Leaderboard

Sir, with all thee respect. You should really stop bickering at everybody. This plane is intended for basic users only who want to get into the plane right away and fly for enjoyment without having to read huge manuals or aircraft POH's just to start the aircraft and get it rolling. This isn't a full blown level-D A320 systems simulator that is being developed here, which i believe you seem to not understand. Also, i do not know what your aviation background is, but you are on these forums monitoring all day long, which is not a bad thing, but you claim to be a real world A320 pilot. Shouldn't you be flying the real aircraft on a set line 80 hours a month and not flying simplified "toy" Wilco airbus's or posting on this forum how bad this aircraft is and complaining and trying to show off your aviation knowledge about 5 times every day while making everybody angry? You are stimulating new problems. You have to calm down sir... again, with all due respect to you.... -Dennis

Speaking of ungrammatical, I spot at least two errors in that reply of yours. So maybe you should keep a lower profile on the lecturing of others on their grammatical abilities. Unless you like having your own errors picked out by a non-native speaker.

Since your enjoying them here is a quick screen shot of my approach in Basel on IVAO : (by the way I love how the landing lights move in while descending...) Last mile out was hand flown and the touch down was smooth Default Barcelona scenery looks sad Shots done with the same beta files with which I posted shots this weekend...

No, we'll do no such thing. Most people enjoy to see how a project is glued together over time. That it has these side effects, well yeah, it happens.

Firstly I would like to say this aircraft looks amazing and I am looking forward to it been released. As far as the screenshots go and people observing errors on the display's etc I personally don't see what the problem is with them noting these things. They are just trying to help by pointing out errors that may have been missed, and I would doubt that they are been malicious or nasty. If I was a beta member I would just smile and say "these are beta shots some things may not be correct yet, thanks though for pointing them out, I am sure our developers are aware of them", and that would be the end of it. Now I just need someone to show me how to setup and hand fly departures on the bus. Approaches seem to be vectored mostly, however departures I seem to always fly them as filed. Will be good practise as you can see I am lazy and always use FMC to fly the departure, so it would be good to learn how to set up and fly them without using the FMC, maybe someone can do a tutorial when it's released for part time simmers like me :-) Anyway I love the screenshots can't wait to get this one in the hanger!

Dear Chris, I hope you don't. I think that most of the people here at this forum very much appreciate the way you (aerosoft) keep your customers informed. Anyway I do appreciate. It's nice to see the work in progress and you know where you are paying for at the end. Eric

The project is clearly positioned between the default Airbus and the far more complex (and more expensive) models from other development teams. Like the real Airbus usability and transparent, easy to use systems were the main focus, all packaged is some of the best modeling ever shown in an FSX addon. As it is easy on framerates and not overly complex, it is ideal for online flights where workload can be high. FSX only (no FS2004 version possible)Very high end modeling and texturing (we think it is the most detailed airliner to date)As much as possible default FSX functions so external products and hardware can use it A320 and A321 models, 8 liveries (for sure Air Berlin, Air France, Alitalia, Iberia etc, many more available as free downloads) CFM and IAE engines (though the flight model and displays are based on the CFM)Highly detailed VC with extended animations and soundsFull FSX external sound set (sound cones etc)Easy on FPSDesigned to simulate the work of the pilot, not the aircraft. So no maintenance mode, virtual cabin etc. Very focused on the left seat.All systems that are highly automated in the Airbus (like hydraulic, APU, electric etc) and do not need a lot of crew actions are highly accurate without making the aircraft more complex to use for the less advanced user.Full animation of all doors, cargo hatches, flight surfaces, even the engine slowly rotate in the wind (speed and direction depending on wind!)External objects like chocks, traffic cones, GPSU (all compatible with AES of course)Possible to save the state of EVERY system in the aircraft, not just the default systems (over 400 items saved!)Fully support FSX failure, time acceleration modes and shared cockpitHighly extensive, innovative lighting system (really lights up the scenery, so you can taxi in the dark) that includes runway turn-off lights etc)Very advanced paint kitExtended manuals with step by step guideSpecial support forumRelease May 2010 in download, few weeks later for the boxExpected price around 32 Euro plus VAT when applicable. We are not yet giving a full list of features for the systems as we don't know all of it at this moment. But let me give out some things. The systems are modeled in such a way that the full experience of flying a highly automated aircraft is achievable for pilots with limited time or experience. PFD and ND are very realistic (most likely not with terrain display as that kills FPS like little else and no weather radar as it is never realistic)Full TCAS system includedEngine display is very realistic (CFM engine simulated)Systems display is near perfectly simulated within normal operationEverything on the glareshield is solidly simulatedFADEC and FBW systems are better then we expected, rather good actually (so you won't be using the throttle a lot)All normal Flight Control Laws are used and will prevent any out of control flight (High AOA Protection, Load Factor Limitation, Pitch Attitude Protection, High Speed Protection, Flight Augmentation (Yaw), Bank Angle Protection)Engines are very realistic (apart from the nagging fuel burn issues when you fly at very low or very high cost settings, we don't care a lot actually about that)GPWS is very goodStartup from a fully cold aircraft fully realisticFully updatable nav database (navigraph)Full option to do the flight planning (airport, waypoints, cruise altitude) on the MCDU and the option to change these things in flightRadio page, Aircraft page, Selected Nav page, INS page, GPS page etc.Lateral Flight planning (allowing to enter flight plan, airport, waypoints, cruise alt, SIDs & STARs and airways not supported)Simple Performance pageSimple vertical navigation It is likely this project will be extended to a more complex version (in systems) summer 2010. The extended version will include more complex versions of the systems we left out of this product that has ease of use as it's main goal. We can not give any details on this extended version at this moment. This extended version will come as a simple low cost update to the main package.

Well while it's been interesting to watch two threads of bickering so far, what's really caught my eye is the tape measure presented to us a couple of pages back. I'm sure whoever is holding this rather fancy tape should be wearing bright red nail varnish.

I can feel a topic lock coming on!

Dear saprince !! First of all, I started saying "Just a comment" so Aerosoft can take it or leave it... Secondly, you are not the one who's its going to tell me if it meant for me ot not... it's my pocket. Open question? What its the purpose of this beta testing? by the way, the FMA its a very important thing on this airbus. besos y abrazos!!

Neither is there one such as "inputed".

Limp; Nice screens thanks:)) Keep on flying and making us dream!! lolrin Saprintz: nicely said and very diplomatic! Hopefully this back and forth stuff is done now and everyone can be happy and look forward to the upcoming product! Cheers guys! Simon

If I don't remember bad someone was also rewarded for a note on screenshots not noticed by developers.... So I don't understand why now, if someone is just saying I noticed a missmatch on this or ont that, the reply could not be ''ok we already know this and it's fixed thanks'' ???? Fra

Geeze, guys, c'mon, please. ;-) [And joemc, this is not all meant for you.] But honestly, to address it in general, what good does tearing apart a beta do for anyone, or everyone as a whole?? I know there are ego strokes involved for the people picking it apart, since they get to show how much they know or how great their eye for detail is, but who else does it help, considering the alarm that kind of thing stirs?? No, I do not perceive it all, especially a few pages back, as benevolent, well-meaning bug reporting; everyone knows by now that we have a GREAT beta team, and we've said before that testers or developers mix and match various, often very old, versions of different gauges or features or whatever, for reasons that probably only a developer and maybe a veteran beta-tester would totally understand. The things pointed out in the last few pages do not mean "uh-oh, Aerosoft doesn't even notice the wind is saying 200 knots!!" (I've not even looked at the pics in question, but whoever mentioned a wind of 200 knots... first, are you sure that wasn't the wind's *heading*? Second, if it WAS where speed should be, if it was reversed or something, does anyone genuinely think that that kind of thing would continue on not ever recognized?) This is not meant as a criticism. It's meant to be informative. But we've got a great beta team, some real experts on it, and have shared several times info such as the things that are causing the road-blocks, w/ the autopilot or Navigraph's best implementation or whatever. And something like the ND, in any given pic, might possibly even be months old (literally), a place-holder put in there by a lone beta tester to compare something or get rid of an ugly, test-string-infested "experiment." And what some may be thinking, that the very *fact* that there would even need to be a place-holder... please (not sarcastic here at all), really, go look in the SDK and merely begin to develop even a single basic gauge, some kind of rudimentary digital readout of your favorite information, and you will absolutely get a glimpse as to why such screenshot "errors" happen, why they do not mean that the sky is falling, and why the fact that issue X or Y is in some screenshot really is not good cause for certain reactions, especially the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" response. In fact, you might even think of it like this: if you see something BIG that's wrong, like absurd text in the FMA section, there's a reason for it, as we're TESTING things, things that can only become coordinated in a stepping stone fashion. (What I mean is: developer A implements something, B adapts and adds, then A adapts to THOSE modifications by B and adds still more, and so on, w/ the need to go back and look at some weeks-old interaction probably inevitable.) Don't get me wrong, because I personally want the minor things pointed out. The detailed eyes are appreciated! But big things... they're actually most likely to not be issues. Maybe judgment can be exercised in "reporting" such bugs, after considering whether it really is likely that both developers and beta team members probably would not notice this kind of thing. It'll save you time too. But if you think it likely to slip by, by all mean, please report! (But recognize that we're beyond the phase of "okay, we'll add that feature before release.") But to start with the piranha behavior already...? Personally, I think it makes a developer less enthusiastic about sharing anything at all. And in fact it may reinforce an exhausting, enthusiasm-dampening, time-consuming, and dreadful reminder on this end: many users will never be satisfied, and worst of all will sometimes not even be *mildly* content, until the absence of their favorite rivet has been addressed, the rationale for its absence shared, then discussed at length, at large, and until the rivet-haunted simmer has elicited validation and support from other users that it really *is* a big issue, and that you other simmers should be unhappy with it too. Have we not all seen this time and time again. I was just now reminded of all of that kind of thing. Makes me want to take a longer lunch! (But I won't.) "Would they otherwise miss this issue" is the key question. Because, please consider, whenever any beta screenshots are posted, they're probably intended to appease a forum's voracious appetite, and give a *general* idea of how things look. You can especially assume this if it just says [paraphrasing] "look how nice these pics I'm posting are." If anyone honestly thinks we wouldn't know the difference between altitude hold and airspeed hold, whatever it was, how in the heck do you even tolerate following a beta's progress at all? Seems like it would be very stressful! ;-)

Hallo, ich habe eben eine kleine Tour von Bochum nach Essen (also speziell Ruhrgebiet) mit der neuen Auflage gemacht und dabei Screenshots aufgenommen. Es gab dabei zwei Zwischenstopps am Rheinischen Klinikum in Essen und am Krankenhaus, ebenfalls in Essen. Außerdem sind noch ein paar Bilder von diversen anderen Flügen mit der VFR Germany West 2010 angehängt. Ich habe keine direkte Vergleiche zu Alt und Neu aufgestellt weil ich nur die neue Version habe. Wer irgendwelche Bilder von der neuen Szenerie braucht kann sich melden.

I don't blast the company , it's there job and they have deadlines... Like we have in our jobs. We as aerosoft client have the right to express our opinion about the deadlines of the project 'Mega airport Amsterdam' right ? Especially if you ordered and payed it months ago!grtz Nicolas

I just hope this time they give atleast some more information about what the issues are or why they keep moving the release date, and if they keep missing the deadline they would better stop giving it a specific release date, Grtz Nicolas

Wow. if not for the blurry ground textures, i could have sworn this was a real life picture. Great work btw @Kaptanrot that font and size is pretty annoying.

hmm. for now i only fly in FSX. but before (even 3 months ago) i used to play GTA4, NFS underground 2, NFS Undercover, and The sims 3

Request for the 'Airbus Industrie' factory paint scheme which can then be flown by any country until more paints are available please

This bitching appears to be becoming personal, and that helps nobody. To summerise; Issues were spotted in some screen shots. The poster could have been more diplomatic, but their posts were concise and accurate and when pointed out, they did say 'thank you' for the screen shots. The 'formal' response from someone who appeared to be a beta tester was dismisive, which is not in keeping with previous issues raised here, and did not appear to be authorative or knowledgeable. I would remind that person to read the title of this thread and then reconsider what they had to say about placeholders etc., and I would also suggest that if they have not already done so, they should look at the actual issues raised and confrm that they have been dealt with. It would be embarressing to find out that they were still in the release product exactly because they were so major and so obvious that everybody 'assumed' someone else would deal with them. It is not, in my opinion, reasonable or correct to suggest that basic errors in the Flight Director display can be ignored because this product is aimed at beginners. The display is designed the way it is specifically to make it easier to understand. Modes on the Top row are engaged. The means the computer is controling that part of the flight. Modes on the lower row are armed. That means the pilot has selected a state BUT IT IS NOT ACTIVE YET. (Sorry for shouting, but it is important), and all of this is confirmed by consistent use of colour, so even if the plane is shaking so badly that you can not read the text, you still know what you control, and what the computer controls. Get this display wrong, and how is a beginer going to learn to fly it?

First of all sorry for posting in a old thread; I cannot find a newer one. Anyways, here we go: http://www.airliners...D-11/1661184/L/ Just from this picture i can suggest the following- 1- To make sure that The game engine supports Realistic Contrails 2- Realistic Sun/Moon effects on the Ground and Water 3- Proper visual distortion 4- Realistic Jet Blast effects? (A few recent games have Used Speedtree. I am sure this can be used for the new simulator/ Jetblast) 5- Higher quality Default airports then what FSX has (not too good- otherwise no one will buy addons )6- Wingtip Vortices (Thanks Arista)

Wow. Thanks for telling me. I added it to the list.

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Forgive me for sounding silly, but isn't that exactly what a beta test is for? By tearing apart the beta, and finding every I that needs dotting and T that needs crossing, the result is a smooth, stable, accurate product that your customers enjoy. If you think that 'good enough will do' is an acceptable quality standard, then go have a look at the airsimmer product and see how well that standard has worked for them. Your post makes it 'sound' like you have caught and fixed every thing mentioned, but your tone and your defensiveness suggest otherwise. If you really had such a GREAT bunch of beta testers, those simple, and obvious, errors, would never have lasted long enough to have been posted. And finally, had you put the effort into considering the original comments that you put into writing your resposte, you would know whether it was wind speed or direction.