Aerosoft A-321/320 project

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hi,

I am not sure if the following question is already covered in this airbus topic.

Will the FMC data be updatable? From Navigraph?

Also it seems that work is progressing rather well (and it really looks fantastic, congrats). Does this allow for any more specific release time frame?

Thank you,

Christos

I think we'll stay with the default FSX database.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Alright, forget about the nose then.

Though I'm curious, will the panel also come with a HUD? Would be neat.

No HUD, I know it is an option but I also know it is rare and the pilots I spoke got it in their pits don't see to use it a lot (if ever).

[Ourgas 1]

I think we'll stay with the default FSX database.

Hi Mathjis,

I believe having only the FSX database takes away much of the realism in flying this bus.

Why bother having a fantastic plane and VC but not being able to fly as in real world routes and terminal procedures?

Could your team reconsider this?

Thank you,

Christos

[limp 29]

+1, Then it means I won't be able to use it correctly online... That's a shame...

[Alexander Wurz 42]

Well with FSX only Database I will probably not buy this good looking Bird. So hopefully you guys rethink about it

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hi Mathjis,

I believe having only the FSX database takes away much of the realism in flying this bus.

Why bother having a fantastic plane and VC but not being able to fly as in real world routes and terminal procedures?

Could your team reconsider this?

Thank you,

Christos

I know some people will not like this, but this is a product aimed at the casual user and not the hard core simmers. Having to handle external navigation databases simply does not fit that profile.

[SimPilot767 157]

True, and someone who wants to have SIDs and STARs

with the default database can use Flight Sim Commander

to create the routes...

Timo

[Ourgas 1]

I know some people will not like this, but this is a product aimed at the casual user and not the hard core simmers. Having to handle external navigation databases simply does not fit that profile.

Hi Mathjis,

I understand that deciding on what to include on a project is difficult and guided mostly by company policy.

But if I can come back to this issue of updatable external navigation databases I believe that the vast majority of those considering to buy this airbus will find this a VERY NEGATIVE POINT.

- Is making a small poll on this matter out of question?

- Or, could there be a seperate version inluding it aiming more at the hard core simmer?

Thank you,

Christos

[Kwiss 128]

True, and someone who wants to have SIDs and STARs

with the default database can use Flight Sim Commander

to create the routes...

Timo

Thats right Flight sim commander is an excellent product for flight planning and updating SID/STARs I for one wont mind the FSX planner being used in this airbus as the planning is done mainly from outside the cockpit in despatch? The FMGC is used just to pull the needed flight plan from the memory for the Bus to use. I wouldn't have thought that you could just use any flight plan in the FMGC memory and announce to air traffic that its your intention to use this route? (even FSX uses this logic) So for me its more real the way Aerosoft has used the FSX planner way (FSX ATC wouldnt let you fly the SID/STAR anyway as it would direct you with radar headings before you could complete the SID/STAR)

[frkaipanika 9]

Hope that huge number of Average Joe's will buy this Airbus ...and then Aerosoft will have money and budget to produce high-end Airbus for hardcore simmers.

But they must not see this topic because our cunning plan will be revealed!

[Kwiss 128]

Would it be possible to have the option of having jet stairs appear at one of the doors if we wanted? nothing is worse when ATC directs you to a gate or stand and there is no jetway to let the passengers off lol?

[matt oberdorfer 26]

Dear Aerosoft,

The Bus seems to be coming along very well! I will second the request for the air stairs! Another cool thing would be a way to interact with the flight attendants, passengers, ground crew, etc. Something like FS2Crew without the advanced flight/checklists stuff. I mean, being able to click a button, and then hear the safety announcements would be very cool.

I have one question though. We all know about AirSimmer's Airbus series that is 'supposed' to be coming out. (Of course, they have been developing this product since the beginning of time, so I guess I'm not sure if it'll ever come out!), but not only does AirSimmer's aircraft have super advanced systems, but it truly looks amazing! The visuals are some of the best that I've seen in fsx. But my question is. . . In theory, will Aerosoft's Airbus have the same or superior visuals than AirSimmer's?

Thanks,

-Matt

[limp 29]

Would it be possible to have the option of having jet stairs appear at one of the doors if we wanted? nothing is worse when ATC directs you to a gate or stand and there is no jetway to let the passengers off lol?

Hi KSwiss,

I bet you know but AES will provide you stairs

Cheers

[Kwiss 128]

Hi KSwiss,

I bet you know but AES will provide you stairs

Cheers

I know but until aerosoft covers every single airport im still stuck with no moving jetways at my home airport EGNM/leeds - bradford LOL

[joanvalley 3]

I hear people asking for this and that... I'm afraid this product may end in what I hate most, pages and pages of procedures just to make the engines run. There is a HUGE number of us average Joes, or may I say Joses, waiting for it! LOL. I've been looking at this project with great anxiety since I love diversity of planes in FSX and don't ever want to complicate my life reading too many manuals, a great 3d model will do and certainly Aerosoft knows how to make a damn good one. There will be no negative points ever for this project as we have been told since the beginning what this is aimed for, I only hope it stays as projected. In behalf of the many average Joes...

Jose.

[pepegoesdigital 23]

Perhaps we'll do a version more aimed at hardcore simmers later. For now we think these people will be pleased with the Airbus that airsimmers is doing, they aim at low volume, high end, hard core simmers. we do not.

...

Hi Mathijs,

I'm actually one of those guys who have been following the forum for quite some time now, but who hasn't contributed until now. :-)

The previous posts regarding the complexity of the AS Bus got me thinking in a similar direction:

I was wondering if it was technically possible, to publish the bus in more than one piece. Sell the base package and later develope an "add-on for the add-on", which includes additional modelled systems, like more functions for the FMGC, the possibility to import the latest navigraph-AIRAC Data, maybe a fancy weather radar, or whatever nice feature you want to add on top.

This way, you could offer a complete basic product as soon as you are done with it's developement and an additional functions-pack for the people looking for more complexity later. This might be interesting for Aerosoft revenue-wise as well!? ;-)

As you would practically offer two different level products, it wouldn't look bad (like for example the way that Captain Sim publish their product in slices) at all.

The only question is, if such an approach is technically possible?!?

Brgds

pepe

[limp 29]

Good idea

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Would it be possible to have the option of having jet stairs appear at one of the doors if we wanted? nothing is worse when ATC directs you to a gate or stand and there is no jetway to let the passengers off lol?

We prefer to advice AES for that. I know it does not work everywhere however

As always we are not really into the things that have not a lot to do with flying the aircraft. It is all very expensive code to do, not only in time and in money, but most of all in memory, you are dragging these things along all the time, even if you don't see them they cause framerates to drop. In this aspect this bus will be exactly like the F-16 and Catalina, very focused on being very easy on framerate.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hi Mathijs,

I'm actually one of those guys who have been following the forum for quite some time now, but who hasn't contributed until now. :-)

The previous posts regarding the complexity of the AS Bus got me thinking in a similar direction:

I was wondering if it was technically possible, to publish the bus in more than one piece. Sell the base package and later develope an "add-on for the add-on", which includes additional modelled systems, like more functions for the FMGC, the possibility to import the latest navigraph-AIRAC Data, maybe a fancy weather radar, or whatever nice feature you want to add on top.

This way, you could offer a complete basic product as soon as you are done with it's developement and an additional functions-pack for the people looking for more complexity later. This might be interesting for Aerosoft revenue-wise as well!? ;-)

As you would practically offer two different level products, it wouldn't look bad (like for example the way that Captain Sim publish their product in slices) at all.

The only question is, if such an approach is technically possible?!?

Brgds

pepe

In principle yes, it depends a lot on the commercial aspects, but I got an idea on that.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Can we see more Pictures ?

PLEASE

Of course!

The progress at this moment is mostly in lighting. Even in full sunlight, at 40.000 feet, many parts of the cockpit are dark as sin because of the light conditions and the HUGE contrast between light and dark. The images attached show what I think is a perfect balance. And still good fps on a very modest machine.

There will be some external images this week as well.

[SimPilot767 157]

Hello Mathijs,

these pictures are fabulous!

And thank you for the "aging"!

But nevertheless i can´t imagine that you will see anything of

the background lighting or the lightcones on the panel during the

day under a cloudless sky in 40.000 ft.

That´s exactly the main problem of full flight simulators:

you have daylight on your projection in front of the windshield,

but the cockpit itself is dark because the projection doesn´t

emit light into the cockpit.

That looks a little bit like on your screenshots

BTW, for this reason some training centers have so-called "daylight simulators"

Timo

[Stefan Hoffmann 4160]

Hello Mathijs,

these pictures are fabulous!

And thank you for the "aging"!

But nevertheless i can´t imagine that you will see anything of

the background lighting or the lightcones on the panel during the

day under a cloudless sky in 40.000 ft.

That´s exactly the main problem of full flight simulators:

you have daylight on your projection in front of the windshield,

but the cockpit itself is dark because the projection doesn´t

emit light into the cockpit.

That looks a little bit like on your screenshots

BTW, for this reason some training centers have so-called "daylight simulators"

Timo

It isnt to dark in the pit. The daylight simulators feature a mix out of displays and the real physical cockpits. Synthetical display have a far smaller contrast range then the human eye.

In FSX we work completely with synthetical displays, so all comes from a TFT. That needs special procedures to get a near real world look. Check the image attached. Would the cockpit inner be correctly

exposed basing on the outside light, the cockpit would be almost black. That comes from lack of blend and light entry into the camera. The human eye compensates that much better. But in FSX we have steady

exposure, so no flexible iris or camera blend. The art is now to fix that problem by manually decide how bright and dark all should be. I think the Airbus find a very good balance between over and underexposure.

And when someone finds the panel hard to read in some lighting conditions is able to switch on the panel light and remove that state. The aim is to give a near real world experience what is the light feeling in the pit.

And it is kept in very dark and cool colors, to avoid blinding. So pilots can keep their eyes wide open when looking around on the panels, avoiding muscle tension around the eyes. Thats very tiring when you have to try

to close your eyes the whole day. So the designer solved that in keeping the surface in the pit less reflective.

[SimPilot767 157]

Hello Mr. H.,

thanks for your expert explanation. You´re completetly right.

But I didn´t say, it is too dark in the cockpit, I just said you won´t see the backround lighting

or the lightcones under a "bright" daylight. And both of your pictures prove

that. Only in full flight simulators you have this false presentation

of a nighttime cockpit and a daytime environment.

Nevertheless the best airliner VC in FSX i´ve ever seen!

(I can´t believe you even modeled the fuses in the upper overhead panel...)

Timo

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

As requested a few more images of the external. They are done from 3dMax and not FSX as we are currently in at the stage of checking the shape and form for the last time. Few things need to be done there yet. But you see the VERY smooth shape of the model, I dare say that you will not see anything but a smooth curve in FSX, no matter what the angle you look at. We still got to loose a few hundred thousand polygon, from the half a million we got now, before we can do the export to FSX. To see this in perspective, FS2004 can handle 64.000 polygons.

[SimPilot767 157]

As requested a few more images of the external. They are done from 3dMax and not FSX as we are currently in at the stage of checking the shape and form for the last time. Few things need to be done there yet. But you see the VERY smooth shape of the model, I dare say that you will not see anything but a smooth curve in FSX, no matter what the angle you look at. We still got to loose a few hundred thousand polygon, from the half a million we got now, before we can do the export to FSX. To see this in perspective, FS2004 can handle 64.000 polygons.

Perfect smooth Airbus, Mathijs,

the only thing is that i think the passenger windows are still too big and too angular.

And, the nose-landinggear should be tilted forwards a little bit in the air and on the ground

(to better resist the force-vector at touchdown, which is a diagonal of up and backwards).

Timo