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

Jump to content
Mathijs Kok

Aerosoft A330 Professional Preview

Recommended Posts

The resolution of the textures tells you nothing about how the addon will look in the end. It depends on how much fuselage is mapped to a certain space of textures.
An easy example to make it easier to understand:
Imagine you have one single 4096px texture and try to squeeze the complete aircraft in it: There will not be much space left per aircraft part.

Now imagine having 48 1024px textures: That gives you twice as much space for the actual aircraft than the single 4096 file.
Therefore the 1024px texture would look more detailled.

 

Stefan is doing an excellent job to give you a detailled aircraft, just look at those close up previews already seen (for example those of the cargo hold or the wheel well) or wait until you have the final product in your simulator and I can assure you you will not be disappointed.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Florentin28 said:

Because the antialiasing is really Bad in my p3d with pbr textures

 

Making versions without PBR means doubling all the models and texture sets, sorry not planned.

 

 

11 hours ago, chris1549 said:

Hello, will the exterior textures be in 4096x4096?

 

Do you feel that what is shown does not look detailed enough? Keep in mind that the moment you overload the memory amount on your graphics card your framerate collapses.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 12 Stunden , chris1549 sagte:

Hello, will the exterior textures be in 4096x4096?

The wings of our A330 for example are made as 4096er maps to get the desired detail out for that huge surface (which is almost the whole tube fuselage again as surface). The fuselage is made in an optimal 2048er resolution as several maps, having clear cylindrical, not stretched boundaries for easy painting. How Emanuel already told, the idea that 4096er maps overall bring automaticly more quality with them holds not true. A development team could promote their product with 4096er maps where they use for example one single map for the whole aircraft. Then another company does the same aircraft with 4x2048er maps for some reason. The information stored in both cases is the same and one could argue about technical favours in this and that direction. In the end what counts on the screen is the resolution per area unit, so how much pixels fit into a squaremeter of the objects surface and how fast that is computable by the equipment. Using blurred or washed out source data/imagery in maps, can so also lead to less quality in higher resoluted textures. There were even companies basing their business on modding with creating ultra-high-resoluted maps for realtime products. But how many of them survived and why? Others try to "cheat" in more resolution by using less resoluted paints and dropping decal geometry ontop of it to simulate a locally higher resolution than actually is there. But on a A330 sized aircraft you have then an extra sheet of many dozens or hundreds of single decals you must administrate to different languages later or recolor to fit a certain paintscheme. That fastly becomes a nightmare for repainters and they complain often already, we would make their work already too hard. And it is tough hobby no doubts.


So we do a honest and direct approach: You get the labels inside the paintkit with direct and fast access and they are fully layered, so you have to full freedom to manipulate them like you want. We go for smooth framerates running on possibly many machines, because that primarily also makes the sim-feeling, not stop-motion cinema. And not forget about another fact: Filling a texture with 4 times more content not only makes it slower running on your machine in the end, it also takes considerably more development time and more costs, which would also mirror in what you have to pay. Either one person works longer for that task or you have to apply more persons. But also those persons have to be paid.

 

Like anything that wants to survive in nature, we have to see whats works best and have to adapt. It is often not what we think makes us lucky in the first, fast and direct way, but once is understood why, we should be thankful that people take the time the think on later consequences of decission which make us more lucky in the long run. And at the end so at all....

 

And see how many thoughts just evolve out of the simple seeming question: Does it have 4096*4096 textures?

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Stefan, is it posible to see some cockpit pictures?

 

 

As long as you understand that the current textures are NOT complete and need at least two more layers (among them PBR). So this looks rather flat and lifeless right now.

 

2.png

 

1.png

 

3.png

 

Again, this is NOT complete but being worked on at this moment.

  • Like 7
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Flyer330 said:

Delta's A330s use GE engines, AS is only making the one with the RRs right now

 

Which of course does not mean you can not paint a Delta livery and fly it nontheless. How many simmers flew the 777-200LR instead of the ER, not even talking about the different engine versions which were available on the -200ER compared to the -200LR ;)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Airbus A319 said:

Does it have failures? Like going into the MCDU and selecting ENG 1 fail with optional speeds, altitudes to type in and having the ENG 1 fail on the ECAM, and having the ECAM completely working.

 

Welcome to the forums!

 

None of our Airbus variants, including the A330, have failures model.  We only model normal operations.

 

Best wishes!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Maximilian1912 said:

So an engine failure  ,for example, is not possible or cannot be simulated at all???

 

We have had the discussion about failures often enough by now, the summarized result is:
The vast majority of simmers only use them once or twice and then do not touch them anymore.
Seeing that the amount of work needed to simulate those failures would pretty much doubt the product price we do not see it justified and therefore do not model failures.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2019 at 2:07 AM, Emanuel Hagen said:

 

We have had the discussion about failures often enough by now, the summarized result is:
The vast majority of simmers only use them once or twice and then do not touch them anymore.
Seeing that the amount of work needed to simulate those failures would pretty much doubt the product price we do not see it justified and therefore do not model failures.

 

Yes, that is the truth of it.  By not modeling failures (that would not really be used) it would greatly lengthen developement time and raise the cost to three times the cost of the aircraft. 90% or more of our customers would not want that and would not use failres even if they were built in.

 

Best wishes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, EmuEiichi said:

I'm almost in tears with these screenshots, the model is superb ! The A330 is my favorite aircraft, and I'm so glad to finally see a proper one arriving into simming world.

I am forcing myself to not ask the forbidden question about when this beauty will be ready, (oops I did) - But I have one question : is the workload to create the other variants heavy ? Or do you have to create each model separately (was that the case for the A320 family) ?  

 

There is a lot of work involved in creating other engine variants, based on past experience developing the A320 series you can take a couple of months per engine or aircraft variant.

This said, keep in mind it was never said it will not be done! All that has been said is that initially the A330-300RR will be developed. If there is demand for it and if it is feasible to do so you can be sure other versions will follow!

Share this post


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

but to be fair though. many Xplane user modified the a330-200RR only variant with PW and GE engine on their own.

TBH, what user do on their own doesnt matter at all. Whenever Aerosoft delivers a A330 with PW and/or GE engines, customers can expect that these are behaving as close as possible to the real thing and not being some fake engines.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

but to be fair though. many Xplane user modified the a330-200RR only variant with PW and GE engine on their own. that sort of tells me that most people don't really care about engine performance as long as it's still believeable, they only care about how the plane looks. but that's just my opinion anyway

 

anyway i was about to ask. will the plane have 8,33Khz radio? i'm just worried because the other known boeing developer doesn't have it. their reason is because p3dv4 default ATC doesn't use 8,33 frequency seperation(p3dv4 atc are like from 2006) so they don't implement it

 

We use P3D radios, so whenever Lockheed upgrades P3D to support 8.33kHz ours will also have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2019 at 4:01 PM, ols500 said:

This has taken years, hope its worth it lol. Looking foward to some virgin atlantic & delta flights. 

 

Well.... yes and no. 

 

We have been working on these Airbus projects for 10 years now and released 6 products you know about. But there also have been other releases you probably never seen. Educational versions, training versions for ground personal (fuel etc), static trainer versions. Next to that we did deliver for movies, advertisements etc. I wish I could post a complete list of all the releases done but that is simply not commercially possible. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
Share on other sites
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
Share on other sites
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
Share on other sites
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
Share on other sites

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
Share on other sites
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
Share on other sites

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
Share on other sites
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
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2019 at 6:41 AM, 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
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...