Aerosoft Airbus X - Preview

[aLxDiM7 3]

I decided to register in order to thank you guys for this wonderful ( as it seems ) project! As everybody, i'm quite impatient to fly this bird! So once again..thanks and i wish that you won't face any bugs, so that we can get it sooner Just two questions : 1) Are the liveries you mentioned above, gonna be the first liveries that will come with the product? Or are you gonna include any other? ( For example..uhmm..Olympic Air hehe..nah joking..dont wanna be annoying ) and secondly 2 ) march is the month for the download version and then april the month of the boxed version..right? Thank you for your time

Greetings from Athens

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Well, you want "fully simulated systems", I always smile when I read that, you do know PMDG does not claim to do that do you? We beat PMDG in the second and fourth item until they do a new project, and PMDG does not have the first and the third because nobody has. But most likely this will not be an Airbus for you the hard core simmer. If you would have spend a few moment reading some of the posts you would have known that and would not have asked the obvious.

I am going to correct myself. Just spoken to Robert Randazzo (PMDG and the next senator of Nevada (serious, have you see the guys he is running against?)) and they DO claim that. They got 12 climate zones in the 747, that are all controlled and all react to outside temperature. Now he is a Boeing pilot so he probable feels the need to manually control the temperature in the forward cargo hold.

Serious, we do not even come close that what they do, different idea, different customer. We are making an Airbus that is rather realistic in all aspects of day to day flying in a busy environment where you fly where the controller tells you to fly. We do not and never will claim to do fully simulated system and you will not be able to control the temperature of the forward cargo hold. You will be able to fly this aircraft with just half an hour of reading. Realistic, because the Bus will take care of it self as much as possible.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I decided to register in order to thank you guys for this wonderful ( as it seems ) project! As everybody, i'm quite impatient to fly this bird! So once again..thanks and i wish that you won't face any bugs, so that we can get it sooner Just two questions : 1) Are the liveries you mentioned above, gonna be the first liveries that will come with the product? Or are you gonna include any other? ( For example..uhmm..Olympic Air hehe..nah joking..dont wanna be annoying ) and secondly 2 ) march is the month for the download version and then april the month of the boxed version..right? Thank you for your time

Greetings from Athens

I know there will be an Olympic repaint very soon after release. As I said in another post, March is not impossible but it depends a bit on how the professional version of this aircraft goes. We really need to make that client happy first as he pays many (MANY) time what you will pay for what's basically the same file.

[vali 31]

What seems clear to me, supposing that Airbus X would have complete simulated systems only just a few of customers will use them completely or try it, let's say, once.

Most of us fly for VAs (where flights are logged), on VATSIM, IVAO and we don't need problems in flight

I still fly PA+PSS merge and in the most cases is ok. Of course I want to have more features, to learn more from FCOM and to try it/applied but I don't think most of us will ever try all failures, ECAM actions and so on. If I look to a Just Planes movie (Air Berlin with A320 for example) and I can do almost all the actions what they do then is ok for me.

[aLxDiM7 3]

I know there will be an Olympic repaint very soon after release. As I said in another post, March is not impossible but it depends a bit on how the professional version of this aircraft goes. We really need to make that client happy first as he pays many (MANY) time what you will pay for what's basically the same file.

Glad to hear that about the Olympic livery!! Okay..you have been very precise and up to the point! Patience until the release, no matter when it will be..it's worth it after all Thank you for your time Mr. Mathijs!

[Stewart 134]

I am going to correct myself. Just spoken to Robert Randazzo (PMDG and the next senator of Nevada (serious, have you see the guys he is running against?)) and they DO claim that. They got 12 climate zones in the 747, that are all controlled and all react to outside temperature. Now he is a Boeing pilot so he probable feels the need to manually control the temperature in the forward cargo hold.

Serious, we do not even come close that what they do, different idea, different customer. We are making an Airbus that is rather realistic in all aspects of day to day flying in a busy environment where you fly where the controller tells you to fly. We do not and never will claim to do fully simulated system and you will not be able to control the temperature of the forward cargo hold. You will be able to fly this aircraft with just half an hour of reading. Realistic, because the Bus will take care of it self as much as possible.

But then I guess that's as it should be anyway with your two companies. You want a Boeing, you go to the United States, you want an Airbus you go to Europe!

[Designer Paule 24]

Robert Randazzo is running for LT Governor of Nevada not Senator. In German thats one step below Schwartzennegger in the State Goverment.

Good Luck Robert if reading this post!

http://www.randazzof...robert-randazzo

Paul

[RichardH 0]

Great work, cannot wait to fly this aircraft. Just a suggestion, you need to include liviries of different continents instead of concentrating on europe, which most of the liveries are based on. You would be suprised to know how many of us here in Australia are waiting for this but a lot of people will not buy it unless there is a jetstar livery. The same in say Malaysia i know heaps of people, probably in the 100's on the Malaysian FSX forum who are waiting for this but probably wont buy it without a malaysin carriers livery same applies to the middle east,lots of people are eagerly awaiting this aircraft but would not buy if it there is a regional airline such as air arabia. My point if you market this aircraft globally you will get a lot more sales, more sales will mean hopefully a larger budget for an advanced version!

True, but Aerosoft will include a repaint pack, and I'm sure many artists will make Asian and Australian airlines once it's released. I guess Aerosoft being based in Europe means it's much easier to paint high quality liveries of airlines they see regularly, where they can take many photos.

[yurob70 121]

Well, you want "fully simulated systems", I always smile when I read that, you do know PMDG does not claim to do that do you? We beat PMDG in the second and fourth item until they do a new project and PMDG does not have the first and the third because nobody has. But most likely this will not be an Airbus for you the hard core simmer. If you would have spend a few moment reading some of the posts you would have known that and would not have asked the obvious.

so you mean PMDG does not simulate systems they only wanna make money?

[Guest inbrekers1]

so you mean PMDG does not simulate systems they only wanna make money?

That's so not what he said xD. He is saying that PMDG is just aimed at a very small group off potential customers. They are simulating a lot (really hell of a lot) of system that you in a normal flight don't have to touch. Like the cabin pressure, temperature,... That's all stuff that usually in real-life is just set on automatic and not touched again (except for specific sorts of cargo like flowers, fruit etc which has to be cooled down a little on longer flights.) Thats stuff you just don't really need as a virtual pilot but PMDG includes it because they think it is fun for people (and I completely agree with them on that.) It's just not necessary.

And of course, all of these company's need to make money... That's there main goal behind all the sweet talking. But that counts just as much for Aerosoft as for PMDG or any other company in the business... These company's ain't charity you know...

[yankeesji 38]

It look really great. I've been waiting for a good FSX Airbus, and this looks like one to me!

[Gaura Mohana 23]

Why is the Fly-by-Wire on the default A321 so unresponsive? Will the A32X be like this?

AFAIK the default A321 had no FBW. The main problem is the way FSX handles inputs. 

The Aerosoft A32x on the other hand has a great FBW system. pretty much the same as in real life... 

[ahuimanu 36]

He is saying that PMDG is just aimed at a very small group off potential customers.

I realize that you are quoting Mathijs, but I wonder how this claim can be substantiated? I do not have the facts either, but PMDG's ongoing success couldn't possibly have come about by servicing a 'very small group' of customers. I've seen the sentiment that simmers can't handle full and in-depth realism in many forums and in the advertisements for many new products coming out for FSX. I wonder why everyone is so intimidated by complexity when many of these aircraft are so automated to begin with? Honestly, with something as incredible and ground-breaking as the A32x series, why not take it as far as you can go?

If we want a simpler model in the sim, then why not model a simpler aircraft?

I am looking forward to Aerosoft's airbus and believe that the offering will mature nicely, but I wonder why there is such a strong perception that the market wants "light" versions?

[Stewart 134]

I realize that you are quoting Mathijs, but I wonder how this claim can be substantiated? I do not have the facts either, but PMDG's ongoing success couldn't possibly have come about by servicing a 'very small group' of customers. I've seen the sentiment that simmers can't handle full and in-depth realism in many forums and in the advertisements for many new products coming out for FSX. I wonder why everyone is so intimidated by complexity when many of these aircraft are so automated to begin with? Honestly, with something as incredible and ground-breaking as the A32x series, why not take it as far as you can go?

If we want a simpler model in the sim, then why not model a simpler aircraft?

I am looking forward to Aerosoft's airbus and believe that the offering will mature nicely, but I wonder why there is such a strong perception that the market wants "light" versions?

One thing you can be very sure of is that Aerosoft know their market inside out. Their very survival as a company depends upon it. So if they say the market wants "light" versions then you can rest assured that is indeed the case.

[Kwiss 128]

It isn't just a case of wanting a 'LITE' version because these aircraft are difficult to grasp, I for one enjoy a challenge, but the whole sim experience for me is just to get in the air and fly to a destination and land without too much fuss. The reason why is simple, I just don't have the time anymore to spend whole weekends and evenings reading pages of manuals and using FSX as a training simulator, I want to relax and take to the air enjoy it for a couple of hours every now and again. Family, work and and building a house extension take up alot of my time these days and to lock myself in the spare room with the PC and FSX for me is a great way to unwind. I have said before I would love to have a LITE version of the PMDG 747 and JetStream etc for the same reasons as above as they are fantastic looking aircraft but that just isn't going to happen. Die hard simmers have plenty of choice for High end graphical and systems aircraft and the 'dare I say it' the casual simmer are left with this gap that Aerosoft has so wonderfully filled for us.  

[Bombayduck 7]

Dear Mathijs,

From seeing these last pictures I have decided to completely switch over to fsx, as I am now still on the old fs9. Like you said, fsx has much more to offer. But there is one little thing of what I have a question about. I already checked the forum but couldn't find any solution to this.

As you know, Airbus only works with the sidestick (apart of A300/310), but now I was wondering what will be the function of the sidestick prioritybutton on the airbus. Would we have to press the button before take-off to gain control of the aircraft? And will the copilot's sidestick then remain unmoved?

Just asking, because I wondered how you guys would solve that.

Kind regards, and have a nice weekend.

Swayze(Brussels)

[Chriger 1]

Would we have to press the button before take-off to gain control of the aircraft? And will the copilot's sidestick then remain unmoved?

Swayze(Brussels)

I would love to see an Airbus A320 auto taxi XD! But regarding your question, the pilot puts the Airbus on Autopilot after he/she takes off, when he/she feels the need to. Some pilots fly without autopilot till there above 10,000 feet.(Or the entire thing) It all depends on the pilots preference. As for will the button actually work, well you will have to wait for Mathijs to answer.

Definition and Function of Side Stick Priority: (Reference Airliners.net Forums Search)

When pressed:

Disconnects autopilot

When held in, deactivates the other Sidestick and allows full singular control. Holding switch for more than 30 seconds latches the system, allowing the switch to be released without losing priority.

A deactivated stick can be reactivated at any time by momentarily pushing either priority switch.

If the priority switches on both sidesticks are pushed, the last one activated assumes priority.

Illuminates Glareshield SIDE STICK PRIORITY lights and activates "PRIORITY LEFT" or "PRIORITY RIGHT" audio voice message according to control configuration.

I hope that helps

[Popcorn 18]

Some pilots fly without autopilot till there above 10,000 feet.(Or the entire thing) It all depends on the pilots preference.

To the best of my knowledge, this is an incorrect statement. Most airline companies (at least in the US anyway) requrie that thier pilots use Autopilot. After wheels up at a specific AGL altitude (generally very low such as 400 ft AGL to 1000 ft AGL) the pilots need to arm the autopilot per company guidelines. The airline carriers believe that the computer can fly better than a human. There are of course exceptions to that rule where pilots fly without the autopilot, but there aren't many.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

so you mean PMDG does not simulate systems they only wanna make money?

Neither. And both are rather insulting comments for a long time partner of Aerosoft. Your warning level has been raised.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

And of course, all of these company's need to make money... That's there main goal behind all the sweet talking. But that counts just as much for Aerosoft as for PMDG or any other company in the business... These company's ain't charity you know...

Yes we are, we support an orphanage in Ethiopia, because we feel guilty making money on something as silly as computer games. We send tens of thousand of Euro's of our own money to these kids in the last few years for whom the color of the Airbus panel means bit less then a roof, good food and above all somebody who loves and protects them. With every purchase at Aerosoft you get the offer to add a few Euro's for this cause. This is NOT connected to what we pay, and we assure you 100% of the money you send arrive in Africa (we pay all additional costs).

If I made you feel guilty about spending so much money on games... Good.

[Kwiss 128]

Hi Mathijs, did you ever get around the FSX taxi problem where we have to consistently adjust the throttles to keep moving or can we add a little thrust and and then taxi on idle? 

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I realize that you are quoting Mathijs, but I wonder how this claim can be substantiated? I do not have the facts either, but PMDG's ongoing success couldn't possibly have come about by servicing a 'very small group' of customers. I've seen the sentiment that simmers can't handle full and in-depth realism in many forums and in the advertisements for many new products coming out for FSX. I wonder why everyone is so intimidated by complexity when many of these aircraft are so automated to begin with? Honestly, with something as incredible and ground-breaking as the A32x series, why not take it as far as you can go?

If we want a simpler model in the sim, then why not model a simpler aircraft?

I am looking forward to Aerosoft's airbus and believe that the offering will mature nicely, but I wonder why there is such a strong perception that the market wants "light" versions?

Well I got the spreadsheets to prove my point. PMDG does well, but just look at other companies trying the same thing. You think Airsimmers is in great shape right now, just to name one example? How many other high end projects are loosing money? I know a few, we sell them. Seriously, if I see a product that did cost 5000 Euro to develop making as much profit as products like the PMDG 747 you really start to wonder. Not a bad word about PMDG, but they are in a niche market of a niche market. If they (and we btw) would not have professional use of these projects they would most likely all be marginally profitable. Aerosoft is happy to break even on our Airbus X, we are making the money on the professional side. The big airlines pay us to be able to sell you these products at cost price.

You got any idea what support on a product like this costs (in 4 languages) or what it costs to have the manuals translated into Spanish? Or the cost for marketing of these high end products? Or the returns (product is faulty) from customers who are not able to handle it. Oh yeah you never read forum posts from those customers, right? There is a good market for high end , high complex products and we love selling them. But if you just see the forums and websites you only see 20% of what is happening. We could never exists on that 20%.

And why a high end model, high end sound, high end flight model, high end animations etc but with some systems that do not include the most complex functions? Simple, humans are visual beings. A shitty looking aircraft would simply not sell at all. Our Airbus X looks better then any other (imho) and will sell because if that.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hi Mathijs, did you ever get around the FSX taxi problem where we have to consistently adjust the throttles to keep moving or can we add a little thrust and and then taxi on idle?

Nope. It can only be solved by tweaking files of FSX and we almost never try to do that. There are some tweaks around that solve it, but all of these are based changing the sim and not an aircraft.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

To the best of my knowledge, this is an incorrect statement. Most airline companies (at least in the US anyway) requrie that thier pilots use Autopilot. After wheels up at a specific AGL altitude (generally very low such as 400 ft AGL to 1000 ft AGL) the pilots need to arm the autopilot per company guidelines. The airline carriers believe that the computer can fly better than a human. There are of course exceptions to that rule where pilots fly without the autopilot, but there aren't many.

Yes but what do you call AP in an Airbus? There is not much difference between the pilot commanding a 1200 fpm climb by pulling the stick backwards or to set 1200 fmp using the controls on the glareshield. It's the same flight computer that handles it. Manual flying on the Bus only happens when a whopping lot of systems failed, as far as I know it never happened.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

AFAIK the default A321 had no FBW. The main problem is the way FSX handles inputs.

The Aerosoft A32x on the other hand has a great FBW system. pretty much the same as in real life...

The default Bus in FSX has a rather good implementation of FBW. Not ideal, but for sure good enough for use to work with. The engines on the default Airbus are hopeless though.