Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
Collapse
Just Flight Community Forum
  1. Home
  2. Just Flight
  3. MSFS Products
  4. 146 Professional
  5. V 1.10 Glidepath Failures

V 1.10 Glidepath Failures

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved 146 Professional
15 Posts 9 Posters 1.3k Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • MarkM Mark

    @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

    E Offline
    E Offline
    Eurosky
    wrote on last edited by Eurosky
    #6
    This post is deleted!
    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • H Offline
      H Offline
      Highlander_821
      wrote on last edited by
      #7

      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.

      MarkM 1 Reply Last reply
      1
      • H Highlander_821

        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.

        MarkM Offline
        MarkM Offline
        Mark
        JF Staff
        wrote on last edited by
        #8

        @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

        Just Flight Development Assistant

        H 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • MarkM Mark

          @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

          H Offline
          H Offline
          Highlander_821
          wrote on last edited by
          #9

          @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.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • H Offline
            H Offline
            Highlander_821
            wrote on last edited by
            #10

            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.

            F 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • H Highlander_821

              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.

              F Offline
              F Offline
              FailCold
              wrote on last edited by
              #11

              @highlander_821 can confirm my installation of the 146 also exhibits this poor GS behaviour.

              1 Reply Last reply
              1
              • K Offline
                K Offline
                knidarkness
                wrote on last edited by
                #12

                Same here, at least -100 is "always" under GS for 1-1.5 dots

                RampartR 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • K knidarkness

                  Same here, at least -100 is "always" under GS for 1-1.5 dots

                  RampartR Offline
                  RampartR Offline
                  Rampart
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #13

                  @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......

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • G galeair

                    Since updating to the latest version my 146 will not maintain the correct ILS Glidepath angle. I have only made three flights, one in the 100 series and two in the 300 series aircraft, but in all cases the aircraft deviated significantly from the correct Glidepath, 2 or more dots of deviation, and I had to take over manually in order to land the aircraft. The 100 series was using a default livery and went well below the GP whilethe 300 series using a downloaded Dan Air livery were well above the GP. I have experienced a few odd weather and wind effects over the last few flights so wondered whether it's just me or are others experiencing problems. As the 146 is CAT 2 ILS equipped I would have expected greater accuracy. In addition localizer capture and tracking seems very leisurely and easily disturbed by strong cross winds.
                    Talking of cross winds I must congratulate the Just Flight team on the improvements they have made to the landing and take off stability in strong winds. The aircraft is now far easier to control.

                    A Offline
                    A Offline
                    Arkdoc
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #14

                    @galeair

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • K Offline
                      K Offline
                      kaptenek
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #15

                      Yes, percistant with the glideslope. However How strange it may sound if you ”forgett” to call our little co-pilot. TMS set for take off, the ILS is almost by the dot. Coinsidence, perhaps?

                      Patric Ek

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • Users