Jump to content
Mathijs Kok

Aerosoft A-321/320 project

Recommended Posts

Depends on how far into system nad FDE realism your go. Different size means different weights, fuel use and manouvering speeds among others.

Not crucial differences but not just cutting some fuselage out. ;)

I wouldn't notice if an A318 model had A321 systems ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As said a few times, our primary concern is the cockpit as this is intended as a flight simulation and not a spotter simulation...

Primary concern for the "Cockpit" Sounds Very Good,Thats essential!

I fly only in VC.For my Part,i dont need Exterieur Model or Cabinsight et cetera.Only a good VC with real Sounds and Lights and Full Animated VC would b Fine.

Cant wait for FSX Release

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have wilcos Airbus and I have CLS Airbus ...

we are just talking about the use of the MCDU / FMGS.

I hope well,there r "minimum" Options in the MCDU to fly this Baby Online (VATSIM).

Well,with CLS u cant fly at VATSIM.No Direct to,Sid,Star etc.etc Options.

These minimum Options r important

I can fly "manually without LNAV or VNAV".But not without a Basic MCDU to flying at Vatsim

Hope this is at any rate integrated.

Of course better with VNAV or LNAV

Is there only one Release in plan?Or becomes the Bus the possibility for Upgrades in the case of succes with this Produkt?!..

It would be a good advisement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will the pricing be?

Around 25 Euro plus VAT when applicable. We do not believe in high price addons in the current market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree...I'd love to replace my A319, A320, AND A321 with this bird. I really do hope that the others will follow. After all, it's just a matter of chopping a few meters out of the middle, isn't it? ;)

A321 for starters. Many people think they are all very much the same but if you look carefully you see a lot of differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Around 25 Euro plus VAT when applicable. We do not believe in high price addons in the current market.

Nice price for it!

But will there be any beta avaible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SID/STAR - i know it has been discussed alot but here i'll try to give my opinion why this really should be in this Airbus.

Yes SID/STAR is in the advanced area of flight simulation but nevertheless a very important thing to understand how a real pilot flies. If you still want this product to be for entry-level flight simmers why not make a small tutorial about SID/STAR inside the add-on. Much like it's seen in for example coolsky with small arrows explaining what it is.

Another thing is that even if you intend to implement sid/star then it doesnt matter if entry-level flightsimmers don't use it, because you can still fly without it - so you simply still satisfy two target groups.

The only thing is that with SID/STAR you still satisfy the many many users of both VATSIM and IVAO and also the users that just fly offline who wants to get more realism into their flight simulation.

I think for many of the more hardcore flightsimmers this product will be out of interest or if they buy it with the intentions that it should have SID/STAR in fmgc then they'll be very disappointed.

I'm not into how difficult a SID/STAR would be for you to implement, but basically it's just a database of waypoints that are available for download on NAVDATA.

I really hope you'll consider including this feature since this product looks absolutely amazing, so hope this could be my mainly prefered add-on for online and offline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What You request is an almost completly featured MCDU - wich won´t happen, at least not for the first release.

If the MCDU should be able to use SID/STARS from an updatable navdatabse, like the ones from Navigraph, it wouldn´t take much to also add Airways, fixes and VOR's.

This is not planned for now.

BUT !!

What we plan is to make the MCDU able to use standard FSX flightplans.

These can be generated either by the default FSX flightplanner, or other flightplanning utilities like FSBuild or Flightsim Commander etc.

With planners like FSBuild, Flightsim Commander etc. You can actually add SID's and STAR's to Your flightplan.

Only problem is that the STAR's to use often isn´t known before during the flight, but very often will You be vectored anyway, or can ask for vectoring.

Finn

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's too bad to see that this Airbus will be beautiful (Looks like a real cockpit when I'm looking at the pictures) and that you don't want to take much more time to develop correctly all the systems (MCDU,FCU,ECAM memos,...)

I think all the simmers here are looking for a complex addon, to enjoy flying ! but when you are speaking of "standard FSX flightplans" we are disapointed !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a balance here...

Ok I do need the SIDS/STARS as well... and I'm fine with using an editor or the default flight planner for putting in star/sid data for now, and perhaps in the future an update might be nice to add these features.

And at the same time I do a lot of the flying that's on the SID/STAR by hand anyhow... so really how useful is it? these days I find the "FIX" button on the Boeings far more useful that having the actual star.

Yes it would be nice, but really is it that necessary? and if you do need it that badly you can always use vasFMC which is freeware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What You request is an almost completly featured MCDU - wich won´t happen, at least not for the first release.

If the MCDU should be able to use SID/STARS from an updatable navdatabse, like the ones from Navigraph, it wouldn´t take much to also add Airways, fixes and VOR's.

This is not planned for now.

BUT !!

What we plan is to make the MCDU able to use standard FSX flightplans.

These can be generated either by the default FSX flightplanner, or other flightplanning utilities like FSBuild or Flightsim Commander etc.

With planners like FSBuild, Flightsim Commander etc. You can actually add SID's and STAR's to Your flightplan.

Only problem is that the STAR's to use often isn´t known before during the flight, but very often will You be vectored anyway, or can ask for vectoring.

Finn

a) Why do you have such a problem with the MCDU? There are even many freeware programms with a sophisticated MCDU, e.g. vasFMC

b ) Why don´t you give beginners a chance to learn to handle a MCDU?

c) "ask for vectoring" Do you think your main intended audience is flying online?

d) Did you ever make a research how many flightsimmers are using the FSX flightplanner? I don´t believe there are many...

e) Why do you disregard the big amount of simmers who want to make a realistic flight from A to B in some degree?

f) I´m a bit disappointed, that aerosoft doesn´t use the chance to create a milestone aircraft for the FSX, more than: "great visuals and little inside"

g) And i´m a bit disappointed that this new aerosoft bus won´t even have the potential to replace the wilco airbus (regarding system depth). That was my big hope...

So i can take the aerosoft bus for some visual patterns and seightseeing flights, but if i want to make a realistic flight

from EDDF to LEPA, i´m still forced to use the wilco airbus.... :(

Just my 2 cents!

Don´t get me wrong, i will buy it anyway - I just expected a little bit more functionality

Regards,

Timo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's too bad to see that this Airbus will be beautiful (Looks like a real cockpit when I'm looking at the pictures) and that you don't want to take much more time to develop correctly all the systems (MCDU,FCU,ECAM memos,...)

I think all the simmers here are looking for a complex addon, to enjoy flying ! but when you are speaking of "standard FSX flightplans" we are disapointed !

Who said that the FCU and ECAM's wont´ be simulated close to the real thing ?

Even now in it´s beta state, our ECAM's has more functionality than most other Airbus addons. The FCU will also have both managed and "dumb" modes.

But the purpose of this addon is still the same - an easier aircraft for the beginner or the more seasoned simmer who doesn´t have the time to go through a complete preflight setup.

Finn

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there,

at the chance of being bashed by the tube flyers in this thread, I would like to say I appreciate that this will be a simplified Airbus. I think I simply belong to a different customer group than most of the people posting here.

Although I am flying FSX quite regularly I am normally only using small (mostly propeller) aircraft. Only from time to time, I get the feeling I want to fly a tube somewhere further away than the neighbourhood airfield. I have some complex airliners from the major developers of these products in my virtual hangar, but usually I end up flying a CLS plane or the Captain Sim 727 (which is also complex, but doesn't have an FMC).

For me a complex Airbus with a good tutorial would be almost completely useless. I think I am well capable of starting up a complex Airliner and programming an FMC following the procedures in the manual. I understand what SIDs and STARs are about. However:

- I never fly online. I only fly offline, normally with the standard FSX ATC (however lousy that is). I don't see a point in setting up a STAR, when FSX ATC tells me to follow a different obscure approach route anyway.

- Although I know how to setup an FMC, this is not what I want to spend my time with. I want to fly! I personally think programming an FMC quite boring (this is just my personal perception, I fully respect all the people who enjoy following real life procedures). Therefore I am happy if I just can load a pre-set flight plan from FSX and go.

- I only fly airliners very rarely. When I have a complex plane, I have forgotten everything from my last flight and end up doing the tutorial again (which is not what I bought the plane for).

- I want to fly a plane I am capable of handling in a emergency situation. Maybe my view of this is completely wrong, but I would guess that only a small minority of the people who bought the PMDG 747 are able to get this plane down safely after a severe failure following all procedures in real time. Well, at least I wouldn't be able to. Therefore, I appreciate a simplified model in this respect.

Taking this into account, I think this Airbus might actually be a plane I will enjoy flying.

So thanks for developing it and keeping it simple in some respects.

Manuel

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand these ET members... first they criticize the lack of features, then they say oh well if you want complexity get the Airsimmer. Is it because the ET guys know the product won't live up to the hype, and that's why there here asking aerosoft to pick up the slack?

Seriously you ET guys give AS a bad rep...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I´m not sure you´re talking about me

I deleted my post - as I wasn't referring to any of your previous posts, but just to the "ET" part. (Bit too of topic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SimPilot767: no I was referring to someone else actually. I know you're just hoping for a good Airbus, regardless of who makes it. You don't seem to have all your eggs in one basket as most other ET members. But that Banner does make you guilty by association, so I can understand your confusion. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AngelsAndAirwaves

yes ur right. so lets stop talking and show us screens :D;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

g ) I think that I told that even at this early stage the Aerosoft Airbus has more system depth than the Wilco when it comes to the ECAM, this also means that systems like Hydraulic, Fuel, Electrical, Pneumatics, Aircon etc. are more accurate modelled. Right now some 100+ different Caution, warnings and memos are coded into the Upper ECAM.

I´m happy with your description of the ECAM, but don´t you think you also need to read a manual

for 100+ different cautions and ECAM memos???

Whereas most functions of a MCDU are absolutely intuitive and can be programmed by 10 year old kids...

edit: i mean the use of the MCDU is mostly intuitive, of course not the developement !!!

But i respect your way to develop this bus in every way and I thank you for your patient answer.

And as I said before, i will buy it anyway... ;)

Regards,

Timo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whereas most functions of a MCDU are absolutely intuitive and can be programmed by 10 year old kids...

Timo

Then Timo why start and make it yourself lol funny those comments...

Cheers,

André F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intuitive? Yeah maybe if you script your MCDU like some other companies it might be intuitive, but most companies provide MCDUs with real-time functionality. And end's up taking over 100,000 lines of code. (Source PMDG)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intuitive? Yeah maybe if you script your MCDU like some other companies it might be intuitive, but most companies provide MCDUs with real-time functionality. And end's up taking over 100,000 lines of code. (Source PMDG)

You´re right, but i wanted to say that the USE is mostly intuitive, not the development! Sorry if i was misunderstood!

And remember the beginner-mode of the wilco MCDU, which fills in the most values automatically.

That helped me to learn to handle the MCDU by trial-and-error.

But let´s stop talking about the MCDU, maybe there´s a chance for some new external screenshots...?!

Timo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree with that yes and no.. after awhile filling out those MCDU pages gets pretty redundant. However there are certain features like acceleration height even though they're actually filled in by default, that most pilots never end up executing. :) I'd even say what's the point in a performance page, when most people don't even have access to a proper dispatch. What's the point in a progress page to boot if no one is going to bother to observe FAR reserves.. Trust me until people get tested on these things they just don't bother to learn... and I'm talking about so called "advanced" users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I´m happy with your description of the ECAM, but don´t you think you also need to read a manual

for 100+ different cautions and ECAM memos???

Whereas most functions of a MCDU are absolutely intuitive and can be programmed by 10 year old kids...

edit: i mean the use of the MCDU is mostly intuitive, of course not the developement !!!

But i respect your way to develop this bus in every way and I thank you for your patient answer.

And as I said before, i will buy it anyway... ;)

Regards,

Timo

On the Airbus (the real and the simulated) almost all systems are automated to a very high degree.

When loading the Airbus in FSX, all systems will be up running and setup correctly.

Even in real life, once all overhead buttons and switches are set, they are rarely touched during the reminder of the flight.

That makes the Airbus an excellent beginners airliner.

Under normal operation You won´t see many warnings and cautions.

Actually they will help the beginner not to forget setting flaps, spoilers etc.

It will also point out if something isn´t setup correctly during flight.

To understand these warnings and cautions doesn´t require an wafull lot of manual reading.

By making the ECAM's work very much like their reallife counterpart, et least for normal operation, means that the beginner has the chance to play around with the various systems and learn about aircraft systems.

Our strive is to make an aircraft that is easy accesible for the beginner, but also for those who don´t have 4 hours to conduct a flight, where the 1st hour is spend on flightplanning. I guess that a great deal of potential customers want to make a flight in the time between dinner and putting their kids to bed. They rather like to concentrate on the flight itself rather than all the fuzz around proper and realistic flightplanning.

If a realistic simulation of a MCDU should make sense, realistic flightplanning will be necessary. This means acces to realistic SID/STARS Airroutes, Fuel usage predictions, weather forecasts etc.

This contradicts what our goal was/is with this project.

Finn

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...