Aerosoft Airbus X

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

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?

I believe we explained it rather clear why we are seriously considering not to include it. And indeed we were seriously considering using the new technology we invented a while ago, until one of our test pilots (who is actually a real Airbus test pilot) told us he would be looking for an airport VERY soon if the wings would flex a lot. He flown the bus in severe conditions, pulled max G etc. And he had camera's pointed at the wings, he knows. He also told me the vertical tail moves, what's next, that we make that animated as well?

Simply put, the data we now have lead us to believe that the movement is so small that even if we added it you would not see it, it would become a thing that looks good on a feature list but makes little sense. Like the wing flex on the F-16 we had. Yes it moves, if I am correct a full 7 cm with loaded wings and max G (compared to the A321 a huge amount). But it was so small that nobody would see it so we did not even mention that feature in the feature list. I believe it was taken out in the last version.

See if we put a poll here asking people if they want wing flex you would get a huge positive response. But if you ask them if they would like a toilet that makes a flushing noise when you click on something they would also say yes. Well the flushing noise is something we all heard, it's real. The wing flex on a A320 is something almost nobody here has seen. You want it because you think it is there. It's a bit like expecting the Lens flare option that FSX has to be also there in the real life. It's not, it's a side effect of camera lenses, it makes FSX look like on TV, not as you eyes would see it.

We got our own way of doing things. Sometimes a bit different, but always with good reasons. We will do other stuff. Stuff you actually see all the time. Take for example the fact the engines on a A320 often rotate slowly when the aircraft is parked at the gate. We all seen it. It's caused by the wind of course. So it rotates one way with this wind and the other way with the wind from another side. And slowly with a bit of wind and faster with a lot of wind. We'll have that as we all seen it. We also have the drooping of the flight surfaces that some fly-by-wire aircraft have when the power is off for a while. Very obvious as they are huge surfaces that move (and sometimes showing a setting that makes no sense, like ailerons down on BOTH sides).

Things you see, not things you are told should be there.

In the hope to stop this argument until somebody shows me actual data (not an image from airliners.net please) that the wing tips move so much it could be seen in FSX, a few new images. A livery we just HAD to do.

[divemaster08 9]

People please, this bickering is just not required!

Aerosoft make all their products to the most real effect they can get. They do every thing they can to make sure that they can get as much support from either the company and pilots of the aircraft before starting the modeling and flight dynamics.

To then get disappointed over an item that they have considered is not very constructive and it begins to make the forums look like trailer park trash.

Please understand that Aerosoft is here to make simulated products and will do their dam best to make it as real as the real thing! (with their modeling and also they have already stated that this will not include all the massive functions that the real bus has)

[Herman 1591]

I believe we explained it rather clear why we are seriously considering not to include it. And indeed we were seriously considering using the new technology we invented a while ago, until one of our test pilots (who is actually a real Airbus test pilot) told us he would be looking for an airport VERY soon if the wings would flex a lot. He flown the bus in severe conditions, pulled max G etc. And he had camera's pointed at the wings, he knows. He also told me the vertical tail moves, what's next, that we make that animated as well?...

We got our own way of doing things. Sometimes a bit different, but always with good reasons. We will do other stuff. Stuff you actually see all the time...

Things you see, not things you are told should be there.

In the hope to stop this argument until somebody shows me actual data (not an image from airliners.net please) that the wing tips move so much it could be seen in FSX, a few new images. A livery we just HAD to do.

I agree with the previous poster. Mathijs, your statement is an excellent summary of why I continue to support Aerosoft products, and also why these forums are so valuable. You've made your case, with real world data, to refute those with only anectodal stories on their side. You also shared how a decision you made at one point in the development cycle was overcome by reality, so you changed it. A willingness to discard a public position in the face of facts is hard to do but also the right thing to do too.

I just hope this topic doesn't degrade into folks who want to argue with what is, after all, Aerosoft's decision to make. Your vote is based on facts; our vote will be in whether we buy a well designed, "as real as it gets" product that's true to the design goals. When this project was first announced, I was not interested in an Airbus of any quality. As things have evolved, and you've patiently described your design goals, I am now looking forward to your 'bus and will buy it. That's my vote.

Finally, thanks for this unusual livery. We don't see it here in the States, but I've seen it in the previews for InnsbruckX and loved it.

[Akram 11]

hello Mathijs,

first thanks you for your amazing job best regards to you and to the aerosoft team.

ps . did you think you are in the time for feb to finish the product?

Akram

[frkaipanika 9]

I am changing 3 FPS, that would be lost with wingflex ....for.... 3 FPS lost with rain effect on the windshield.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

ps . did you think you are in the time for feb to finish the product?

Fair to give some comment on that.

No. Feb is out at this moment.

Few reasons for that. We had some feature creep to deal with (my problem) where new features were added that were not seriously needed and delayed. That's now contained and not an issue anymore. We also lost about 10 days as one of our professional customers requested a few things that we needed to implement asap. However we still intend to complete the modeling and texturing end of this month and that's important as it is something that is expensive and directs most other things. (it also frees up resources for another project, check this forum about that). The release date is a bit fluid at this moment as it depends a lot on how much we can use our resources. The AFS2010 project keeps popping up. But March seems a very safe bet.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I am changing 3 FPS, that would be lost with wingflex ....for.... 3 FPS lost with rain effect on the windshield.

Rain the way we want it take 50% of your fps. We would love to do it, but usability remains our goal.

[SLKVP 18]

Take for example the fact the engines on a A320 often rotate slowly when the aircraft is parked at the gate. We all seen it. It's caused by the wind of course. So it rotates one way with this wind and the other way with the wind from another side. And slowly with a bit of wind and faster with a lot of wind.

Mathijs

Could you please ask the A320 pilot who contributes to this project if strong head wind component is reflected on N1 gauge when engines are off ?

I mean if it is something that pilots would ACTUALLY see ?

Best Regards

Sam

[matt oberdorfer 26]

Well, as much as i'd love to see wingflex, i'm gonna be happy as long as we get that amazing Airbus spool up sound.

Oh, by the way, will the 'barking dog' sound i think from the PTU? (hydraulic fluids being transferred...) sound be in there? I think that's a main thing that you hear on Airbuses that you never hear anywhere else, and i'd love for that to be modelled.

Thanks, -matt

[Emi 5161]

Mathijs can you load a video of the vc on youtube or something ?

whould be great to see this aircraft is action (and not only on screenshots; moving pictures are I mean)

(sorry for my bad english... nobody is perfect XD)

[hotelfox 18]

A livery we just HAD to do.

Superb stuff! Thanx to all dev' s involved in this project!

(Is it that I can spot the 'boss' at the controls?)

[Stewart 134]

A livery we just HAD to do.

Well Mathijs, surely that is a great reason to Udate the Vienna Airport scenery to FSX if ever there was one?

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Mathijs

Could you please ask the A320 pilot who contributes to this project if strong head wind component is reflected on N1 gauge when engines are off ?

I mean if it is something that pilots would ACTUALLY see ?

Best Regards

Sam

Good question! Answer is no because the rotation is way below standard RPMs.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Mathijs can you load a video of the vc on youtube or something ?

whould be great to see this aircraft is action (and not only on screenshots; moving pictures are I mean)

(sorry for my bad english... nobody is perfect XD)

I am waiting for some of the bits to added before I can do so. Perhaps next weekend.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Well, as much as i'd love to see wingflex, i'm gonna be happy as long as we get that amazing Airbus spool up sound.

Oh, by the way, will the 'barking dog' sound i think from the PTU? (hydraulic fluids being transferred...) sound be in there? I think that's a main thing that you hear on Airbuses that you never hear anywhere else, and i'd love for that to be modelled.

As far as I know that sound is only heard in the cabin, not in the cockpit. Can anybody confirm that?

I do have a recording of the sounds though.

[Emi 5161]

I am waiting for some of the bits to added before I can do so. Perhaps next weekend.

Thanks

[Kwiss 128]

As far as I know that sound is only heard in the cabin, not in the cockpit. Can anybody confirm that?

I do have a recording of the sounds though.

You can't hear the PTU sound in the cockpit, maybe if you turn off aircon and elec systems in the cocpit you may just hear it but as you know thats impossible 

[Kwiss 128]

Will the sound in the cockpit be fully simulated? There is a noticeable decrease in sound of the air entering the cockpit when the bleedair is diverted to the engines on start-up also a 'clunck' sound when the electrical switch over takes place?

[federalfsx 2]

 Will the sound in the cockpit be fully simulated? There is a noticeable decrease in sound of the air entering the cockpit when the bleedair is diverted to the engines on start-up also a 'clunck' sound when the electrical switch over takes place?  

The "Clunk" sound is there! See the video of the cockpit.

[Kwiss 128]

The "Clunk" sound is there! See the video of the cockpit.

I meant when the switch over occurs from the APU to the engine generators (not the initial battery start-up)

[matt oberdorfer 26]

As far as I know that sound is only heard in the cabin, not in the cockpit. Can anybody confirm that?

I do have a recording of the sounds though.

You can't hear the PTU sound in the cockpit, maybe if you turn off aircon and elec systems in the cocpit you may just hear it but as you know thats impossible 

Would there be a way to hear it from the passenger view? I just personally think that sound is one of the defining sounds of the BUS, and I'd really love to hear it. (Along with the amazing Airbus spool up).

Thanks, -matt

[waeln 2]

I want to congratulate you guys for a great job so far on your work for this Airbus......looks amazing!!

my only request is that aircraft lights, navigation and strobes work correctly in DX10. The only developer

that seems to have done this right so far is Ariane!! their 737 collections is stunning and works well in DX10.

I've seen that some great developers out there miss testing it in DX10!!

Thanks

Tony

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Would there be a way to hear it from the passenger view? I just personally think that sound is one of the defining sounds of the BUS, and I'd really love to hear it. (Along with the amazing Airbus spool up).

Thanks, -matt

We will not include any passenger views, we seriously believe this is a flight simulator and not a passenger simulator. Sorry. As with other things we rather spend out time in making the cockpit as good as possible.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I want to congratulate you guys for a great job so far on your work for this Airbus......looks amazing!!

my only request is that aircraft lights, navigation and strobes work correctly in DX10. The only developer

that seems to have done this right so far is Ariane!! their 737 collections is stunning and works well in DX10.

I've seen that some great developers out there miss testing it in DX10!!

Thanks

Tony

So far it seems to work fine in DX10. Of course the old problem of lights far from the center of the aircraft moving around remains, there is nothing that can be done about that. We'll also have landing lights that really work, as far as we know only shown on one other project. It actually allows you to taxi on a complete dark airport, something you would not want to do without these lights.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Will the sound in the cockpit be fully simulated? There is a noticeable decrease in sound of the air entering the cockpit when the bleedair is diverted to the engines on start-up also a 'clunck' sound when the electrical switch over takes place?

I think so yes.