Flight Model Confusion

[FlyingTeacher]

Hello JeeHell Users, I am thinking about using the JeeHell software and I had some confusion about the flight model portion of the software. Can someone clarify for me if there is a flight model ‘included” in the download or is it something I need to add on to the install? Also if I do need to add it on which payware or freeware do I use for A320/A321. I know that JeeHall doesn’t supply support for the A330 but it appears some are doing this in their setups. But again no clear way as to acquiring of the flight model portion of either models above. It would be a huge help to a fairly new builder if someone could spell this out for me. I promise you I’ve been using the search function but have yet to find any answers to these questions. Anything I find is for FS9 or FSX. I’d like to think that JeeHell has been updated since then and is using P3D V4 / 5 ?? Thanks in advance FlyingTeacher

[asessa]

Hello JeeHell Users, I am thinking about using the JeeHell software and I had some confusion about the flight model portion of the software. Can someone clarify for me if there is a flight model ‘included” in the download or is it something I need to add on to the install? Also if I do need to add it on which payware or freeware do I use for A320/A321. I know that JeeHall doesn’t supply support for the A330 but it appears some are doing this in their setups. But again no clear way as to acquiring of the flight model portion of either models above. It would be a huge help to a fairly new builder if someone could spell this out for me. I promise you I’ve been using the search function but have yet to find any answers to these questions. Anything I find is for FS9 or FSX. I’d like to think that JeeHell has been updated since then and is using P3D V4 / 5 ?? Thanks in advance FlyingTeacherHi, the suite is full. You don't need any addons (except some hardware profiler). FGMS uses a Project Airbus model to fly.

[FlyingTeacher]

And for the A330?? Which model do I use ?

[bbruechmann]

There is none! Because Jeehell FMGS supports ONLY the A320. There are models from Project Airbus for the A318, 319 and 321, but as the smaller 318 and 319 are not that different to the A320 in case of their aerodynamics, there is a larger difference for he A321 which has also an additional center tank etc. But because the Fly-by-wire computations in conjunction with the computations needes for automated flight via the FCU and the managed flight mode additionaly controled by the MCDU is all in the Performance coefficients which are in the CFM or IAE folder of FMGS are only related to the flightmodel of the A320, the behavior in the SIM gets weirder as more far you are away from the A320. U can easily use the same Performance coeff. for the A319 because the real difference to the A320 is marginal. Of course the difference between the A320 and the A330 is very huge because those are completly different airplanes. The A330 is a widebody which is far larger then the A320 and so the characteristics are totally different. Maybe it is misleading that the A330 family and the A320 have a similar look of the cockpit and both have 2 engines, but except from that they are both from Airbus and have wings, there are no more similarities between these two aircrafts. I have tried to use the A320 peformance files together with the A330 from Thomas Ruth but the FMGS is messing up to try to control the ac via autopilot and FMGS. There is the A330 which is from Christoph Paulus, the guy who made the AOC-Client. I think he has a flightmodel which works with Jeehell, but i´am not sure about that and you need to pay for Christophs model. May you want to get in contact with himself via https://www.dalpi.de if you are as much interested in the A330.I´am using myself the Project Airbus A318, 319 and A321 but for each single one i have customized their aircraft.cfg to match as far as possible with Jeehell FMGS performance files.Please search in this forum for other threads about A318,A319, or Sharklet model etc. and you´ll find more informations because we have discussed this a lot already.