Jump to content
Mathijs Kok

Aerosoft A330 Professional Preview

Recommended Posts

1 hour 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.

 

There is no new information in Mathijs' post. Ever since Aerosoft pointed out the timeline of the releases of the new buses, it has always been said, that the 32 bit versions (if they will be done) will be done at the very end.

 

Quote
  1. A318/A319 Professional
    D-Day
  2. A320/A321 Professional
    5 weeks later
  3. A318/A319 Professional & A320/A321 Profession service Pack 1
    This Service pack will replace the current PFD and ND with newer version that are better in resolution and designed to be used in 2d mode (the other gauges should already work in 2d mode at that time)
    Unknown period later, but we guestimate something like 4 weeks.
  4. A330 Professional
    Unknown period later
  5. 318/A319 Professional & A320/A321 Professional & A330 Professional service Pack 2
    Note we skip the A330 SP1 to keep the names uniform. This service pack will bring all aircraft to the same status and will update the smaller busses with the knowledge gathered in the meantime.
     
  • After this we'll most likely add more A330 models (more engine types etc).
  • Of course, we'll always do hotfixes as soon as they are more or less stable. We promise not to keep them on our systems waiting for a larger update. 
  • Decisions on updates of the 32 bit version has not been taken. We feel that the models we know have are highly competitive in their price range and downloads for the 32 bit platform have tanked totally. When we get to that moment in time we'll look at it again. Please do not ask about this right now as I am not going to say anything else then that we'll look at it after point 5

 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Trevor11350 said:

I have no doubt it will im simply asking if you would consider implementing a simple feature that really gives life to the aircraft and enhances the experience

 

This would only be immersive if it would be fully synchronized with any 3rd party tool like GSX. Everything else would just look silly. So it will not happen, as the Aerosoft buses will not start to depend on certain 3rd party tools for their features to work.

 

This is the final post about wingflex, flappy wings, flexings wings, etc. 

 

All follow ups will be removed.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Will the A330 only feature the "classic" wingflex while flying, or also some wing-bouncing effects during taxi and takeoff run, like some premium competitors products?

Share this post


Link to post

Also that, but in the way we feel is right and that might not always be the same as others do it. For example the frequency of the vibrations need to be pretty high. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Airbus Fan said:

Will the Lufthansa livery which is coming with the initial release have white wing tops? Just asking because many Lufthansa liveries have these grey wing tops, but as you know Lufthansa wing tops are painted white.

 

The new Lufthansa livery does not have any grey at all so you can forget about that colour in the future. They did it to make it easier for the sim livery painters. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post

How does one become a beta tester for your 'bus products? Are outsiders considered? I tech for a living and have worked on several sim product betas.

Share this post


Link to post

AS, Mathijs, mostly invite people we know from these forums when AS needs new testers. Once in an half moon Mathijs asks people here to apply for the position and a big part of getting the slot is your behaviour and standing in these forums. Being an RW bus pilot or aviation tech guy also helps. 

 

Being on other beta teams can be a plus if you are known in the back channel talks or you know somebody who knows somebody. 

 

As beta testers come and go it could be possible that Mathijs will ask the question again sometime in the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Anders Bermann said:

I don't hold the same grudge against FSLabs, which many (if not all) the beta-testers, staffers and managers at Aerosoft do. Personally I just think it's a little sad, that you as a developer (or beta-tester or staffer) at Aerosoft, aren't able to rise yourself just a tiny bit above petty accusations, grudges and personal history, against another developer and competitor. Oh, well... 

 

Keep in mind that there was a bit more history between FSL and Aerosoft that explains that. Sections of our VC modeling were stolen by FSL and only after we complained very loudly for some time replaced by their own modeling. This issue was solved to our satisfaction between Aerosoft and FSL without legal actions.

 

Next to the other notable events (illegally including malware, threatening Reddit etc) nobody should be surprised this created little love  towards FSL. Personally I find the actions of FSL to be highly irresponsible, damaging to the whole small FS add-on scene and offensive. 

 

They do a fine Airbus, no doubt about that. We do not share their basic idea of what an add-on should be but my problem was never with the product but with the company.  And this concludes this line of discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post

Oops I was posting in the wrong section.

 

For the A330 we have not yet decided, I need to look what is the most common amount of pax for the models we intend to do.

Most likely it will be in the 270-280 range.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post

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
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

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
8 minutes ago, Trevor11350 said:

Damn that hit me hard too

 

But that is no new information in this topic. 

 

On 8/10/2018 at 3:07 PM, Mathijs Kok said:

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry we are not willing to give out dates or even rough ideas of a date. We got to balance professional (those not for customers) projects with this for customers. 

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

Sorry we are not willing to give out dates or even rough ideas of a date. We got to balance professional (those not for customers) projects with this for customers. 

 

Ok so what you are saying is there is a advanced version of this for say training purposes not available to the public, am I correct? Why aren't they available for customers how much is a training-level license?

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Citation X said:

 

Ok so what you are saying is

 

No, you made that up all by yourself. AS does more than just develop an Airbus for the sim market and there is no advanced version. 

Share this post


Link to post

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. 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...