Jump to content

Aerosoft Aircraft - A330 Preview


Message added by Tom,

Aerosoft A330 Preview

 

Please read the FAQ prior to posting.

Have a livery request? Check out the Livery Request thread here.

Recommended Posts

  • Aerosoft
1 hour ago, Pilotefr said:

I wanted to know if it would be possible to have photos of the luggage compartments we had seen at the very beginning we wanted to see the final rendering if possible thank you

 

Will make some this week.

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Pilotefr:

@Himbiyou don't look enough at the pages it's very sad to answer without having looked

I think you didn't get the irony in my comment...

Almost everything that has been asked next to standard cockpit operations are denied for whatever reason. Failures? Don't need as they don't happen on a normal flight. Wing views? Don't need as a pilot doesn't look out of a passenger window. Interior sounds? Doesn't need as a pilot isn't there. Independend MCDU? Doesn't need as a pilot only use one.

Why don't just scrap the complete outside model. For what is it needed? A pilot in flight won't see it. xD And a walk around isn't needed either because nothing breaks up on an ordinary flight.

  • Thanks 5
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Himbi said:

I think you didn't get the irony in my comment...

Almost everything that has been asked next to standard cockpit operations are denied for whatever reason. Failures? Don't need as they don't happen on a normal flight. Wing views? Don't need as a pilot doesn't look out of a passenger window. Interior sounds? Doesn't need as a pilot isn't there. Independend MCDU? Doesn't need as a pilot only use one.

Why don't just scrap the complete outside model. For what is it needed? A pilot in flight won't see it. xD And a walk around isn't needed either because nothing breaks up on an ordinary flight.

Yeah "outside of standard cockpit operations" as an excuse for not making a decent level aircraft is getting old... They're using it since day one... Even CRJ has the RAT and cabin modeled why they're "outside of standard cockpit operations" on A330? 

Unless they're selling this for $20-30 otherwise "outside of standard cockpit operations" is not a legit excuse.

I think Aerosoft is capable of at least try to make it a mid-level addon instead of entry-level. Since they're already making this 330 from the ground up why not make it good "enough"?

But they just decided not to cuz the easy money grab. A lot of ppl will buy something like this no matter what level they make it.

  • Thanks 4
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Himbi said:

I think you didn't get the irony in my comment...

Almost everything that has been asked next to standard cockpit operations are denied for whatever reason. Failures? Don't need as they don't happen on a normal flight. Wing views? Don't need as a pilot doesn't look out of a passenger window. Interior sounds? Doesn't need as a pilot isn't there. Independend MCDU? Doesn't need as a pilot only use one.

Why don't just scrap the complete outside model. For what is it needed? A pilot in flight won't see it. xD And a walk around isn't needed either because nothing breaks up on an ordinary flight.

so mad lol

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not agree with you aerosoft its serious for years (I started with fs2004 never I was disappointed) the quality of the product and the work of the elements like the cell the efb the textures its perfect he wants that the plane be profitable for everyone pc/xbox/cloud the choice of not having a cabin requires an additional remedy that the xbox has not if you want another choice like pmdg if you want but the price is 70 dollars

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 6 Minuten schrieb Pilotefr:

I do not agree with you aerosoft its serious for years (I started with fs2004 never I was disappointed) the quality of the product and the work of the elements like the cell the efb the textures its perfect he wants that the plane be profitable for everyone pc/xbox/cloud the choice of not having a cabin requires an additional remedy that the xbox has not if you want another choice like pmdg if you want but the price is 70 dollars

"wants that the plane be profitable for everyone" - yep, like Meo Chan said "easy money grab". That's the point. Making something looking very nice (I never critizied Aerosoft for their modeling and texturing, this all looks very clean and nice) but under the hood is... well... not the stuff an advanced flight simmer expects. It's poor to hide behind Xbox/Cloud or whatever, in that sense every car should have 600HP because we in Germany have the Autobahn with no speed limit. There is no room for 80HP driving bins...

A beginner which doesn't take flight simming serious, relaxing at the couch with his nice Xbox should stick with default planes and don't kill the immersion of advanced addons.

Yes, PMDG planes aren't cheap but they are worth every penny and if you see how much work they put into their aircrafts with love and passion even 70$ are 'cheap'. I rather advice you to watch some interviews with RSR about that stuff.

 

And please make proper sentences with sentence markings instead of writing every word loke you think this makes reading and understanding much more easier thank you very much

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

9 minutes ago, Himbi said:

"wants that the plane be profitable for everyone" - yep, like Meo Chan said "easy money grab". That's the point. Making something looking very nice (I never critizied Aerosoft for their modeling and texturing, this all looks very clean and nice) but under the hood is... well... not the stuff an advanced flight simmer expects. It's poor to hide behind Xbox/Cloud or whatever, in that sense every car should have 600HP because we in Germany have the Autobahn with no speed limit. There is no room for 80HP driving bins...

A beginner which doesn't take flight simming serious, relaxing at the couch with his nice Xbox should stick with default planes and don't kill the immersion of advanced addons.

Yes, PMDG planes aren't cheap but they are worth every penny and if you see how much work they put into their aircrafts with love and passion even 70$ are 'cheap'. I rather advice you to watch some interviews with RSR about that stuff.

 

And please make proper sentences with sentence markings instead of writing every word loke you think this makes reading and understanding much more easier thank you very much

English is not everyone's first language, dude...

 

And Aerosoft is very clear which marked they aim for. I am fine not having to deal with failures for example, and you can even do some  pretty serious simming without it ;) 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Himbi said:

"wants that the plane be profitable for everyone" - yep, like Meo Chan said "easy money grab". That's the point. Making something looking very nice (I never critizied Aerosoft for their modeling and texturing, this all looks very clean and nice) but under the hood is... well... not the stuff an advanced flight simmer expects. It's poor to hide behind Xbox/Cloud or whatever, in that sense every car should have 600HP because we in Germany have the Autobahn with no speed limit. There is no room for 80HP driving bins...

A beginner which doesn't take flight simming serious, relaxing at the couch with his nice Xbox should stick with default planes and don't kill the immersion of advanced addons.

Yes, PMDG planes aren't cheap but they are worth every penny and if you see how much work they put into their aircrafts with love and passion even 70$ are 'cheap'. I rather advice you to watch some interviews with RSR about that stuff.

 

And please make proper sentences with sentence markings instead of writing every word loke you think this makes reading and understanding much more easier thank you very much

I am French and English not my language! I'm a beginner I'm on xbox I like to use the plane as a hobby I don't understand if you don't like the project why are you here?

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

Guys, why argue. We are waiting for this model. In my experience, there are several categories of users: 1. those who will buy it immediately after the release (I am among them), 2. those who will wait for reviews and several fixes, 3. those who will hate the model. Everyone has their own opinion and has the right to it. At the same time, each developer has their own approach to modeling and their own fans. In the case of the a320, I purchased models from several publishers, but of course, I chose the one that met my requirements.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Aerosoft
24 minutes ago, Pilotefr said:

I am French and English not my language! I'm a beginner I'm on xbox I like to use the plane as a hobby I don't understand if you don't like the project why are you here?

 

And you are a customer I would love to sell an A330 to. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

And you are a customer I would love to sell an A330 to. 

I'm looking forward to it my credit card and ready lol I love your product and all your other products thank you very much for your answer it goes straight to the heart

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously I just don't understand some people that come on this forum and complain to no end, from the very beginning it has been clear what approach Aerosoft they were going to take and in my opinion have been flexible in including some features that some of us here have requested, wish they had put the extra fuel tank but we can't have it all.  As someone who truly enjoys simflight, I fly the fenix , pmdg and maddog and have never had the urge to turn on failures --I mean lets be honest its stressful enough with the failures we get in p3d or MSFS so why add extra stress. And I am only posting because it frustrates me the hate that Aerosoft gets, we live in a democracy if you don't like it don't by it, if it does not have the features you want or think you need then don't buy it its that simple. i for one will buy it first day! 

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

3 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

We always made it clear we want to simulate what a pilot does, not what he trains for.

I’ve seen this concept expressed several times in this forum and elsewhere, I like to refer to it as the “Aerosoft design philosophy”. However, I’m afraid I don’t completely understand what it means and what consequences it has for your products in terms of what is modelled “under the hood”, so to speak. Could you perhaps refer me to a source that outlines this philosophy and its ramifications in detail, if such a source exists? I have spent some time thinking about the following and I hope you will take the time to read my question.   


You claim that you (Aerosoft) want to “simulate the job of the Pilot Flying” and that this does not include training scenarios with severe failures that rarely happen. Additionally, you don’t aim to model things like circuit breakers or other functions that are only handled by maintenance personnel. Would you say that this summary is roughly, correct?  
How is this concept expressed in practice in terms of what systems are modelled and to what extent -where do you draw the line? I can imagine that it oftens takes quite a lot of work and experience to know what to include and what not to, so as to not adversely affect the normal operation of the aircraft or give the user the impression that the aircraft is not behaving as it should. 


Can I expect the Aerosoft Airbus products to look and behave similarly to a higher-fidelity simulation that aims to be a “complete simulation” including failures, physics-based simulation of various systems etc. (sorry for the vague definition; think Fenix, FBW, PMDG), if I operate within normal operation? 
The relatively limited scope of the simulation must have some impact on the normal operation of the aircraft, right? Perhaps the numbers shown on the various ECAM pages are slightly off compared to the complete simulation under certain conditions but 99% of users won’t be able to tell anyway. I realize that the scope of the simulation might differ substantially between projects and that it might be difficult to give a general answer.


At face value, I think the Aerosoft design philosophy sounds very reasonable and perhaps even preferable(!) compared to projects that aim to do a more complete simulation, when price and development time is considered. There must be a large customer base who is at most interested in simulating the normal operation of an aircraft with the majority of procedures performed by the PF on a daily basis. 
I certainly fall comfortably within this category; I love to fly the PMDG 737 and the Fenix A320 on VATSIM, for example, simulating the flight from gate to gate with as many of the correct (normal) procedures as possible. I have never, and I don’t intend to, intentionally initiated a failure to practice the correct procedure for such an event (and certainly not on VATSIM, of course). Thus, in a sense the features relevant only for abnormal operation (?) are not being put into use. Given these preferences, the Aerosoft products should, at face value, be a near perfect fit, however I can’t help but feel a bit skeptical due to my ignorance. I hope my question makes sense and I’m prepared to accept that there might not be a good or at least a short answer.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, personal opinion time:


Cabin? Not needed. It’s a wonderful thing to have, but it makes the product come out 5 months later and wings views do the job.

 

Wing views? Important. Okay, I know everybody says that a certain feature wouldn’t be that hard to implement, and it ends up taking forever, but I really can’t see the hard part about wing views. Model a wing view in a short time, then literally copy and paste it to make 4 wing views. It’s not that hard. 
They really do help the immersion (even if the pilot doesn’t look through it) and it just helps give more ways to view the beautiful model you all at Aerosoft have made. And if it makes the project take another week? So be it. They are important in my eyes. But a full cabin is just unnecessary.

 

Please, trollers, reply to this comment and say that I’m wrong for having an opinion. I’ll definitely care. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very skeptical about this project. Too much rant about missing features. We will see what he reviews will say.
 

A shared cockpit is my number one selling point as it’s pretty much the only thing we do with the fbw. 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use