Microsoft Flight Simulator Aerosoft Aircraft - A330 Preview

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

4 hours ago, Patrick Helzer said:

Thats what I was thinking. But I think no one would complain if these two thin grey stripes would be removed. Without these I would have thought this being a real photo.

 

Okay, solid comment, will be looked at.

 

You know, one reason I share screenshots is to get these comments! For example, somebody noticed in screenshots that a complete bitmap was missing from the gear doors. Now believe me when I say we have a very solid beta test team and a Quality Control team (not the same). But this is stuff that can be missed. Now solved.

 

 

Please login to display this image.

[FT17 20]

Hello! I'm not sure if this question was already addressed but will the performance of the A330 be similar to the CRJ? 

[Airlow 14]

hello Mathijs I had a question the test phase is going well? you have solved all the problems or there are still a lot to solve you still need someone to help you?

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

45 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

Thanks, will be looked at.

 

And it is solved.

[Ramp_air 401]

1 minute ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

Et c'est résolu.

it was super fast

[Md Alavi 4]

Would love see some screenshots with Singapore Airlines livery!  

[cabr6n 1]

34 minutes ago, Ftanyous17 said:

Hello! I'm not sure if this question was already addressed but will the performance of the A330 be similar to the CRJ? 

i hope thats the case too

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

29 minutes ago, Ftanyous17 said:

Hello! I'm not sure if this question was already addressed but will the performance of the A330 be similar to the CRJ? 

 

It has been discussed so do a search.

 

It is a bit difficult to reply in detail right now because we are testing major parts outside the sim (we have an MSFS simulator simulator), but we are hopeful. A major part of what drags down FPS is modeling/texturing and I know we are state-of-the-art on that.  Apart from Carenado, I think we are the only dev team who considers Xbox and Cloud at every point in the development. 

 

And no, that does not 'drag down' the PC version, just look at the screenshots.  

 

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

23 hours ago, Ярослав Подъяпольский said:

Great screenshots, but what are those thin gray stripes on the wing?

 

Well, your posts did cause some discussions on our internal channels.

 

The simple fact is that most people do not really understand how an aircraft is bolted together. The line you see is not a line of rivets, it is the gap between the fuselage sections. That gap is there to remove areas of stress (check the story of the Comet, which did not have these gaps). Now on almost all MSFS aircraft, you can buy this is a 'line'. We modeled it in 3D, so it has shading. 

 

That was based on our own research of the aircraft (we never do an aircraft without having access). 

Please login to display this image.

Here you have one of the thousands of photographs our team made. You will see it is not a line but a gap.

[Ramp_air 401]

31 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

It has been discussed so do a search.

 

It is a bit difficult to reply in detail right now because we are testing major parts outside the sim (we have an MSFS simulator simulator), but we are hopeful. A major part of what drags down FPS is modeling/texturing and I know we are state-of-the-art on that.  Apart from Carenado, I think we are the only dev team who considers Xbox and Cloud at every point in the development. 

 

And no, that does not 'drag down' the PC version, just look at the screenshots.  

 

I have a question do you have a lot of testers who manage the pc and the xbox or is it really mixed up? Thanks

[Black2306 121]

On 3/11/2023 at 9:28 PM, Mathijs Kok said:

a bit delayed as we got some thrust fluctuations (or rather slow stabilization)

Mathijs, do you have the progress in this problem? 

[TimJB 23]

How satisfied are you with the sharpness, color and fonts of the cockpit displays?

[anndrew 12]

Will the aircraft have custom VNAV/LNAV and can it support all kinds of approaches?

[Ярослав Подъяпольский 9]

16 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

Well, your posts did cause some discussions on our internal channels.

 

The simple fact is that most people do not really understand how an aircraft is bolted together. The line you see is not a line of rivets, it is the gap between the fuselage sections. That gap is there to remove areas of stress (check the story of the Comet, which did not have these gaps). Now on almost all MSFS aircraft, you can buy this is a 'line'. We modeled it in 3D, so it has shading. 

 

That was based on our own research of the aircraft (we never do an aircraft without having access). 

Please login to display this image.

Here you have one of the thousands of photographs our team made. You will see it is not a line but a gap.

I was not talking about this line on the fuselage, but about these lines on the wing. Is it spars or what?

Please login to display this image.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

11 hours ago, anndrew said:

Will the aircraft have custom VNAV/LNAV and can it support all kinds of approaches?

 

Of course.

[P Astarto 146]

Hi, 

 

It's a very good news when i hear this A330 from Aerosoft is coming close to release

Will the Abnormal Procedures present on this A330? And how will the aircraft (systemwise) be in the MSFS version?

 

sorry if this has been asked before

 

Thanks

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

We only cover Standard Operations is all our aircraft. Systems wise it has all you need to do standard operations.

[HarryBRZz 19]

1 minute ago, Mathijs Kok said:

We only cover Standard Operations is all our aircraft. Systems wise it has all you need to do standard operations.

 So there will be no fuel dumping? only standard stuff?

[HarryBRZz 19]

On 3/15/2023 at 2:01 PM, Patrick Helzer said:

Thats what I was thinking. But I think no one would complain if these two thin grey stripes would be removed. Without these I would have thought this being a real photo.

not a huge deal anyway. I'm sure they will make a reasonable decision. 

[P Astarto 146]

6 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

We only cover Standard Operations is all our aircraft. Systems wise it has all you need to do standard operations.

Thats Cool,

 

there's only maybe 1-5% Users who practically use The Abnormal procedures anyway, even the Fenix one i only use the failures maybe bellow 10 flights

 

cant wait to see or hear more updates for this Beauty

 

Thx

[BlackLiverieZ 334]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Ярослав Подъяпольский:

I was not talking about this line on the fuselage, but about these lines on the wing. Is it spars or what?

Please login to display this image.

 

I think these are simply lines from the paint job and not from the model itself. I wouldn't worry about that either

Nothing that you can not do with a livery from a user. 

 

I think the focus is simply on the function and the model of the plane.

What I personally also find much more important. 

 

Better an "okay" livery and a great plane instead of a "great" livery and a bad plane.
 

[Secondator 643]

34 minutes ago, HarryBRZz said:

 So there will be no fuel dumping? only standard stuff?

Fuel dumping is anyways an extra option of the airline to choose from. Some A330s have it, some don't. Ours don't. And I also believe that the version where this option is not available is more common in general as well.

[Pavel1971 487]

22 minutes ago, Secondator said:

Fuel dumping is anyways an extra option of the airline to choose from. Some A330s have it, some don't. Ours don't. And I also believe that the version where this option is not available is more common in general as well.

 

My question is more about the actual use of the A330 than the model.
Isn't fuel dumping a mandatory option in aircraft design? After all, fuel collection is used in case of failures, when a forced landing is provided and there is a need to dump fuel.
In this case, the desire of the airline goes by the wayside

The second part of the question. If there is an A330 in which fuel dumping is not provided, what were the designers guided by when lining up the aircraft without fuel dumping, namely reliability, etc.?

[MatthiasKNU 134]

vor 24 Minuten schrieb Pavel1971:

 

My question is more about the actual use of the A330 than the model.
Isn't fuel dumping a mandatory option in aircraft design? After all, fuel collection is used in case of failures, when a forced landing is provided and there is a need to dump fuel.
In this case, the desire of the airline goes by the wayside

The second part of the question. If there is an A330 in which fuel dumping is not provided, what were the designers guided by when lining up the aircraft without fuel dumping, namely reliability, etc.?

 

Yes, it is true that the "normal" A330-300s do not have a fuel dump capability by default.

This is because the A330-300 has the smallest tank (97,000 liters) and can therefore land *relatively* safely even with a full tank. 

 

However, it can of course be added at the request of the airline, but was done very rarely.

 

The situation is quite different for the A330-200, the A340s and also for aircraft unofficially designated as A330-300X or A330-300E (which actually almost all airlines have in operation, which come as livery with the AS A330).

These all have larger fuel tanks, with the center fuel tank added on the A330-300X/E. For this reason (more fuel), the fuel dump system is standard here.

 

Aerosoft creates - as far as I can tell - the A330-300X/E (as I said, this is the unofficial designation for the variants that have the higher takeoff weight and thus the additional fuel tank).

At least in the P3D this version was implemented, but without taking into account the peculiarities of the -300X/E version. 

Lufthansa, Virgin Atlantic, Brussels Airlines, Swiss Air, Air China, Air Canada, Cathay, Turkish - all are operating the -300X/E. 

[Secondator 643]

45 minutes ago, Pavel1971 said:

 

My question is more about the actual use of the A330 than the model.
Isn't fuel dumping a mandatory option in aircraft design? After all, fuel collection is used in case of failures, when a forced landing is provided and there is a need to dump fuel.
In this case, the desire of the airline goes by the wayside

The second part of the question. If there is an A330 in which fuel dumping is not provided, what were the designers guided by when lining up the aircraft without fuel dumping, namely reliability, etc.?

No, fuel dumping certainly is not mandatory design feature of the aircraft. There are many airliners which don't even have fuel dumping as an option. All A320 series aircraft for example. If no fuel dumping is possible there are two options left out, either remain in the air and burn fuel until under Maximum Landing Weight, or make an overweight landing.

Now for your second question, let's assume the scenario of being above Maximum Landing Weight. Basically designers go with the regulation books. In the US these regulations are called FAR and in EASA CS and so on. In general they are all fairly similar because same aircraft operate all around the world. You have to meet all the regulations in these books to get airworthiness certificate. The reason for fuel dumping systems is not actually the structural integrity of the aircraft in an overweight landing situation but the climb requirements (namely climb gradient) in an approach configuration at Maximum Takeoff Weight. If the aircraft cannot meet these requirements, a fuel jettison system is required. A330 can meet this requirement, therefore it is not necessary to have a fuel jettison system installed. Boeing 747 for example cannot meet all these requirements and therefore must have a fuel jettison system installed.

Some further read for those interested in aircraft design, you can check out FAR regulations US FAR 25.1009 which leads into regulations US FAR 25.119 & US FAR 25.215d which lists the required climb gradients in different situations more in detail.

As for why some airlines might want to have a fuel jettison system installed on their aircraft even if it's not necessary, I can only give some guesses for. But one logical reason that comes to mind could the added landing options when reducing the weight. For example the airline might operate often at airports where the runway length would not be enough to guarantee enough landing distance margin in the case of an overweight landing. Without a fuel jettison system, in this case the crew would need to either find another airport (might not be possible), or wait until they burn enough fuel to allow a safe landing margin. So overall it it adds to safety allowing more options for quicker return in different situations. And of course reducing the landing weight adds to safety to reduce the risk of structural damage to the aircraft in an overweight landing situation. But aircraft are designed to withstand the structural loads well beyond the loads generated even on the overweight landing, and it would be extremely alarming if the structural limit of the aircraft was very close to allow only MLW. Especially since landings can be unpredictable in terms of how hard the touchdown is. A hard touchdown below MLW can be much harder to the structure of the aircraft than a "normal" landing overweight. But of course the risks increase with overweight landing and an inspection must always be carried after such event to ensure the structural integrity of the aircraft still.