Aerosoft Airbus X

[Alexander Wurz 42]

Indeed, I was just talking about the look of the IAE Engine, nothing else

But nice details you posted Timo

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Work on the A320 is well underway at this moment. And it looks good. I personally never liked the A321, the A320 is much better proportioned.

[TF-197 28]

could you possibly send one picture of the CFM engine in Thrust reverse and on of the IAE in thrust reverse.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

could you possibly send one picture of the CFM engine in Thrust reverse and on of the IAE in thrust reverse.

I'll see if I can make those this weekend.

[Barnes 22]

Work on the A320 is well underway at this moment. And it looks good. I personally never liked the A321, the A320 is much better proportioned.

I was delighted when you decided to do the A320 as well as the A321. It looks fantastic so far and will be my ride of choice. I can't wait to see some paint on it!

Dave

[Tibbo 69]

Work on the A320 is well underway at this moment. And it looks good. I personally never liked the A321, the A320 is much better proportioned.

This news makes me very happy, because I couldn't agree with you more.

[conchulio 20]

Hey Mathijs,

as your A300 is out by now, would you mind giving us some more preview shots or if possible a short video showing the wipers with sounds in action? Like a 10 sec. video?

Conchi

[federalfsx 2]

Mathijs, what is the secret behind eye candy and high performance?

[divemaster08 9]

Any more news on the development? Is the program running smoothly through its Beta testing (smooth as Beta testing can be!)?

I am looking forward to this beauty and hope she can replace my Wilco birds!

[flightpassion 3]

Mathijs, I agree with the rest. Could we perhaps have a short video of the Airbus? Maybe a lineup and takeoff video to see it in action and have a chance to hear the sounds

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Mathijs, what is the secret behind eye candy and high performance?

Two things:

- scrap things that look fine in a feature list but that people see one time and never again (modeled cabins, wing flex etc) aka prevent feature bloat.

- using highly skilled developers. More and more we are using professionally schooled modelers, a talented amateur can make something incredibly nice, but it takes skill to make that as optimized as possible.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Mathijs, I agree with the rest. Could we perhaps have a short video of the Airbus? Maybe a lineup and takeoff video to see it in action and have a chance to hear the sounds

Sorry not possible at this moment, too many bits still separated. We not combine things until they are ready to be included.

[MatthewS 32]

- scrap things that look fine in a feature list but that people see one time and never again (modeled cabins, wing flex etc) aka prevent feature bloat.

No wing flex! Are you joking?

[tup61 185]

No wing flex! Are you joking?

I don't think so. I don't mind losing all that useless additions... I never leave the VC so I wouldn't mind if they forgot about the exterior completely. What's the use of wing flex anyway...?

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

No wing flex! Are you joking?

We are leaning that way indeed. I honestly do not fully understand why it's such a big deal to people. It's also not like we are alone in that. A few more recently released high end aircraft do not have it.

Wingflex on the A320/321 is not like on a Boeing, Airbus makes stiffer wings then Boeing, or a wide body, it is in normal conditions rather minimal. In fact you would be pushed to see it and it takes about 2 to 3 FPS to make it look good (using bones). It's not that it is complex these days (the bones in FSX models in fact make it easy) but how often are you looking at the wingtips when you are flying in FSX? Like I said, it's nice to have on a feature list, but we much rather add a bit more detail to things that you will see all the time or to have good framerates.

[antoinebacker 36]

No wing flex! Are you joking?

Though I do use the outside views in flight once in a while in cruise I do not see the outside of the aircraft much unless it is parked. I also have a lot of hours as a passenger in the A321 and always try to get a wing seat. Now on the A330, B747, B777 you see the wing tips move a lot and I am sure they move some on the A321, I can not remember ever seeing it on that aircraft. So for me that's no big loss. It's actuallu kind of cool to see a company not giving in to the need to make a long feature list but to focus on what FS is.

[tup61 185]

we much rather add a bit more detail to things that you will see all the time or to have good framerates.

[EmiloZ 24]

Though I do use the outside views in flight once in a while in cruise I do not see the outside of the aircraft much unless it is parked. I also have a lot of hours as a passenger in the A321 and always try to get a wing seat. Now on the A330, B747, B777 you see the wing tips move a lot and I am sure they move some on the A321, I can not remember ever seeing it on that aircraft. So for me that's no big loss. It's actuallu kind of cool to see a company not giving in to the need to make a long feature list but to focus on what FS is.

Yep that's right..

And people should stop whining about all these things, it's been planned how this bird should be, and from start they said all the things with no virtual cabin and such..

And this bird is made for simulating the A320/A321. It's cooler to fly this bird with better graphs and have good frames, than flying it with bad frames on lower settings.

- Emil

[chucky 10]

Though I do use the outside views in flight once in a while in cruise I do not see the outside of the aircraft much unless it is parked. I also have a lot of hours as a passenger in the A321 and always try to get a wing seat. Now on the A330, B747, B777 you see the wing tips move a lot and I am sure they move some on the A321, I can not remember ever seeing it on that aircraft. So for me that's no big loss. It's actuallu kind of cool to see a company not giving in to the need to make a long feature list but to focus on what FS is.

I've only ever seen any real movement on A321 wings in moderate or heavier turbulence. I don't think the wings sit all that differently full than when empty, either.

[LufthansaPilot 4]

Hi,

Please explain; if you say that you are not going to make a wingflex, are you at least going to balance the wings between the usual wingflex and the wings when the aircraft is on ground, you know what I am saying?

I mean are you going to align the wings so that it looks a little bit as if there is wingflex and at the same time also like if the aircraft is on the ground?

[awesome 22]

Winglfex not important?? Then why not release it without an external model at all? Wingflex is very important for me because it gives the impression that you're actually flying through air.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Winglfex not important?? Then why not release it without an external model at all? Wingflex is very important for me because it gives the impression that you're actually flying through air.

So what you are basically saying is that you want exaggerated wingflex as he real Airbus hardly has noticeable movement of the wings. When the wings move on an Airbus they also move at a very low frequency, not at all like the more nervous movement of some other aircraft (that's also the reason turbulence is a bit harsher in an Airbus then in a similar sized Boeing).

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hi,

Please explain; if you say that you are not going to make a wingflex, are you at least going to balance the wings between the usual wingflex and the wings when the aircraft is on ground, you know what I am saying?

I mean are you going to align the wings so that it looks a little bit as if there is wingflex and at the same time also like if the aircraft is on the ground?

Okay, now how much would you say that difference in the altitude of the wingtips is between in air and on ground? If I am correctly informed it is 13 cm (but we are checking on that). There is no way you will see that difference. Like a few other people you are asking for something that you would not see in the real aircraft.

It's a bit like the fact some developers call it "dynamic" wingflex, as opposite to 'static' wingflex?

[Maverickmatze 21]

Okay, now how much would you say that difference in the altitude of the wingtips is between in air and on ground? If I am correctly informed it is 13 cm (but we are checking on that). There is no way you will see that difference. Like a few other people you are asking for something that you would not see in the real aircraft.

It's a bit like the fact some developers call it "dynamic" wingflex, as opposite to 'static' wingflex?

I'm surprised by the decission, that no wingflex will be implemented. Didn't you want to implement the special wingflex based on the discus glider some months ago? You know the "not symmetrically" moving wings reacting to the turbulence, etc? After I heard that I was really looking forward to it - I allways use external view when flying through turbulence. Sometimes I land with autoland feature on a rocky approach just to see the wingflex. I know that you can't compare the wingflex of a glider with the wingflex of an airbus. Is the decision made or are you still thinking about not implementing the wingflex?

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Quick note. I have seen a few people voting down posts in the last hour about the wingflex issue. Posts that were 100% reasonable. Nothing negative about them.

Voting a post up or down is not the same as taking part in a poll about a feature. It is a tool to let people know you appreciate their contribution or to let them know that the way they contributed is not very nice. Not for any other reason. If some users can not handle the luxury of being able to vote this right will be taken away from them.

See the post directly above this one? I voted that one up as Maverickmatze posted something with a good question, added arguments. So even if his post was aiming at something I do not agree with, his post was worth a + vote.