Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/21/18 in all areas

  1. 50 points
    Time for a small friday update on the A330. How you could already last days i took up work on the A330 again. Works left is the detailing of the gearbays and landing gear itself. Here are some images from the nose gear. Work is still not finished. Especially at the covers itself there is still quite some detail to add! Images are not taken out of the sim, but the textured model is shown from within my working 3d software.
  2. 34 points
    Time for the small friday update: The missing details on the nose gear covers have been added now and work shifted to the main gear area (hydraulic hoses not fitted yet). Centimeter for centimeter details are now added starting from the tire section up the main gear stem going finally into the large main gear bay. So you will see in the coming weeks how this will come to finalisation. Among the details are stickers, hydraulic pipes, screws and on and on...and finally of course a bit oil stains and typical kinds of corrosion (of course switchable for the repainters and people who already wanted to post now: "But i want a pretty new plane without, i don't want to buy a used plane... ;-) )... The textures shown are not renders, they display actually what you will also see in the sim...of course there better shaded, so with shadow casting and reflections.
  3. 34 points
    No you are not, I started to believe in the flat earth recently because it's so much fun. You are just in a different section of the plate that is the earth. It's amazing to what length I go to take the attention from a delayed release isn't it? But here some news from our Tuesday Dev meeting. Overall we are very pleased with the progress right now, in the last few days we smashed a lot of 'show stopper' and 'critical' issues. and influx of new issues is down to two or three a day. That means we're seeing the release coming closer and not hovering just out reach as we did three weeks ago. Stefan is back on the A330 and he will be able to start showing some new images soon. Keep in mind the modeling/texturing/ animation of that one was not far from completion. The people who I asked to assist with the XML coding of the checklist are a super help. As I explained this is code we inherited and XML is truly horrible to debug and extend. Now we got 8 pairs of eyes looking at it things will progress fast and that's one less headache for me. They are also helping with the Step-By-Step flight tutorial (Frankfurt to Heathrow now). That's a document with hundreds of hours of work behind it, super important. It's the de facto manual. Hans Hartmann is helping with some stupid issues we were unable to solve. He keeps sending me stuff like this: if (fabs(Volume - volume < 0.001f) && !initial) and asking me if I can see the glaring fault. Of course I can't. I was able to do a Hello World in 1980 in BASIC but since then programming my DVR is the best I can manage. But clearly the placement of one ( caused the whole thing to go haywire. Solved now. So it is really all hands on deck. We called in all favors, my CEO will probably start screaming at me for the massive amount of overtime we are doing. But we will get there. I am far more optimistic than I was a few weeks ago. The fact the new XML helpers keep posting things like this" loving the VC colors and shades. Looks absolutely amazing." really helps. As you know we really worked hard to get the idea that the product should simulate the job or a captain even more to the front then before. We asked real bus drivers how they work, what they do, when they ask for coffee, where they store documents etc. We want the flight deck to look as realistic as possible in all stages of the flight. So when we learned that a crew almost never finds an Airbus 'Cold and Dark' because ground crew almost always wake up aircraft after a nights sleep we decided that that feature was not seriously important. It's still there, it still works but we do not work on it. That comes a shock to simmers who believe that a pilots starts every day with a cold and dark cockpit, but is is how pilots work. As real as it is in reality, not as real as simmers are led to believe. And for a crew who got up at 0400 for a departure at 0710 the list of the most important fluids for the flight does not start with fuel, it starts with coffee. The captain will ask for some coffee and the fuel report. In that order. So in our bus you will see a lot of coffee early in the morning. EXACTLY as a real crew would see. A crew of two people, that's why our Connected Flight Deck is still so incredibly important. Flying a modern airliner on your own is just weird. Crew Management is a serious part of the training of a pilot. he would not ecven dream about flying alone. You should neither. It's as unrealistic as can be. If you want a product that focuses on systems that have never (!!) been used in a real Airbus there are other products, we want you to experience flying an Airbus, not training in one. Because to be honest, you need team of two highly trained professionals for that. If you want to experience how hard it is to fly an airliner from a to b these days, get our bus, use Connected Flight Deck and use IVAO or VATSIM. We honestly believe you can't get closer. If you want to train how to ditch your bus in the ocean with one pilot unconscious and one engine on fire (never happened, but hey...) look elsewhere.
  4. 26 points
    Thanks Jon! Found the time to take some screenshots of the surrounding area, as it is now the photoscenery covers approximately 1000 sq km.
  5. 21 points
    Well, I personally see PC flight simulation as a simple compromise: Compared to a RW pilot, you have some advantages and disadvantages: You DON'T have... ...the real "feeling" of steering (or at least managing) a big jet ...a 100% functional true 3D cockpit ...a second pilot that professionally works with you ...a standard set of theoretical and practical knowledge before even performing a type rating ...predefined time to work only with the aircraft ...regular professional training ...the great real life sights you can at least sometimes enjoy during cruise (at least I hope they exist) ...the real atmosphere of your destination As a "compensation" (at least I see it that simple), you DO have... ...the freedom to decide when you fly ...the freedom to decide where you fly ...the freedom to fly the aircraft you want ...the freedom to pause the sim or use time acceleration in long boring cruise flights (Don't RW pilots sometimes wish that, too?? ) ...costs of app. 1000-1500 € including a new computer and even some nice tools and addons - instead of the incredible expensive pilot training course ...no financial pressure to pay back the training costs ...no pressure of being 100% fit all the time you fly ...no responsibility towards your airline and hundreds of passengers (I don't count in FSPassengers^^) ...no unpleasant sides of the pilot job (I'm not talking of the hobby pilots flying a C172 every 3 months, but about airline pilots) ...the freedom to fly as "professionally" as you want (inner the limitations of PC simming) So why do most of us fly in the sims (probably)? Not because we think we do pilot training 100% like in RW (not even 50%)... For me it's because I can practically get an idea how certain aircraft work, how certain areas look like from above, how navigation works approximately, how it might feel to sit in the cockpit and fly an aircraft for some moments (I guess our fantasy helps quite a bit there) ...and it's because I can just try some things that you could never try in the real aircraft as an airline pilot. Or could anyone say: "Hey, let's try and switch off one hyd pump after another and see what happens" - just to get to know some more causal connections within the plane. And because we have... ...I see no problem if some companies offer more detailed simulations such as FSLabs or PMDG alongside with companies that simulate the daily pilot work such as Aerosoft, if there is the market for both - and obviously there is, because otherwise those companies wouldn't exist. I also see no point in to only rectify the purchase of really complex PMDG like aircraft if you frequently use all the features it offers. I find it absolutely OK to fly the PMDG 737 from A to B as you fly the Aerosoft Airbus, and if you want, you can use the extended features to get deeper into the systems just for interest. That still does not mean that we non-RW-pilots think we could even do some of the work a real pilot does properly. We simply don't need to do that. And yet it is very nice to have a relatively complete system simulator for a relatively cheap price (compared to full motion simluators for example). I guess we non-pilots all have enough difficult things to professionally cope with in our other daily jobs - also unpleasant ones. So, to conclude it: I love to fly the PMDG, Majestic,... ones even if there had been way cheaper alternatives, but I will probably choose Aerosoft's Airbus when it comes out, as I see no inconsistency with those two philosophies to simulate a plane
  6. 18 points
    I think there is really only one bit of the systems that is 100% non standard and that we included because it looks so darned cool and that's the drop down standby compass (it now even has the lighting included).
  7. 16 points
    I understand the interest in abnormal procedures, as it challenges you and gets you thinking and it's nice to think about the possibility of rolling down the runway and having an engine failure or something else but most if not all (untrained virtual pilots) would handle even the most basic abnormal's incorrectly. Which leads to the question, if you aren't going to do it right then why do it at all?? Secondly in order to operate this aircraft you need a Pilot and Co Pilot which we can have but 99% probably don't use this amazing feature (Thx Aerosoft!) and wouldn't know the first thing on how to handle one as a crew. I think most folks really have an interest in this but don't realize all of the training and and continuous maintenance that must be done to operate one of these aircraft. For instance, before you even climb into the simulator for your first session, you need to know your limitations and memory items COLD. Take a look at that list by the way! Then you need to keep those fresh in your mind all the time, not just for a few days or a week or two, but be able to recall them when it matters. Next you need to know the SOP COLD, not to mention the years and decades of prior training and experience RW pilots have had before sitting down in the A-320 and experiencing an abnormal situation. Alternating every 6 months, run through all of the normals and abnormals required in a PC and Recurrent. You might say well that's a bit ridiculous to expect that of a Virtual Pilot, and I agree with you. Some will say well if it were there then I would learn it correctly. I say ok, those guys Peddling that argument lets sit down and see how well you actually handle a basic abnormal situation, (RW Pilots excluded :-). Now imagine how much work would go into developing such a simulation that accurately modeled all of those abnormal situations and the cost of such a sim. Of course this would put the price tag way out of reach of the majority of sim enthusiasts and after awhile most that did buy it would simply revert back to flying from A to B and enjoying their simulator. However if you are up for the challenge and you have the wallet to boot, then check this out (apologies if i'm not supposed to reference another sim in the forum, but its' certainly not in competition with AS). Check out Flight Deck A3XX. Fully functional Thales FMGS, All ECAM Pages and other features. Of course, you can't fly online, do Vatsim and have all of the other cool stuff that comes with P3D but you have your abnormals and it functions just like the Real Airbus. Also it's on sale now for the bargain price of $480.00 USD, so get it while is cheap :-). In the end I think most don't know know what the actual return on investment would be for both the buyer and developer. It all sounds great in the beginning but after you've actually dropped the Dunlops with the Gravity Extension once or twice the fun wears off and the buyers remorse sets in. Spending 160 - 500 USD on a simulation that claims to be exactly like the real airplane and one that is almost exactly like the real airplane seems like a waste of money when you could buy one for 60 bucks that looks and operates the same or better as the others under normal conditions (which is how you will operated it 99.9% of the time). Lastly I'm not singling out folks for wanting these features, it's just natural i'm sure for those folks with a deep desire for flying the TIN to want to experience that, but I just believe its' not been thought through far enough in advance. Me, personally when I go to work, i want clear skies, smooth air, calm winds and no ECAMS's :-) That is a great day at work, of course lot's of coffee to boot. Ok I've got my FLAK Jacket on, Fire away >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  8. 16 points
    Keep in mind that we could also say we model that extremely realistic. It happens as often as in real life and as that happened one time in over 220.000.000 hours (!) you better prepare for it. Should it not happen in the first 300 million hours contact us and we'll refund. Must be a bug then.
  9. 16 points
    Hi, the total coverage area of the scenery hasn't been decided yet, I'll post some info later next week when I know for sure.
  10. 16 points
    Oh there is no doubt it has collapsed. For products were we have separate downloads for 32 and 64 bits we see ten times the downloads for the 64 bits. We have gone through these cycles 25 years and what is always obvious is that the opportunity to sell drops around 12 months before the amount of users drops significant. In other words, there are still a lot of FS2004 users but they stopped buying addons for their 15 year old product in 2014. There are even more FSX users but they are not very willing to invest in add-ons. So still a whopping lot of users but few customers. Now we do honestly care for our customers who have bought 12 add-ons over the years and are willing to break-even on some products to make them happy (unlike many other companies I have to say) and that is the only reason we have not decided yet. If it was up to sales and money we would stopped all 32 bit development already. In the end it will all depend on how easy it will be. That's decision we'll male after the summer when we got all our 64 bit busses online.
  11. 13 points
    That's one hell-of-a introduction, you got there. (Talking about all the negative votes). Personally, I find it a bit sad, that a newcomer is treated like that, for making a (honest) mistake. No harm - No faul, as they say... Anyway, welcome to the forums.
  12. 12 points
    Well said! Now take the avid simmer and put him in any kind of aircraft in the simulator which does not have an FMC or GPS to aid him and let him fly a manual NDB approach (we can make it easy and put the NDB at the runway THR and not somewhere in between on the approach path. Let's not make it overly complicated ;)) down to the minimums and all of that with an engine out, followed by a single engine go around. This is what everyone has to do for his ME/IR. You don't even need to do this in an airliner, take out the default Baron and just do it. Once you are able to do this let's go on with conventional holdings, procedure turns, circling approaches, high speed NPAs (ever flew your twin engine GA down on an NDB with 160kt until 4NM in IMC? Try it! No AP of course!). There are some NPA events on VATSIM every now and then. You can easily differ between three kinds of pilots there: Those 50% who cheat by useing the FMC to fly the approach in LNAV/VNAV (those are the guys who will be exactly on the centerline, always on profile) and those 40% trying to actually fly the approach conventional, come in unstable and end up in a go around (okay, most won't even go around, but simply force the landing) and those 10% where you can see that they are not exactly on the centerline or profile, but who get down nicely and steadily. Those 10% are the guys who actually do it like a real pilot has to be able to do it at the end of his CPL ME/IR training. The type rating does indeed not take that much time, compared to the whole training, but it builds up on the skills you previously aquired and have to keep current. Some will now say that in the airliners you would always go LNAV/VNAV only anyway. Believe me one thing: Apart from actually training how to do LNAV/VNAV in tbe beginning of the type rating there will lateron not be a single day anymore where you do not fly a conventional NPA. You have an engine fire and probably also a sick passenger on board? Oh what a pity, the ILS is unfortunately out of service today, we can offer you an NDB DME approach. Visibility is 2000m and clouds overcast 700ft. In "real" operation the policies differ per airline. some will encourage you to fly hands on as much as possible, some will restrict you from even thinking to turn off the AP or FD. However in any of them: When the sh*t actually happens you have to be able to do it all yourself, without the automation.
  13. 12 points
  14. 12 points
    Yes the complete line, A318 -> A330, with all engines should be available by then.
  15. 12 points
    Actually we have not yet decided. It depends on a few thing, the most important how large the market still is (a bit hard to decipher right now) and how much we got dumb down the product. We feel the current version is still incredibly good value for money and not really outdated. The only competition is FSL but that in a completely different price bracket and comes with the fact you have to accept the business practises of FSL. We'll see, let me get the 64 bit version done first, that proving hard enough (though progress is seriously good at this moment).
  16. 11 points
    Sorry for not posting anything for such a long time. We spend some major time and efforts on making the mountainous terrain around Lukla and Mount Everest as realistic as possible. With the next version we will go way beyond what has been available before. Just a few details as a start: We purchased stereo satellite imagery that was manually placed to get as much detail as possible from all perspectives of each mountain. In addition to that we're in the process of placing roughly 150 million (!) trees. Screenshots show "work in progress" in Aerofly FS2. There will also be aversion for FSX and Prepar3D. The X-Plane version will come a little later but is planned as well.
  17. 11 points
    Yes, and we model more lights than FSLabs did.
  18. 11 points
    Sure it is possible. Will you do all the research on exactly what the ECAM messages are, what the effect on all hydraulic systems is, how long it takes to extend, exactly how air speed affects the extension etc etc etc. Also you will need to come up with a valid reason why it would fail. And if that reason is a failed hydraulic systems there are dozens of other systems that are affected, possibly dozens of additional ECAM messages etc etc. You would also have to assist in developing all the work round routines that are needed to cope with a failed hydraulic system. And explain to customers why we need another 4 weeks because it is easily that long to simulate just one failed hydraulic system. And then, the big one. Are you sure you are pilot enough to handle it? That's why pilots trains for years and that that's why there are two of them. We have done many many events where sim pilots compete and every single time we threw them an emergency they had to deal with in real-time chaos ruled. Just being able to find the procedure list is not enough. You have to interpret all the non-standard information you see and act accordingly. Are you sure you want to connect the working hydraulic system to the one that has failed? I mean if the failed one has a massive leak you could end up with two failed hydraulic systems. And quick, what hydraulic systems are the spoiler on? Will the extend or do you need to use a longer runway? Are the brakes hydraulic or pneumatic? Pilots are highly trained professionals. There are two of them flying your aircraft. Sober and well rested. Prepared.
  19. 11 points
    Snippet of news. Due to a potential professional customer the 32 bit version is now more likely. Not sure, but more likely.
  20. 10 points
    Emi tolde me a, hard to believe, story that some of the students where he does his 737 TR called the 738 an NGX. It seems we have an whole new breed of pilots that think that the 737 NG series is actually an NGX. PMDG must be proud. Now we just need the branding of ‚professional’ to stick for the A320
  21. 10 points
    At this point I really want to say thanks for @Mathijs Kok and every person in his team for actually reading through all those posts, threads and everything else while completing the journey of the busses... For the past weeks I have only been scanning through those pages in this forum and I am actually quite happy that I am just a costumer.... I am really glad to see your improvements and I think I can speak for quite a bunch of people who wish you guys all the best and no more bugs for your future work! Keep up your happiness guys.
  22. 10 points
    Well, modelling coffee cups is the 3D department while the cold&dark state is the guy who programs the systems. It's a bit like comparing apples to oranges. The modeller had enough time to include the coffee. However, the systems programmer is the one with the longest bug list (that's not because of him - it's the case in every aircraft project), and that's what he focusses on. One point is right about the coffee though. Only feeble pilots drink coffee. Real pilots breakfast with Jägermeister. Coffee had to be modelled because of the minor age customers (Jon from spanish support just said that on Skype)
  23. 10 points
    Why is people so interested in what type of engines they have, as long as they can get the airplane off the ground, I don't care if they are PW, RR, GE or whatever they're called. :-)
  24. 10 points
    Nimic, please follow this link for products in the Aerosoft shop still available for FS2004 and you'll see that Aerosoft has not "stopped supporting this simulator." Sales is what crippled that market, not what's available. Anyway, the state of the FS2004/FSX market is well off topic. Mathijs simply explained the current state of any decision on developing a 32 bit version of the Airbusses that are the subject of this thread. Let's please head back there.
  25. 10 points
    Just a quick note, two users voted this post down. I asked them for an explanation about that as this is a factual, correct and polite post. Er!k did absolutely not deserve these downvotes. If there is not reasonable explanation the two users who voted this post down will be removed from our forum. Update, I seen one of these users has been warned and asked about this before. He did not reply to my polite message and is thus removed from the forum. If you dislike somebody for some reason using downvotes is not the way to fight.
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?

    Sign Up