Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If i had a wish...

The disadvantage (in one aspect) of some high-end aircrafts is, that you can´t use

popular flightsim-hardware like GOFLIGHT, because of their own complex

autopilot logics etc.

So if you decide to keep it "simple", it would be great to use FSX assignments

for the most functions, so that we can use our common flightsim-hardware...

just my 2 cents...

Regards,

Timo

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not really my style of aircraft but we decided to start an Airbus project internally. The reason for this is simple, we feel there is a market for the kind of Airbus we got on mind. We want it to look

Congratulations! Even if i prefer ultrarealistic flight simulation, there are many moments for a "after business traffic pattern or ILS-approach" when i´m not interested in SID and STAR, but in FSX e

My my, what a load of comments on something I have not written more then a few lines about, lol. Of course we'll have a full FMGC, when I say that we'll simplify things I meant stuff like the FLT Rec

Posted Images

Why arent you guys making just an A380. We need an A380 out there...it is always the same, when somebody announces to produce a 757, all other producers are planning to do the same. When we need an Airbus and somebody announces to make one(like airsimmer), then all others are planning to produce one... *sigh* :huh::mellow:

Link to post
Share on other sites
If i had a wish...

The disadvantage (in one aspect) of some high-end aircrafts is, that you can´t use

popular flightsim-hardware like GOFLIGHT, because of their own complex

autopilot logics etc.

So if you decide to keep it "simple", it would be great to use FSX assignments

for the most functions, so that we can use our common flightsim-hardware...

just my 2 cents...

Regards,

Timo

Very good point and very high on my agenda. For many things we will accept certain limitations when it allows us a good link with hardware and other software.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why arent you guys making just an A380. We need an A380 out there...it is always the same, when somebody announces to produce a 757, all other producers are planning to do the same. When we need an Airbus and somebody announces to make one(like airsimmer), then all others are planning to produce one... *sigh* :huh::mellow:

There are a few 380's out already (non that is really nice btw), but for this project we like to do the aircraft that people fly towards there holiday destinations ect. Customers buy what they know. They buy a scenery that covers their town, they buy the aircraft they have been in.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Will the fax printer work? And if you ask nicely, I am sure the PR people at Airbus will help with all the MFD screens. I don't fly paxtubes, but I have heard that some of the more interesting functions don't yet work on other peoples' Airbii.

Do a factory visit (they do guided tours for the public in Hamburg) and buy some of the cockpit posters if you want real detail.

What about all the tones, alerts, alarms etc... I gather some of these are rather lacking in other sims.

Perhaps a camera at the cabin crew station and set all the environmental control stuff?

And the crew laptops and cassettes...

A good paintkit and I'll probably even break my own rules on this plane - after all, they are the most paintable planes in commercial use right now. Or are you going freighter / ST / Vomit Comet?

All good fun.

Lol... well a clear no to all your suggestions. Except the sounds, that will be a major part of our project.

We got 3 Airbus pilots on the project staff, one of who is a thousand hours plus instructor who knows pages in the FMGC even the software guys would not be able to find. He showed me around in a 321 cockpit recently and did stuff that freaked out the maintenance people that were also there. A bit like me bringing in my car to the garage after setting the computer in debug mode just to give them a challenge. By now they know, but a year ago I could show them stuff learned on the internet forums they never heard via official channels.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really my style of aircraft but we decided to start an Airbus project internally. The reason for this is simple, we feel there is a market for the kind of Airbus we got on mind. We want it to look stunning and be very interactive (think the Catalina style) but still with a high degree of usability. So we are not afraid to totally drop systems we feel have little use for the average simmers. One example, you won't be able to plan a route or load total nav databases with SID's and STARTs but you will be able to import a standard FSX flightplan. Something between the default FSX aircraft and PMDG complexity, usable for every simmer without having go through 300 pages of manuals. We have got very serious plans for the flybywire system and we are sure at this moment we'll be able to prevent the pilot from exceeding the limits set by Airbus. Pretty cool stuff.

This project has literally just been started (see how open we are with our information?) and is scheduled to be completed late summer. We got a high amount of resources on this project but we could use some help from customers. If you know your Airbusses and like to help us out, contact support@aerosoft.com. But only do so when you are able to be constructive and got knowledge about the 320/330 and 340.

I may be wrong but why does Holiday destinations Airbus of a few years back spring to my mind.

Gerry

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a few 380's out already (non that is really nice btw), but for this project we like to do the aircraft that people fly towards there holiday destinations ect. Customers buy what they know. They buy a scenery that covers their town, they buy the aircraft they have been in.

I agree with your assessment, Mathijs. And since I've brought this point up once or twice over the past year in previous threads, I just can't pass up this opportunity to restate a thought:

A holidays destination package will definately draw buyers, as people want to fly in what they've flown in, and then fly to where they've been. What is regretable is that most holiday-destination sceneries so far have limited themselves to the airports, but not the the nearby tourist-hotspots...towns littered with huge hotels (with great recognition value) and memorable beaches. Take Faro, Portugal for example...I'm sure scores of forum readers have passed through Faro airport, but most of them on the way to and from towns within under an hour's drive of the airport, especially Albufeira.

A beautifully modelled Faro airport would surely add to such a package, but just imagine if the top tourist centres in the proximity are also included in the scenery, even if they are a few miles away? Imagine the sales when prospective buyers look at the feature list and shout "hey, the scenery includes the hotel I spent my beautiful holiday in last year!"...and immediately run to the checkout lane. :D

At least, that's what I would do :) So...just a thought, for your consideration.

Best regards,

Tibbo

Link to post
Share on other sites
Congratulations!

Even if i prefer ultrarealistic flight simulation, there are many moments for a "after business traffic pattern or ILS-approach"

when i´m not interested in SID and STAR, but in FSX eyecandy and realistic flightdynamics...

Good market niche...

I´m looking forward to this Bus!

Timo

'ditto'

Sounds like a cliché but, it's the flexibility of MSFS, that makes it very interesting. Whether there is a 'CTRL-E pilot' or a '400pages manual reader pilot'.

Best regards ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading your design scope for this airbus I don't think there is anything wrong with it. But you picked the wrong aircraft. 737-200 would suit this project so much better.

Most simmers who are interested in A3xx would consider an indepth simulation of FMGS & FBW as important to an Airbus as those two engines to a Boeing. Without some MAJOR efforts the airbus will come out and be perceived very much...NOT an airbus. Spend the same amount of efforts on a 737-200 and it'll be a product of beauty and applauded by most people.

Just my $0.02.

Jason

Link to post
Share on other sites
After reading your design scope for this airbus I don't think there is anything wrong with it. But you picked the wrong aircraft. 737-200 would suit this project so much better.

Most simmers who are interested in A3xx would consider an indepth simulation of FMGS & FBW as important to an Airbus as those two engines to a Boeing. Without some MAJOR efforts the airbus will come out and be perceived very much...NOT an airbus. Spend the same amount of efforts on a 737-200 and it'll be a product of beauty and applauded by most people.

Just my $0.02.

Jason

No good idea, because i think most of the costumers have never seen a real 737-200 in their whole life..... :) BTW, a 737-200 just can fly because the earth surface is bended... :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
No good idea, because i think most of the costumers have never seen a real 737-200 in their whole life..... :) BTW, a 737-200 just can fly because the earth surface is bended... :lol:

Well how many customers have ever seen a real Catalina in their whole life?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, honestly this is interesting... This might be exactly what I'm looking for... I own volume 1 and 2 from Wilco but to be honest I'm getting a bit tired of it and the exterior model is not perfect...

Looking forward to see what you guys will do ;)

I was reassured when you said there would be a FMGC... Because I am used to programming the whole thing and an airbus without would just not make sense :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, more or less in that style but very much done to the standards of these days. One of our best selling products ever btw, customers seemed to love it, though it never got any raving reviews. Reviews are not written by the kind of customer in mind for a project like this.

And I fly online with aircraft that have no FMC or FMGC and even when I do fly an aircraft that does not have it I normally don't use the flight management to fly it. If you can't fly a SID manually... right?

Yeah, I agree and believe. Airbus Holiday Destinations was a great marketing idea. It's like Horst Fuchs products. :) Buy aircraft and you'll get two more for free and not only one, not two, but three breathtaking sceneries!! :lol: (which I would never buy separately, because Faro, Monastir and Kos aren't my favourite destinations, I've never been there but get it for free with my aircraft... :o )

And aircraft... I understand, 90% or maybe even more fly only offline and don't need sids and stars. But for me it's disadvantage. I like planning velocities, FLEX TEMP, managed descent and such things. But I know I'm not average casual afterwork pilot. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea :)

Not too complex but far beyond Default-Airbus, enough systems and "knobs to use" but not necessarily a 400 pages manual or a Airbus-Pilot certificate to fly this Addon. Ideal for "after-work-simmers" who don´t want to spend too much time in flight- and and system-preparation.

Hope this project will steadily continue and will not get an delay or re-start (like teh Cat)

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good idea :)

Not too complex but far beyond Default-Airbus, enough systems and "knobs to use" but not necessarily a 400 pages manual or a Airbus-Pilot certificate to fly this Addon. Ideal for "after-work-simmers" who don´t want to spend too much time in flight- and and system-preparation.

Hope this project will steadily continue and will not get an delay or re-start (like teh Cat)

:)

I fully agree with you Juergen... I'm an after-work-simmer and I have 2,5-3hrs for simming a day... And I do not like reading 450page long manuals... <_< I'm pretty sure that this "bus" will be a great model... I still have 84€ on my bank account for addons :P
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no interest in tubes, but surely the very point of Airbus is that the `dark, quiet` cockpit philosophy is that most systems are automated anyway? Leaving out something that is automatically controlled seems like offering a Ferrari with a Focus engine... pretty to look at but ultimately pointless as it reveals itself as a fraud as soon as you start it?

While I'm not suggesting that if you set the cabin pressure wrong a gag comes out of the screen and attempts to suffocate you, surely the systems simulation is part of the point that makes Airbus different from other airliner manufacturers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning the depth of the systems simulation:

Most simmers don´t care if the upper and lower beacon depend on different power supplies and don´t want to

simulate the different failures on that - i think most simmers want eyecandy, realistic flight dynamics including

airbus typical features like FBW and FEP and a systems precision good enough for ATC-guided flights from A to B.

Therefore this airbus will be perfect....

The only thing is: the screenshot shows a wonderful 3D-image with a huuuuge amount of polygons - i hope this will not

become a frame-rate-killer.....

Timo

Link to post
Share on other sites
Concerning the depth of the systems simulation:

Most simmers don´t care if the upper und lower beacon depend on different power supplies and don´t want to

simulate the different failures on that - i think most simmers want eyecandy, realistic flight dynamics including

airbus typical features like FBW and FEP and a systems precision good enough for ATC-guided flights from A to B.

Therefore this airbus will be perfect....

The only thing is: the screenshot shows a wonderful 3D-image with a huuuuge amount of polygons - i hope this will not

get a frame-rate-killer.....

Timo

I share the exact same thoughts!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand that Aerosoft sees a gap in the product offering of heavies that others have missed. But I think another gap that is much bigger is in the area of bush flying. The risks that bush flying poses would see a bigger benefit from the improved performance and realism that Aerosoft has pioneered with the Catalina. And all it would require is an upgrade to Aerosoft's existing products - the Twotter, Bush Hawk and Beaver. Therefore the ROI should be much better than starting a new plane from scratch. Marketing-wise, in keeping with the naming of scenery packages like Austria Professional, you could label it as a Pro version and charge $15-$30 more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Folks,

I hope we can proceed objective with this topic as Sascha closed

the other airbus-topic . (And he was damn right!)

It´s a shame for adult aviation-enthusiasts to abuse a forum

for childish personal attacks!

This topic is goodwill of aerosoft to inform us about

and discuss a future project.

Please behave proberly! No wise guys and no bullys!

Timo

BTW: Some new screenshots? :rolleyes:

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



×
×
  • Create New...