Jump to content
Mathijs Kok

Aerosoft A330 Professional Preview

Recommended Posts

vor 1 hour , OZWesker sagte:

Though I know this is still in the development, but is the sign (2?) near the slats reversed?

No, that was an earlier development image...

SlatRight2.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
vor 8 Stunden , CheapCharlie sagte:

 

Great pictures Mathijs.  In the past, I have seen Cathy's A330 close up.  The detail that your team has recreated on the rear fuselage looks like the real thing.  One question, your livery looks immaculate, too clean for a working aircraft.  Will your team add weathering and dirt to the exterior at a later date?  Will a clean/dirty version be selactable in the paint kit?  Finally, is there a way I can contact you in private manner?   

 

Thats a very delicate topic. It´s hardly to make it right to the people. Once more dirt is visible they complain that they don´t want to buy something that looks like a "used car" (literally happend that way). But of course you will be able to tune up and down the amount of dirt or add your if needed, as there is a special layer reserved for this issue inside the painkit. To contact me, you can use the PM function of this forum.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Stefan Hoffmann said:

Thats a very delicate topic. It´s hardly to make it right to the people. Once more dirt is visible they complain that they don´t want to buy something that looks like a "used car" (literally happend that way). But of course you will be able to tune up and down the amount of dirt or add your if needed, as there is a special layer reserved for this issue inside the painkit. To contact me, you can use the PM function of this forum.

 

I like my aircraft clean for instance ;)

Most "dirt" I usually see on those I fly in real life is dead insects on the gear struts. Even on brand new aircraft (flown one which was 10 days old at that time!) the front of the gear struts is already covered in dead bees, flies, etc.

Apart from that even in regular service our aircraft are usually kept quite clean.

Most "dirty" paints in the community I find to look like they were parked on a boneyard for 20 years or longer. I am yet to see such dirty aircraft actually in passenger - or for the matter of fact even cargo - service.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Emanuel Hagen said:

 

I like my aircraft clean for instance ;)

Most "dirt" I usually see on those I fly in real life is dead insects on the gear struts. Even on brand new aircraft (flown one which was 10 days old at that time!) the front of the gear struts is already covered in dead bees, flies, etc.

Apart from that even in regular service our aircraft are usually kept quite clean.

Most "dirty" paints in the community I find to look like they were parked on a boneyard for 20 years or longer. I am yet to see such dirty aircraft actually in passenger - or for the matter of fact even cargo - service.

 

 

I could not agree more!

 

It's not mentioned very often, but the reason that airlines work to keep their aircraft clean is far more than how they appear. Clean aircraft save a great deal of fuel across the fleet when compared to dirty aircraft, so the cleaning helps the airline save money!

 

I believe that aircraft developers should produce clean aircraft, and the repainters (who do terrific work) can add a dirt layers later on.  One of the best repainters in our community is Steve Drabek, and I'm sure we'll see some nice repaints from him!

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I am also not a fan of dirty aircraft. It is often overdone and you remove a lot of the 3d effects. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Anders Bermann said:

Isn't this something the various talented painters of the community could add, with the paintkit if they wish?

 

On 7/16/2019 at 9:05 AM, Stefan Hoffmann said:

But of course you will be able to tune up and down the amount of dirt or add your if needed, as there is a special layer reserved for this issue inside the painkit.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

It is an area we have done some work on.

 

But said,  try one of the add-ons that state they done a lot of work on this and claim realism. Set warm weather, dry, accelerate to 100 mph and brake as hard as possible, using whatever system available. Now set the same temp and have it rain and do the same. Note you will most likely see a different in time before you come to a complete stop. Now try the same with a default airliner of the sim. You will most likely see different timing, but on most that we tried the difference in percentages is the same.

 

Always be wary of feature lists. Always compare aircraft of similar price.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Maximilian1912 said:

Is the simulated braking distance realistic?

 

Yes and no. Yes on a dry runway or on a wet (braking action good) runway.
These are the two states P3D knows.

No for a contaminated runway or any other braking action than good.
The sim simply does not know about the many variations you find in real life. The sim only knows: Runway dry/wet.

 

I find it interesting how some other developers claim their aircraft would react correctly for all kinds of runway states: How should their aircraft even know whether there are 3mm of slush or 6mm? Whether it's Braking Action Medium or Poor? Or Medium-Poor? Or maybe patches or snow or ice? Frozen Water on top of compacted snow?
These are all options we calculate for in real life. Neither P3D nor any weather addon can simulate those.

 

In my last recurrence simulator we trained for proper actions in case of loss of control if the runway state is different than expected.
Part of that training was the effect of thrust reverse and brakes on a contaminated runway and on a frozen runway.

Believe me, no high end addon on the market is able to show even remotely what happened there.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Polo said:

 

Even in the Class D simulators, it is rather difficult to simulate and even identify between a contaminated runway braking action versus a loss of braking.

:)

 

 

It is not just hard, it is impossible. People are thinking too much into those full flight simulators.

During the type rating when you start on the fixed base sim you think"wow, what a great airplane to fly", then you go to the full flight sim and you're thinking "wow, that fixed base sim was really shit". Then you go to the real aircraft and..... guess what ;)

After half a year you then go back to the sim for your first recurrence check. And believe me, it'll be the worst flying experience you'll ever have, the thing handles so shitty, you will hardly believe it is actually simulating that aircraft you just collected 400h on.

From your second RST onwards you'll then be given couple free takeoffs and landings by your instructor as they know how different it is from the real aircraft.

 

This is of course just the normal handling of the aircraft.

You can imagine though what the abnormals must look like. To be fair though: I do not want to get any chance to verify or deny this.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, Maximilian1912 said:

Is the software used in full - motion simulators much better than the P3D software ?

 

Depends on what you look at. Of course the systems are far better simulated, they simply have to be correct to be allowed to be used a training for non standard events. No matter how often people call software 'study level', it simply is not, there is NO pilot who would call it that. Almost no commercial add-on is able to handle multiple failures and if you ask real pilots, even a single problem is most of the time not very accurate. You also need to calculate things in like crew management (so actions being taken at the same time, something we work hard on with Connected Flight Deck). Other elements like flightmodels and certainly graphics.... depends a lot on the sim. You probably won't be very impressed if you try it.

 

That said, a lot of add-ons you can now buy are incredible. Certainly if you are willing to spend $120 there is some amazing stuf. Just don't be overwhelmed by feature lists. And always keep in mind that if say you on your own are able to fly a airliner 100% realistically you are doing the work of two highly trained persons, on top of their game. Let's put it this way, I asked out advisory pilots to find me a YT video that showed a flights done on a sim that would get close to a pass on a check ride. They could not. Not even close. That will not stop us from trying out best!

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Mace_RB said:

This may be beyond the scope of this project, but I'm wondering -- how involved is it, to take the outside air temp and wx condition (rain/snow), and use that to make braking somewhat worse?  Or would there be other possible factors I'm not thinking of?

 

The problem is not so much to read the parameters but to find a way to influence how the sim braking in an accurate way.  That's nearly impossible to you would have to remove the whole braking from the sim to an external module. But handing over control between a module like that and sim is tricky. 

 

And always keep in mind that 95% of users do not have a variable brake channel but only a brake on/off switch. For all those people any seriously braking simulation is rather silly. In a real aircraft the pilots can feather the brakes to slow down just enough for a high-speed exit. I don't know about you but I never been able to do that in our sims, not even when using seriously high end pedals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Mace_RB said:

This may be beyond the scope of this project, but I'm wondering -- how involved is it, to take the outside air temp and wx condition (rain/snow), and use that to make braking somewhat worse?  Or would there be other possible factors I'm not thinking of?

 

There are so many more factors involved in real life like the weather conditions in the past (has it rained or snowed before? Is the ruwnay maybe already covered in ice/snow/slush, etc.), relative humidity, the actual runway (how easily can water flow off, what's the surface condition, etc.) and so on and so on, it would seem very hard if not impossible to actually use the variables available in the simulator for a fully realistic braking simulation.

 

5 hours ago, Maximilian1912 said:

Is the software used in full - motion simulators much better than the P3D software ?

 

Generally: Yes, of course it is.
The Boeing data package for the flight dynamics alone costs about 4.5 million Dollar and that's just the flight dynamics.
Of course there are other aspects where P3D is also doing very well, if not even better:
Mainly: Visuals!
In a full flight simulator you don't need a lovely landscape, you don't need HD clouds, you don't need nice sunrises or sunsets, you don't need shadows, you don't need animated cars, people, etc.

What you need is an airport looking like the one you operate into, a horizon and some mesh. Even that is usually on an FS2000 level however as that's all you need to show a pilot that there's a mountain ahead and if he comes close this is how the systems will react.

My airline in fact only has our two main operating bases in our simulators in a highly detailed version (which btw has a lot lesser resolution than what most FS addons have nowadays) and the rest is just generic airports.
Generic in these terms does not mean a default P3D airport btw, but simply a runway and maybe an adjacent taxiway.

Apart from that, let me try to summarize and comment a little, but please be aware that these comments are mainly based on my comparably few hours spent in these simulators during my type rating:

Flight Dynamics: A LOT better than P3D. When I say a lot I really mean a lot lot lot. And still shitty compared with the real aircraft ;)

Systems: Of course much more detailed than any addon available for P3D, X-Plane or AFS2. Even PMDG and FSL look like toys compared to a full flight sim! Yet many FFS's still lack behind the real aircraft when it comes to some tricks and hacks you use in your daily life. They're pretty damn solid however!

Visuals: As described above.

Weather: Again, a lot better, especially in terms of effects of the weather on the aircraft as well as the different weather phenomena, weather systems, etc. However: When I asked my instructor to do some max crosswind and full gusts training at the end of my last session when we had a couple of minutes left he only told me it would be negative training because the simulator would not even come close to how the real aircraft handles. And I probably have to agree with him based on even the lesser effects I noticed earlier on with weaker winds.

 

As a final word: Keep in mind what those flight simulators (all the way up to the full flight sims) are. They are devices to train pilots in flows, SOPs, abnormal and emergencies. They are basically system trainers and they are not meant to replace any actual hands on flying skills.

No simulator can replace good judgement and experience. And that you only gain flying the real thing.
A simulator is there to give you a solid base of understanding how things work. It will give you insights into how certain situations might look like. Reality on the other hands side will always be different. One failure will never come alone and chances are things will evolve in a different way than in the simulator training.

Look for example at that Southwest flight which had the engine separation in the climb at FL300.

They got both, a rapid decompression and an engine severe damage (I believe a fire bell as well) at the same time. On top of that they had injured and, as far as I recall, even one dead passenger.

The simulator might train each of these things at a time to give you an idea of how to handle those.
In real life it is the good judgement of the crew, both captain and first officer, as well as cabin crew, which will lead to a safe and successfull outcome of the situation.
No simulator can ever simulate that and in fact they are not intented to do so.

  • Like 7
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, niklasnowaka380 said:

Is there a possibilities that the a330 will be released after the release of Prepar3D v5? And if yes, would it be compatible for both v4.5 and v5?

 

While we work closely with Lockheed, even though don't know exactly when V5 will be released, therefore we don't know and simply can not answer that question.  Even if we knew, we're under an NDA, so we couldn't.   You'd actually be better asking LM the exact same question, of course they are under an NDA with us, thus even if they knew they couldn't tell you either. 

 

But there is some hope to getting your question answered!  The Magic Eight Ball!

 

giphy.gif

 

 

 

Seriously though, our Dev and Beta Testers are working incredibly hard on the A330, but flight sim development has TONS of variables so we're not able to provide you with any hints regarding release dates for the A330 Project.

 

Best wishes my friend!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Zeleph said:

L 'a330 sera t'il compatible avec fsx aussi?

 

Nein, Details dazu haben wir schon häufig geschrieben und daran hat sich nichts geändert.

  • Like 6
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Bigt said:

Ya I'm sure it will work on the latest release (whatever that is at the time) but why wouldn't it work on 4.4 as well?

 

It will not work with v4.4 because of the implemented PBR for the outside and VC 3d model. 

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/20/2019 at 4:12 PM, Haleef I said:

 

The release of the 330 will always be released for the latest version of P3D as said earlier in this discussion. 

 

But also the A320 etc will ALWAYS be compiled with the latest compilers and might need the latest version. Lockheed is working very hard on each new version and they are always faster and better.

 

On 7/20/2019 at 1:17 AM, niklasnowaka380 said:

Is there a possibilities that the a330 will be released after the release of Prepar3D v5? And if yes, would it be compatible for both v4.5 and v5?

 

No, we are pretty much in tune with Lockheed and as there is no solid news about V5 we are pretty sure we can release this for V4. Of course it will be released for V5 as well as soon as we get the new compilers.

 

On 7/20/2019 at 6:17 PM, Bigt said:

Ya I'm sure it will work on the latest release (whatever that is at the time) but why wouldn't it work on 4.4 as well?

 

Because the compilers changed to make it more efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
vor 16 Stunden , commandantyuuki sagte:

Will the EFB be going the the A320 family after the release of A330 ?

That would be really great, because the EFB is a big help for every pilot. In addition, the EFB is built into the A320 family, so it would only be preferable if Aerosoft would install it...

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, snow said:

Now second half of 2019. With such detailed model and modern capabilities of Prepar 3D, the developers have forgotten about the 2D no transparent cabin windows. Please think about 3D windows again.

The model looks very tasty. Stefan done, works with soul!

 

Nothing has been forgotten about, we took a close look at the need for a full 3D cabin and decided against it.

A detailed explanation has been posted when the first previews of the fuselage have been shown in the past, the short summary of it is the follwing:
Go to an airport and have a look at an aircraft. How much of the interiour will you actually see from the outside? Not a lot.
The reason is that the cabin is so much darker than the outside that the human eye can hardly see anything inside.

Therefore we asked outselves if it is actually worth the fps loss. And decided against it.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Emanuel Hagen said:

The reason is that the cabin is so much darker than the outside that the human eye can hardly see anything inside.

Take this picture from the Airbus website as proof of what you dont see:
image.png

Airbus

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Tobias Nome said:

On an unrelated note, in the preview shots of the main landing gear boogies the cables and etc seems to be missing, will these be added? 

 

Of course. They are being worked on as we speak.

 

Best wishes!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, pshd said:

Will the A330 have an EFB integrated at its release?

 

Maybe, let's wait until we get closer to release to see how things are progressing and whether it can be integrated immediately or whether it would hold up the project and thus rather get part of a service pack.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The functionality might be limited at the start (we are still working on the charts server) but it will be there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, FestiveDuck said:

First off: Great looking aircraft! Really looking forward to the release. 

I apologise if it has been asked before. I do recall someone asking about engines, I know you guys are releasing with the RR. Is there any plan to later develop a model with the GE-CF6?
Once again, sorry if it has already been asked. 

Regards. 

 

Here you go LINK

Took around 5 minutes to find, using the very handy search functionality in the top ;) 

 

Have a great day.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...