Aerosoft Airbus X

[Kwiss 128]

I dont want to sound morbid in anyway but will the Airbus be able to simulate a landing gear failure emergency landing on the pavement and on water? The Realair Duke does a fantastic simulation of this and the Bus is proven in real life for its brilliant emergency landings, it would be a shame not have an idea of what these pilots go through in these difficulties when the problem arises 

[Guest Bartosz]

HI! Is this Airbus has got FMC or default FSX GPS?? Wilco Airbus has got FMC And this is very hard to use and to flight with this. Default FSX GPS it's easy to use but FMC ohoh too hard:)

So What this Airbus has got? I want have fun! not hard working

[Gaura Mohana 23]

HI! Is this Airbus has got FMC or default FSX GPS?? Wilco Airbus has got FMC And this is very hard to use and to flight with this. Default FSX GPS it's easy to use but FMC ohoh too hard:)

So What this Airbus has got? I want have fun! not hard working

it has a FMC, but it will be VERY easy to use, and it WONT be necessary. you would be able to easily fly without even touching the FMC.

btw it will be much much better and easier to use then the Wilco stuff

[Chris. 39]

HI! Is this Airbus has got FMC or default FSX GPS?? Wilco Airbus has got FMC And this is very hard to use and to flight with this. Default FSX GPS it's easy to use but FMC ohoh too hard:)

So What this Airbus has got? I want have fun! not hard working

Is this a example for Aerosofts targeted group of customers for the Airbus?

[fratfw 12]

Is this a example for Aerosofts targeted group of customers for the Airbus?

I hope not,

are we talking about Ps3 Xbox and arcade stuff or flight simulation? ;-)

[SimPilot767 157]

I dont want to sound morbid in anyway but will the Airbus be able to simulate a landing gear failure emergency landing on the pavement and on water? The Realair Duke does a fantastic simulation of this and the Bus is proven in real life for its brilliant emergency landings, it would be a shame not have an idea of what these pilots go through in these difficulties when the problem arises

I think not. Last week i asked a retired A340-captain if pilots are training "ditching" in Full Flight Simulators. He answered "just on paper",

so not even these very realistic sims are able to simulate the physics of complex landing gear failures...

Timo

[SimPilot767 157]

HI! Is this Airbus has got FMC or default FSX GPS?? Wilco Airbus has got FMC And this is very hard to use and to flight with this. Default FSX GPS it's easy to use but FMC ohoh too hard:)

So What this Airbus has got? I want have fun! not hard working

That sounds a little bit like : please give me a Ferrari, but with the engine of a lawnmower, because the real engine is too fast and i can´t handle it.....

[virtualstuff 76]

Even more questions for Mathijs Kok regarding the A321/A320...

2.) Will the VC be a separate model like Microsoft uses in their default Airbus allowing use in our existing A318/A319/A320/A321 aircraft like Project Airbus, etc?

Looking good so far.....Darryl Enault

Darryl if it's native FSX model it will else it's FS9 stuff ;-) easy to change exterior models if you want...

Without loosing all other stuff like flight dynamics / FBW etc.

But from the looks of this bus I wouldn't change a thing

Cheers,

André

[SimPilot767 157]

...I would choose a 318 or a 319 over the 320 simply because it´s ... much nicer to fly...

What makes you think that???

The whole A32X-family is especially constructed that pilots have nearly NO difference between

the A318 - A321! Be aware that the "feeling" of the behavior of this planes like force-feedbacks,

stick-inputs, roll-rates etc. is generated by computers and is no feedback of the aircraft itself...

Timo

[Kwiss 128]

Last week i asked a retired A340-captain if pilots are training "ditching" in Full Flight Simulators. He answered "just on paper",

so not even these very realistic sims are able to simulate complex landing gear failures...

Timo

Maybe so but isn't that the beauty of FSX? In that its flexible for everyones idea of an simulator. I use it for fun (it's my hobby) and not as a tool for real world training although I'm sure a lot of simmers do use it to an extent for training. I wonder how many FSX simmers tried to simulate the Airbus emergency landing in the 'Hud' after seeing it on the news, indeed FSX was used to simulate the landing for a news Station after the event another example of creative use of FSX!  

[SimPilot767 157]

Maybe so but isn't that the beauty of FSX? In that its flexible for everyones idea of an simulator. I use it for fun (it's my hobby) and not as a tool for real world training although I'm sure a lot of simmers do use it to an extent for training. I wonder how many FSX simmers tried to simulate the Airbus emergency landing in the 'Hud' after seeing it on the news, indeed FSX was used to simulate the landing for a news Station after the event another example of creative use of FSX!

Yes, Kwiss, that´s true, I also tried to imitate Sully´s landing. But FSX and every other PC-based flightsimulation has much limits

for the calculation of abnormals and failure-physics.

And behind these limitations, FSX is just a game and not a simulation...

Timo

[Kwiss 128]

Yes, Kwiss, that´s true, I also tried to imitate Sully´s landing. But FSX and every other PC-based flightsimulations set much limits

to the calculation of abnormals and failure-physics.

And behind these limitations, FSX is just a game and not a simulation...

Timo

Lol I'm not trying to imitate the complete failures of abnormal landings thats far beyond my scope as a simmer, but surely it's possible to simulate a splash-down with spray and not have the sim to detect a crash or send the aircraft airborne again right after splash-down, like I said the Duke simulates this very well as well as the landing with no landing gear (sparks an all) I don't think I'm looking at this Airbus the same as you Timo and maybe you are looking at more then a technical simulation of the Bus than I am but I really don't use FSX for anything more complicated then the default set-up of the out-of-the-box package and a bit more polished add-on aircraft! 

[chucky 10]

And behind these limitations, FSX is just a game and not a simulation...

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

[Tristan Marchent 11]

And behind these limitations, FSX is just a game and not a simulation...

Flight Simulator is, and will never be a game! If your implying Flight Simulator is a game then what do you cool the big expensive simulators that train pilots... If Flight Simulator was a game it would have levels and actually have a 'game-over' or 'game complete/the end' and it doesn't. I Have been using Flight Sim for over 10 years and not once have I used it as a game. I have used it as a training device for the future and it has helped me alot! So could you please not call Flight Simulator a game. It is a simulator and training device!

[awesome 22]

I Have been using Flight Sim for over 10 years and not once have I used it as a game.

You already say it yourself. You have not used it as a game, but it a game for many people (including me).

I think it is depending on the user whether to call FSX a game or not. I'm not a marketing expert but could it be that FSX was marketed as a game? Look at the Red Bull and Reno air races in FSX, even in real life those are some sort of games ;p.

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

Look at the Red Bull and Reno air races in FSX, even in real life those are some sort of games

Good point indeed!

MFS is meant to be both a game and a simulator (hence its name). Like mentioned above, the two do not exclude each other.

Theoretically you could let a teenage newbie into a full-feature 737 sim and get him do some crazy aerobatics crashing into the ground. A cool game, heh?

On the other hand many of us do simulate realistic procedures in MFS (within its limits). And it is not only about flying the plane (where flight physics is quite far from reality), but also all the checklists, systems management, FMS programming, flightplanning and navigation, learning aerodromes, ATC communication (especially if flying on VATSIM), etc. Thanks to the exceptionally huge library of quality addons, we can make it as real as it gets.

So, arguing whether MFS is a game or a sim is like all these battles wheter FS9 or FSX is better - you will always find points for both.

Anyway, it's an Airbus X thread, so sorry for going off topic.

[EmiloZ 24]

Good point indeed!

MFS is meant to be both a game and a simulator (hence its name). Like mentioned above, the two do not exclude each other.

Theoretically you could let a teenage newbie into a full-feature 737 sim and get him do some crazy aerobatics crashing into the ground. A cool game, heh?

On the other hand many of us do simulate realistic procedures in MFS (within its limits). And it is not only about flying the plane (where flight physics is quite far from reality), but also all the checklists, systems management, FMS programming, flightplanning and navigation, learning aerodromes, ATC communication (especially if flying on VATSIM), etc. Thanks to the exceptionally huge library of quality addons, we can make it as real as it gets.

So, arguing wheter MFS is a game or a sim is like all these battles wheter FS9 or FSX is better - you will always find points for both.

Anyway, it's an Airbus X thread, so sorry for going off topic.

That's right. There's two kind of simmers.

1. The one which is flying like it was a real plane, doing every procedure, cockpit preparation, FMS setup, checklists, flying with charts/aerodromes and flying on a online network like VATSIM

2. The one which boots up FSX, takes a 747 or maybe F/A-18 and just flies around making loops, starting engines with CTRL+E

Many of the simmers flying realistic wants to be a pilot, and some simmers are pilots. Myself I'm a glider pilots, going for the full pilot education after school, and I'm flying the realistic way. Where one of my friends is more like the number two pilots.

------

Anyway back to topic :-)

Mathjias, this bird is going to simulate a full featured FBW system right?

[SimPilot767 157]

Flight Simulator is, and will never be a game! If your implying Flight Simulator is a game then what do you cool the big expensive simulators that train pilots... If Flight Simulator was a game it would have levels and actually have a 'game-over' or 'game complete/the end' and it doesn't. I Have been using Flight Sim for over 10 years and not once have I used it as a game. I have used it as a training device for the future and it has helped me alot! So could you please not call Flight Simulator a game. It is a simulator and training device!

It´s very dangerous to make wrong and polemical quotations! Please read CAREFULLY before quoting!

There´s no need to claim: "don´t call FS a game..."

I said, that BEHIND THE LIMITATIONS OF CALCULABLE PHYSICS, FSX is a game.

Within these limitations, FSX can be a mostly very realistic simulation...

I know that and I also use many addons as a training-aid for real aviation.

Regards,

Timo

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I'm interested in the fly-by-wire implementation, and having read through the preview threads it seems that things have changed as development has gone on. I hope I haven't missed something obvious. From the above quote, it seems there is a fly-by-wire implementation, then, and it simulates 'commanding a G factor' as opposed to 'commanding a control surface deflection'. Earlier in the thread it was mentioned that the envelope protections would be modeled as well. So it seems that there will be a fairly full-featured fly-by-wire simulation - is this correct? When it's finalized, it would be nice to see a clear description of what it does do, but if it's still in flux I'll wait.

In any case, although I'm decidedly not in the target market for this (I like my VNAV and STARs), the screenshots are looking so good I might pick this up anyway. Decent fly-by-wire would probably push me over the top.

Yes as far as FSX can simulate that (there are limits) you control G and not flight surfaces. You can pull (push) until the edge of the allowed flight envelope is reached and then the attitude will remain as it is. All flight control laws should be implemented, unless they are taking too much resources.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Mathijs PLEASE say theres soft suspension in the landing gear! i hate the defaults they are like rocks!

Yes it's pretty soft, a bit to bouncy because of that now, we still got to find a sweet spot. But I know what you mean.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Is this a example for Aerosofts targeted group of customers for the Airbus?

Lol, no. But I am pretty sure that a good manual will allow this user to fly the Bus. It will be fully possible to fly this Bus without the MCDU, just as it is in real life.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

That's right. There's two kind of simmers.

1. The one which is flying like it was a real plane, doing every procedure, cockpit preparation, FMS setup, checklists, flying with charts/aerodromes and flying on a online network like VATSIM

2. The one which boots up FSX, takes a 747 or maybe F/A-18 and just flies around making loops, starting engines with CTRL+E

Actually we think there is a third kind, the customer for this Bus. The person who likes that do the flightplanning in the MCDU but one does not need the MCDU page to enter a new runway the database does not have and also does not need the ATC REJ INFO page (one of dozens even real pilot need the manual for).

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

We worked the whole weekend on the lights, with mixed success. Still problems with the landing lights, runway turnoff lights and taxiway lights. The standard FSX lights are just to lousy to use in our opinion but the math behind our own system is very complex.

What is fixed are the nav lights. They look darned good and have none of the problems the default lights have. They are almost 100% steady in position, so they do not wonder about like the default lights. In the images you see two kinds, one with a 'glow' effect and one without. The one without looks certainly better (and more realistic) but has the problem it's not very visible from a mile away. So you can optionally add the glow effect that adds the distance.

[Guest pao]

We worked the whole weekend on the lights, with mixed success. Still problems with the landing lights, runway turnoff lights and taxiway lights. The standard FSX lights are just to lousy to use in our opinion but the math behind our own system is very complex.

What is fixed are the nav lights. They look darned good and have none of the problems the default lights have. They are almost 100% steady in position, so they do not wonder about like the default lights. In the images you see two kinds, one with a 'glow' effect and one without. The one without looks certainly better (and more realistic) but has the problem it's not very visible from a mile away. So you can optionally add the glow effect that adds the distance.

Very nice... I like the reflection on the wingtip.. I think I would prefer the "no glow" version... It would be nice however to have the glow effect flying through clouds or during a hazy weather. I guess that would mean linking the effect to the weather and I doubt this could be possible to implement...

[ginoleopoldo 15]

I do prefer the glow!