V 1.10 Glidepath Failures
-
@galeair There have been no changes on our side to the Glideslope capture for a few updates now, so any differences you are seeing we suspect will be speed-related or weather-related.
It is worth noting that the 146 does have a tendency to float when flaps are extended, especially when extending them between 0 and 18 degrees (which is likely one of, if not the largest single change in flap angle in any commercial aircraft) so it is important that the flaps are extended at the correct speeds.
Since Asobo/Microsoft has updated the weather engine in a recent Sim Update we have also seen updrafts become overexaggerated, which could also be causing this issue. One method you can experiment with is MSFS Options > Assistance Options > Piloting > Turbulence. This setting is set to "REALISTIC" by default which based on some real pilot feedback seems to overexaggerate turbulence and updrafts caused by terrain. This may be an option that is down to personal preference, but if you try experimenting with this option set to LOW or MEDIUM you may have a better experience.
Mark - Just Flight
-
@mark
Thank you for the response. I was using the Bae reccomended flap and airspeed settings for the approaches with the flaps at 24 degrees before the GP intercept, based on the Bae training manual and 33 degrees with gear down by 8nm final. When the 146 100 series deviated significantly, 2 dots, below the GP, at Sumburgh there was a significant (25 kt gusting 35 kt) crosswind on the METAR. The rate of descent at VREF plus 10 kts did gradually reduce as the aircraft slowly deviated below the GP, but not by enough to correct the deviation. The other approach using the 300 series at Bristol was at VREF plus 5, around 125 kts and the aircraft pitched down to a rate of descent of around 500 FPM which was insufficient for the descent and I ended up far too high for a stable approach.
In both cases the forecast weather included towering cumulus clouds, so it's possible that Microsoft had included significant wind speeds on the approach, but the tower winds were not reporting these. One disappointing aspect of MSFS is that I don't experience any significant turbulence in clouds, so it's difficult to tell if wind shear is an issue.I'm using realistic turbulence. Will see what the latest MSFS update brings this week, and hoping the white dot is banished.
-
I can also confirm that the GS tracking is not accurate.. Majority of the ILS approaches I fly in the BAE 146 results in 1/2 to 1 dot below the GS last 1000 feet AGL.
Localizer tracking, I can also confirm not 'aggressive' enough. The aircraft takes too long to get fully established on the localizer. Localizer capture does occur (AP Engaged) when on a vector (45-degree intercept etc), HSI localizer deviation is too large though.
When LOC capture occurs with the Autopilot, aircraft shallows out the intercept. HSI does not fully intercept and capture the localizer final approach course.
LOC capture with the autopilot as an example: 13 mile final, Localizer capture with a half scale deflection until roughly 5 mile final in this example.
It is a problem on Vatsim. An issue if flying an ILS to an airport with parallel runways etc. Borderline embarrassing on Vatsim as ATC think you are aligned with the wrong runway even though you have localizer capture.
After months of testing out this aircraft, I can confirm the biggest issue is Localizer and Glideslope tracking. SID and Hold tracking also not very precise and accurate at times. That is more of an FMC issue i assume. Tune the navigation accuracy, it is an amazing product. True joy to fly and operate. -
@eurosky We do receive occasional bug reports regarding the localizer capture not being aggressive enough and it is something we have logged on our internal bugs tracker. From my personal experience, as long as you intercept the localiser at a respectable speed (approx 180 knots) it'll track the localiser well all the way from intercept to runway, but obviously the greater the speed and the greater the angle of interception will likely cause the aircraft to overshoot the localiser slightly. It's something that we would like to improve, but for the best results, we would prefer to rewrite the whole system from the ground which would take up quite a bit of development time. We should have more options available to us once the RJ has been released as we should be able to bring across any autopilot improvements from the RJ to the 146.
With the glideslope, any floating issues we believe have been caused by the weather changes in latest MSFS Sim Update (as mentioned in my previous reply), but the only reason I can think of for why the aircraft would fly below the glideslope is due to the speed being lower than the Vapp speed. It's also worth noting with glideslopes I'm referring to the glideslope indicators in the cockpit and not the PAPI lights at the airport, as the PAPI lights can vary in their accuracy depending on the airport scenery being used.
SID/STARs and holding are all handled by the FMS so unfortunately, I don't think we'll be able to improve anything from our side.
Thank you for the kind words though! It's always great to see people still enjoying the 146!
Mark - Just Flight
-
Hello. I am having issues with the glideslope as well. It started after the last update. But my issue is the plane is staying much too high as the GS indicator goes further and further below the middle dot and the plane just doesn't follow it down. I am fully configured and airspeed is VRef+5 or so.
-
@highlander_821 The issue of the aircraft flying above the glideslope will likely either be caused by the speed with relation to the flaps, or it could be the MSFS updrafts pushing it away from the ground.
One method you can experiment with is MSFS Options > Assistance Options > Piloting > Turbulence. This setting is set to "REALISTIC" by default which based on some real pilot feedback seems to overexaggerate turbulence and updrafts caused by terrain. This may be an option that is down to personal preference, but if you try experimenting with this option set to LOW or MEDIUM you may have a better experience.
Mark - Just Flight
-
@mark I checked and I already had the turbulence setting on "medium". I am approaching at VRef+5.
I know you said that you didn't change anything about how the glideslope is followed in this latest update, but there is most certainly something that has changed. It is frustrating, because I have had this plane for well over a year, and I have been flying it on ILS approaches a lot. Never had a problem before. -
I decided to try an automated ILS approach with pre-set Clear Skies weather (I usually use real live weather, either with REX Weather Force or the MSFS built-in live weather.)
The results were still; awful. It's like the AP isn't even trying. As the glide slope dot starts to go below the middle dot, the airplane just lets it go. Then , once it is almost at one dot below (the indicator, not the plane), it finally pitches down to around 1100 fpm decent, as if it is going to try to follow the GS, but then pitches back up to around 500 fpm before it has even started to catch up to the dot. This puts it further behind. Then it "tries" again, but it once again fails and pitches back up again. By this time, it is too far behind to catch up and I have to take over manually. This test was flown fully configured, flaps 33, gear down, Vref within 3 to 4 knots of the flipchart value.
I have to wonder if anyone at JF has actually tried to fly an automated ILS approach to see if they can get it to work properly.
I have several other payware jetliners that are having no issues. I really doubt that galeair and I are the only ones seeing this. -
@highlander_821 can confirm my installation of the 146 also exhibits this poor GS behaviour.
-
Same here, at least -100 is "always" under GS for 1-1.5 dots
-
@knidarkness I can confirm I see the same issues with the QT300. I am constantly 1 Dot high on the glideslope. A/C is fully configured.
I mean I can live with it but its definately off :) Still loving the Jumbolino btw......
