Mathijs Kok

Aerosoft A318/A319/A320/A321/A330 Professional Preview (part 4)

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

Getting rid of the firewall and ports issue was the key reason we did not want peer to peer anymore.

 

And to add to this, the current CFD in the A31x/A32x buses was always planned as a "test" version, to gather experience from and to bring it into a perfect state for the A330 (and then of course also for the other buses).

So the current version really came with a lot of valuable lessons learned. Just as intended ;) 

 

Share this post


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

4) okay one more. I love the fact the cockpit is not the sterile place it is on other aircraft. During the flight you see cups of coffee, newspapers, diners, bits of paper with notes etc etc. They appear at logical moments and really make a huge difference in how immersive it is. It will be something not everybody will like because they never seen it, but it IS how a cockpit looks in reality. 

 

Nice.

 

And good to know about the release being pushed to 2018: now I can stop waiting for a while. ;)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have no where near the credentials nor the forum reputation to get anywhere near the beta testing, Is there any chance that you could give permission to the testers to post screen shots with disclaimers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment there is still an NDA preventing the testers from posting/telling all they want. It is possible though that a tester can ask for permission to post certain screenshots. But every screenshot gets it's own approval.

Later on in testing, when release is getting close Aerosoft will lift the NDA and the testers can post screenshots as they like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, we love testers to share their experiences, but for marketing reasons (and you all know I am not a big fan of that) I rather not show that the landing lights are pointing backwards in last weeks build. I just need to see what they want to share. You will see testers making comments soon as we do not care if they say they are testing. Never understood why that should be secret.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I rather not show that the landing lights are pointing backwards in last weeks build.

Hehe, but that sure would resolve the dynamic lighting issue when looking out in front of the plane and not seeing the landing light beams!:D

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

3) The new Connected Flight Deck.  As we now use a server we can show all flights that are going on (with flight plans) so you can jump on the right seat of another flight or join as observer. Of course the pilot decides if the flight is public or if he accepts other people on his flight deck. It's 100% voluntary, but why would you not like to have your flight shown and get some people flying with you?

 

As already mentioned this is the feature I am most excited about. Especially with the new system. I was just wondering are you going to add some form of voice chat with the new CFD system so people joining in-flight can communicate. Or have just the three active parties being able to speak, but observers can listen. I know we all use teamspeak, skype, discord, etc.... But I thought it'd be great for guests in open server to be able to listen to what's going on in the cockpit right away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to read the status of this project :)

The Aerosoft Airbus Series are the last aircrafts missing in my P3D hangers :)

 

Keep the great job up, thank you all!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2017 at 8:35 PM, CheapCharlie said:

Truly amazing work Stefan.  I love how you included normally overlooked details like the emergency flashlight underneath the sliding window.  When I see the screenshot, I want to reach down and verify the LED is flashing like I do on the real aircraft.  Also, here in America, those flashlights all have a tamper seal that has to broken before the flashlight can be removed from the cradle.  I can upload a picture for inspection if needed .  Even the oxygen mask placard is in the exact same location as our A320 Aircraft.  Finally, is the level indication in the armrest operable like the real aircraft?  

 

Are you a pilot for an Airline? Pretty cool! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Johnny767 said:

 

Are you a pilot for an Airline? Pretty cool! 

No, I work as a Line A & P Mechanic at a US Airline.  

Share this post


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

 

In the P3d V4 version light should be almost completely modeled. Depends a bit on how our tests go, we still feel it is of relatively little importance because real

pilots tell us they really hardly use any dimming. Again, I do not know how often you change the light level in your car but my Merc has at least 20 settings for interior light and I used them once, to set it to my liking when we bought the car.

 

I believe this has to do more with immersion/eye-candy for us. Looks much better when you can control  the light intensity. In real life I can see pilots adjusting the lighting  to dimmer when not wanting it all bright. I believe we are now in an era where "we think we  have seen it all" when it comes to what most developers do. However, simmers want to see new things, new effects, new things we are not use to see that will make us go...." ahhhhhh... that looks so beautiful...never thought that was possible."

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Aviator1985 said:

 

As already mentioned this is the feature I am most excited about. Especially with the new system. I was just wondering are you going to add some form of voice chat with the new CFD system so people joining in-flight can communicate. Or have just the three active parties being able to speak, but observers can listen. I know we all use teamspeak, skype, discord, etc.... But I thought it'd be great for guests in open server to be able to listen to what's going on in the cockpit right away.

 

I do not think so. I understand the question but most of us have some kind of voice option already going on and adding another one makes little sense. We are looking at ways to make it easy to set up that connection as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Johnny767 said:

 

I believe this has to do more with immersion/eye-candy for us. Looks much better when you can control  the light intensity. In real life I can see pilots adjusting the lighting  to dimmer when not wanting it all bright. I believe we are now in an era where "we think we  have seen it all" when it comes to what most developers do. However, simmers want to see new things, new effects, new things we are not use to see that will make us go...." ahhhhhh... that looks so beautiful...never thought that was possible."

 

 

Yes but those are what we call 'feature list items'. They cost a shit load to make and support, but are not used a lot by customers. 

See, if we ask our PMDG customers if they actually use the failure features the software offers 90% reply they do not (at least not after the first month). I understand why PMDG adds them, but I also understand why that pushes the software in the 100 dollar range!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true. I only know a single person that really "uses" the failure systems of todays flightsim addons. Furthermore, funny enough that most of those people pointing out that Addon A is less realistic than Addon B due to a lacking failure system do not realize that having a failure every single or second flight within their simulator session is WAY more unrealistic than anything else...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

Yes but those are what we call 'feature list items'. They cost a shit load to make and support, but are not used a lot by customers. 

See, if we ask our PMDG customers if they actually use the failure features the software offers 90% reply they do not (at least not after the first month). I understand why PMDG adds them, but I also understand why that pushes the software in the 100 dollar range!

 This the exact reason i put my faith to the Aerosoft Airbus line, to focus on the small things that please and stimulate the modest simmer vs the failures for example, that for others are the reason just to brag and ditch +100 bucks, and for an elite few to use, that really matters to them.

 

I think Aerosoft has seen enough hammering for another plane not entirely theirs i think, and a relaxed holiday and a good vibe from us future Airbus buyers is the best pat on their back they really need. Consequently, this will bring out the best of them, and the new Airbus will drop a lot of jaws and please us the most. 

Godspeed

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking for myself: I like failures alot.

 

But that more because its my usual work. seeing a fault, relating to it and having in mind what my point of introduction to troubleshooting would be. for that its very important to have an accurate model and a 100% accurate simulation of the systems.

Unfortunatley I have not seen this in any sim so far. And when Developers try to promise 100% -failure system adaption I cannot smile anymore because its bugs me even more as a "specialist". Even not with the very beautiful Service Based Failures by PMDG. If I would replace HPSOV's and other Bleed related components as often THEY say I would need to solely work on the engines. And believe me: it's not that fun under the head-bumping little (and still often hot) cowls. (Bet Engines are the places where I hurt my self most often. Thank god im doing Widebodies mostly!)

 

But I dont even think this is bad to NOT having this. A good immersion and accurate flight model (and besides Stefan's new cockpit looks amazing in-sim) is in my eyes more important. AS has a very reasonable and especially fair pricing model and delivers one of the best models out there. And we the testers, the devs and EVEN MATHIJS! try to bring you a very good product for a very good price.

 

AND: with every new release, now with a big new development on 64-bit, the Scarebus gets better and better

 

"Gut Ding will Weile haben!"

 

LG Wackenopfer

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deputy Tom:  I am over-joyed at the sweet tone of your answer to PlaneGuy21.  He deserved a swift kick.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, macca22au said:

Deputy Tom:  I am over-joyed at the sweet tone of your answer to PlaneGuy21.  He deserved a swift kick.

 

Nah, we get a lot of people who learn about the product from a different source, get excited and jump right into the forum to ask about a release date.  Many of them are younger, or are otherwise new to forums and don't think about reading through them - and in all honesty it's not only a lot of information to digest they have to wade through non-relevant posts (like mine here) and that's a lot for us to ask.  Best just to give them a link.

 

Ah, plus Tom IS a GREAT GUY!

 

Best wishes.

 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DaveCT2003 said:

 

Nah, we get a lot of people who learn about the product from a different source, get excited and jump right into the forum to ask about a release date.  Many of them are younger, or are otherwise new to forums and don't think about reading through them - and in all honesty it's not only a lot of information to digest they have to wade through non-relevant posts (like mine here) and that's a lot for us to ask.  Best just to give them a link.

 

Ah, plus Tom IS a GREAT GUY!

 

Best wishes.

 

 

 

+1 Dave

One can always expect a polite and courteous answer from you.

 

Appreciate that. Thanks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Unfortunatley I have not seen this in any sim so far.

 

Indeed, I think the PMDG MD11 is the only one that gets most right, it's still stunning in that aspect. Our test with all others show major deficiencies when failures happen. It's just not realistic.

 

And there is good reason for that. Recently I had diner with a engineer who is responsible for simulatorator systems with major manufacturer. He said that making the aircraft behave realistic costs a lot (duh) but when you even want to add a single failure mode (meaning simulating a single failure) triples that price, simulation multiple failures simultaneous can double it. So up to six (!) times the costs of the simulator without failures. There will simply never be an FS/P3D add-on that will be even close to fully realistic in those aspects. Development would simply be impossibly expensive. At $150 (about the max people will pay) there simply are not enough potential customers to pay for a 3 million dollar project. 

 

And there are hardly any customers who will actually KNOW that the failures are not correct. You need to be a pilot (even a pilot with some serious hours) to be able to spot where things go wrong. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am totally with you Mathijs, in every aspect: from giving the developers a rest to put new features into the new product

 

BUT:

In retroperspetive you made in my opinion the terrible mistake not to convert the old v3 Bus into v4! This would have given you enough room and time to design and program the new 2018 Version. Then, I even would not bother if the new Bus would be released in Mid 2018.Now you are the only developer who has not a working Airbus in v4 (jesus, even Blackbox has...), and refering to your edited desktop screenshot you where aware that v4 is coming long before we knew...

Even PMDG was able to convert the NGX Code into v4 (this code must be the grandpa or your Airbus' Code).

 

As you will probably argue that this would have produced more costs, I just reply to you that I rather would love to pay now a small conversion Upgrade Price that waiting for the bug budget price of a product that isn't coming for ages!

 

Don't take things personal, but just try to understand the customers point of view as I do understand yours: The fact, that v4 is available for months now and there is any Aerosoft Airbus at all is not acceptable! You simply make people watch out for other alternatives...

 

Regards,

Max

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.