Aerosoft A-321/320 project

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51562]

  On 1/6/2010 at 7:41 PM, shahab10 said:

is AIRBUS X target it for Q1 2010

Yes... we are more or less on schedule at this moment.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51562]

  On 1/6/2010 at 9:33 PM, inbrekers1 said:

I didn't even now anything like DX11 was already being made. I'm sure that the guys from Aerosoft will make it look superb in both FSX as ASF2012.

DX11 is part of Windows 7 and will really get the PC more credibility as a gaming platform again. Most certainly for simulators it has superb features.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51562]

Few issues still to tweak, but I say we are getting rather close. Some of the items on the FSX display have to be a bit thicker then on the real displays because of the lower resolution we got to work with.

[awesome 22]

wow amazing!

[Guest AngelsAndAirwaves]

OMG, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa no words!!! WE CANT WAIT

[SimPilot767 157]

  On 1/7/2010 at 11:09 AM, Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft) said:

Few issues still to tweak, but I say we are getting rather close. Some of the items on the FSX display have to be a bit thicker then on the real displays because of the lower resolution we got to work with.

YEEES, That´s what i was waiting for! Many thanks for the ND-Screenshots! The display units are looking amazing!

Will there be WXR or TERR infos visible on the ND? (Yes, i know this would be fps-killer...)

Will there be TCAS infos on the PFD?

Regards,

Timo

[Guest AngelsAndAirwaves]

mathijs, could you show us a screenshot, how the "2-D Panel" is going to look? ..i know it will be only a VC Panel, but i cant imagine, how this is going to look..

[Guest AngelsAndAirwaves]

cause i actually cant imagine a fsx aircraft without 2D Panel

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51562]

  On 1/7/2010 at 12:38 PM, AngelsAndAirwaves said:

cause i actually cant imagine a fsx aircraft without 2D Panel

Sorry, no 2d panel. We have internally not done one in 4 years. The VC is more realistic, has less limitations (for example in color depth) and is 3d. Besides, by defining different viewpoints you can get the same views without all de drawbacks of actual 2d panels. I know some people still like the 2d panels, but our bus won't have them.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51562]

  On 1/7/2010 at 12:28 PM, SimPilot767 said:

YEEES, That´s what i was waiting for! Many thanks for the ND-Screenshots! The display units are looking amazing!

Will there be WXR or TERR infos visible on the ND? (Yes, i know this would be fps-killer...)

Will there be TCAS infos on the PFD?

Regards,

Timo

TCAS might be possible, Weather unlikely (I checked out all weather radars available at this moment and am not impressed with any of them, FS just does not give out information on precipitation in any location expect the viewpoint so they are more or less all fake). Terrain certainly is possible, we done it in the F-16 but as you say it is a HUGE framerate killer as we got to poll and display thousands of points.

[Guest AngelsAndAirwaves]

  On 1/7/2010 at 12:44 PM, Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft) said:

Sorry, no 2d panel. We have internally not done one in 4 years. The VC is more realistic, has less limitations (for example in color depth) and is 3d. Besides, by defining different viewpoints you can get the same views without all de drawbacks of actual 2d panels. I know some people still like the 2d panels, but our bus won't have them.

ok, can you show us a screenshot, how this is going to look?

[saprintz 82]

  On 1/7/2010 at 12:52 PM, Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft) said:

TCAS might be possible, Weather unlikely (I checked out all weather radars available at this moment and am not impressed with any of them, FS just does not give out information on precipitation in any location expect the viewpoint so they are more or less all fake). Terrain certainly is possible, we done it in the F-16 but as you say it is a HUGE framerate killer as we got to poll and display thousands of points.

To piggyback on Mathijs' reply:

TCAS is definitely on the ND. It's just not showing in the screenshots. (Sorry!) And I know of no reason I couldn't put some traffic alerts (for imminent threats) on the PFD, too.

Weather radar, nope. I've known Mathijs' feelings on this for quite awhile. Heck, we all should by now. ;-)

Terrain: sticky issue at the moment. It's not just that it's a FPS killer as in the F-16. It's that same F-16 type of impact (a big one), PLUS the fact that terrain would be the only default MS <customdraw> layer on the whole ND. (There is just no way to use those default customdraw parameters/variables and get an authentic Airbus-looking Nav Display, so we had to create our own "layers," in a sense.) And to merge our layers with default customdraw layers has so far proven to be... uhm... "interesting." (I was seeing under 5 FPS in normally greater-than-25-FPS areas -- rural PA/MD in the U.S. -- on a relatively new i7 machine.) Bottom line: I'd really like this to be in the product, so will not let go of it without a fight.

[Kwiss 128]

  On 1/7/2010 at 11:09 AM, Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft) said:

Few issues still to tweak, but I say we are getting rather close. Some of the items on the FSX display have to be a bit thicker then on the real displays because of the lower resolution we got to work with.

Will the 'Bird' be simulated for the Flight Path Angle (Non-precision Landings) on the PFD?

[paskie 3]

Hi there,

I've just recently discovered this project, and I'm really pleased, looks very promising, thank you for your work!

I'm not a serious flight simmer, but the "other" airbus released recently has disappointed me in a number of ways, I was wondering how you stand on some of their "shortcomings" (sorry if I repeat questions already asked, I haven't read the whole trail).

1. Is time compression going to be supported?

2. How about increments to the heading, speed settings etc, are they going to be PMDG style, with small and large increments based on right/left mouse buttons, or just single unit increments?

3. Are flaps settings, air-brakes etc, going to be re-applied during replays?

4. I believe that with your airbus it should be possible to load routes directly from the fs flight plans, is this correct?

5. Will the FMC(?) provide simple auto calculated values for things like weights, V-speeds etc or are you going to use an external application for those?

6. With another add-on, deploying speed-brakes and landing gears make little or no difference on the airspeed, which doesn't feel right, how accurate do you think your dynamics will be?

Thanks for your time and thanks again for the work you're doing.

[Pi@no 17]

Can we expect reflects on the screens like in real airplanes ? Or a little dust like fingerprints ?

It's really a beautiful Bus

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51562]

  On 1/7/2010 at 1:20 PM, saprintz said:

To piggyback on Mathijs' reply:

TCAS is definitely on the ND. It's just not showing in the screenshots. (Sorry!) And I know of no reason I couldn't put some traffic alerts (for imminent threats) on the PFD, too.

Weather radar, nope. I've known Mathijs' feelings on this for quite awhile. Heck, we all should by now. ;-)

Terrain: sticky issue at the moment. It's not just that it's a FPS killer as in the F-16. It's that same F-16 type of impact (a big one), PLUS the fact that terrain would be the only default MS <customdraw> layer on the whole ND. (There is just no way to use those default customdraw parameters/variables and get an authentic Airbus-looking Nav Display, so we had to create our own "layers," in a sense.) And to merge our layers with default customdraw layers has so far proven to be... uhm... "interesting." (I was seeing under 5 FPS in normally greater-than-25-FPS areas -- rural PA/MD in the U.S. -- on a relatively new i7 machine.) Bottom line: I'd really like this to be in the product, so will not let go of it without a fight.

For those not in the know, Scott is the developer of these displays. He knows, I do not. I'm just the silly Project Manager.

[saprintz 82]

  On 1/7/2010 at 1:54 PM, Kwiss said:

Will the 'Bird' be simulated for the Flight Path Angle (Non-precision Landings) on the PFD?

Yes, the "bird" (or flight path vector) is in and is working, along with its own unique flight director.

[Kwiss 128]

  On 1/7/2010 at 5:06 PM, saprintz said:

Yes, the "bird" (or flight path vector) is in and is working, along with its own unique flight director.

Very nice! that will make life easier!

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51562]

  On 1/7/2010 at 2:00 PM, paskie said:

Hi there,

I've just recently discovered this project, and I'm really pleased, looks very promising, thank you for your work!

I'm not a serious flight simmer, but the "other" airbus released recently has disappointed me in a number of ways, I was wondering how you stand on some of their "shortcomings" (sorry if I repeat questions already asked, I haven't read the whole trail).

1. Is time compression going to be supported?

2. How about increments to the heading, speed settings etc, are they going to be PMDG style, with small and large increments based on right/left mouse buttons, or just single unit increments?

3. Are flaps settings, air-brakes etc, going to be re-applied during replays?

4. I believe that with your airbus it should be possible to load routes directly from the fs flight plans, is this correct?

5. Will the FMC(?) provide simple auto calculated values for things like weights, V-speeds etc or are you going to use an external application for those?

6. With another add-on, deploying speed-brakes and landing gears make little or no difference on the airspeed, which doesn't feel right, how accurate do you think your dynamics will be?

Thanks for your time and thanks again for the work you're doing.

1. Yes, as always we like to stay as close to default FSX standards as possible, so up to 32x I do not expect much problems.

2. No, using the mousewheel there really is no need for that. I can set it as quick in FSX as in the real aircraft.

3. As much as FSX supports that, yes. We can not add out own record and playback function in FSX obviously but as we stay as much as possible to default I do not expect problems.

4. In this version we'll stick to default FSX flightplans to a large degree. There is a discussion on a more detailed version but as the market for that is rather small we are not sure about it. This release will be positioned directly between the default aircraft and the very high end Airsimmers (oops hope I am allowed to say that) and PMDG aircraft in these aspects.

5. Not 100% sure yet, depends on what the major retailers are asking for.

6. I promise, the dynamics are high end, just as the graphics, animations, sounds etc.

[SF22 5]

I guess the answer is no but will one be able to fly APP Nav Approaches?

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51562]

So.. are you guys having fun doing these projects?

YES we do. Just check out how two of our staff spend an evening in and Airbus doing the sound recordings for the sounds you will hear inside the cockpit. Captain Lennox will guide you. All these sounds we recorded will end up in the product. Yes every switch you click will have the accurate sound attached to it. Note how they have to get the wipers to start at the end, funny.

So this one of those many 'the making of' videos that are so popular these days. Though "the making of Avatar" programs pail in comparison to the movie btw.

clicky

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51562]

Compare these images to the ones posted yesterday and you see how much was done in one day. These are shots from dev tools, FSX will show them a bit better.

The wings are 95% done, fuselage 85%. Dirt layers till need to be added. This really is FSX state of the art.

[ABird 71]

OH MY GOD !

Great Shots, Mathijs !!

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51562]

  On 1/7/2010 at 7:35 PM, ABird said:

OH MY GOD !

Great Shots, Mathijs !!

The vid is better

[ABird 71]

I know, i have seen it after you post the video