Guest inbrekers1 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 1.Wil the Aerosoft Airbus have biger systemsimulation than wilco and PSS??? 2.wil it have an weather radar???? 3.wil it have later al airbus familly member a318,a319,a320,a321????? 4.wil it have an failure generator like the PMDG 747???? 5.wil the aerosoft bus feature ful irs simulation???? 6.can it competete with the airsimmer a320???? 1: No. It's aimed tot he normal FSX gamer. Not the guys who want to read 100's of pages to start the engines. 2: No. It's to FPS consuming 3: Maybe. They haven't yet decided fully about this but not for now. 4: Dun'no 5: Dun'no 6: It's aimed at a different group of gamers. You can not compare the Aes to the AS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted January 24, 2010 Author Aerosoft Share Posted January 24, 2010 it is the weekend... Yeah but that doesn't mean a lot here these days, been working yesterday and today. But access to the repainters section is handles by my support staff, so they'll get back on that. Just and image to show what I am looking right now on the left screen. Me like! And that's on 95 fps average. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwiss 128 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Yeah but that doesn't mean a lot here these days, been working yesterday and today. But access to the repainters section is handles by my support staff, so they'll get back on that. Just and image to show what I am looking right now on the left screen. Me like! And that's on 95 fps average. Fully DX10 Mathijs? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted January 24, 2010 Author Aerosoft Share Posted January 24, 2010 mathjis 6 questions. 1.Wil the Aerosoft Airbus have biger systemsimulation than wilco and PSS??? 2.wil it have an weather radar???? 3.wil it have later al airbus familly member a318,a319,a320,a321????? 4.wil it have an failure generator like the PMDG 747???? 5.wil the aerosoft bus feature ful irs simulation???? 6.can it competete with the airsimmer a320???? My my what a load of questions and as far as I know all been answered. But what let me complete what the others did not enter yet. 1) Depends on the system, some we'll do better so we'll not do. It's not a project with a huge concern towards high detailed system. It's designed to be usable for a large group of users. Very high end in graphics, flight modeling, sound etc though. 2) There simply is no way to know if it is raining 20 miles ahead in the virtual world because FSX does not put rain there until you get there. So it's a nice display of bitmaps that are linked to the known weather, but using it to avoid weather is a nice idea but not just fake. 3) We'll only do the A320 and A321 now. 4) No, it's beyond the scope of this project and to be honest I never seen the need for such a feature. The average user hardy uses it (as shown by our market research) and when they do they create an aircraft that is so prone to failures that it would never fly again. Nice feature but failures are very very rare) We simulate an aircraft, not a real training simulator. Of course the basic FSX failure modes are all supported and they are pretty good for the most common problems. 5) Yes we'll do some IRS simulations though personally I think it is rather stupid to simulate it. I always feel very silly to wait 10 minutes for a fix and end up knowing it is what FSX tells the panel where the error is with some random minute error thrown in. You do realize there is no way to simulate an IRS realistically don't you? It's always showing what FSX knows with very high degree accuracy less accurate. 6) Airsimmer askes us not to compare the two any more. But the answer is no. Not in price, not in simulator, not in intended customer, not in system depth and also not in release strategy, lol. We'll be a lot cheaper, we are only based in FSX, we aim for a less advanced customer, we got all the basic systems but not the systems that are hardly used and we intend to release a complete product on schedule. From the questions it seems you are not the intended customer for this project. We got a A300 project very close to release that will be much more aimed at what I think you will like. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted January 24, 2010 Author Aerosoft Share Posted January 24, 2010 Fully DX10 Mathijs? Yes, nothing there that would make a problem with DX10. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AngelsAndAirwaves Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 mathjis you and your team are making a fantastic job. awesome forum, more then 50 site of post´s for the airbus project yet, keep going, and we all hope that we can fly this beauty soon!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Fletcher 570 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Hello Kona, Please dont make statements like you just did as these cause problems on the forums. You say that no one cares, but you didn't ask me so please dont make statements on mine or any others behalf's, If you dont care fair enough but dont speak up for the rest of humanity, you have been warned. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPPT_man 12 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 2) There simply is no way to know if it is raining 20 miles ahead in the virtual world because FSX does not put rain there until you get there. So it's a nice display of bitmaps that are linked to the known weather, but using it to avoid weather is a nice idea but not just fake. If companies like ActiveSky made some kind of module that could interact with a gauge in the plane maybe this problem would be solved?... no?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liam727 45 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 My my what a load of questions and as far as I know all been answered. But what let me complete what the others did not enter yet. 1) Depends on the system, some we'll do better so we'll not do. It's not a project with a huge concern towards high detailed system. It's designed to be usable for a large group of users. Very high end in graphics, flight modeling, sound etc though. 2) There simply is no way to know if it is raining 20 miles ahead in the virtual world because FSX does not put rain there until you get there. So it's a nice display of bitmaps that are linked to the known weather, but using it to avoid weather is a nice idea but not just fake. 3) We'll only do the A320 and A321 now. 4) No, it's beyond the scope of this project and to be honest I never seen the need for such a feature. The average user hardy uses it (as shown by our market research) and when they do they create an aircraft that is so prone to failures that it would never fly again. Nice feature but failures are very very rare) We simulate an aircraft, not a real training simulator. Of course the basic FSX failure modes are all supported and they are pretty good for the most common problems. 5) Yes we'll do some IRS simulations though personally I think it is rather stupid to simulate it. I always feel very silly to wait 10 minutes for a fix and end up knowing it is what FSX tells the panel where the error is with some random minute error thrown in. You do realize there is no way to simulate an IRS realistically don't you? It's always showing what FSX knows with very high degree accuracy less accurate. 6) Airsimmer askes us not to compare the two any more. But the answer is no. Not in price, not in simulator, not in intended customer, not in system depth and also not in release strategy, lol. We'll be a lot cheaper, we are only based in FSX, we aim for a less advanced customer, we got all the basic systems but not the systems that are hardly used and we intend to release a complete product on schedule. From the questions it seems you are not the intended customer for this project. We got a A300 project very close to release that will be much more aimed at what I think you will like. so, it sounds like it will be similar to the CLS simulations in terms of systems, will it have even a simple FMS and autopilot, or will the systems be the level of the default A321? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwiss 128 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 What exactly do you mean by 'extended 2D panels?' Is there anyway you could include the default GPS panel in the plane? It's fine if you don't, I'm just curious. -Matt You can add the Default GPS to any aircraft but I doubt you will need it in the Airbus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwiss 128 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 so, it sounds like it will be similar to the CLS simulations in terms of systems,  will it have even a simple FMS and autopilot, or will the systems be the level of the default A321? There have been a lot of questions about the actual content and depth of systems. So let me write up something right now. It's not final, we are still looking at some functions. FSX only (no FS2004 version possible) Very high end modeling and texturing No extended 2d panels As much as possible default FSX functions so external products and hardware can use it A320 and A321 models 12 liveries included Very advanced paint kit CFM and IAE engines (though the flight model and displays are based on the CFM) Highly detailed VC with extended animations and sounds Full FSX external sound set Easy on FPS 30 Euro sales price Release last day of Feb (or sometime later, hahahaha) We are not yet giving a full list of features for the systems as we don't know all of it at this moment. But let me give out some things. It's not intended as a start of a discussion as I simply cannot answer much more at this moment. PFD and ND are very realistic (most likely not with terrain display as that kills FPS like little else and no weather radar as it is never realistic) Engine display is very realistic Systems display is near perfectly simulated within normal operation Everything on the glareshield is solidly simulated FADEC and FBW systems are better then we expected, rather good actually All Flight Control Laws are used and will prevent any out of control flight (so Alpha Floor, Low Energy and Flight Envelope protection) Engines are very realistic (apart from the nagging fuel burn issues when you fly at very low or very high cost settings, we don't care a lot actually about that) GPWS is very good So this leaves you with an aircraft that is totally flyable. Pretty high end all over and looking extremely good. The FMGS is simplified in this version (we might do a more complex version later if there is demand for that). Apart from the pages that are more or less faked because it is a simulation (like startup pages, IRS etc) you will have Fully updatable nav database Full option to do the flight planning (airport, runway, waypoints, cruise altitude) and the option to change these things in flight Radio page Selected Nav page Lateral Flight planning (allowing to enter flight plan, airport, runways, waypoints, cruise alt) Simplified Performance page Simplified vertical navigation So the project is clearly positioned between the default Airbus and the far more complex (and far more expensive) models from other development teams. This is commercial decision as we know from experience that this is the biggest market with a large margin. But it is also a decision based on our experiences and discussions with customers. We simply know that a lot of people are not able to find the time to fully explore the complex system other developers include. A lot of these people simply can't handle these aircraft and don't use them. You do not hear that a lot because nobody likes to write on a forum that he's not clever enough to fully understand a product. What we do see is the support needed for these aircraft, if we see a customer who bought the PMDG 747 from us and asks what the difference between airspeed and groundspeed is, there clearly is a problem between the product and the customer. There is also another reason for the simplifications. They are not as limiting as you may think. Here is a section from a mail written by a real A320 pilot that flies for a major airline over Western Europe. "You know Mathijs, all those vertical navigation and planning functions in the Airbus are great. They really work. They can safe a lot of fuel, they can make our life a lot easier. However there are sometimes whole days where we don't use them as ATC controls what level we fly, where we start to go up and down. Even when we got the room to make decisions ourselves we often don't bother because we think we understand wind and turbulence better then the system does. We know that if we get close to Milan a bit below the level suggested by the system ATC might let us cut a corner etc. I know you got the manuals and most likely know a lot of the pages on the MCDU better then me. But like I say, don't let the systems rule the sim. I see many of your customers who do things in the pit that we simply don't do". So that's it. Now don't start to post whole lists of questions if this or that is included. I'll mostly ignore them until we got more details to share. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
signmanbob 18 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 5. No (and i hope not - i havent been able to turn the screens on on the damn ariane 737 x2 just because i cant tune the IRS) 6. Yes, IN MY OPINION: The Aerosoft A32x will kick airsimmers a320 in the nuts I will buy them both just because I like having different versions(I've already bought Airsimmer's) but once again, you are comparing apples with oranges. Aerosoft and Airsimmer have to completely different products looking for two completely different buyers. The successful sale of one will not effect the other in any way. With Ariane's 737X2, tuning the IRS is very easy and well explained in the manual which is loaded with color illustrations. Alignment time is even shortened to 2 minutes. The main thing is to shut down the engines first before attempting to align the IRS, since FSX has a tendency to allow the aircraft to creep, even with the parking brakes engaged. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted January 25, 2010 Author Aerosoft Share Posted January 25, 2010 oh and a last question,im thinking about start a secret a32x project(maybe).and i had wana ask how can i program system when i am developing the a32x familly???? PS:please dont ask about pictures etc.i maybe do this project if i gett enough information Well I would suggest by not announcing a possible project without knowing these very basic things. Lol. But why don't you start by assigning a full year of 60 hour weeks and open the SDK that MS so kindly provided us. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted January 25, 2010 Author Aerosoft Share Posted January 25, 2010 If companies like ActiveSky made some kind of module that could interact with a gauge in the plane maybe this problem would be solved?... no?... Unfortunately not. See there IS no rain ahead of the aircraft. You can not fly towards a rain field as it only exists at your location. Of course there is defined weather ahead of the aircraft and that weather includes the opportunity of rain and that's what the weather radars now use. Now if the weather has solid rain or not a drop it is even rather realistic, but in these conditions a weather radar is hardy of much use. It is used to avoid weather and it is this local weather that simply does not exist in FSX to a degree that it can be used. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted January 25, 2010 Author Aerosoft Share Posted January 25, 2010 so, it sounds like it will be similar to the CLS simulations in terms of systems, will it have even a simple FMS and autopilot, or will the systems be the level of the default A321? You misunderstood my post. We got very good systems, we just do not go very deep into the FMGS/FMGC systems. Like so often recently, I kindly ask you to read a few posts before jumping in at the end and posting questions that only show that you just read the last page. These issue have been discussed over and over. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Santos 5 Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 I will try this evening to run FSX on my AMD Phenom II 965 BE. If it happens to run smoothly enough and even thought I'm on the "shall not be named" Extended Team, I will buy this Airbus. It seems better than Wilco and (maybe I shouldn't been saying this but...) has more features than the "shall not be named" basic. There is/was only 2 things that are keeping me from moving to FSX, the first one I will know this evening, the second one is/was "shall not be named"... since God knows when the Advanced version will be released, even worst for FSX. Keep the good work and FANTASTIC customer support! Looking forward to fly this beast! Cheers! Miguel Santos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwiss 128 Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 I will try this evening to run FSX on my AMD Phenom II 965 BE. If it happens to run smoothly enough and even thought I'm on the "shall not be named" Extended Team, I will buy this Airbus. It seems better than Wilco and (maybe I shouldn't been saying this but...) has more features than the "shall not be named" basic. There is/was only 2 things that are keeping me from moving to FSX, the first one I will know this evening, the second one is/was "shall not be named"... since God knows when the Advanced version will be released, even worst for FSX. Keep the good work and FANTASTIC customer support! Looking forward to fly this beast! Cheers! Miguel Santos If you get any problems then look at this article that Mathijs put together, read especially why you should save different settings for different types of flying! http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=30796 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miguel Santos 5 Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 I'm reading it allready! Thanks for the advice! Cheers! Miguel Santos If you get any problems then look at this article that Mathijs put together, read especially why you should save different settings for different types of flying! http://www.forum.aer...showtopic=30796 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AngelsAndAirwaves Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 mathjis on the video of the animations and sounds, the shaking , is it normal?...ps. a new video??? pls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted January 25, 2010 Author Aerosoft Share Posted January 25, 2010 mathjis on the video of the animations and sounds, the shaking , is it normal?...ps. a new video??? pls Na, just shows you we got some things to do, lol. Image attached is just because ever since I was a kid I loved wireframes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted January 25, 2010 Author Aerosoft Share Posted January 25, 2010 Hi guys, sorry for posting so many irrelevent posts here (its the last one ) no reply from mathjis. should i resend the email? (its been 3 days) We can't find any mail from you but one of our support people will contact you today using the email you used to register on the forum. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted January 25, 2010 Author Aerosoft Share Posted January 25, 2010 I told you before that one of the reasons we were working on this project because we had a few professional customers and today we exported our model for the first time to a different rendering (display) engine. Attached a view of how the Bus looks in a totally different simulator and in Open Flight format. Still a few things to tweak (mostly on flaps and spoilers) but we are pretty happy with how it looks now. The fixes are all very easy. So if you own a 6 million dollar full motion simulator of a brand I can not mention, we got the model. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmiloZ 24 Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 This looks awesome Matjias! I can't wait for this bird! Do you have any idea if you're gonna make SAS or BAW livery? ^^ - Emil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABird 71 Posted January 25, 2010 Share Posted January 25, 2010 Great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted January 25, 2010 Author Aerosoft Share Posted January 25, 2010 This looks awesome Matjias! I can't wait for this bird! Do you have any idea if you're gonna make SAS or BAW livery? ^^ I think both will be available yes. Perhaps not in the main pack but certainly done by one of our industrious repainters. What will be in the package itself will be mainly determined by the boxed distribution channels of course. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
![Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account]](https://forum.aerosoft.com/uploads/monthly_2023_09/Aerosoft_Social_Media_Profilbild_Neu23.thumb.jpg.03721825e6a434ed4af0c8b2b73a5898.jpg)
Recommended Posts