Originally Posted by
Peter Dowson
"Optimal"? Who said anything about "optimal"? What exactly does "optimal" mean in such a context? "The best overall for the number of different aircraft models it has to cope with and without stopping work on everything else for months" -- that sort of "optimal"? If that's what you mean, it is optimal. If you mean "perfect" then no, of course it isn't perfect!
Of course you can assume that it is "not as accurate as it could be". But that is a far cry from your statements that is does "not maintain speed properly" and "It really doesn't work well at all?", statements you were trying to make out I'd said or implied! PM's A/P is a lot better than FS's alone, but it isn't perfect. No one said it was. but it's about as good as it gets unless you employ several experts for many months perfecting the performance on one or two specific models, which is what PMDG have done.
I'm sorry, maybe I don't know everything like you, but I thought the descent wasn't under auto-throttle control in any case, that the throttles were retarded and left at idle unless the pilot intervened. This is for Boeing, I've no idea for Airbus.
Also, there's no realistic throttle control without motorised throttles. The pilot's movement of the thrust levers effectively overrides the A/T, as it does in FS. If the A/T cannot move the levers to idle for descent, you have to.
I can only explain what I understand, and that is for Boeing aircraft. You explain what you know. If I am wrong, I apologise, but none of this is at all in any way related to PM's autopilot or its performance. I was only questioning the problem of the throttle quadrant lever position oddity, reported by someone else, and actually nothing whatsoever to do with your A/P complaints!
Anyway, you think what you think. Sorry, but I've got no more time to argue. But don't try to put words in my mouth, please. Read what I say and don't misquote me, that's all I ask.
Pete