Mathijs Kok

Aerosoft A330 preview

4145 posts in this topic

7 hours ago, FWAviation said:

 

Because one shouldn't finish a project before it's finished. The -200 is almost equally as popular among airlines as the -300 and it is operated by airlines in very important flightsimming markets. So there are already two very good reasons for Aerosoft to continue with the -200. And who said that one aircraft project excludes the other? Aerosoft is currently producing the CRJ and the A330 at the same time, too.

 

And in fact another aircraft not yet presented, lol.

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry for being the 'show-stopper' here, but haven't this -200 discussion, been going off for a bit too long? I'm quite sure, that Aerosoft is aware of the 'demand'/requests for the -200 - it's been discussed quite a lot since the this project was revealed... Ultimately, it's Aerosoft's decision whether or not to continue the development of the Airbus 330 series. @Mathijs Kok have said that they're making this decision on the customer demand (and a lot of other things too, I'm sure!). And this have already been proven - even before this 'revival' of the -200 discussion. 

My point is, that this discussion is going nowhere...

 

7 hours ago, FWAviation said:

... Aerosoft is currently producing the CRJ and the A330 at the same time, too.

 

True - but what's your point? ( @Mathijs Kok have just said, that they're developing around 20 different projects at the same time).

 

Sorry, folks... That's enough from me. Was just so annoyed, that this thread is going 'sideways' (for the lack of a better word!) with a - in my opinion - rather pointless discussion regarding a (possible!) future development. 

 

@FWAviation Sorry, to take this out on you! 

 

Happy New Year, everybody!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

And in fact another aircraft not yet presented, lol.

 

Well, time for some speculation then. I doubt that it's a Boeing, they are fairly well represented already. Though an NGX with the Aerosoft cockpit treatment would be nice.  My money would be on the A340, it's not a million miles from the A330.   The A350 and A380 are very different, and it has been stated that it would be difficult to get hold of one to model. Of course it could be something like one of the new Embraer E jets.  OK, I give up.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

Officially? Officially we got no plans for that right now. Who will know what happens. Basically we do whatever customers want because we need to make money!

 

Well, I will buy all A330 variants and the next Airbus from aerosoft for sure. I hope aerosoft make money with the -300, and we can enjoy the -200 in 2017 too.

 

Good luck and happy new year.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, KingMusjo said:

I'm sorry for being the 'show-stopper' here, but haven't this -200 discussion, been going off for a bit too long? I'm quite sure, that Aerosoft is aware of the 'demand'/requests for the -200 - it's been discussed quite a lot since the this project was revealed... Ultimately, it's Aerosoft's decision whether or not to continue the development of the Airbus 330 series. @Mathijs Kok have said that they're making this decision on the customer demand (and a lot of other things too, I'm sure!). And this have already been proven - even before this 'revival' of the -200 discussion. 

My point is, that this discussion is going nowhere...

 

 

True - but what's your point? ( @Mathijs Kok have just said, that they're developing around 20 different projects at the same time).

 

Sorry, folks... That's enough from me. Was just so annoyed, that this thread is going 'sideways' (for the lack of a better word!) with a - in my opinion - rather pointless discussion regarding a (possible!) future development. 

 

@FWAviation Sorry, to take this out on you! 

 

Happy New Year, everybody!

 

Ultimately, developers either listen to customer demand or customers vanish. That's how business works.

 

I'm sure there are a few people who would be perfectly happy flying one variant of the A330, but the large majority want both and are willing to pay extra as they did for the A318/A319. Not developing the -200 would be a shame, because after so long being snubbed by the FS community, it seems Airbus products are finally getting the treatment they deserve by developers. It would essentially be unfinished to stop at the -300 and leave it as is.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, richcam427 said:

 

Ultimately, developers either listen to customer demand or customers vanish. That's how business works.

 

I'm sure there are a few people who would be perfectly happy flying one variant of the A330, but the large majority want both and are willing to pay extra as they did for the A318/A319. Not developing the -200 would be a shame, because after so long being snubbed by the FS community, it seems Airbus products are finally getting the treatment they deserve by developers. It would essentially be unfinished to stop at the -300 and leave it as is.

 

Uhm, did you even read my post??

 

I said, that the discussion regarding a development of the -200 is mute! Aerosoft haven't decided whether or not they would undertake such an endeavor. The demand for the -200 have already been well documented with users chiming in and giving their opinion (even before this revival within the past couple of posts) ... So the continuation of undocumented statements regarding what will be or what will not be developed is simply just pointless. 

 

Quite frankly, I think this discussion has run it's course!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, AntoinIreland said:

Will the ACARS ETOPS Oceanic clearance procedures be included in the MCDU?

Granted, they may be an option only available to those with PFPX or with a program that allows an oceanic entry point to be included in the flight plan, but it would be a very interesting addition.

It could also be managed by the optional first officer program.

All East and West bound ETOPS procedures are available online and it seems like it would be easy to simulate them as an option for users.

You could even simulate an optional hold should you arrive at the oceanic entry point too early. 

15747908_1257629707609772_75500355861965

 

Such a system would, from our point of view, not make much sense.
On one hands side, who should be the counterpart granting you the clearence?
On the other hands side, if we had such a system and somebody flies online he might get contradicting clearences.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Emanuel Hagen said:

 

Such a system would, from our point of view, not make much sense.
On one hands side, who should be the counterpart granting you the clearence?
On the other hands side, if we had such a system and somebody flies online he might get contradicting clearences.

That is true, but it could operate along the same lines as the push back clearance in the Airbus x. It could be automatically granted.

For those flying online, they could ignore the procedures or perhaps there could be a way to ignore that step on the checklist option. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KingMusjo said:

 

Uhm, did you even read my post??

 

I said, that the discussion regarding a development of the -200 is mute! Aerosoft haven't decided whether or not they would undertake such an endeavor. The demand for the -200 have already been well documented with users chiming in and giving their opinion (even before this revival within the past couple of posts) ... So the continuation of undocumented statements regarding what will be or what will not be developed is simply just pointless. 

 

Quite frankly, I think this discussion has run it's course!

 

I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to have a snarky attitude towards me. Of course users are going to chime in about what they want, because they're the ones purchasing the product. It's only fair for the developers to at least take into consideration what people say (I'm not saying they haven't, but there does seem to be ample demand for the -200, and I'm sure it will merit something sooner or later, as was the case for the A318/A319)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vor 1 Stunde, AntoinIreland sagte:

That is true, but it could operate along the same lines as the push back clearance in the Airbus x. It could be automatically granted.

For those flying online, they could ignore the procedures or perhaps there could be a way to ignore that step on the checklist option. 

 

agree - if not 100% "real" it would be a cool new option and a "never before in FSX/P3D" :glider_s:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 41 Minuten, richcam427 sagte:

 

I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to have a snarky attitude towards me. Of course users are going to chime in about what they want, because they're the ones purchasing the product. It's only fair for the developers to at least take into consideration what people say (I'm not saying they haven't, but there does seem to be ample demand for the -200, and I'm sure it will merit something sooner or later, as was the case for the A318/A319)

 

nobody has any "attitude" towards you - it's just you're beating a dead horse.

 

topic has been discussed and AS (Mathis) stated their point - if people don't buy a A333 they won't and AS will have to react (or not) - so no need to continue a senseless discussion.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, data63 said:

 

nobody has any "attitude" towards you - it's just you're beating a dead horse.

 

topic has been discussed and AS (Mathis) stated their point - if people don't buy a A333 they won't and AS will have to react (or not) - so no need to continue a senseless discussion.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way then, because I know Mathjis being the businessman he is will NOT release a plane with the attitude of "here you go, take it or leave it". He reads every post in the forum for himself, which is probably why Aerosoft has been one of the better developers in the community as far as listening to customers goes. Look at the A320 series. There was demand for the baby buses and Aerosoft delivered. I'm sure he knows the demand, but there's nothing wrong with a healthy discussion about it. It's not "beating a dead horse", as you say.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well - it is, because... *sigh*

 

Please (re)read the last couple of pages, and I'm sure you'll come to the same realization as the rest of us...

... and, if you've been following this thread from the beginning, you'll know, that the variant discussion (specifically the -200), along with the engine discussion (which believe it or not, also was brought up again one or two pages back) have been resurfacing countless times.

So, you are 'beating a dead horse' in the sense, that given the multiple revivals of the discussions mentioned above, Aerosoft is undoubtedly aware of the demand, so that argument doesn't really fly, so to speak...

 

So to repeat myself... This discussion has run it's course.

 

Anyway... I won't contribute to THIS particular discussion anymore - I think my point(s) have been made, and the message have been sent...

 

I have currently 20 minutes left of 2016 here in Denmark...

So to all here - Happy New Years!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, KingMusjo said:

Well - it is, because... *sigh*

 

Please (re)read the last couple of pages, and I'm sure you'll come to the same realization as the rest of us...

... and, if you've been following this thread from the beginning, you'll know, that the variant discussion (specifically the -200), along with the engine discussion (which believe it or not, also was brought up again one or two pages back) have been resurfacing countless times.

So, you are 'beating a dead horse' in the sense, that given the multiple revivals of the discussions mentioned above, Aerosoft is undoubtedly aware of the demand, so that argument doesn't really fly, so to speak...

 

So to repeat myself... This discussion has run it's course.

 

Anyway... I won't contribute to THIS particular discussion anymore - I think my point(s) have been made, and the message have been sent...

 

I have currently 20 minutes left of 2016 here in Denmark...

So to all here - Happy New Years!

 

*sigh* I love when people like you feel it necessary to talk down upon others. Not once did I say anything negative about Aerosoft or anyone else; actually the opposite is true. I commended them on what they have done right. If you are going to question my reading and comprehension skills, you might want to re-read my posts, because I made it perfectly clear that Aerosoft knows what they're doing and everyone is well aware of the demand. But, we've both made our points perfectly clear and I will agree to drop it here, because this discussion would go nowhere if either of us decided to take it further.

 

But, like you said, I have six hours of 2016 left on the east coast of the states, so to everyone across the pond I wish you a happy 2017!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Emanuel Hagen said:

 

Such a system would, from our point of view, not make much sense.
On one hands side, who should be the counterpart granting you the clearence?
On the other hands side, if we had such a system and somebody flies online he might get contradicting clearences.

if fly with pro atc you will have clearence, on ivao is more difficult yep, but i thing is pretty good idea. it would make the day a day rutine of a long haul more realisitic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's about the Shared Cockpit function?

Will it be a updated (bug free) version?:rolleyes:

-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The connected flight deck was basically developed for the A330 and used the A320 series as a test-bed. So of course it will be included. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎30‎.‎12‎.‎2016 at 15:51, Mathijs Kok sagte:

 

What kind of new functionality (of the co-pilot) would you like to see? It's a topic we are exploring these days.

 

I would suggest to keep the FO functionality basic and don't spend too much time on that if that delays the project. Because probably FS2Crew and Multi Crew Experience will provide a more in-depth FO soon after release - as they did with the A320s.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

 

I would suggest to keep the FO functionality basic and don't spend too much time on that if that delays the project. Because probably FS2Crew and Multi Crew Experience will provide a more in-depth FO soon after release - as they did with the A320s.

FS2Crew and Multi Crew Experience are all different products not affiliated with aerosoft. With the inbuilt FO functionality, you dont have to purchase extra software .Plus  not everyone uses those products hence i think they do need to spend a good amount of time developing the inbuilt FO deature.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Alex Kan said:

you dont have to purchase extra software, hence i think they do need to spend a good amount of time developing the inbuilt FO deature.

 

Do not forget that developing FO features costs AS time and money. Do not expect the moon here with the A330 being at the price point it is. 

 

The checklist/FO and RAAS are already extra features you get for "free" compared to many other products. 

 

But ofcourse there is always room for improvement. 

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now