Aerosoft official retail partner for Microsoft Flight Simulator !! 
Click here for more information

Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/04/10 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    I am sorry, but to say that the airbusx feels more real than the pmdg 747 is, well, frankly ridiculous. Opinion is one thing, but that statement is nonsense. It will need a totally reprogrammed fly by wire module for this to simulate flight as performed by an Airbus even vaguely. As I mentioned, opinions are fine, but keep it real or lose credibility. Andrew
  2. 2 points
    The difference between the highend addon developement teams and our is that they comprise of highly skilled professional coders backed up by reallife pilots who are actually part of the developement team. They also get close help from the actual aircraft manufacturer. Like PMDG who get alot of help and advice from Boeing themself. We do not.... We have a few contacts to airline pilots who help us as far as their time permits. The developement phase for those comapnies are not 1 year like on this Airbus, but merely 2-3 years with 3-4 profesional coders, backed up by aircraft manufacturer engineers. Could Aerosoft do the same ? Yes they could, but that has never been Aerosofts main focus. Aerosoft sells scenery and aircraft. Sceneries published for small developement groups outside Aersoft as well as their own internal developement. The same with Aircraft addons - but the internal developements at Aerosoft has almost entirely been focused on smaller GA and Bushflying aircraft. recently we have done more special aircraft like the F-16, Glider X & K as well as vintage aircraft like the Hughes H-1 and Catalina. Thats also why we never strived to compete against the highend addon developers nor the other Airbus addon for FS9 done by the company I aint allowed to call by their name. But some people didn´t want to listen to what we promised. They kept on hoping - and even demanded - Airbus X to be more than it is. I´m sorry for them if they feel let down, but we they where forwarned ! And to repeat myself (for the 10th time or so) and point out what Mopperler also asks above..... ...Have anybody ever asked themselfes why no one has developed a much more realsistic Airbus ? It is clear to see that there is agreat potential in releasing a complex Airbus - so why did no one - even PMDG build one ? Or why did that other company fail to deliver even a FS9 version ? Because they are bad developers or because there are aircraft users rather will se released demand ? No... FS(X) and Airbus simply don´t go well hand in hand together. The Airbus is so much different from what FS(X) can handle that many systems needs to be custom coded. But also the logic behind the ECAM and aircraft systems are so complex that it would require code equal to the real thing to function realistic. So believe me - there are alot of other aircraft wich also are complex, but easier to code withing FSX that other companies rather will do those and have succes rather than start into the Airbus hell of FADEC, FBW, ECAM, FCU/MCDU stuff only to get flamed by the comunity and risc getting a bad name. Thats why we at Aerosoft started this project, being totally honest about what to expect and what NOT to expect. We simply didn´t want to go into a Airbus addon calling it realistic or highend - cause we knew that there would be an extreme risc failing that. We simply had this extremely good looking external model + an astonishing Virtual cockpit from another project. Our idea was to make an addon looking extremely good for those wanting to have an easier time flying from A-B after work when their kids are put to bed and their wife or husband positioned at the TV. Most often less complex addons comes with a equal less good looking model. Knowing the sales number vs people who complain (not number of posts, but rather number of different people) I know that we did not fail, but it is still not nice to see that some people missed the concept behind our project and spread their outrage through various forums. Finn
  3. 2 points
    Well, in my case the plane flies great, until I'll have to land. Every landing is a crash because of the nosedive. If you cannot land, you can say that the plane is unflyable. I'll have to agree with that statement. I'm a huge fan of aerosoft software. Truly amazing in general. But the airbusx is a big disapointment so far. Since all these weeks there no solution for a part of the buyers. I cannot see how that could have happened.
  4. 1 point
    Don't worry about it Martin, that's just the way he is.
  5. 1 point
    Mathijs Your accomplishments in Flight Simulation addon software are outstanding. Even back in Lago FS2000 time, the FS Traffic addon was groundbreaking and thanks to your drive for innovation and perfection, Aerosoft is now offering many of the best scenery packages available on the market. Thanks to you and Aerosoft, FS simply never gets boring! However you will not getting of my support, either morally or financially, on the Airbus 320 project. I found it hard to bring under words what I feel, but I found the perfect description on the forum of a competitor who exclusively sells aircraft addons. Regarding aircraft, the simulation should respond to you precisely how the airplane would respond to you- without excuses and without having to give leeway because it is "just an MS platform." I'm very disappointed by your and Aerosoft's attitude regarding realism on the Airbus 320. A dedicated group of FS users, those who are interested in learning advanced procedures and often have real flight experience as well, are being left in the cold. And these users are longing for a decent A320 sim, as after all these years of FS development this is still not available, something of which you are very aware. The Airbus 320 software is not challenging and does not provide the learning curve which is the most satisfying feature of learning a new aircraft. Your excuses, as to make it more user friendly, are not valid as there are more than enough options available to adapt any software according to the user's level of experience. I keep supporting you and Aerosoft, and I'll keep buying your products which do reach the level that I came to expect from you. Your history has proven that you are aware that FS is NOT just an MS platform that should cater to the customer like MS does. Please let your genuine feeling of what's right for the FS community prevail over commercial pressure. Kind regards Bart
  6. 1 point
    Nicely chosen theme again especially with Battle of Britain just passed. Here is my unedited attempt for this month- She's a Lady Best of luck all.
  7. 1 point
    You see it is all in the perception - if you come to the Airbus X looking for a heavy systems focus then yes you will be disappointed, but that is not the market that it was pitched to, By the same token if you look to the PMDG 747 for a jump in and fly process then you would most likely be disappointed too. The PMDG 747 VC is very tired and FPS poor (not surprising for an add-on of it's age) and I think that this is what the poster was commenting on - hence his/her mention of smoothness. If the comparison had been to the MD11 then I would disagree with them. The last line of your post is unnecessary, others are entitled to their opinion just as much as you are, however they may form their opinions based on different criteria.
  8. 1 point
    This positions looks like in construction, there where no jetways in the V2 Scenery too, so I did not add them.
  9. 1 point
  10. 1 point
    Wow. While you may be an intelligent fellow, you have one of the worst deliveries I have ever seen. Why not just give him the link and leave it at that?
  11. 1 point
    Main rotor blur doesn't look that great, but other than that, fantastic looking model!
  12. 1 point
    Hi Shaun, thank`s a lot for answer, don`t get me wrong, I do not want to update step by step... forget it, but small amount of fresh info at least for two months or so.. would be great. don`t be angry but forum AFS looks like death place sorry for that. I`m sure to be not alone in this. just tell me is there any schedule to share any info with us? I`m sure lot`s of simaviation fans are waiting for that. brds Martin
  13. 1 point
    I have to admit, I'm kind of surprised we haven't had some of these `old timers` after the success of the Hughes H-1 and the brilliance of the Catalina. And the A300 Airshove is also `kind-of` vintage in terms of the `systemology`, and that seems to have sold solidly... The A2A guys have proved beyond all doubt that systems fidelity of vintage and veteran aircraft is a commercial venture, even Captain Sim recognise the importance of the older generations, and a I reckon a `History of Flight, the Greatest...` series would be a winner on individual aircraft, as well as a great bundle idea further down the road. One from the Twenties, One from the Thirties, the transitional Forties with military surplus and the arrival of pressurisation in airline service, and the arrival of first-generation turboprops in the Fifties... and then there's the opportunity for `gap fillers` depending on customer feedback! The Tin Goose is a great idea to kick it off!
  14. 1 point
  15. 1 point
    just asking nothing more. brds Martin
  16. 1 point
    Nearly 100% agree with Finn. And there are some points that people complaining about various issues should keep in mind: 1. The AirbusX is flyable! 1. AirbusX is not that kind of product where you need a learning curve like the excellent products from PMDG 2. but it is also not that kind of aircraft where just press "STRG+E", full throttle and up, up and away 3. Yes, there are some issues, due to the fact that Aerosoft had to make a decision to model the aircraft based on the exiting FBW in FSX or to program a completely new enigine. I'm sure the decision was based on a lot of things. 4. Have you ever asked yourself why there is no complex (like PMDG) version of the Airbus available, 4 years after FSX has been released?
  17. 1 point
    Guys, read my post. I'm not attacking Aerosoft's communications in this project. Yes, it was clear before the product was released, let's move on. The dedicated usergroup has seen their market restricted to a few aircraft with very few additions in the last 2 years. And still no Airbus, while the market for "no time for config and checks" users was already filled with other Airbus products before the release of this one. There are only 3 developers, including Aerosoft, which I see competent to create or at least delegate the creation of the level of aircraft that all FS users deserve. They should have ONE common attitude: regarding aircraft, the simulation should respond to you precisely how the airplane would respond to you- without excuses and without having to give leeway because it is "just an MS platform." Therefore I want to express my disagreement with the current attitude shown by Aerosoft, and the missed opportunity for the A320 that this attitude has caused. I'm getting worried that this trend of releasing aircraft who are "directly aimed at the user who likes to fly and not to spend too much time on configuration and pre-flight checks" which was already pioneered by another company is becoming universal and will spread to the other high level developers, especially if we would allow them to do this without objecting on a forum like this. It is presented as a nice gesture towards newer users, they can buy a professional aircraft and they can just start the engines with CTRL+E. But in reality it is based on false reasoning and seems to be used as a commercial excuse for mediocre or poor development of an add-on. It is possible to release software which caters to every FS user, by allowing them to select the level of difficulty that the add-on should present. I know that Mathijs listens to his customers. This is the only reason for this post. I hope it rings a bell. Kind regards Bart
  18. 1 point
    Well, is it really normal to fly on A320 without ELAC and FBW? Is it happening in real world? I mean all those systems were installed to improve safety. Now it works other way around. Unbelievable... I can fly A320, I can land A320 but I don't think the real airplane behaviors same way and it's annoying.
  19. 1 point
    Spitfire XIX... --- Good luck to everyone! Amraam
  20. 1 point
    I think the old adage there is no smoke where there isnt a fire comes to mind. I for my part have used 1.11 for a few hours and have managed to hand fly it and land it with no problems yes there are issues with the mcdu and others that are well documented by others here on the forum, I have just downloaded 1.20 and am a bit hesitant on installing it having seen so much dissatisfaction expressed. I just hope that aerosoft do continue to issue upgrades as they become available and perhaps give us all the pro version foc when it becomes available as a sign of goodwill. As A Matter of interest I found out by accident there was a new version 1.20 available on the avsim forum! wouldnt it be nice if aerosoft notified us direct as they have all the purchasers email details? a bit of customer service goes a long way!
  21. 1 point
    Shouldn't the uninstaller take care of these issues? Seems like something that should be included with 1.21.
  22. 1 point
    ... I guess that's another limitation of the default FBW system...... Why don't you guys eventually buy the Wilco FBW and incorporate it in your bus ??? let's keep pride apart and collaborate all !!!
  23. 1 point
    Hallo Manfred, versuch mal folgendes: Starte den FS (ohne FDC) mit ein Standard Flugzeug vom FS (Boeing oder Cessna), fahre alle Klappen ein, Triebwerke aus, alles auf cold & dark. Speicher diesen Flug als Sandard Flub ab und beende den FS. Wenn Du dann den FS neu startest, sollte eigenlich Dein A330 genau diese Konfiguration übernehmen. Müsste funktionieren, viel Glück Raymond
  24. 1 point
    Hallo Marc, Du hast hier viele Fragen gestellt, ich werde versuchen Dir zu erkären wie so eine Anflug gehandhabt wird. Wenn Du für Dich allein im FS unterwegs bist, kannst Du Dir eigentlich einen Anflug nach Wunsch aussuchen weil Du hierbei niemand stören kannst. Wenn Du allerdings Online Flüge durchführen willst, musst Du einen sowieso einen Flugplan erstellen in dem Du einen STAR angeben musst aber letztendlich entscheidet dann der Controller wie genau Du zu fliegen hast. Gruß Raymond
  25. 1 point
    Also ich berufe mich auf der Aussage von George und Martin, mit denen Oliver ja nun schon länger zusammen arbeitet. FlyTampa hat bei Oliver angefragt (NACH den Vorkommnissen hier im Forum) und ich nehme mal an, dass das die Antwort ist die Oliver an FT weitergereicht hat und genauso hier auch schreiben würde! EDIT:
  26. 1 point
    Hallo Mick, das was Du geschildert hast ist ganz normal. Der Grund ist, da sich bei jedem Flug eine andere Startbahn aktiv sein kann, ist der erste Waypoint ebenfalls anders. Daher musst Du bei der Eingabe bzw beim laden vom Flugplan, die jeweils aktiv Startbahn und die gewünschte Abflugroute eingeben. Gruß Raymond
  27. 1 point
    Hallo Holgsch, Du musst die Daten für den Wilco/Feelthere 737/777, ERJ, Legacy verwenden, sind für Vol. 1 u. 2 Gruß Raymond
  28. 1 point
    Hallo Unbekannt, wenn ich alle richtig verstanden habe, wählst Du eine Landebahn aus und eine entsprechenden STAR dazu. Dann werden tatsächlich einige Waypoints hinzu gefügt. Da gibt es zwei Möglichkeiten: 1. Du fliegst den eingegebenen STAR ab 2. Du willst keinen STAR abfliegen, dann wählst den Punkt NO STAR. In diesem Fall wir nur ein CL Waypoint eingefügt z.B. CL08L für RWY 08L. Diesen Punkt musst Du dann in einem Winkel von ca. 30° anfliegen Z.B 050° für RWY 08, an diesem Punkt beginnt dann der Endanflug. Gruß Raymond
  29. 0 points
    HI, is there any progress on this project? - there is silent for long time.. brds Martin
  30. -1 points
    ... That was indeed a very unwelcome arrogance....
  31. -1 points
    WOw there's a quick way to throw out half your framerate just follows Nicks useless advice...
  32. -1 points
    Hello, maybe you could explain why it is not possible to fly the aircraft for you?
  33. -1 points
    Like I said I don't need to turn my system into a stuttering slide show which is what Nicks optimizations will give you. You ever wonder why some people don't need bufferpools=0, it's because we don't listen to people like Nick in the first place. This is the same guy who after all insisted that Nvidias Tools didn't work and you had to use nhancer... now that nhancer is no longer under development he's back to using Nvidia tools..... kind of schizo if you ask me.
  34. -1 points
    Hi Frank, A few people are complaining about the flyability of this aircraft. It has a few wrinkles left in it but Aerosoft is working on some improvements. The only time I have difficulty landing the Bus is when I'm not properly set-up on finals. If I'm too fast for example, it will be a bugger to land safely. You tell me as a retired airline pilot, what would you do if you're comming in too fast? I think a lot of people expect things to take care of themselves. I just finnished several manual landings, one at Manchester, one in Glasgow and another in Cologne and managed to get the passengwers home safely. One thing I have noticed however, if my FPS get really low, then the aircraft becomes more difficult to maneuver. I'm using the addon with Tileproxy, so all autogen scenery is off, I have my frame rates set to unlimited and maybe this why I have no real problems. Try setting your sliders to the left to see if it can improve flyability. Another thing, when I'm set-up on finals at the vref, I sometimes turn off the ELAC and she flies like if it was on rails. I don't know what else at the moment as a lot of people are enjoying this bird, I know I am. Try to get your frames up and disable ELAC when on final and get back to us here with a verdict. I'm off to another destination. best regards
  35. -1 points
    fair enough, so why are you here? Trolling perhaps?
  36. -2 points
    Yeah please explain the part where he goes on for 3 years saying the Nvidia tools don't work, and please explain the change of heart. Are you saying it took Nvidia 3+ years to fix a bug... Oh that's right everyone of you avoided that question the first time.... don't bother Sharrow: youre the idiot who can't think for himself... TWEAKS DON"T DO ANYTHING IN AN EVENT BASED PROGRAM!!! Now I"m writing like NiCK
  37. -4 points
    Why not contribute something of relevance to the question he asked? Your link for him is...? Ask yourself, who is more rude? - the one that gives him the answer, but takes exception to his `tone` - or the one who gives no answer at all and simply wastes everyones` time with asinine criticism of a commentary about asinine criticism... The case rests. And not on my intelligence, but rather your hypocrisy.
  38. -6 points
    It's AFS2012, and the forum is here: http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showforum=278 Try reading it and posting there. The futility of driving an off-topic conversation with some asinine `demand` is really getting old. Can you not grow up and ask a legitimate question in a polite manner?


  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...