Aerosoft A-321/320 project

[captdini 4]

Hi Mathijs,

Congratulations on a good looking project. I have enjoyed the screen shots. Just a quick question: In the last screenshot you posted did I detect a little bit of icing on the FO side window ? Or are my eyes deceiving me

Keep up the great work.

OT, any more thoughts on the thread where we discussed about doing LITE Sceneries.

Cheers,

Dinshaw.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

And ? Can we see more Screenshots ?

Please - Please Mathijs

Only new one is from Work in Progress of the small pull folding tables. But this is a shot from 3dMax and not from FSX so it looks a bit weird. The animations though look pretty good.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hi Mathijs,

Congratulations on a good looking project. I have enjoyed the screen shots. Just a quick question: In the last screenshot you posted did I detect a little bit of icing on the FO side window ? Or are my eyes deceiving me

Keep up the great work.

OT, any more thoughts on the thread where we discussed about doing LITE Sceneries.

Cheers,

Dinshaw.

For now nothing on the LITE scenery files. It remains a problem to explain to customers why something looks less detailed then other scenery. We see it with the US Cities X range. Some people see the screenshots and say it looks moderate without considering it covers a whole city and costs 12.50 Euro.

[captdini 4]

For now nothing on the LITE scenery files. It remains a problem to explain to customers why something looks less detailed then other scenery. We see it with the US Cities X range. Some people see the screenshots and say it looks moderate without considering it covers a whole city and costs 12.50 Euro.

Heheheheeh.....fair enough! I guess human nature is such that not everyone is satisfied with however hard one tries to do something.

Thanks again for always responding patiently to all our comments. Cheers and have a good weekend

Dinshaw.

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

I guess human nature is such that not everyone is satisfied with however hard one tries to do something

Dinshaw,

that is very wise and very true.

And of course refers to much more than flight simulation.

Just a reflection I couldn't resist.

Best regards,

Rafal

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Heheheheeh.....fair enough! I guess human nature is such that not everyone is satisfied with however hard one tries to do something.

Thanks again for always responding patiently to all our comments. Cheers and have a good weekend

Dinshaw.

Hey I get paid for reading this forum, you don't!

[Finn 873]

When I started simming for more than 12 Years ago (FS 5.1) there wasn´t much choise regarding realistic aircraft systems, navigation etc.

But I was lucky to be able to "grow" with the various versions of flight simulator through the years.

I could focus learning to fly GA aircraft and navigate using VOR's, simply cause there was nothing else to distract me.

Complex hydraulic system, FMC's, LNAV, VNAV and inertial navigation systems was simply not available at that time.

Having learned navigating by VOR's, I moved on learning about airways, SID and STARS and so forth.

Later one of the first "real" complex airliner addon appeared (Dreamfleet 737-400). The knowldege I had obtained before that, was very usefull in order to understand the fundemantals of programming a FMC, and how to use LNAV and VNAV.

Many complex aircraft addons today are even more complex. Hardcore customers are pleading for more and more realism, but problem is that newbies, or those who simply don´t have the necessary time for flying the complex addons, are left behind.

Many don´t want, or don´t have the time to read a 400 pages manuals, just inorder to get the engines started and program a FMC.

Also note that to rectify all this realism, the user should also go through a realistic pre flight planning sequence.

Download and examine "real" weather, and what that means for the flight to be executed.

Build a flightplan with realistic airroutes, SID's and STAR's, requiering updated and syncronised AIRAC's.

Fuel and payload calculations.

etc. etc.

There are a fair amount of these highend ultra realistic addons around, often with a very high degree of modelling and graphically quality.

What's missing is an equally high quality airliner, with graphics and modelling on par - or even better than those found on the highend addons, but targeted for the newbeginners, or those with less time available for this hobby.

Most systems will be very truthfully simulated, meaning that the newbies (and most others )can learn a great deal about the Airbus systems, and how they work under normal, and to a smaller degree, abnormal situations.

Finn

[marf 3]

Right.... that's about the least useful posts I seen this week. I am sure you are very happy with FS9 and the Airsimmers Airbus that will be without a doubt be a great product.

I do seriously dislike the fact you call the potential buyers 'kids' that only want nice graphics (certainly if you can't even get the names of the systems right). That's not very polite, rather immature and not welcome here. You are banned from posting for 30 days as a result and I would appreciate it when you would not post at all anymore until you are able to participate in a productive manner.

Thanks Mathijs, I couldn't have said that better.

[Kwiss 128]

When this airbus is released im going to buy all aerosofts airports! Its just great to know that it will be nice on framerates if the Cat, Beaver and Twotter is anything to go by? You should replace all FSX default aircraft with your own versions LOL 

[LukasB 4]

Thank you Mathijs !

And from the Modell ?

Thanks

[JamesChams 108]

Only new one is from Work in Progress of the small pull folding tables. But this is a shot from 3dMax and not from FSX so it looks a bit weird. The animations though look pretty good.

Mr. Kok,

Is it possible to add a .jpg Layer so that one can load a pic of an IAP (Instrument Approach Plate) onto that tray (or pilot's knee), like CaptainSim has done with all its Boeing Series?

Merci!

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

When this airbus is released im going to buy all aerosofts airports! Its just great to know that it will be nice on framerates if the Cat, Beaver and Twotter is anything to go by? You should replace all FSX default aircraft with your own versions LOL

It depends a bit on the displays as they can eat up a lot of fps, but the pit itself will be a lot less demanding then the Catalina.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Some very quick shots... Yet I think you will see some nice little details in here.

We showed these to a professional customer and we'll talk orders tomorrow, time to open the bubblies I hope. See FSX is just one of the platforms we work for.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Mr. Kok,

Is it possible to add a .jpg Layer so that one can load a pic of an IAP (Instrument Approach Plate) onto that tray (or pilot's knee), like CaptainSim has done with all its Boeing Series?

Merci!

Are you sure that's a jpg bitmap?

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Thank you Mathijs !

And from the Modell ?

Thanks

You mean the externals? we already shown some images of that, scroll back in this topic.

[JamesChams 108]

Are you sure that's a jpg bitmap?

Mr. Kok,

your right its not a .jpg ... its a .BMP instead; but it still does what I mentioned for ALL their Boeings. Can it be done for the Aerosoft Airbus as well?

E.g. for CS' 757 Manual 1.

Merci!

[SimPilot767 157]

Yet I think you will see some nice little details in here.

You even modelled the seam on the bellow of the sidestick.....AMAZING!

Timo

[Alejo 7]

In my opinion, there is a group between it who like realism, but havent got enougth time for a 2hours flight and 2hours of programming the Computer with airroutes or whatever.

If a product is not only for one group than there is a big Maket....(Today we wouldn´t have any Simulator if it was only for "Real Simmers" because nobody can make money with the cheap prise.

So I thing the Airbus will be a good project because it is not full Realistic (what it never can be) and it is not so easy like the default Aircraft of Microsoft.

Good work Aerosoft, go on like that

Well, that´s actually not true... when I get to the Aircraft I have 35 minutes to push back and start up, and that includes many more things that only the MCDU preparation, which I usually complete in less than 15 minutes. Once you learn that (you just have to be pacient and read a few things if you are not familiar with it) you can do it as fast as a real Airbus pilot.

On the other side, a flight to a destination 200 nm away takes about 45 minutes, so the time is not a problem here, cause you would need no more than 60 minutes sitting in front of your PC to do that.

I would even buy a Bus as the Wilco´s one, "but bugs free" and with a better cockpit, not necessarily the airsimmer one which of course will be the best option in the "not near future" .

I think the mistake here is many people going from one extreme to another.

It is a pity, considering the absence of a good A320, to find a new addon that will not recreate things that are mistakenly considered "hardcore".

Wish you luck with your project.

[saprintz 82]

...when I get to the Aircraft I have 35 minutes to push back and start up, and that includes many more things that only the MCDU preparation, which I usually complete in less than 15 minutes....

It is a pity, considering the absence of a good A320, to find a new addon that will not recreate things that are mistakenly considered "hardcore".

Wish you luck with your project.

I'm not sure what features you're referring to that are thought of as "mistakenly hardcore," but I think you've just proven the point of the poster to whom you were replying. How many people have, or want to spend, 35 minutes programming the MCDU before flying? That's great that you have the time and inclination to do that, and that you enjoy it. But do you not think there are plenty of people who just want to start a flight, and have the flight plan already loaded, and the critical V-Speeds already set for them? And then just fly? I'm very confident there are plenty of those types of simmers. And Aerosoft seems confident of this also.

I think that, if a user would need to leaf through bunches of critical speed charts in order to program V1, Vr, V2, etc., into the computer, in order to get the correct speed tape indications, that's pretty hardcore. That's extensive pre-flight time. Some people just want to fly, don't you think?

[hypercide 5]

I , for one, am really looking forward to this Airbus.

I suspect that most of us are looking for something like a 320 or a 737, that takes advantage of the visual richness of the FSX "world", that has just enough "system depth" to feel like we're in the big leagues, but that is small enough that a 400-500km (ie 1-1.5hrs total) also seems "real world". On the one hand, I've flown my LevelD767 exactly once--two years ago now--because I simply don't have time to review all those procedures every time I fly (autofill FMC lines, and running onscreen checklists, like the Coolsky MD80, are the way to go, here--and do I really care what temperature the cabin is at???). On the other hand, short haul flights mean I can enjoy my session without the very fake feeling that comes with the saving and restarting processes required on a complex addon flying a "seven hour" flight.

Aerosoft is making a really smart move to jump on just this market before PMDG finally puts out their short haul fave (and I suspect there's a behind-the-scenes horse race right now). Based on the Falcon and the Catalina, I think Aerosoft is going to produce a winner, and the information coming from Mathias seems to confirm that. If I can run a reasonably interesting airliner that looks good without my turning off all my autogen, and still get low-mid 20's fps for a 1-1.5 hour flight, I'm good to go.

And I really have to take my hat off to Mathias; a number of companies produce their addon's under a cone of silence because of the sometimes very negative way these forums can degenerate. I like the way Aerosoft both keeps the door open on the whole process and protects the civility of these forums while also producing the best addon's going.

Cheers,

Tim

[Kwiss 128]

The way I see it its like the Mac/PC debate which will never reach a valid conclusion! Its surely a big enough market for any kind of add-on in any kind of configuration? We all have the option to buy or not to buy its a free world market. As Mathijs has indicated Aerosofts market research is obviously first rate and I for one will be buying this product because the support, packaging and aircrafts are excellent (boxed versions are Christmas presents that can be wrapped up!). Choice has always made FSX a great hobby and there is plenty of choice out there for every kind of simmer. 

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Did you know that cockpits are designed with a specific position for the eyes of the crew in mind? Not only does this allows the designers to avoid reflections etc it also helps the pilots to see the same thing every single time making it easier to taxi close to objects. To get to this position they adjust their seats just like in a car. But unlike a car there is a visual aid to make sure it's adjusted correctly. On the center console there are 3 small balls and as long as you have the red one on the same level as the white one you know your seat is adjusted correctly. A nice analog bit in a digital cockpit.

Of course our cockpit has these balls and as explained it was very important for us to get all sight lines correct. And what better way to check that then with these balls? Now that is the level of detail we are aiming for. I know some people will enjoy being able to use the BACKUP MODE function that is accessible from the MAINTENANCE (3 levels deep) section of the MCDU (only usable on ground), but we really think these 3 balls are way more important. I'm also pretty sure that every flight crew agrees with me!

[SimPilot767 157]

The viewpoint and the view-factor are special issues in an one-monitor-flightsim.

To have the most realistic view on the runway during an approach you have to use view-factor 1.0!

But then you can´t see any of your panels. If you use the default factor 0,7 to have a wideview

in your cockpit, the runway appears much further away than it is.

BTW, it would be nice to have some further viewpoints in the VC which can be selected by "A",

for example the viewpoint standing in the cockpit-door or sitting on the jumpseat...

Timo

[Alejo 7]

I'm not sure what features you're referring to that are thought of as "mistakenly hardcore," but I think you've just proven the point of the poster to whom you were replying. How many people have, or want to spend, 35 minutes programming the MCDU before flying? That's great that you have the time and inclination to do that, and that you enjoy it. But do you not think there are plenty of people who just want to start a flight, and have the flight plan already loaded, and the critical V-Speeds already set for them? And then just fly? I'm very confident there are plenty of those types of simmers. And Aerosoft seems confident of this also.

I think that, if a user would need to leaf through bunches of critical speed charts in order to program V1, Vr, V2, etc., into the computer, in order to get the correct speed tape indications, that's pretty hardcore. That's extensive pre-flight time. Some people just want to fly, don't you think?

Well, your somehow wrong about this topic of V1, Vr and V2. In my company we use a notebook and a computer program called FOVE which give us the speed values for the specific runway we are operating, taking into account temperature, QNH, wind and rwy conditions.

But when I fly at home I do not compute those values, I just set "generic" values (... say 125, 130, and 135) which you can use for a T/O without any problem in most conditions. In fact you would need just a couple of sets of speeds (below 60 tonns and above) and that´s it. Don´t waste your time in usless calculations. I have used this way wilco´s airbus without having to reject a single t/o.

What I´m trying to say is that you can go as far as you want concerning complexity.

And belive me, you dont need at all 35 minutes to push buttons on the MCDU to get the a/c flying. With a little practice, even less than half that time.

... and about "mistankenly hardcore"...

while flying, and using the MCDU, I´d like to activate a secondary flight plan to an alternate, or load a non precition approach and fly it with Autopilot in selected mode (it´s nice once in a while a vor app ), set a "direct to" with abeams (or just a "direct to" a waypoint other than the one I´m flying to), see how High I´ll be on a certain Wpt (ATC could ask you "... can you make FL150 at TMA entrance?"), check the vertical deviation while descending and know if I´m high or low on the path because that would let me know that I´ll have to do a holding at the IAP because I´m too high, change a radio aid using the MCDU proper page, set a holding pattern on a specific waypoint (ATC may surprise you and give you an approach time) or see how much fuel I´ll have on destination, etc.

And also, would like to see an FMA working correctly (that´s very very important, since the FMA is a critical concept in the design of the A320 by Airbus company), use an FCU (the commands and push buttons on the glareshield) that behaves in a realistic way (do not exclude the "plan view"), so I can do most of the things I do in the Bus when I fly it (again ATC could ask you to change your route because of traffic or meteorology).

I mean, I want to do the the usual things you do when you fly an IFR route in an A320 (except the diversion to an alternate ), the things that makes you experience the best way FSX and a certain aircraft.

And regarding the presentation of the ECAM pages just as the wilco´s Airbus. It would have been a great addon if it hadn´t been for the many bugs it had, and its low resolution virtual cockpit.

If you do all those things, then you´re flying an addon that lets you experience an A320, and not a generic plane that looks like an airbus. And it wouldn´t take you a long time to learn. In fact you can learn in steps and advance the way you want concerning the complexity level and your available time.

If you tell me that the aerosoft A320 can do most of that, I´d buy it immediatly.

And above all, as I´ve already said , I´m not criticizing aerosoft, I´m just saying that it is a Pity this addon (apparently) wont be as realistic as many would like. But I understand perfectly the reasons they took into account to design it the way it will be.

And sorry for my english!

S!

[Ourgas 1]

Hello Ourgas,

I'll ask for you.

Hi Shaun,

Any new if we can expect later an A330?

Thanks,

Ourgas