Jump to content

Aerosoft Aircraft A320/A321, A318/A319, A330


Mathijs Kok
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi! 

 

I don't know if you will launch the 32x, 31x or 33x series first, but there is one thing I would like to ask for when you launch the A330, please do the A330neo variant, my reason, even if it is aesthetic nonsense, but I love winglets😍

 

Good luck in the development of aircraft!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are my two cents. I would prefer the A330 first.  Firstly there is a lack of a decent long haul aircraft in the sim. We already have the CRJ and the 320neo for short/medium haul. I also think that the A320 is already in good hands. As someone who has never flown the real thing I probably would not truly appreciate the depth that would be available from you guys in the 320. That said I can understand for a business standpoint it is better to roll out the 320 first because more people will buy it.  I am preoccupied with the CRJ at the moment and whenever it comes out the twin otter will tide me over until the 330. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I think, that Flybywire does a real great job in developing their A 320, I am missing Aerosoft phantastic busses for MSFS! Guys, don´t let us wait too long! And let us get some informations of your success, please!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sry if this was already asked but i didn't find it so compact together in the Thread. Do we only get the CEO Versions of die 320 familie or the neo versions too? If the neo versions come too, will we get the 321 LR and XLR too? Will the A330 come only in ceo or Neo too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A350 and E190/195-E2 are two aircraft that many people want, they are extremely used today and no one has yet made one, personally I would sell my soul to buy if it were available, but the A330 will be on my list for sure

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JasonmCork said:

Am i missing something here? Wasn't the very first post a shot of the A320 model? Not sure what the confusion is as to which model is coming first....

You are right. But we can still have hope ;) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs
On 4/11/2021 at 4:58 PM, herrboeing said:

A350 and E190/195-E2 are two aircraft that many people want, they are extremely used today and no one has yet made one, personally I would sell my soul to buy if it were available, but the A330 will be on my list for sure

A high quality A350 is simply impossible. If you want to have an add-on which is more then a nice modell with default functionality you need access to the aircraft data and this is not possible. All high end modells been done so far (A31x/A32x/A330) relayed on data which came from pilots and maintenance staff. And they had those data on paper or as pdf. Data for e.g. the A350 are only available on certain devices and not dstributable. And no pilot or other people have access to the complete data set you need. This is Airbus policy and if somebody would distribute those data to unauthorized persons he would brake tons of laws. Not talking about the company doing such a add-on. All modells done for those aircraft are just guessing, nothing which relays on hard data/facts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Root Admin

As Otto wrote...... without help from Airbus a solid 350 (ro even a 380) is nearly impossible. We would need a pilot to fly all possible profiles to be able to build the tables we need. That does not mean it is impossible, it just means you get and add-on that is not based on predictable tables. And there are many add-ons sold that do not have that. Some are highly rated in the community. 

 

But we rather get the source correct. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Airbus are a secure company with trade secrets which could be misused by a 3rd party, they protect their confidential data. I'm pretty sure Boeing and other defense contractors do the same. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jude said:

Since Airbus are a secure company with trade secrets which could be misused by a 3rd party, they protect their confidential data. I'm pretty sure Boeing and other defense contractors do the same. 

 

You have made me think. I guess I will rephrase my question have they both stopped? If so are the planes we have now are the last truly realistic ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sgmoore3617 said:

If so are the planes we have now are the last truly realistic ones?

Define "realistic". Do you wan a realistic plane? What does that mean? If the sim CRJ can fly like the real CRJ when inverted does that mean it isn't realistic?

 

If you want an experience similar to the real thing then the levels of flight model accuracy and many other aspects that most simmers demand are actually irrelevant.  It is why many training simulators look so basic compared to what we have. Example: I can do a nav as I'd do in real life in a C182 in the sim just fine even tough I've only flown LSA aircraft. My experience is realistic because I do the things I'd do in a real nav and treat the aircraft as I would a real aircraft in all respects. The only thing that is lacking is some of the decisions we have to make depending on weather like "I can see fog over there but it is currently seems clear at my airfield, will it fog at my field in the time it takes to get there with last light approaching? Then having to decide on a plan *before I need it* as I continue inbound". Does the 182 fly anything like the J160 or SportStar? Heck no. And it matters not one tiny little bit. The *experience* is very realistic. 

 

I expect most of us have pretty different definitions of "realistic" so that by itself really means nothing. What is it, exactly, that you want to experience realistically? For us sim CRJ drivers it is probably as simple as flying a realistic flight profile or pushing similar buttons (a tiny part of a real pilots knowledge). Are these aircraft good for that? I think most are. For the CRJ, I think the snowflake doesn't work quite right and there are other MSFS issues that prevent reliable "realistic" flying some times but those are just bugs.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thx1137 said:

Define "realistic". Do you wan a realistic plane? What does that mean? If the sim CRJ can fly like the real CRJ when inverted does that mean it isn't realistic?

 

If you want an experience similar to the real thing then the levels of flight model accuracy and many other aspects that most simmers demand are actually irrelevant.  It is why many training simulators look so basic compared to what we have. Example: I can do a nav as I'd do in real life in a C182 in the sim just fine even tough I've only flown LSA aircraft. My experience is realistic because I do the things I'd do in a real nav and treat the aircraft as I would a real aircraft in all respects. The only thing that is lacking is some of the decisions we have to make depending on weather like "I can see fog over there but it is currently seems clear at my airfield, will it fog at my field in the time it takes to get there with last light approaching? Then having to decide on a plan *before I need it* as I continue inbound". Does the 182 fly anything like the J160 or SportStar? Heck no. And it matters not one tiny little bit. The *experience* is very realistic. 

 

I expect most of us have pretty different definitions of "realistic" so that by itself really means nothing. What is it, exactly, that you want to experience realistically? For us sim CRJ drivers it is probably as simple as flying a realistic flight profile or pushing similar buttons (a tiny part of a real pilots knowledge). Are these aircraft good for that? I think most are. For the CRJ, I think the snowflake doesn't work quite right and there are other MSFS issues that prevent reliable "realistic" flying some times but those are just bugs.

This is one of the best replies I have ever gotten. In some of my earlier posts I reference the fact I have no clue what they should really feel like. I do exactly what you said, press familiar buttons.  I was asking more for curiosities sake in the sense that now they are more of an educated guess than perfect.  I am by no means trying to be that guy and I hope it did not come off that way. Anyway thanks again. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, sgmoore3617 said:

This is one of the best replies I have ever gotten. In some of my earlier posts I reference the fact I have no clue what they should really feel like. I do exactly what you said, press familiar buttons.  I was asking more for curiosities sake in the sense that now they are more of an educated guess than perfect.  I am by no means trying to be that guy and I hope it did not come off that way. Anyway thanks again. 

Thank you and no sweat. 🙂 There is nothing wrong with wanting to enjoy a sim "your" way and even better if you are trying to work out what "your way" is! Non-pilots can't be expected to know what is realistic in any sense of the word. All they can do is guess and use that nasty "assume" word 🙂. The main time I really have an issue is when someone tells a plot they are wrong based on their simming experience. I find that bizarre and it isn't rare! 

 

A lot of it comes down to how and what you fly. For example. If fly VFR GA flying using paper maps and MSFS is super realistic used that way in my opinion. It just mind blowing that I can navigate all over Australia using nothing but paper maps and a my manual slide rule to make my flight plans. I do plans manually only sometimes though to keep in practice. I'll often use Little NavMap or if in Oz, AvPlan. 

 

But if you want to fly airliners then the experience is completely different. Partially because the aircraft is flown very differently (if you simulate real flying) but also because the pilots job is handled very differently (it seems to me). They are two ends of the spectrum and I think a lot of people miss out by thinking airliners are some kind of end-game. That faster, higher and more buttons is better. It is fun, I like it too, but I think the real fun and sense of achievement is the VFR GA I mentioned. Try it for two hours at 3,500 to 4,500 feet with no autopilot while maintaining navigation and altitude precision with paper maps! That is the kind of flying I always did. After a lunch somewhere I'd then fly back! Then compare that with FL270+ with it on AP 90% of the time!

 

I like aircraft like the CRJ because it gives variety. And the CRJ in particular because it still *requires* a lot of manual skills to fly well. But my favorite at the moment is still the M20R. 

 

I'm looking forward to what the Twin Otter will bring. Especially if it has floats. More variety! 🙂

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...