Aerosoft Airbus X

[Guest pao]

Well for starters we got 3 taxi way lights and 3 landing lights, all controlled individually as it should. There are not many addons that have runway turnoff lights even though they are pretty important on some airports. How the lights themselves are different is best shown in the images attached here. As far as we know this is the first time this is shown on an airliner. The images attached show the aircraft with Wing Landing lights on, nose wheel taxi light on and the turn off lights on.

... Now I understand... I've never seen this before on any other aircraft.. Congratulations !!!

[Guest pao]

Hi, Timo!

No, I did not mean the FMS, I was speaking about the EIS. The Thales EIS II and the Honeywell EIS have visual differences, look at the pictures below:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Avianca/Airbus-A320-214/1648721/L/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Thomas-Cook-Airlines/Airbus-A320-214/1593248/L/

The Avianca Airbus is equipted with EIS 2 (the PDF, ND and ECAM displays are rectangular and they use LCD screens), while the Thomas-Cook one has the EIS 1 (it has CRT screens and the displays have rounded borders).

P.S.: i'm speaking about visual differences only, so i understood the target-group, that's why i'm asking...

The reply was in Mathijs posted videos...

[Emi 5161]

Can anybody send a few pictures of the airbus x when its taking off? from the cockpit and the outside view please! by the way, when the lufthansa livery is already done than with this one pls...

thanks!!! :wub:lufthasa airplanes

[Sharrow 107]

Emi, there are some recent pics a page or two back, including take off shots and some of the Lufthansa livery. Still want more?

[Guest pao]

Why do you think there is no ARC mode? What is shown is the ILS mode and you would not want to see an ARC mode when on an ILS approach, it is more or less assumed that you know where you are going if you are on an ILS, right?

Mathijs,

The left display doesn't look like it is properly integrated into the cockpit structure ; Do you think you can make it look like it is a real display and not a screen capture just put on top of something....

Greg

[Tristan Marchent 11]

Mathjis,

Sorry if this is going to really annoy you but I just need to get some things worked out. In the Airbus X for FSX will we be able to add airways and waypoints like used on a normal FPL? Sorry if this has already been asked but I just want to get somethings straight Can we also have some TOPCAT coverage for properly loading up this aircraft and making it as real as possible.

Thanks,

Tristan

[UALA320 1]

Mathijs,

The left display doesn't look like it is properly integrated into the cockpit structure ; Do you think you can make it look like it is a real display and not a screen capture just put on top of something....

Greg

Greg,

i do not mean to be rude or disrespectful but are you on something? it look completely fine. why wont you take a look at the VC video preview and then tell me if you think it is properly integrated or not.

- Dennis

[AJM101 3]

We are using the EIS 2 version.

Finn

You guys are using EIS 2? But how comes the FCU has orange text instead of grey?

Mathijs,

The left display doesn't look like it is properly integrated into the cockpit structure ; Do you think you can make it look like it is a real display and not a screen capture just put on top of something....

Greg

I agree, it does look kinda 'fake'. This is a great airbus and they need to correct those little details which will make this plane the best

[UALA320 1]

Mathjis,

Sorry if this is going to really annoy you but I just need to get some things worked out. In the Airbus X for FSX will we be able to add airways and waypoints like used on a normal FPL? Sorry if this has already been asked but I just want to get somethings straight Can we also have some TOPCAT coverage for properly loading up this aircraft and making it as real as possible.

Thanks,

Tristan

Tristan.

You will be able to insert them but only manually. The FMGS wont have preset SID/STARS so you will have to enter all the waypoints and airways manually into the FMGS, which is no big deal.

-Dennis

[UALA320 1]

You guys are using EIS 2? But how comes the FCU has orange text instead of grey?

I agree, it does look kinda 'fake'. This is a great airbus and they need to correct those little details which will make this plane the best

No matter if it is a EIS2 or EIS1 cockpit it depends on the airlines and what color FCU they want....

Jetblue has only EIS2 A320 and they use only white for their FCU.

United has both EIS1 and EIS2 A320 and A319's and the EIS1 are all orange and EIS2 are mostly orange and some white FCU'S.

-Dennis

[Maverickmatze 21]

Mathijs, in the feature list of the AirbusX you wrote "Systems display is near perfectly simulated within normal operation". Now from all the inforamtion given I know that there won't be any checklists besides the standard before takeoff items and before landing items. I also realize that this version of the Airbus X is not intended to simulate the A320 as realistic as possible but to simulate the operation of the A320 - basically the job of a pilot flying the A320 during normal operation. But can you ellaborate "[... near perfectly simulated within normal operation...]"? Can you specify what messages, etc can be seen on the ECAM?

Mat

[matt oberdorfer 26]

Ohhh a lot bigger than that. Think close to a gigabyte installed and something like 600 Mb to download.

Ha - those were simply examples of what I was asking. Ahh, that is HUGE though. Looks like it's gonna be boxed for me

[saprintz 82]

Mathijs,

The left display doesn't look like it is properly integrated into the cockpit structure ; Do you think you can make it look like it is a real display and not a screen capture just put on top of something....

Greg

Hi Greg. Did you see the screens posted several pages back, with our PFD right next to the real one? I am FAR from thinking I'm not capable of some pretty big blunders (trust me, haha), but I have to say that making our AirbusX PFD look just like the real one is not something I still worry about. It's very, very close.

I will say that some of the pics of the real thing send me a similar message as to what I think you're describing. The colors CAN at times seem too vibrant or saturated or arcade-like, however you want to refer to it. But color choice was someone else's decision, long ago, and we're just going to do it the way they did it. ;-) (The same principle goes with HUD's and that monochrome, computer-terminal looking pure green the militaries use. Not always pleasing, but I'm sure there are heaps of studies showing how much better such colors are for pilot awareness,etc....)

By the way, I did not use airliners dot net photos at all as a reference, as we've got our own FABULOUS photos taken by Stefan, but you can see something similar to what I think you're talking about if you look at jpg number 1448014, at that sight. Also, there's a pretty big variance in color perception depending on lighting and display versions, and this even *within the same cockpit*. Even a quick search at that sight just showed me this: image numbers 1321887 and 0673205. The displays in that pic are about 4 feet apart, but still you can see how the color can seem wildly different. Which display in that cockpit is "incorrect," as to color? I think the answer is neither. Just slightly different contrast and lighting. Either way, a lot of things lead me to believe that we've gotten this aspect very close to "correct."

[Gaura Mohana 23]

Mathijs, in the feature list of the AirbusX you wrote "Systems display is near perfectly simulated within normal operation". Now from all the inforamtion given I know that there won't be any checklists besides the standard before takeoff items and before landing items. I also realize that this version of the Airbus X is not intended to simulate the A320 as realistic as possible but to simulate the operation of the A320 - basically the job of a pilot flying the A320 during normal operation. But can you ellaborate "[... near perfectly simulated within normal operation...]"? Can you specify what messages, etc can be seen on the ECAM?

Mat

hmm. from what i have read, only the most important systems are simulated.

[Maverickmatze 21]

hmm. from what i have read, only the most important systems are simulated.

well - but what exactly does that mean? During one video of AirbusX I could see all the different pages and I was so surprised how much detail was in there. And it all seemed controllable. So I would love to know some detail - for example if we have the warning messages that are just there like before engine start as they are part of the normal operation. Or maybe some things like a fuel imbalance which is non normal operation, but no big deal... The question is: Isn't it implemented at all? Is is implmented in a certain way (like just the warning messages but no instructions to solve the problem)? Or does it go even deeper? take care Mat

[andromeda 51]

Mathijs,

maybe you could solve the "rain-effect"-issue like Full-Flight-Simulators do.

It´s very simple and looks very realistic.

They just let the "visual" become a little bit unsharp synchronous to the wiper frequency.

(You wouldn´t see single raindrops on an airbus windshield at 200 kts anyway....)

Timo

I don't argue that the effect described by you looks very realistic in Full-Flight Simulators.

My objection refers to the remark "You wouldn't see singel raindrops...". That's of course true! But my point is: That wiper synchronous unsharpening just makes sense when the wiper is on, right?! But you use the windscreen wiper when you are taxiing. And during taxi, at 10 knots or whatever, you see a lot of raindrops and you are in desperate need for the wiper to keep your forward vision unobstructed.

And at high speeds you don't need any wiper synchronized unsharpening 'cause you don't and can't use the wiper. You don't 'cause the airflow keeps raindrops from forming/quickly moves them backwards. And you can't use the wiper 'cause it wouldn't withstand the high forces.

So my understanding is that whenever you use the windscreen wiper you will see raindrops 'cause you're moving very slowly then.

And of course furthermore it's a question of the precipitation level. In severe showers it's more a wall of water than droplets when taxiing and obstructing the view as well in flight.

[Guest pao]

Greg,

i do not mean to be rude or disrespectful but are you on something? it look completely fine. why wont you take a look at the VC video preview and then tell me if you think it is properly integrated or not.

- Dennis

No I am not on something.. and I find it stupid to get 7 negative comments only because I make a remark.... Forum are places where you can discuss, exchange....Nevermind, don't have time to lose arguing on that....

Now if you look closely (because in a cockpit you often get close to displays) at the shots posted by Mathijs, you see that the displays look "copy/paste" on paint.... it does not look like it is a screen part of a real hardware (in that case the cockpit structure).... look especially the corners..

But that's fine, I'll get this product and I'll be enjoying flying it....

[Guest pao]

Hi Greg. Did you see the screens posted several pages back, with our PFD right next to the real one? I am FAR from thinking I'm not capable of some pretty big blunders (trust me, haha), but I have to say that making our AirbusX PFD look just like the real one is not something I still worry about. It's very, very close.

I will say that some of the pics of the real thing send me a similar message as to what I think you're describing. The colors CAN at times seem too vibrant or saturated or arcade-like, however you want to refer to it. But color choice was someone else's decision, long ago, and we're just going to do it the way they did it. ;-) (The same principle goes with HUD's and that monochrome, computer-terminal looking pure green the militaries use. Not always pleasing, but I'm sure there are heaps of studies showing how much better such colors are for pilot awareness,etc....)

By the way, I did not use airliners dot net photos at all as a reference, as we've got our own FABULOUS photos taken by Stefan, but you can see something similar to what I think you're talking about if you look at jpg number 1448014, at that sight. Also, there's a pretty big variance in color perception depending on lighting and display versions, and this even *within the same cockpit*. Even a quick search at that sight just showed me this: image numbers 1321887 and 0673205. The displays in that pic are about 4 feet apart, but still you can see how the color can seem wildly different. Which display in that cockpit is "incorrect," as to color? I think the answer is neither. Just slightly different contrast and lighting. Either way, a lot of things lead me to believe that we've gotten this aspect very close to "correct."

Hi Saprintz,

Thank you for your constructive reply...

I was mainly referring to the fact that if you look at the corners of the PFD, I did not get the feeling it was really part of the cockpit structure..... you get the impression that the display is just pasted on the cockpit, above it.... But we all agree this is a detail..

cheers,

Greg

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

No matter if it is a EIS2 or EIS1 cockpit it depends on the airlines and what color FCU they want....

Jetblue has only EIS2 A320 and they use only white for their FCU.

United has both EIS1 and EIS2 A320 and A319's and the EIS1 are all orange and EIS2 are mostly orange and some white FCU'S.

-Dennis

Indeed indeed, and to be brutally honest, we don't think the actual color of the font is a really big deal in the grand scheme of things. Besides, it's all in XML so you can make it any color you want with just a simple change of the code!

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Mathijs, in the feature list of the AirbusX you wrote "Systems display is near perfectly simulated within normal operation". Now from all the inforamtion given I know that there won't be any checklists besides the standard before takeoff items and before landing items. I also realize that this version of the Airbus X is not intended to simulate the A320 as realistic as possible but to simulate the operation of the A320 - basically the job of a pilot flying the A320 during normal operation. But can you ellaborate "[... near perfectly simulated within normal operation...]"? Can you specify what messages, etc can be seen on the ECAM?

Mat

I think we now got 220 messages shown. I am not sure what will be in the final version.

[Finn 873]

well - but what exactly does that mean? During one video of AirbusX I could see all the different pages and I was so surprised how much detail was in there. And it all seemed controllable. So I would love to know some detail - for example if we have the warning messages that are just there like before engine start as they are part of the normal operation. Or maybe some things like a fuel imbalance which is non normal operation, but no big deal... The question is: Isn't it implemented at all? Is is implmented in a certain way (like just the warning messages but no instructions to solve the problem)? Or does it go even deeper? take care Mat

Aircraft systems like Hydraulic, Fuel, Electrical, Pneumatics, Airconditioning, Flight controls, Wheels - Brakes and engines are simulated to a rather deep level.

You got 3 hydraulic systems (Green,blue and yellow). These are all supplied by either engine driven pums, electrical or the PTU (Green and Yellow)

The Fuel systems is also simulated close to the real thing and can configure itself automaticly depending on fuel qty in each tank as well as flightmode.

The electrical system simulates all the various busses and suppliers (Generators, APU, External power) and also configures itself automaticly.

Bleedair system and aircondition is also coded according to it´s realworld counterpart.

Pressurization is a bit more simple, cause normaly landing altitude is taken from the MCDU, wich will be somewhat simpler than the real thing.

All systems can be monitored on the lower ECAM.

I would say that 90% of all values on the real thing also can be read on our lower ECAM.

The Upper ECAM displays engine parameters, as well as Warning and Caution messages.

When a warning or caution appears, it will show up on the Upper ECAM. I think we have some 150+ warning, caution and memos messages coded, though not all are likely to appear.

The Warning and caution message system though is simplified.

On the real Airbus, these are accompanied by checklists telling the pilot how to solve a particular problem.

It also shows secondary systems effected by the warnings and cautions.

This has NOT been implementet, cause it is very complex.

When a warning or caution happens, the lower ECAM will call up the system page for the affected system automaticly.

The lower ECAM will also show the system page most relevant for the current flightmode ie. Doors page before starting up, APU page when APU is started, Engine page when engines are started, Wheel page when taxi or take off and cruise page after acceleration heigth etc..

Take off and Landing memos (checklists) are shown when appropriate.

But as I have said before....

A total simulated Airbus will probably never happen.

You can get away developing Boeings, because Boeings are so much simpler (knowing that I probably will start an outrage ).

Thats also why not many Airbus addons has been done for FS.

Compared to Boeings, Airbusses are much more automated - simpler to fly, but much harder to develope.

FS(X) is simply not very well suited for simulating Airbusses, because joystick inputs are used directly to control control surfaces and throttles.

This affects spoilers, custom FBW code, Autothrottles (moving in detends without having the autothrottle system moving the throttles) etc.

This means serious custom code for these systems inorder to make them behave "Airbus style".

The SDK for FS(X) is based on Boeing style Autothrottle and flightcontrols, though the FBW code for FSX is actually good (The only part of FSX SDK that is specially made for Airbusses)

You are requesting alot like Wingflex, Raindrops, Weatherradar, Terrainmap, more complete systems, all kind of animated gadgets like airstairs etc..

Adding all this would definitly drag FPS down to a level where no one would have much fun of it, apart from screenshot artist.

The best selling and longest lasting aircraft addons are those that can deliver high FPS and still look good, therefore compromises have to be made.

Best regards

Finn

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

well - but what exactly does that mean? During one video of AirbusX I could see all the different pages and I was so surprised how much detail was in there. And it all seemed controllable. So I would love to know some detail - for example if we have the warning messages that are just there like before engine start as they are part of the normal operation. Or maybe some things like a fuel imbalance which is non normal operation, but no big deal... The question is: Isn't it implemented at all? Is is implmented in a certain way (like just the warning messages but no instructions to solve the problem)? Or does it go even deeper? take care Mat

Things like fuel imbalance (of course the Fuel Transfer System will prevent that) are fully implemented. So see the color change on screen of some elements, will get message on the ECAM and you will see the Transfer Pump do it's work. All this is pretty deeply simulated. In fact it took me a while to figure out why I got caution messages after I filled all tanks with 50% fuel (the wing tanks should not be contain fuel if the center tank is not near full).

We think most of the aircraft sysmes are very well detailed, mainly because they are all so automated in an Airbus and do not need the user to fully understand what is happening. Other things however, like the planning in the MCDU are not automated and you need to know what you are doing. There we only do the more basic stuff (and you could skip some of it by using a FSX flight plan). The whole idea is to be able to fly with a two page manual (of course there will be a very extended manual) and to have nearly all functions that are needed in a standard short flight in busy controlled airspace. For example a lot of the complex vertical navigation is not used because in real operations if it not the system that tell you what (ideal) FL to use but the controller.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hi Saprintz,

Thank you for your constructive reply...

I was mainly referring to the fact that if you look at the corners of the PFD, I did not get the feeling it was really part of the cockpit structure..... you get the impression that the display is just pasted on the cockpit, above it.... But we all agree this is a detail..

cheers,

Greg

Keep in mind that HOW colors are shown is for a big deal determined by the graphics card, drivers and settings.

[Maverickmatze 21]

@ Mathijs + @ Finn:

Thank you so much for your answer. Now I can see your plans for the ECAM. And I have to say that I'm really looking forward to it. I think you're completely right that almost everything in an Airbus is automated. So no worries with implementing as much as possible from the ECAM etc. If someone doesn't want to use it he doesn't have to use it. Just disregard the system completely and you'll still have no problems flying this bird. But if you're interested in all the systems you have things you can check all the time and dig a little into it. I'm so happy, because I was hoping to see some action there (and luckily I will) . I refer to the ECAM as my personal in-flight entertainment system So this was something I needed to know!

Thx a lot

Mat

[SimPilot767 157]

...And at high speeds you don't need any wiper synchronized unsharpening 'cause you don't and can't use the wiper....

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

Timo