Thank you using the Bug section, using templates provided will greatly help the team reproducing the issue and ease the process of fixing it.
Are you using Developer Mode or made changes in it?
NO
Have you disabled/removed all your mods and addons?
NO MODS
Brief description of the issue:
KDTW to KCLT once on the 36C approach into KCLT the 36C approach dropped off the FMS and MCD and the aircraft turned directly toward the FAF (GLASI) at 8000 feet. Once at GLASI the aircraft continued a left hand turn in circles. I reloaded the 36C approach into the FMS and the aircraft continued the approach. Once at the FAF (GLASI) the aircraft maintained a slow descent but would have overflown the airport KCLT had I not disengaged the autopilot, deployed full flaps, and reduced power to idle. Pathetic!
Provide Screenshot(s)/video(s) of the issue encountered:
Detailed steps to reproduce the issue encountered:
PC specs and/or peripheral set up if relevant:
Build Version # when you first started experiencing this issue:
For anyone who wants to contribute on this issue, Click on the button below to use this template:
Do you have the same issue if you follow the OP’s steps to reproduce it?
Provide extra information to complete the original description of the issue:
If relevant, provide additional screenshots/video:
Get the FBW A320neo freeware, or the Fenix A320-200 payware, or both. The stock version is a joke comparatively.
It doesn’t appear your issue is bug related. If you are at the IAF GLASI at 8,000’, then you were too high. Altitude at GLASI is 2,500’, hence why your ILS glideslope deviation scale is pegged at the bottom of the scale. See the chart and try that approach again at the right altitudes for an intercept and see if you get the same behavior.
And absolutely agree with @KevyKevTPA recommendation.
2 Likes
I think this is what was happening here:
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/a320neo-flyback-bug-in-14/536218
What I can’t figure out is if this is a manifestation of the flyback bug or if it is a separate issue entirely. The flyback bug was addressed with SU10 beta, but this issue occurred with the A320neo on the most current .14 build of the beta. Is it a regression or a separate bug?
1 Like
I liked your solution of reentering the approach.
Should I encounter the issue again, I will try that. It clearly didn’t like my DIR as described in my report.
1 Like
There are multiple issues like this with the default A320. Using the FBW Freeware version will resolve this one.
There is an entire user base — Xbox — that does not have this option.
Sure. But we’re not commenting on the entire user base of Xbox users. We should be focused on the OPs issue. His tags indicate PC so how is Xbox relevant?
Because the issue is relevant.
I’m an Xbox user, I’ve got the issue, as well. I documented the issue during the beta. I’m seeking clarification if this is a iteration of the “flyback” bug or if it a completely separate bug/issue, because the flyback bug was fixed during beta, but I experienced this in the 4th beta build (.14). Is the bug no longer fixed or is it something else?
There is total relevance here. Just because the thread was originally tagged PC, doesn’t mean the issue is exclusive to that platform. Xbox users may come here looking for answers, too. Knowing the FBW isn’t an option for them is helpful and, frankly, the issue should be fixed by Asobo — it’s their plane they provided.
Not relevant because there is a solution to the OPs issue. Not yours. There is also a choice. Is OP wants to resolve it, there is an option. If not then a fix TO PC version will be required. Xbox has nothing to do with his issue.
Points have been shared but I will end comments to avoid degrading this post into irrelevance.
1 Like
Ok, you win. Congratulations.
There”s no coming to consensus here.
That may very well be true, but this is the PC sub-forum, not Xbox.
You cannot get the FBW 320neo, for technical reasons that are likely above my head, but he can, and should. It’s what the original Asobo plane should have been, but then again MSFS isn’t exactly known for their default planes.
1 Like
Yes, @KevyKevTPA. You fully understand.
There is no PC sub-forum, just as there is no Xbox sub-forum. Please point to me where this is specified?
Look at the top of the page.
It says, “Bug Reports”, “ATC, Traffic & NAVAIDs”, “pc”, and “ms-store”.
I realize the forum as a whole is not divided into PC and X-Box areas, though I’ve advocated that since before the X-Box version was even released, but I guess this one does. It makes sense, because chasing down bugs differs by platform.
1 Like
Those are tags, that the OP selected. I could ask him to add Xbox and he should. Those are not forum sub-categories. There are threads on this very forum that debate the need for platform specific sub-forums that have been shudown as the moderators and CMs have clearly specified there is no need to separate them.
This isn’t true, else the entire beta sub-forum would be separated by platform and it isn’t.
I really don’t get this entire line of the conversation here. I didn’t state that the OP shouldn’t use a mod. My point is that, since the forum is shared with both platforms equally, that Xbox needs to be represented in bug reports, because the issue needs to be addressed by the developers in order to accommodate a userbase that cannot utilize the FBW as an option.
If you folks cannot appreciate this, fine, I cannot do anything here to convince you of that. Perhaps a @moderator can do a better job for me.
I’m not going to argue this further.
Well,we all know that dafault ATC is not reliable. By the way , you have mentioned "KDTW to KCLT once on the 36C approach into KCLT the 36C approach dropped off the FMS and MCD and the aircraft turned directly toward the FAF (GLASI) at 8000 feet. This remind me a problem that I also ,along with many others,have faced with Asobo A320 and discussed in this forum recently. If you do a “search” typing “Missing Navigational Data” you might find something helpful.
Is this a fix or a workaround? If it is a workaround then the problem still exists and should be submitted as a bug.
2 Likes
I’d label it a fix! It fixes the default A320 from what it was, to what it should have been. But, like I said above, while MS and now Asobo do provide a relatively large number of default planes to play with, especially compared to “back in the day”, they’re not exactly known for being “study level”… Or even all that accurate in pretty much any way save appearance.
And I suppose that’s OK, since MSFS is more like a platform for others to develop on. Just as Windows comes with (or used to) a handful of free games to play with, if you want real games, you gotta buy them. Now, it still has the “free” ones, but they come with very intrusive ads unless you cough up some (more) dough. And you still gotta pay to get “real” games.
To be clear, I’m talking about things like MSFS itself, Doom (any old version), CP2077, yadda yadda. Those, like a PMDG aircraft, don’t come with Windows, or in the case of the quality of a PMDG plane, with MSFS itself.
I recently flew this flight in the A320neo using a flight plan created on the World Map page. During start-up, I entered the various flight parameters into the FMC and checked the flight plan in the FMC. I noticed the FMC placed a “discontinuity” between the arrival and the approach. Looking at the arrival plate, at the exit it says to expect ATC vectors to the approach. In other words, there isn’t any way to go directly to the approach from the arrival. When flying and exiting the arrival, my aircraft started flying in circles because it was waiting for vectors. When I requested and received vectors, I manually bypassed the discontinuity and flew the ILS approach normally. It looks to me like the A320neo flew the flight plan correctly. (A “discontinuity” is not a bug.)
I do not have the FBW A320 nor the FENIX so I cannot comment on their flight planning. I do know that some FMCs do not have discontinuities in their flight planning. Instead a direct course between arrival exit and approach entry is used instead of ATC vectors. This does “fix” the circling problem at any discontinuity.
