Aerosoft Airbus X

[Kwiss 128]

You can surely switch them on and off, but you can see them illuminated over the whole day like it would be in the real thing.

Thats great news thats exactly what I meant, I'm so glad, great work to all involved! 

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

hey hey hey! I hope this was a joke! I mean that with the Sid and Stars! (TRANS) That is one of the important things! More importand that the engine wind effect! I hope you fix that!

Pontus why don't you you spend a few moments to read before you start posting so you make less of a fool of yourself. In fact let me give you that option by letting you read a bit before you are allowed to post.

[Kwiss 128]

hey hey hey! I hope this was a joke! I mean that with the Sid and Stars! (TRANS) That is one of the important things! More importand that the engine wind effect! I hope you fix that!

Read the topics! Its no joke (this SID guy is truly a STAR! I would love to meet Sid one day) that WAS a joke by the way

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

In real life pilots do it all the time... Not every SID and STAR for every airport is there in the real bus ready to use you know...

So true. I can name a few airlines that fly scheduled to some airport (we call then Mega Airports, lol) that use databases that do not contain all SIDs and STARs. There are a few database airlines can buy, for example the Lufthansa one that is arguably the best and they all come with different update rates. I myself have been in a Boeing cockpit that took of from a runway that was NOT shown. But unfortunately many people have a idealistic idea about these things. They buy a navigraph update every few weeks and do not understand that that means they could be using a better database then the aircraft they are going on vacation with.

Over 1/4 of the pages in the Honeywell MCDU we use are about ADDING things like fixes, navaids and runways (only thing you can not add is a complete new airport strangely enough). Those pages (dozens) are not modeled by any add-on developer btw.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I know there are people who don't care about STARs or SIDs. Often seen in FSX MP. It's ok. When you say there will be a little bit more complex version with STARs or SIDs than we have a deal.

Best wishes,

Chris

You can fly an SID or STAR without it being in your NAV display of course. I mean aircraft without all these things use them.

Just last month I was in the cockpit of an airliner flying into an Paris airport. Just before we got to the STAR sections the controller asked us if we could shortcut to another STAR. Instead of trying to reprogram the nav systems, the pf looked for the page in his Jep charts, told the controller that was okay and then asked the pnf to tune the navaids. One of the coolest approaches I ever seen as we got asked to do a side step to another runway as well. In moderate weather! It was all flown on instruments very smoothly. Just before tuning to GROUND the pilot (who was rather happy about his performance) asked TOWER if they were impressed. TOWER responded he landed a bit long. Pilot said something rather rude, off radio, and tuned to GROUND.

Quizzzzz.. what airport, what STARs and what runways, free copy of the Bus to the first who gets all three. One hint, it was late at night, hardly any outbound, only inbound traffic.

[EmiloZ 24]

You can fly an SID or STAR without it being in your NAV display of course. I mean aircraft without all these things use them.

Just last month I was in the cockpit of an airliner flying into an Paris airport. Just before we got to the STAR sections the controller asked us if we could shortcut to another STAR. Instead of trying to reprogram the nav systems, the pf looked for the page in his Jep charts, told the controller that was okay and then asked the pnf to tune the navaids. One of the coolest approaches I ever seen as we got asked to do a side step to another runway as well. In moderate weather! It was all flown on instruments very smoothly. Just before tuning to GROUND the pilot (who was rather happy about his performance) asked TOWER if they were impressed. TOWER responded he landed a bit long. Pilot said something rather rude, off radio, and tuned to GROUND.

Quizzzzz.. what airport, what STARs and what runways, free copy of the Bus to the first who gets all three. One hint, it was late at night, hardly any outbound, only inbound traffic.

LFPG - RWY27L -- KOVAK4E ARRVIAL?

[federalfsx 2]

How many days left?

[Sven Jagielski 3]

I don´t want to read that SID and STAR isue ever and ever. You hardcore pilots will probably have a flightplanning-tool and there you will plan your flight because you are a serious pilot. Most of that programs can include SID´s and STAR´s. Save it as FS-flightplan and then you can fly with. Easy going.

Sven

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

May I ask for a brief clarification on vertical navigation? From my little knowledge of Airbus systems, you have "open descent" which I'm sure you'll have. "Managed descent" would be the descent path as set in the MCDU. So are you saying no managed descent, or just a simplified version of this?

Curt

Keeping it very simple and from me: you get what the default flight plan of FSX offers and nothing more. We'll do a version later this year that has more.

Less simple and from an Airbus pilot who just written me (quoted with permission): "I am amused how your potential customers ask for full SIDS and STARS and at the same time want full vertical navigation. See ideally we like to let the ordinateurs (computers, mk) decide on the ideal vertical profile, that saves fuel and is most comfortable on engines and pax. In reality we fly SIDS and STARS, noise abatement procedures and generally fly what he charts tell you until the controller tells you otherwise. On many routes we hardly bother with vert profiles as we know it will not match at all what happens. It is also amusing that your customers think commercial flying is so fixed and structured. It's not. As long as the checklist are done and we do not get near the edges of the envelope we fly the A320 as we like and as we think is best. I like a few more knots on landing then many of my fellow pilots. Other lift off at Vr+5 because they feel the A is more responsive while I rather like to get off when possible."

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

LFPG - RWY27L -- KOVAK4E ARRVIAL?

Right, Right, Wrong.

There was an Russian Bus that missed an exit on 27L and was a bit confused. The STAR you got to guess of course.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

How many days left?

We still hope for March. Most people have already moved on to other projects.

[Stewart 134]

Keeping it very simple and from me: you get what the default flight plan of FSX offers and nothing more. We'll do a version later this year that has more.

Less simple and from an Airbus pilot who just written me (quoted with permission): "I am amused how your potential customers ask for full SIDS and STARS and at the same time want full vertical navigation. See ideally we like to let the ordinateurs (computers, mk) decide on the ideal vertical profile, that saves fuel and is most comfortable on engines and pax. In reality we fly SIDS and STARS, noise abatement procedures and generally fly what he charts tell you until the controller tells you otherwise. On many routes we hardly bother with vert profiles as we know it will not match at all what happens. It is also amusing that your customers think commercial flying is so fixed and structured. It's not. As long as the checklist are done and we do not get near the edges of the envelope we fly the A320 as we like and as we think is best. I like a few more knots on landing then many of my fellow pilots. Other lift off at Vr+5 because they feel the A is more responsive while I rather like to get off when possible."

It's great to hear from one who knows! Tell you pilot friend thanks very much for his insightful voice of reason Mathijs. It is as I long suspected, that the pilot does in fact have considerable leeway in how he decides to fly his aircraft. After all, he is the "Pilot Flying".

[Stewart 134]

Right, Right, Wrong.

There was an Russian Bus that missed an exit on 27L and was a bit confused. The STAR you got to guess of course.

LFPG - RWY27L - DJL5W

[Guest inbrekers1]

Quizzzzz.. what airport, what STARs and what runways, free copy of the Bus to the first who gets all three. One hint, it was late at night, hardly any outbound, only inbound traffic.

LFPG, RWY27L, MATI4W ???

[divemaster08 9]

Will the Airbus FMS have the ability then to add fixes based of radials and dme?

I know that most fixes now are GPS located now, but some in the areas i fly in still require some points to be flown via radial and dme fixes to another fix, will i be able to program this into the FMS?

[shastana 8]

Well said Finn. I don't know why people can't just accept things the way they are and if they don't like it move on.

As you said you don't have to buy it!!

Well, let's see it from different point of view. People keep asking for more complex aircraft over and over, may be this way aerosoft managers will realize that a quite big pool of potential customers looking for advance version of the bus and will make the decision to move forward and develop in the future the more complicated version.

Please remember, this is my opinion only and, as a very disappointed customer of other project, I really want to see it's coming.

[federalfsx 2]

Then ill guess they have to wait for the *cough cough* version.

[EmiloZ 24]

Right, Right, Wrong.

There was an Russian Bus that missed an exit on 27L and was a bit confused. The STAR you got to guess of course.

Then it must be the DPE3A

EDIT: I guess it's DPE3A as its used for if you gotta decent fast, and such. And you told that the approach was changed by the ATC that you got to make a steep hdg and then you kinda also gotta decent to another STAR alt i guess.

--

I can't wait for the bus to get released! Will any paintkit get released?

[Guest vibraman]

Well it seems you do not share my point of views and in fact hardly seem to take notice of my arguments. After all I explain in some detail why we include these things and why other things are not. So be it. If SIDs and STARs mean so much to you we got loads of other addons you will like and you are obviously not the intended customer for this product. And again, so be it, no problem. Why make such a fuzz? Just wait for the extended version!

Chris, it is more or less besides all the point. A good deal of the customers intended will most likely not even KNOW what a SID or a STAR is. You simply do not want to acknowledge that this kind of user exist it seems, or you think we are reading them wrong. If you would know what products sell and what do not you would know different. Simpler aircraft simply outsell complex ones. With margin. The best selling products are often not even reviewed!

it´s simply just such a big pitty that you don´t add sid´s and stars to it...even with your great looking airbus the whole fsx community will miss an airbus which is acceptable for flying online or realistic. your argue that most costumers don´t know what sid´s and stars are, maybe be right but they could also fly the bus without them or even without knowing what they are..so this would not really be a problem. and if you be honest the default ms flightplanner is really inacceptable for anyone who spends some time on fsx. but again on all themore complex aircrafts you can also fly with ms flightplaner or without sid´s and star´s if you want...it´s no problem but simply not realistic. your aircraft could simply be the only choice for ALL customers who want a good airbus in fsx...simply a pitty that you don´t take the chance to please them...btw forget the whole statement above if the more complex version will be availble in the next 6-7 month´s

[Tom2010 3]

Well, let's see it from different point of view. People keep asking for more complex aircraft over and over, may be this way aerosoft managers will realize that a quite big pool of potential customers looking for advance version of the bus and will make the decision to move forward and develop in the future the more complicated version.

Please remember, this is my opinion only and, as a very disappointed customer of other project, I really want to see it's coming.

I agree with you totally and I hope there is an advanced version. It's just a shame that all you end up reading here is everyones wish list for the smallest of features they want to see and then a lengthy conversation about why it can't be done. Yeah this would be the case early on but surely this far down the line it's a bit ridiculous. The patience of the aerosoft guys is remarkable.

Personally I believe aerosoft will develop a good product that is a commercial success and so their judgement as to what to include is going to be far more informed than ours. That's why I just sit and wait for the release with anticipation. The fact that a decent airbus addon has yet to be completed to the level this seems to have been developed to makes it worth waiting for without complaining that the wings should flex and the weather radar should work.

Call me bitter if you like lol

[andromeda 51]

In an A320, you can use the wipers up to 185 kts (maybe even more), so off course even for takeoff and landing...

Timo

I didn't know that. That's impressive!

[alexis270 2]

In my opinion the existence of SIDs and STARs is very positive for an add on,however your decision to pay more attention to the visual parts of the plane is extremely important as the other airbus projects like wilco's are low quality add ons...at last we want an airbus with high quality interior and exterior and as i have seen your photos you have done great job! :clapping_s:and your idea for a more complex upgrade including SIDs and STARs is good,so we can all make our choices

[shastana 8]

Will the Airbus FMS have the ability then to add fixes based of radials and dme?

I know that most fixes now are GPS located now, but some in the areas i fly in still require some points to be flown via radial and dme fixes to another fix, will i be able to program this into the FMS?

Same question. Since we will not have SID and STARS, I think this option very nice to have.

[andromeda 51]

"I am amused how your potential customers ask for full SIDS and STARS and at the same time want full vertical navigation. ...

I couldn't agree more to that observation of reality of yours and that pilot, Mathijs!

I'm not a ATPL/commercial pilot but merely a private one with PPL, IFR and Multiengine licence. But of course we fly the same SIDs and STARS and are part of the same aeronautical network. And in reality everything in flying is very dynamic and not 100% sticking to established procedures. (Checklists are established procedures. That's not what I mean ;-) )

There's a user (Sim pilot) at the flightxpress forum who insists on his opinion that you can deduct with 100% certainty which Approach procedure you will be assigned by knowing the prevailing surface wind (ATIS). But that does simply not stand the reality check! In reality ATC assigns a certain procedure due to the traffic flow, to noise abatement and to wind and other reasons. LOWW (Wien Schwechat) got two runways: 11/29 and 16/34. If you got a 110°/12 kts wind you would expect an ILS Rwy 11 aprroach, right? You won't get it but probably an 16 approach instead. Because that wind mean some 7 kts crosswind-component at Rwy 16 (Thus easy to handle) and the ILS Rwy 11 Approach's course leads you directly overhead the center of Vienna-City.

For all those factors you're often re-assigned STARs or Approaches and vectored a lot of the time in the first place.

SIDs are followed to a greater deal than STARs but even SID procedures are often disregarded in reality. A typical situation here at LOWW would be that you get the SID SNU 2 Charly (Rwy 29) assigned and after departure, a 500 feet above ground, the controller directs you: "OE-XXX, turn directly SNU now!". (The VOR which terminates SID SNU 2 Charly) Which is nice because it saves a lot of fuel, time and money.

Or if traffic is very dense and a lot of acfts lined up, you will get the following assignment (You were previously assigned the SNU 2 Charly SID): "OE-XXX, turn left immediatley after departure to heading 180° and proceed due south 'til DME 5, then turn right heading 245° to intercept original SID SNU 2 C". (The controller of course alters the SID to get the departure path free as quickly as possible.)

That's reality! So pre-stored SIDs and STARs are not decisive at all. You must have situation awareness and always all applicable charts in front of you! If you stick to the idea that you just have to follow SIDs and STARs you will end up in desparation sooner or later.

It's astonishing that people who regard themselves as professional flight-simmers and would like to have everything as close to reality as possible don't get that!

People, you don't need no Aerosoft airbus with pre-installing SIDs and STARs but the appropriate IFR charts in front of you if you really would like to simulate the aeronautical world realistically!

And real airline pilots often fly STARs and all kind of approaches "half manually" (Which is: actually not on the stick but by commanding the autopilot thru' heading and vertical speed changes.) to stay experienced.

[Salud 4]

This is the Addon I waited for. Not too complicated (especially FMC) but also not to easy like FSX default airplanes were the most switches don't work.

Just Perfekt!!

Salud