 1007 hPa on both sides), the ECAM shows the "BARO REF 1/2 DISAGREE" message. This warning only disappears when both are set to the standard 1013 hPa (or 29.92 inHg). It seems the system incorrectly flags a disagreement unless the standard setting is used. This occurs consistently in the A319, A320, A321, and A350-1000. I haven’t tested it in the A380 yet.

2. Speed Instability at Cruise (A319, A320 & A321):

At cruise altitude, the aircraft struggles to maintain a steady speed. The autothrust keeps overcorrecting — it adds too much thrust, overshoots the target Mach, then reduces power too much and drops below target speed, repeating in a loop. This results in constant and unrealistic oscillations in speed and thrust. It’s especially noticeable for those of us sensitive to realism and precision.

Both issues affect immersion and realism, especially for those who fly longer routes or like to simulate realistic ECAM logic.