!! Windows 7 no longer supported !!

As Microsoft will stop supporting Windows 7 on Jan 20th we will be unable to test any of our
products on that platform. It may work, or it may not, but no guarantees from our side. 

Jump to content
Mathijs Kok

Aerosoft A330 Professional Preview

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, captainmirza14 said:

Will you guys be adding like the old round rectangular displays like how the a330-200’s have it??

 

 They stated a few times that they won't, since their reference aircraft is an up to date one.

Also, between the old and new versions are far more differences than just the shape of the displays.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 747-400fan said:

 

-and also, will we get an actual fms unlike the A320 to control ground parameters?(I think a 2D popup is quite old-fashioned IMO)

 

 

The third MCDU on the pedestal will be used for this. (Among other things, think tier one)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, imemyself said:

I don't think I've seen this posted before - what weight variant will be modeled?

 

Past quote from Mathijs:

 

"We start with the A333 with RR engines but we might expand, nothing decided yet though, a full coverage of all possible models is not our goal."

 

 

Best wishes.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2018 at 12:38 PM, Mathijs Kok said:

 

No plans for a 340 and we have not decided on any follow up for the current 330.

What about the A350 with its amazing spaceship cockpit, Is that something you might consider instead of the 340

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ahmed Maalej said:

What do you mean by the term "information" ??????. 

 

Technical information, specifications and stuff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And more specifically information that is NOT available without violating rules and regulations.

This concludes this discussions, back the 330.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Trevor Graupeter said:

I'm assuming there will be a shared cockpit feature in the A330 aswell. How much people can connect to the flightdeck 2 or 3 ? Regards.

 

Yes. 3 active people and an unlimited number of spectators. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, europe.au said:

The A330 will get the coffee, phone, and papers too right? :P 

 

Yes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, we really focus with these products on the task of the pilots, not the flight attendants.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MatthewS said:

 

Yes exactly... and especially when Mathias says in the original post "You can see what the advantage of doing an aircraft directly for 64 bits is, If we would work with a 32 bit model we would never dream of this level of detail ".

 

Once they commit to supporting 32bit they will "never dream" of what might have been possible if they had committed to 64bit only.

 

The conversation might go like this...

Dev A: Let's add this cool feature X but it's 64bit only... (eg thinking of something like PMDG's 64bit only "Rainmaker")

Dev B: Nice feature BUT we have to support 32bit also.

Dev A: Oh yeah, forget it then.
 

 

 

Guys,

 

This conversation really goes nowhere as it's based purely on the presumption that Aerosoft neither understands the market (what people want, etc.) or how to create excellent addon aircraft.

 

I'm going to give you guys one example, and then let's shelve this entire conversation.

 

Leonardo recently released the Maddog X for FSX, P3DV3 and P3DV4.  Each version has it's own software and different capabilities, and the 64-bit version did not lack for anything because we did a not one, but two 32-bit versions.

 

Aerosoft is a leading developer in the flight sim world, and deals with many professional clients as well.  If we decide to produce a 32-bit version of the A330, then the 64-bit version won't be affected.

 

 

Best wishes.

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Trevor11350 said:

Aerosoft please can you do the sounds as good possible because the Trent engines are the best sounding in the world

 

Trevor,

 

At Aerosoft, we always do things "as good as possible".  No need to ask that question my friend!

 

Best wishes.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, flaps16 said:

I'm disappointed! How can I forget those who pay my glass of wine for many years. Every day, when I slam ONE door (32-bit) and open a NEW door (64-bit), those who have paid for my glass of wine wait a long (until JAN 1st 2019)time.

 

 

 

I understand the disappointment. But there are several factors that are in play.

First of all I think that are current version are still damned good. Nothing in the same price range comes close. 

Secondly, the 32 bit market is not very strong. To convert the current 64 models to 32 bit means several months of work, a few new license here and there and to be honest I doubt we will be able to pay for that work. It will also draw resources from the 64 bit development that is profitable for sure. 

Lastly, a new 32 bit version will NOT be like the version we have now. The VC will have to be simplified (and thus only be a modest update from the current version), the new connected flight deck is not possible in 32 bits, things like true dimmable lighting and rain on windshield are not possible.  FSX is a 12 year old simulator that we have supported for all that time and for many products still do. But there has to come a time to drop it. We might be close to that.

 

The 64 bit version is super easy on FPS because we could make it 64 bits, a new 32 bit version with extended features would be at best as fast as the FSL bus is. Unacceptable in our eyes (as we also create and sell scenery, we like to make add-ons work together). I hope you understand why it is a difficult decision and why we take our time for that. We first complete the current projects. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MatthewS said:

 

So why not just commit to NOT ever releasing a 32bit and put the FSXers out of their misery?

Forget about FSX, let it die, it had it's time in the sun.

Presumably Aerosoft has got better things to spend its resources (ie developers time) on than FSX ports.

 

Just we were one of the last companies to actively support FS2004 we will be the same for FSX.  We have tens of thousands of loyal customers who are on that platform and when it makes sense and we don't loose serious money on, it we'll support them.

 

Now we just had a meeting to make some decisions and we have decided that we'll NOT do new 32 bit busses but that an 32 bit A330 will most likely be done (mainly because there is not good A330 for 32 bit). But the final decision will be taken early next year and development will NOT start before all 64 bit projects are completed. The reason we are not announcing a definite decision is because we need to look at the market share of 32 bit at that moment. 

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Jammin16 said:

Lack of date seriously. I have tried to talk with someone from this forum if there would not be an A380, A340 and A350. But it seems that Aerosoft is not intrusted in making money. 

 

We sure like to make money, but what products we do depends on many things. From customer demand (that we gather via market research) to what information we can get. For some of the Airbusses it is at this moment simply impossible to get the information we feel is needed to create a quality product. This is mainly because Airbus has changed it's procedure. Even pilots do not have this information (they do not need it) and all documents are highly protected.  That you do not believe that is true is something you will have to deal with. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Trevor11350 said:

, we have a study sim a380 and a very Hugh fidelity a330 in development but the aircraft that is least flown now and on its way out of service is so hidden - why?

 

Let's judge those when they are released.... Still not very sure what a study sim level aircraft is though, never heard a real pilot refer to any sim add-on as that. But that's another discussion. If another company feels they can do an A380 accurately without the data we think we need so much the better for them and you!

 

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SWOOS said:

Just one Question. Is it possible to get internal sounds in wingview e.g? 

 

We do not like wing views a lot because we simulate the job of the pilot and not the passenger, but exactly what internal sounds you want to hear? The sound a passenger hears? Is there any add-on that does that seriously?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

Well there are of course several places where this is stored. But if you don't mind, why do you think this is something worth doing? For the flying of the aircraft it almost never makes any difference. It does not matter if you maxed out a Japan Airways aircraft (they stack incredible numbers of pax) or are nearly empty and have 5 heavy containers.

If one uses an economic simulation, then the number of pax makes a difference. Like in your example: in Japan, they use large aircraft for short haul and try to squeeze in as many people as possible. On longer flights, more leg room is needed. And one may have a different mix of classes F,J,Y. You are completely right in that for the simulated flight only the total payload matters (well, perhaps the CG is affected as well if simulated cabin and cargo holds have a different center-of-mass each). However, I for one would consider it a bonus if I could reconfigure the number of passengers in a model to reflect economic decisions of a simulated airline.Ideally, have three numbers (for Y, J, F), or maybe even more now that premium economy is becoming popular among airlines.

 

Peter

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with the 32bit buses and the already released A318/A319 you can manipulate these numbers to your liking in the aircraft.cfg file, [general] section, performance value.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tom A320 said:

As with the 32bit buses and the already released A318/A319 you can manipulate these numbers to your liking in the aircraft.cfg file, [general] section, performance value.

 

Hello Tom,

 

I know that, but Mathijs mentioned in his post that the pax number is stored at several places. Plus, there isn't really a standard when it comes to these numbers. Some developers strongly discourage changing the aircraft.cfg numbers. Others, like CaptainSim, change the numbers themselves for every flight. If I recall correctly, another developer stated in a forum discussion somewhere that these numbers are ignored in their model. The only confidence I have is that I can use aircraft.cfg to change load stations for default airplanes.

 

That's why I think it would be nice if Aerosoft would make this somehow configurable. Ideally, the load stations in aircraft.cfg would be honoured, no matter what the entries are. However, I will buy the A330 even without such a configuration tool. It is just a suggestion, in case it would be easy to implement.

 

Peter

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manual changes to original files like the aircraft.cfg are of cause always on your own risk and not supported by the manufacturer. That's here not different as to any other manufacturer. 

A manufacturer would open the pandora box if they would allow getting their original files manipulated and would fully support that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost always professional contracts includes a clause that forbids us to discuss things, but parts of our Airbus products have been licensed for professional use. From static simulators that assist novice pilots to get acquainted with procedures to the use of our models in movies, demonstrators and even advertisement. In some occasions that also includes enhancements on existing products to make them more complex. However we have very well defined ideas on our products and do not often feel the need to include those in the commercial versions of the product.

 

This is also true for the current bus projects. Their is however, as Frank written, no 'advanced' version. There are only partial advanced bits but we have no intention of ever selling those to the standard customers. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

Almost always professional contracts includes a clause that forbids us to discuss things, but parts of our Airbus products have been licensed for professional use. From static simulators that assist novice pilots to get acquainted with procedures to the use of our models in movies, demonstrators and even advertisement. In some occasions that also includes enhancements on existing products to make them more complex. However we have very well defined ideas on our products and do not often feel the need to include those in the commercial versions of the product.

 

This is also true for the current bus projects. Their is however, as Frank written, no 'advanced' version. There are only partial advanced bits but we have no intention of ever selling those to the standard customers. 

 

Ok, so we can expect the 330 to have the same complexity as previous products? normal ops only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...