Freed up a vote for this…
AP system in infinite flight is honestly really bad and I hope it’s one of the things that gains top priority along with project metal.
1 Like
I have used APPR mode less than 5 times since its inception. It shouldn’t be yanking the aircraft just so it can intercept the localiser and glideslope.
2 Likes
Exactly.
The turns and pitch up maneuvers made in APPR mode should be made gentle, it makes some harsh maneuvers when you’re on final and slightly off the glideslope/localizer.
Although it works well when established, even in crosswind conditions.
2 Likes
Can we please seperate the IAS and Mach speeds. Its really problematic in descends and climb.
2 Likes
Yeah they need to add a LOC button in the UI. It always misses the Localizer.
Amazing points! Me personally, I would’ve added “smooth turns” as another feature that needs to be redone because the heading only changes to match that of the next waypoint in your FPL roughly 1-2nm before you would cross the direct waypoint line, as well as really sharp banks, where in reality, most autopilots begin the mid-air turn whenever it is able to match the smoothest bank.
2 Likes
Yeah, it needs some tweaks. The overshooting can be solved by going slower, but I know it’d be unrealistic when cruising.
Me personally would prefer a climbing feature for the VNAV to follow the altitude restrictions when climbing.
2 Likes
Absolutely agree. Tge current IF autopilot system is absolutely atrocious.
3 Likes
The autopilot needs a complete overhaul. Many of its functions have remained unchanged for almost 10 years. Not sure what is hindering on fixes but it is often a pain to use.
2 Likes
The problem I have with APPR is that when you engage it while you are descending, it levels you off very abruptly, causing issues. You have to be in level flight at the perfect intercept heading for it to work
1 Like
I wonder how that was let through when it was being tested.
I have to admit though, I use all the IF autopilot features without thinking too much about it, after getting used to the particulars.
True there is the sudden throttle up and some idiosyncrasies with mode specifics like presets and resets, but I still use VNAV, LNAV, autothrottle, APPR etc. regularly, by far the majority of time with good results.
Part of that is the engineer part of me, perhaps, appreciating the functionality as is (VNAV was one of my favorite feature additions), vs the pilot part of my brain (the need for functionality more highly tuned for irl flight, and my lower level of training than you).
But I just gave it a vote, because I can see your point that it’s a worthy area of future development.
3 Likes
Always appreciate you and what you say. As I mentioned in the original post, I have biases based on my real world airline experience. When you bring up VNAV, I think about how hard it is to wrap my mind around how they’ve made this work. Along with the other things I’ve mentioned, it needs to be looked at… and the simple differences in functionality with the real world systems should be considered
1 Like
Same many years loving IF, same bewilderment on those points resulting in some of the same frustrations noted here.
So… VOTED!
Thanks for pointing these issues out as an inspirational feature request!
1 Like
I have stalled the plane doing that. recovered but once even flicked the plane. Even with All ops normal
Voted! These are all great points and frustrations I have with the system as well. I think a rework of the autopilot could go a long way
1 Like
VOTED
Anything that improves our autopilot (especially the LNAV absolutely YANKING the aircraft every time it enters a turn)
3 Likes
along with that, once i was on approach into chicago with ils set up. before, i had used flight resume. i was following the glide-slope in the cockpit. what happened was that the glide-slope lead me straight in to the ground. so anytime i use flight resume, i always have to set up ils again
Hi, reading again, some thoughts came to mind:
I’ve always assumed the above is related to covering a universe of aircraft types (in terms of performance differences) with a common set of logical instructions. How much power is needed vs the response to power is pretty complicated when you go beyond the needs of single aircraft type (a 737’s autothrottle system irl is dedicated only to that aircraft).
I don’t quite understand. I was overjoyed when VNAV was added: I need to be down to a certain altitude by a certain distance for a given speed. It removed a core part of the descent management workload.
It eliminates the need (time and focus) to spin the ALT numbers manually(?).
But most of your points seem to be about keeping the flight modes independent of each other, which seems to make good sense.
The current dependency between mode functions I assume follows from the hierarchy of adding AP functions over different releases (calling on functionality already there when adding something new - “organic growth”, if I can say that).
For direct to:
I didn’t think about the difference, maybe because the difference in path is not super large vs a direct turn to the fix. But I see your point.
That would be very cool. I’m not sure if this was the only such topic still open:
In a basic logical sense, it would seem easy to implement, but in terms of the effect on gameplay over the wide variety of users, and again the particulars of the range of aircraft involved, there are confronting complications I would assume.
If it was added and very easy to use, and accessible to everyone, would it eliminate the need for people to lean why it is necessary in terms of physics of flight etc… Should it be an advanced function only available after you “earn with demonstrated skill”? (maybe the same could be said for APPR in terms of being “forced” to demonstrate certain minimum skills first, to avoid the risk of over relying from an early stage…)
The only other issue that comes to mind from the comments is “smoothness” in tracking a heading or altitude. Movements are often smooth, but when they aren’t it’s a bit frustrating clearly. I don’t think I can add anything particularly useful on that (except for a couple comments on using APPR as currently implemented, which can wait…)
One line summary maybe: mode independence, would be an appreciated future feature.
What I’m suggesting hasn’t anything to do with specifics of any particular aircraft type. These suggestions should be compatible to any aircraft from a 172 to a 757. Very basic, human-factors-friendly features that every aircraft I’ve ever flown uses, including the King Air and the Q400. The CRJ which I’ve jump seated in a few times is the same.
–
VNAV: It’s not that I don’t like VNAV, it’s that its done incorrectly. In no aircraft does the VNAV system set your altitude automatically. Your VNAV operates independently of your altitude selection. You should be able to set, arm, and capture a VNAV profile, down to the altitude that the pilot has selected and level off at that altitude, unless the pilot sets a lower altitude themself. In the Q400, you can turn the Alt Sel off to fly through the selected altitude which is what I believe makes sense for infinite flight (we can’t do this in IF without causing further issues.)
Presets: I just don’t find it necessary, It clutters the panel. But I suppose I can live with it - just confusing.
Smart turn: One turn to the fix is whats expected, and what makes sense. It’s simple, turn to the fix. That’s how it should be
IAS and Pitch: I remember receiving an explanation from Laura but I wasn’t satisfied… We shouldn’t have to climb in VS, there’s gotta be a way to get this done.
Degrees of pitch, feet per minute, knots, etc don’t change between aircraft type
You’re right though, mode independence is a good way to phrase it.
Thanks Adit!
1 Like