Simcheck/Aerosoft A-300 project

[Oli_Braun_NLS 6]

Yes... maxed out like all aircraft in the list (well, the default 737 doesnt really have any options there)

Well, the final textures are appropriate in resolution I think. The texture of the entire fuselage is composed of 2 parts with 2048 pixels width... so 4096 for the whole fuselage... which should be enough I think

[Oli_Braun_NLS 6]

well here go 3 screenshots in full size (1920x1200) - as you can see, the texture resolution should be enough

VC at daytime

VC at night

exterior model

[Guest AngelsAndAirwaves]

what about the performance of this aircraft? looks like a good fps killer?

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

well here go 3 screenshots in full size (1920x1200) - as you can see, the texture resolution should be enough

Thank you, now I don't have to prepare the wallpaper myself.

And once again: what a superb VC!

And the words are coming from such a dedicated 2D panel flyer as I am...

BTW: no plans for the 2D panel for this addon?

what about the performance of this aircraft? looks like a good fps killer?

I'm sure it will come out when it comes out. For now you can read the FPS post on the first page of this thread.

BTW: EDDF - my favourite airport.

[Oli_Braun_NLS 6]

Well, in fact there is a 2D panel... some older shots but there you go it includes all subpanels as 2d panel

[Guest FlyingDoctor]

Nice, that we will see a a300 in FSX. But: will You get away from this disgusting comic - style panel ? is this a thing of the project phase or do You plan a release like that ? Folks, that`s a totally outdated look !

[Oli_Braun_NLS 6]

no its gonna have that look... I am afraid you will have to live with it they had to be completely hand drawn from one of our great support guys from Aerosoft. Its rather functional than artistic... I think it works out pretty good

[Guest FlyingDoctor]

Too sad ! why not doing this more photoreal ? I couldn`t live with it. As much as I `d like to see te 300 in my sim.

[some1 1]

Airbus, analog gauges, detailed systems simulation and VC made by person who appears to know what he's doing (instead of throwing bazillion of polygons ). I'll definitely buy this one.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

When we decided 2 years ago to only do an FSX model we could not have foreseen that FS would be dropped by MS. We did also not expect that more than 2 years after FSX was released, many people would still be flying FS9 ! But sometimes things don't go the way you expect...

We have not made any decision about an FS9 version at this point, it is quite a task downgrading to an older version of FS especially when many FSX only features have sneaked into the model and the programming of the panel.

Björn

SimCheck Software

Going to post something commercially. And some people are going to upset about it. Doesn't change the pure facts. In all scenery expect large airports the FS2004 commercially dead as a dodo. In aircraft products there just is hardly any option but FSX. Major distributors just will not stock products with FS2004 in large font on the cover.

Now in forums it always looks opposite. If you ask forum users if they want a FS2004 or FSX version you'll see about 75% of people voting for an FS2004 version. Unfortunately when we see sales about the opposite is true. And when we do market research we see this confirmed. So if there is a FS2004 version of this aircraft it means it is doing whopping good in FSX.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Too sad ! why not doing this more photoreal ? I couldn`t live with it. As much as I `d like to see te 300 in my sim.

Photoreal is seriously overrated. It's just a term in fact. See photoreal means it will look great in one single condition.

• A cockpit at 41.000 feet, the brightest sunlight you will ever see, contrasts are like on the moon, where there is no sun it is 0,0,0 dark
• A cockpit in a near zero visibility ILS landing, all is close to 125,125,125 except for the instruments.
• A cockpit in a pure dark night environment all is close to 185,185,185 except for the instruments.

There is no way a photo cockpit with burned in shadows and contrasts can do all of that. And to compare, the F-16, Catalina and the A321 all do not use a single bit of photo real texture. In the A300 it's all a tad more schematic, but that fits in perfectly with the goal of this project. This one is more complex, more systems, more details, it has 2d panels intended to be readable/usable more then look realistic.

[Guest FlyingDoctor]

Come on man -

I`m sure You are clever enough to know what I mean if I say photoreal. It has nothing to do with using a foto as bitmap. It hast to do with something I simply call well modeled. Like the enterior of my new PMDG Jetstream. That gives me a phantastic feel of reality - especially when using Track - IR.

Look, if I want an aircraft with a lot of system - depth (without setting value in a realistic looking cockpit) I get the RFP 747 - for free !

The clientele for a fs2000 style Airbus seems rather sparse to me - as people value beauty a lot . If I were the developer, I would rework this thing solidly to get the chance for a commercial success.

No need to put lipstick on the pig!

regards

Thorsten

[Guest inbrekers1]

I love the detail on this project. And the textures in the cockpit are great as they are. No need for changing that in my opinion. I love it that on the exterior model, you can actually see where there would have been windows when the bird flew passengers.

[Guest FlyingDoctor]

I love the detail on this project. And the textures in the cockpit are great as they are. No need for changing that in my opinion. I love it that on the exterior model, you can actually see where there would have been windows when the bird flew passengers.

It`s starting to get funny - and a little goofy. You may proclaim, that this airbus has a fantastic system- depth, that it flies like the real one (although I guess You don`t have the slightest idea about those things) - maybe it will. But one thing is for sure: it looks totally outdated. From outside and from within. No doubt about that ( well, maybe You stuck with FS98 so far ) this could explain Your belief.

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

if there is a FS2004 version of this aircraft it means it is doing whopping good in FSX

So, I wish it a lot of success in FSX.

one thing is for sure: it looks totally outdated

Thorsten, forgive me but remember you are judging with your eyes only. Mine, for example, see it way different.

I find this cockpit very attractive. Unlike the MD-11 of PMDG which looks @#$% to me. But it's a great addon, so I fly it with pleasure.

Of course quarelling about tastes does not make much sense, because there will never be agreement between people on that.

Eventually we can value things with our wallets / credit cards. Voluntarily.

[VPA159 2]

I think the VC does look a bit "cartoonish" for lack of a better word. I'm not sure why, it does have weathering and proper fonts and all. I think of PMDG's 744F as a really really realistic looking VC, and that's not photoreal either. Making it looks "just right" must be really difficult, very few accomplish that. Perhaps with some selected photoreal elements, or covering the panel bmp's with semi translucent photoreal overlays? I love photo editing, but I've never made a VC panel before.

Also, I'm sort of sceptical about the INS idea. Most if not all A300s seem to be retrofitted with FMCs of various kinds to be able to navigate airspaces properly. I'd hate to fly this on Vatsim or IVAO, except if the INS is sort of fully modelled. There was an old freeware CIVA INS gauge for FS9 that did the job admirably, but it seems to have disappeared somehow. I hope this INS becomes a bit more complex than some kind of Abacus style "default FSX GPS with fancy skin".

Most SIDs and STARs also require RNAV, at least in some parts of the world. Using an INS, it's usually a bit tricky, you can't always plan ahead and you definately can't rely on FSX waypoints alone (default planner). It's a nightmare if you're on vatsim without RNAV. "Direct to waypoint X you say? Umm... unable, can I get vectors for that?"

My opinions and hopes. I might consider buying it. Looks very very promising.

[Oli_Braun_NLS 6]

Like I said... VISUALLY there are prettier ones, no doubt about it. But beeing pretty hasnt been one of the development goals for this project. In fact it was rather having something functional and well crafted. Well, some of you might feel that visuals are more important than Simulation... well then you shouldn't buy this product if it does not meet your requirements simple is that...

For instance, CLS or CaptainSim products look prettier, but they lack in system depth and simulation accuracy. Well thats for a different target audience then PMDG looks pretty, is very system intense, however, some people find it too difficult to learn to operate all the systems, etc.

As you can see, you can never make a perfect product for everybody. Everybody has different expectations and personal requirements to the product and therefore isnt it a good thing that you have the possiblity to choose what to buy or not? Well, if you don't like it, then simply don't buy it

The textures are okay in my opinion and do their job. They are all hand drawn by Ray Rotmans and I think he did a pretty nice job here. For real photoreal panels and textures you would need the aircraft for 1 or 2 days with a professional photographer under perfect lighting conditions. We simply didnt have that option... so we went on with this way. Like I said, its well done and functional...

But you'll be more surprised about the sound environment, that has specially been done for this project by TSS (Turbine Sound Studios). The atmosphere is simply awesome... I love it!

[ArtAir 3]

Hi Oliver

I hope you'll do panel of A380 (2D and 3D) with a same quality!

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

I think the VC does look a bit "cartoonish" for lack of a better word.

Having given the screenshots another look, I guess I know what you guys mean.

But I have a feeling similar technique is used by many panel developers, including PMDG (their MD-11 panel can hardly be called photoreal).

On the other hand I've seen many photoreal panels which were simply ugly to a degree which made me skip them at all.

Of course system depth is the priority here as was clearly stated. I for one do appreciate it, as this is what I personally value in flight simulation.

So this discussion is more about tastes. Maybe the fact that my flightsim adventure started more or less in the late 1980's, somewhere around MFS3, counts here.

I've seen a lot and panels I used to enjoy many which wouldn't even deserve a good laugh today. Looking at this particular panel gives me positive feelings.

I simply like it. It looks ergonomic, is very well shaded and has great lighting (especially the night VC). At least as far as I can see from the screenshots.

Knowing that there is a good piece of realistic system simulation behind it makes me even more positive about it. I remember flying panels I never liked visually (e.g. Ready For Pushback or PMDG 737 and MD-11) but giving me so much system & procedure fun (BTW: PMDG just released the MD-11 advanced tutorial, if you're interested). And this case looks like a pretty one too for my taste.

The most funny thing is I... won't probably have a chance to fly it since I'm an FS9er by choice.

So why I take part in this discussion so eagerly is not quite clear to myself. There must be something I really like about this project.

I wish its developers a lot of luck and maybe (from an egoistic point of view) an FS9 version one day, even if it loses some 'FSX' features (I don't care much about, by the way).

[VPA159 2]

That freeware CIVA INS gauge I mentioned, if you can't or won't make yours as complex, can it be implemented somehow? I remember there was a payware 747-200 for FS9 that came bundled that freeware gauge. It says on their website that you have to ask permisson to do that. I also don't know if it's FSX compatible, there's no mentioning of that anywhere on their forums. Have a look here:

http://www.simufly.c...s/download.html

Their email is at the bottom of the page.

If it saves you some work AND adds realism, then what's to lose?

[Oli_Braun_NLS 6]

I guess that is already implemented... what you mean...

[Juergen_LOWW 21]

Hi Oli,

keep on

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Nice, that we will see a a300 in FSX. But: will You get away from this disgusting comic - style panel ? is this a thing of the project phase or do You plan a release like that ? Folks, that`s a totally outdated look !

Just to let others know. FlyingDoctor has seen his warn level increased with +2 and has been put on a 48 hour ban.

If you do not like a product, there are a bit nicer ways to let the developers know then to use words like 'disgusting' etc and then write a series of posts with the same tone. As FlyingDoctor does not intend to buy this product I don't think he will need to spend more time on this topic. If you like a bit more info what we think should be the tone here, read this: http://www.forum.aer...cement=40&f=109 But basically it is very simple, if you would not say it face to face to the person in question, don't write it here.

[Kwiss 128]

This does seem to be a good solid project with great simulation behind it all, looking forward to the release of this one, and looks like something you can get your teeth into! Its a great feeling of mastering a new bird, if you are like me learn hard and when it starts to get frustrating take a break and fly another easier aircraft for a while and then switch back to the more complicated simulations and you will find the learning gets easier!

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

This does seem to be a good solid project with great simulation behind it all, looking forward to the release of this one, and looks like something you can get your teeth into! Its a great feeling of mastering a new bird, if you are like me learn hard and when it starts to get frustrating take a break and fly another easier aircraft for a while and then switch back to the more complicated simulations and you will find the learning gets easier!

We always said that real joy in simming is in mastering new skills. Push your own envelope. That and seeing the runway in front of you when you drop out of the clouds at 210 feet AGL.