Jump to content
Mathijs Kok

Aerosoft A318/A319/A320/A321/A330 Professional Preview

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Felidae said:

Do you  think the best would be too much ?

 

Yes, absolutely.

It would not only take several years (like 5 or maybe 10? more to develop, it would also be far out of the budget of most of our customers.
 

Experience has shown that you win a LOT more customers with the way we go than over the way some other developers go.
Our sales data confirms this.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok Emanuel I agree, from your point of view as 'seller". Statistics are very hard for dreams

But you don't need ten years to make a realistic plane.See the Dash Q 400. 

I fly with the Airbus of Aerosoft very often. They are actually very pleasant planes.and I'll buy the A330. :)

A joke: if five and more years development are promising top detailed planes the future CRJ  should be the cream of the crop

Regards

 

daniel

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Felidae said:

we have to test the functionalities and their plausibility to make up our mind about the attractivity of the plane.

Please find us something better than the Aerosoft A320 series. Aerosoft were crazy enough to deliver 4 aircraft of that quality (much back in the day) in exchange for peanuts, at a time when heavenly PMDG and CaptainSim sold an expensive base first, then a separate price for the variation.

 

The others are good. And Aerosoft is great, time tested, and they WILL deliver the best A330 till date without breaking the bank (if we don't continuously demotivate the team, and make them second guess their proven methods).

 

2 hours ago, Felidae said:

you don't need ten years to make a realistic plane

 

if five and more years development are promising top detailed planes the future CRJ  should be the cream of the crop

 

When I was in high school, someone started developing a 747 for a third time, someone who already made a 747-400, promised us a -8 variant, someone promised a super realistic A320, someone promised an A380, and someone had posted amazing shot of a 787 virtual cockpit.

 

These days, I am busy with my PhD... those planes are still under development. 

 

Talk to them for me, will you? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

Hehehehe.  That's cool.  And best wishes for your PhD Dr.

 

One cannot be blamed for asking modifications and extra stuff.  Aerosoft has spoiled us by complying with most requests with the A320 project and offering an amazing aircraft for an amazing price.  And the support, I mean, nothing is unanswered or not solved.  So I trust they have started this project with sooooo much more knowledge and experience to know almost exactly what we love, again at an amazing price.  Thank you Aerosoft dearly.

Jead

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Emanuel Hagen said:

 

Yes, absolutely.

It would not only take several years (like 5 or maybe 10? more to develop, it would also be far out of the budget of most of our customers.
 

Experience has shown that you win a LOT more customers with the way we go than over the way some other developers go.
Our sales data confirms this.

Emanuel, the reason you have great sales and data to prove it, is because you are the leaders in producing affordable products that wow us!! we look forward
to that with every new release!! texturing windows is old school , cartoonish more like AI and default planes!! look at Mcphat studios, they are the masters
in realistic texturing , when they decided to develop the ATR, they didn't choose window texturing!! they modeled it correctly with cabin windows!! if you look at
the most preferred sim planes flown in most of the forums, the ones that are textured are cargo and the rest is not! its because we prefer flying the more realistic looking ones and more!!
The A330 is a beautiful bird and needs to be modeled with the same quality as your 320 series if not more! frame rate friendly and boring will fade really fast!!
I hope you guys would consider that with an update or a feature when released!!

Share this post


Link to post

You have to understand that the customer base for the A320 (although not for long) and the A330 are comprised of all levels of aeronautical understanding and budget, so you are held to higher standards by more advanced customers who have nowhere else to turn. Take advantage of their business while you have it.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Felidae said:

Ok Emanuel I agree, from your point of view as 'seller". Statistics are very hard for dreams

But you don't need ten years to make a realistic plane.See the Dash Q 400. 

I fly with the Airbus of Aerosoft very often. They are actually very pleasant planes.and I'll buy the A330. :)

A joke: if five and more years development are promising top detailed planes the future CRJ  should be the cream of the crop

Regards

 

daniel

 

 

 

 

Hi Daniel,

 

you need to see the difference between a Dash 8 and an A330 though.

The Dash 8 (sorry all Dash pilots) is a simple plane, no advanced computers, nothing. Again sorry you Dash pilots, but you sort of knew it already, didn't you?

And the Dash also was in development for some 4 or 5 years, wasn't it?

 

Now look into those developers who do the really complex airliners.
PMDG takes 3 years for a 747, even though they can base it on the 777 and already have 747 knowledge from their previous 747 addons. Thus already have many many systems from the NGX and 777 which only need slight modification.

And PMDG gets help by Boeing, Airbus on the other side refuses any help.

Then wasn't there an Airbus addon that was supposed to be released in 2012? 4 years delay now and 6 years in development. And that's just the A320, now guess how long it will take them to complete the A320 family of aircraft (we included all, they only do the 320, hey?).

 

4 hours ago, waeln said:

Emanuel, the reason you have great sales and data to prove it, is because you are the leaders in producing affordable products that wow us!! we look forward
to that with every new release!! texturing windows is old school , cartoonish more like AI and default planes!! look at Mcphat studios, they are the masters
in realistic texturing , when they decided to develop the ATR, they didn't choose window texturing!! they modeled it correctly with cabin windows!! if you look at
the most preferred sim planes flown in most of the forums, the ones that are textured are cargo and the rest is not! its because we prefer flying the more realistic looking ones and more!!
The A330 is a beautiful bird and needs to be modeled with the same quality as your 320 series if not more! frame rate friendly and boring will fade really fast!!
I hope you guys would consider that with an update or a feature when released!!

 

Well, that's an ATR, quite a difference from an A330 in terms of size, isn't it?

The bigger cabin in the 330 eats up a lot more polygons than that of an ATR.
Plus that the A330 has much more complex systems and thus needs more resources (and memory!) on that part already.

 

Being bound to a 32bit simulator we have to make cuts. Not only aircraft get more memory consuming with the time, scenery and everything else also increases in VAS load.

Then we have a A330 here which will mainly fly into the major hubs -> even more memory demand.

Sorry, but at some point you simply have to cut the corner to make a product that is enjoyable for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Virgin America Captain said:

You have to understand that the customer base for the A320 (although not for long) and the A330 are comprised of all levels of aeronautical understanding and budget, so you are held to higher standards by more advanced customers who have nowhere else to turn. Take advantage of their business while you have it.

 

These more knowledgable customers are a minority though.

Keep in mind the majority of simmers is flying offline and thus you'll never see them online here.

Just looking at the online networks will give you a wrong impression of who the average customer is.


Without those average customers we could in no way finance the development of such an addon. Those are the customers keeping us alive and enabling us to develop addons for you!

 

We do for example still see many people asking how to know which SID/STAR to select, why the speed indicator would not show 450kt in cruise since the real Airbus would be much faster than ours, etc.
Those things probably sound so basic to you that you didn't even think of them, right? This is the level of customer we need to serve who will finance the majority of the development.

Without these customers we could easily be in 100$ price range.

Share this post


Link to post

 I apologize in advance, if my questions are already asked,  but I'm really interested in those!

 

Will the Airbus A330 able of fuel dumping? (Jettison) 

 

And will there any abnormal Procedures simulated? 

 

Best regards

-Sebastian

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, SierraTangoEcho said:

 I apologize in advance, if my questions are already asked,  but I'm really interested in those!

 

Will the Airbus A330 able of fuel dumping? (Jettison) 

 

And will there any abnormal Procedures simulated? 

 

Best regards

-Sebastian

 

 

 

If it's in the current Airbus series it will be in the new one... As far as I know, in the current Airbus (A318, A319, A320, A321), fuel dumping isn't modelled.
Also, no abnormal procedures (been said many times). The object, is to simulate the daily (and by that normal) operations of the aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
vor 10 Minuten, KingMusjo sagte:

 

If it's in the current Airbus series it will be in the new one... As far as I know, in the current Airbus (A318, A319, A320, A321), fuel dumping isn't modelled.
Also, no abnormal procedures (been said many times). The object, is to simulate the daily (and by that normal) operations of the aircraft.

You can't dump fuel in a real A318, A319, A320 and A321. Or am I wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, KingMusjo said:

 

 As far as I know, in the current Airbus (A318, A319, A320, A321), fuel dumping isn't modelled.
 

 

Even Airbus did not model this in their RW A320Fam. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

Fair enough... :) I bow to your superior expertise! 

 

Anyway - I seem to recall, that it's already been said, that fuel dumping won't be modelled in the A330 that's being developed, since it isn't part of a standard procedure... 

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry.... I don't get the "immense immersion factor" of a modelled (empty) cabin visible through transparent cabin windows.

 

many people complain about OOM's (blaming the scenery developers B)) - but on the other side want to look into the cabin from outside the plane.

I'd rather have a nice modelled VC, a nice outside model and no constant OOM problems (even with demanding scenerys).

If you would like to spend some MB on "immersion" there are some interesting addons for that (FS2Crew, the "immersion packs", ...)

Share this post


Link to post
Vor 1 Stunde, toasty98 sagte:

You can't dump fuel in a real A318, A319, A320 and A321. Or am I wrong?

No you're correct :D

Share this post


Link to post
vor 7 Stunden , data63 sagte:

many people complain about OOM's (blaming the scenery developers B)) - but on the other side want to look into the cabin from outside the plane.

 

I don't think that the people who complain about OOMs are exactly the same people who want see-through windows, modelled cabins and all the other eyecandy. As it has been pointed out in some postings above, there is no such thing as the flight simulator user. As a matter of fact, there is a whole variety of users instead: Those 0.5 % who apparently have super-duper systems which never even came close to an OOM and therefore are not shy of asking for eyecandy, then those who have a good/average/low-end system but don't demand eyecandy, then ... etc. etc.

 

And I believe that you and I already had that discussion in the EDDF VAS problems thread: Sometimes there are sceneries (and even airplanes) which create OOMs even if one turns down all or at least a lot of settings and even if one operates them on a good system. I don't want to rekindle that discussion all over again, especially since this is the wrong thread for that. But I think one can't claim that developers never make mistakes in designing sceneries, airplanes etc. and that it's always the users and their settings and/or systems who are to blame for performance problems. That said, I'm very glad that Aerosoft takes performance issues seriously - and wants to eradicate them right from the start in their A330. 

Share this post


Link to post

also not wanting to start an argument... - as long as FSX / P3D are 32bit applications you can have a super comp with 10 ghz CPU/1 TB Ram - the sim will always OOM at the same point ;-)

 

therefore aircraft AND scenerys should be well balanced (and optimized) to be usable for all (most) of us desktop pilots.

 

(my last 2 pence on that - promised)

Share this post


Link to post

And to end this discussion about performance:

 

On more or less every page in this preview topic Aerosoft states that their focus is on the average customer with average hardware. With all the implications that have on features.

 

If you know the A31x/A32x series you know what you can expect feature and performance wise from the A330.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, FWAviation said:

I don't think that the people who complain about OOMs are exactly the same people who want see-through windows, modelled cabins and all the other eyecandy

 

You will be shocked. It is often the same people.

I was chatting with someone on VATSIM during one of my flights. I asked the fellow why he is still stuck with FS9. He said his PC wasn't good enough for an upgrade. Same person was telling me that he would never fly the Aerosoft A320 because it didn't have so many features. 

So they won't switch from a 1982 Flight Simulator 1.0, and it is Aerosoft's responsibility to fit in a super A330 into it? :grouprespect_s:

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/18/2016 at 10:28 AM, Mathijs Kok said:

As far as I know the bulk-door is only on cargo version and that is something we have limited interest in, certainly not in the first release.

"Limited interest"

Very disappointing to read such a statement!

The only developer that really keeps us cargo drivers in mind is PMDG!

As nice as this A330 looks, it will be completely useless for me and our members now...As excited as I would like to be about it, I will have to exhale and be disappointed that I will have no reason to fly it.

 

http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/freighter/a330-200f/

 

Mathijs...I don't post much, I do more reading of things than I do posting...your statement above is why I decided to say something. As a cargo flyer we are really limited to really nice cargo aircraft for FSX.

Even tho at this time the A330 would be fictional for UPS I would have been thrilled to add the fleet type to our db - so our pilots could purchase it and enjoy using it.

I know you did not completely rule out the possibility of a cargo version, but i do think you and your developers need to have a bit more than just a "Limited Interest" in us.

If you google how many cargo VA's there are out there, It can only improve your bottom line by making the cargo variant.

 

I really hope to see this in a cargo frame.

 

 

Preston B.

CEO

UPSVAC.com

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, PBCool1 said:

"Limited interest"

Very disappointing to read such a statement!

The only developer that really keeps us cargo drivers in mind is PMDG!

As nice as this A330 looks, it will be completely useless for me and our members now...As excited as I would like to be about it, I will have to exhale and be disappointed that I will have no reason to fly it.

 

Ahh well, that's something we'll have to accept then.  However, as far as I know UPS does not fly any 330's so I doubt that the pilots of that VA would be very interested anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, PBCool1 said:

As nice as this A330 looks, it will be completely useless for me and our members now...As excited as I would like to be about it, I will have to exhale and be disappointed that I will have no reason to fly it.

 

Even tho at this time the A330 would be fictional for UPS I would have been thrilled to add the fleet type to our db - so our pilots could purchase it and enjoy using it.

 

Sorry it's probably none of my business, but I just can't make any sense of these statements...

 

On one hand you're willing to sacrifize realism by flying an aircraft type that the real airline does not operate?

But on the other hand, the product is "completely useless" because it does not have a cargo door?

 

Assuming that you would do a repaint for the aircraft to wear the imaginary UPS colours, why not just add the outlines of a cargo door and cover the windows when painting it? Then all you really miss is the opening and closing of the cargo door - which in my opinion is a far cry from rendering the product "completely useless".

When viewed from inside the cockpit, I'm fairly certain that the cargo version of the A330 is identical to the pax version, and isn't this where all pilots, real and virtual, have their main focus?

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I don't get his viewpoint either. Let's just stick to the topic and simply keep in mind that AS are "only" developing an A330-300 version for the initial release. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/31/2016 at 11:47 AM, KingMusjo said:

 

If it's in the current Airbus series it will be in the new one... As far as I know, in the current Airbus (A318, A319, A320, A321), fuel dumping isn't modelled.
Also, no abnormal procedures (been said many times). The object, is to simulate the daily (and by that normal) operations of the aircraft.

Why would you model a thing that is not in the real aircraft?

Share this post


Link to post

This has been already answered many times. Please don't fill this preview topic with posts that do not add anything new to a discussion / question / feature request.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...