Mathijs Kok

Aerosoft Airbus 2018 editions preview

Recommended Posts

qqwertzde    93
12 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

Mistakes are certainly not planned, my support officers would probably kill me and it is more or less in line with not doing anything outside standard procedures.

My point is that in a sim usually things do not go wrong, so after a while at least I get a bit lazy about doing all these system checks. If I would have (optional) mistakes in the setup, I would pay much more attention to what is going on during the preparation.

 

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flyboy0284    21
6 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

Keep in mind that adding a new type or a new engine means doing the modeling, coding, new flight models, weeks to testing etc. We are talking many thousands of Euro's for that.

 

It's for good reasons that FSL decided to model just one single airframe. And they even decided to do one with rather outdated software that lacks a lot of the features that airlines like Air France, Lufthansa etc etc are using as standard. That allowed them to go seriously deep in the systems, but it locks the users into that specific aircraft. We try to cover the majority of flying aircraft. That's why we got over 1000 repaints available.

It's a different approach. The customer decides what suits him best.

So is this officially ruling out the -200 from ever being made, or just not part what you get when you purchase the original release? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Airbus A330    92
On 16.12.2016 at 15:45, Mathijs Kok sagte:

I'll make some next week of new options in the MCDU etc. Stepclimbs and more should now work.

 

:rolleyes:

 

And did the 84,47% become 90% ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWAviation    341
vor 5 Minuten, Mathijs Kok sagte:

 

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!

 

Now I get really confused (and probably not only me). So a few posts above, you actually ruled out the -200 only for the initial release? And that means that there could even be additional -300 engine variants added to the initial release, or are they only planned for later updates? Total confusion now. ;) Besides, your statements always look official, because who else than you has the best overview of the entire project? ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mathijs Kok    22533
5 minutes ago, FWAviation said:

 

Now I get really confused (and probably not only me). So a few posts above, you actually ruled out the -200 only for the initial release? And that means that there could even be additional -300 engine variants added to the initial release, or are they only planned for later updates? Total confusion now. ;) Besides, your statements always look official, because who else than you has the best overview of the entire project? ;)

 

Yep, we did so many time before. One type, one engine for version 1.00. Sorry you missed that. We only promised more engine types for 1.10.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWAviation    341
vor 5 Minuten, Mathijs Kok sagte:

 

Yep, we did so many time before. One type, one engine for version 1.00. Sorry you missed that. We only promised more engine types for 1.10.

 

Well, I didn't miss that you said a couple of days ago that the -300 with RR engines will be the only variant on initial release. I even referred to that statement in my reply to Flyboy0284 a couple of minutes ago. I was just confused because your posting one hour ago sounded pretty firm and resolved in terms of the complete exclusion of the -200, while you now stated that the -200 is not ruled out entirely.

 

So, to sum it all up for a clearer understanding: The -300 with RR engines will be version 1.00, additional engine variants for the -300 will come in version 1.10, and a (still possible) -200 would be version 1.20 or 2.00 or an entirely new package (like the A318/319 package as opposed to the A320/321 package)?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mathijs Kok    22533

I got 6 messages asking if I would be willing to share that presentation to VATSIM. It's not an easy thing as the slides are just the illustration for the talk but I am willing to give it a go if more people want it. 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mathijs Kok    22533
9 minutes ago, FWAviation said:

 

Well, I didn't miss that you said a couple of days ago that the -300 with RR engines will be the only variant on initial release. I even referred to that statement in my reply to Flyboy0284 a couple of minutes ago. I was just confused because your posting one hour ago sounded pretty firm and resolved in terms of the complete exclusion of the -200, while you now stated that the -200 is not ruled out entirely.

 

So, to sum it all up for a clearer understanding: The -300 with RR engines will be version 1.00, additional engine variants for the -300 will come in version 1.10, and a (still possible) -200 would be version 1.20 or 2.00 or an entirely new package (like the A318/319 package as opposed to the A320/321 package)?

 

We got no plans beyond 1.10. We'll see.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gmoneyprs    184

The only thing I'd like to add about the -200 is that, in terms of the quality FS fleet, it'd be unique from the capacity standpoint. The -300 is similar to the 777-200LR that we have already but the A330-200 is even smaller, occupying the 250 seat niche.

 

Speaking of PMDG, I think if the -200 was modeled as an extension (-300 base product required) and costs maybe half the amount of the base product, I think that would tread a good balance. Just thinking out loud...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mathijs Kok    22533
1 minute ago, gmoneyprs said:

Speaking of PMDG, I think if the -200 was modeled as an extension (-300 base product required) and costs maybe half the amount of the base product, I think that would tread a good balance. Just thinking out loud...

 

That's an option. But we are not PMDG that has normally only one projects on the table. We are juggling 20 projects at any given time.  As said we'll see.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
qqwertzde    93
1 hour ago, Mathijs Kok said:

Want another example? There are over 1500 videos on YT featuring our Airbusses. Some are rather silly but most are pretty serious. But as far as I and my advisory pilots can see there is not a single one that that would satisfy a instructor on a checkride. None. In fact we have never seen any hobby vid on YT that would do. Flying airliners is a damned hard job, one of the hardest possible. 

Hi Mathijs,

 

I envy you for the insight you have in all this :)

 A year or two ago you made a similar comment in a different thread. I expressed an interest in learning what we hobbyists are doing wrong (I accept that we do that) and you wrote that you may look into providing more information. 

 

How about a checkride feature for the buses? You could add an instructor to the cockpit crew who criticizes any mistake.

I don't know if it that would be possible, or too much work, or of commercial interest, but I would certainly be willing to pay for such an addon feature to your buses.

 

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mathijs Kok    22533
2 minutes ago, qqwertzde said:

How about a checkride feature for the buses? You could add an instructor to the cockpit crew who criticizes any mistake.

I don't know if it that would be possible, or too much work, or of commercial interest, but I would certainly be willing to pay for such an addon feature to your buses.

 

It's hard, not only from a technical point of view, but mainly because there are so many aspects that are hard to do in FS.

 

You know we focus very hard on multi crew cockpit but even with our technology it is very hard to simulate the complexities of working as a team. Trying to simulate an actual checkride with just one person is simply unrealistic. An Airbus A320 is flown with two people. Any add-on that does not allow multi crew simulation does not get close to being able to do a checkride (and yes I know the CRJ does not have it in V1.00....)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eduard Gasull    139
2 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

 

2016-12-30_18-08-29.jpg

 

I know that some other companies see their customers different. They believe their customers are as good as real pilots (or close to that). We disagree. We believe the few persons who actually get to fly airliners are professionals. 

 

But as far as I and my advisory pilots can see there is not a single one that that would satisfy a instructor on a checkride. None. In fact we have never seen any hobby vid on YT that would do. Flying airliners is a damned hard job, one of the hardest possible. 

 

 

Know i understand why i can go from New York to China, with your a320, switch fuel pumps off  and unlimited fuel, unlimited power! XD 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

I got 6 messages asking if I would be willing to share that presentation to VATSIM. It's not an easy thing as the slides are just the illustration for the talk but I am willing to give it a go if more people want it. 

 

 

If it's possible, i'm interested to see the others parts of this slide. Thans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
socili    34
I got 6 messages asking if I would be willing to share that presentation to VATSIM. It's not an easy thing as the slides are just the illustration for the talk but I am willing to give it a go if more people want it. 

 

+1 Mathijs, looks like a very intresting presentation

Gesendet von meinem SM-G920F mit Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flusi748    38
vor 4 Stunden , gmoneyprs sagte:

occupying the 250 seat niche.

 There will be the 787 from Qualitywings to fill this niche ;) 

 

vor 5 Stunden , FWAviation sagte:

And if you even included the little-used A318 in the A318/319 package

 

Good argument B) I was never interested in that package... sorry Aerosoft.

 

I cannot understand why so many people want the -200 variant, I think the -300 is way more interesting because the biggest airlines prefer it and why we want Aerosoft to make another A330 if they can make an Airbus A350-900 ?!

 

For marketing reasons and much more the A350 have to be the next step for Aerosoft, @Mathijs Kok;) - Maybe a bit too early because the A330 isn't even released but rather an A350 than an smaller A330 and then maybe something completely different like the Bombardier CS100 :rolleyes:

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FWAviation    341
vor 14 Minuten, flusi748 sagte:

I cannot understand why so many people want the -200 variant, I think the -300 is way more interesting because the biggest airlines prefer it and why we want Aerosoft to make another A330 if they can make an Airbus A350-900 ?!

 

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.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mathijs Kok    22533
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.

 

  • Upvote 3

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