Jump to content
Mathijs Kok

Aerosoft Airbus X - Preview

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone! This is my first post with Aerosoft and after reading through the forums for the last couple of days I must say Mathijs is handling this beautifully, great feedback, patient and polite. Very refreshing to see. The bus looks spectacular! I really cannot wait to get this beauty in the air! I may have missed this if it has been asked before (lots of stuff to read can be a little tedious) but would you consider this aircraft MORE advanced than the Wilco Airbus Volume 1?

Thanks for the info!

Thanks for the kind words!

And yes, I would say our extended version will be a bit more complex then the Wilco one. mainly because the Wilco bus is a bit outdated at this moment and based in FS2004 standards.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathijs: Does the extended version imply that the xml based pages won't be there any longer? Or, will it be limited to certain pages? And also will the splines be calculated at all for the map display? Or is that part of the extended? I know some guy is charging $40 euros primarily for splines in the Wilco bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathijs: Does the extended version imply that the xml based pages won't be there any longer? Or, will it be limited to certain pages? And also will the splines be calculated at all for the map display? Or is that part of the extended? I know some guy is charging $40 euros primarily for splines in the Wilco bus.

The extended version will have much of the same ideas as this one, so still xml because we like to see it as open as possible, Not sure on the splines, I do not think so as it is a very high resource demanding thing. Usability and good framerates go first in this project.

But let's not talk to much about the extended version dear friends. We have not made the full plans for that one and it is many months away, it has a low priority for us because of the limited market. The Airbus X we are now working on IS the project that we'll sell.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mathijs,

I really love the way you guys work, and the products you bring onto the market but there is one big thing that's bothering me about this airbus. As I have just switched over to fsx, because I was charmed by this airbus(altough not being an airbus-fan at all) my FPS are a bit fussy. I wondered if the frames would be better or worse than the aerosoft f-16. I know that the f-16 works fine on my pc and my frames, around the 15, are good enough for me as I have never known better. I know you always said the fps will be good on this bus, but our pc's aren't the same:P

Kind regards to you and your team and keep up the good work!!

Swayze

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really love the way you guys work, and the products you bring onto the market but there is one big thing that's bothering me about this airbus. As I have just switched over to fsx, because I was charmed by this airbus(altough not being an airbus-fan at all) my FPS are a bit fussy. I wondered if the frames would be better or worse than the aerosoft f-16. I know that the f-16 works fine on my pc and my frames, around the 15, are good enough for me as I have never known better. I know you always said the fps will be good on this bus, but our pc's aren't the same:P

True, BUT we got a good measure here. See we know the VC is about as fast as the default Airbus in FSX (do not ask why, we got no idea, but it simply is at this moment) and the if you see the external you will loose about 25% of FPS compared to the default Airbus. Most certainly it will compare favorably to the F-16 as we learned a lot since that project. So I would not worry.

We really worked hard on keeping this one fast enough to use on the high end scenery that's being done at this moment. Any good aircraft will have to share the resources with the surrounding and we feel a lot of aircraft do not do that at this moment.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mathijs,

I really love the way you guys work, and the products you bring onto the market but there is one big thing that's bothering me about this airbus. As I have just switched over to fsx, because I was charmed by this airbus(altough not being an airbus-fan at all) my FPS are a bit fussy. I wondered if the frames would be better or worse than the aerosoft f-16. I know that the f-16 works fine on my pc and my frames, around the 15, are good enough for me as I have never known better. I know you always said the fps will be good on this bus, but our pc's aren't the same:P

Kind regards to you and your team and keep up the good work!!

Swayze

As Mathijs talk about, there is a drop of FPS of 5-10% in the VC and 25% in Outside (compare to the default A321)

Stefan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, BUT we got a good measure here. See we know the VC is about as fast as the default Airbus in FSX (do not ask why, we got no idea, but it simply is at this moment) and the if you see the external you will loose about 25% of FPS compared to the default Airbus. Most certainly it will compare favorably to the F-16 as we learned a lot since that project. So I would not worry.

We really worked hard on keeping this one fast enough to use on the high end scenery that's being done at this moment. Any good aircraft will have to share the resources with the surrounding and we feel a lot of aircraft do not do that at this moment.

Thanks Mathijs, guess these sleepless-nights were not needed :P keep up the good work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to take a wild guess here.... the reason Aerosoft planes are so good on FPS is you make sure to turnoff the GDI+ antialiasing? Stab in the dark...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to take a wild guess here.... the reason Aerosoft planes are so good on FPS is you make sure to turnoff the GDI+ antialiasing? Stab in the dark...

don't think so, i'm normally not using antialasing but aerosoft planes are better to the frames then others.

in this case i'd say that the not complex systems of the aircrafts are guilty, in others maybe that most of the aerosoft planes don't have

much systems even in reallaty...

am i right? if not please correct me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to take a wild guess here.... the reason Aerosoft planes are so good on FPS is you make sure to turnoff the GDI+ antialiasing? Stab in the dark...

Where needed yes. Just as we don't do a zillion polygons. Some might feel that GDI+ antialiasing (an issue we have not decided on btw) at 12 fps is cool, we think it's useless (I do think our 4 displays look pretty sharp as it is though and we got great fps)

Just take the Huey project for example. We had a model with over half a million polygons and it looked INCREDIBLE in FSX. Never seen anything like it. But we could not get it over 10 fps on the airports we use as test. So we had to delete 2/3 of the model and it looks not as good but is usable.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't think so, i'm normally not using antialasing but aerosoft planes are better to the frames then others.

in this case i'd say that the not complex systems of the aircrafts are guilty, in others maybe that most of the aerosoft planes don't have

much systems even in reallaty...

am i right? if not please correct me

Partly you are right, we got a different idea on aircraft then for example PMDG. They got 12 climate control zones in the B747 modeled because they claim to simulate the complete aircraft. Our idea is to simulate the work of the pilot (it's called flight simulator and not system simulator right?) and that the temperature in cargo hold 3 is not important. It's a different approach, there is a market for both kinds and as long as people do not expect great FPS in a PMDG aircraft and not great system depth in what we do, it's all fine. AND keep in mind we are doing an Airbus, the pilots are not bothered with stuff like temperatures until something goes wrong.

I want the aircraft we do to have between 30 and 40 fps on the test situations I use. As my hardware is cheap but fast that would mean at least 20 fps on most customers systems under rather tasking conditions. The F-16 was marginal in that, the Catalina most certainly does it, the Airbus will do it as well. If we have some super cool system that looks great but eats up to much FPS we will not insert it.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding FPS.

The Hueymodel was a few million polygons big, and there was a frameratedrop but no hughe. If you map them, you have the hughe drop. Its all about the way of mapping something in FSX. You could slow down the airbus very fast using the wrong modeling methode, even without systems.

So the reason why our models are fast is, that we aim for a good framerate from the first polygon on, and work as clean as possible to reach it. This is often not easy and does much work, but you see and most certainly feel the result.

It is all about technique. You could even mess up a very low poly model that it runs slow in FSX.

You ask why are we as fast as the standard aircraft with that amount of details and so on? I simply don't know. There must be something VERY limiting in the standard planes.

Bests Joachim

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest cmjA320

Mathijs,would you please publish a cockpit picture of the aircraft on an ILS.The Wilco aircraft sits low on the glideslope.Will the initial release fly a managed speed on the approach or will it just be a selected speed above Vls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope aerosoft develops more airline sims, as this aircraft is stunning, and you can already see its popularity with the multiple threads with 1,000+ posts. i think the high detail/ lighter system/ good frames on an airline sims of this quality will be hugely successful. Maybe in the next few years we will see some boeings? :blush:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope aerosoft develops more airline sims, as this aircraft is stunning, and you can already see its popularity with the multiple threads with 1,000+ posts. i think the high detail/ lighter system/ good frames on an airline sims of this quality will be hugely successful. Maybe in the next few years we will see some boeings? :blush:

It would be nice :P but I think aerosoft more looks at the market and their 'big' clients... I guess this Airbus was a perfect choice, as there isn't much 'good and serious' stuff around, but of Boeing aircraft their's plenty ranging from the leveld 767 to the PMDG 737/747/ possibly 777 etc... So it's likely aerosoft will come out with a boeing product, unless one of their 'big' clients asks for it ofcourse;) Correct me if i'm wrong Mathijs, but this is my point of view of how you guys 'handle'.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice :P but I think aerosoft more looks at the market and their 'big' clients... I guess this Airbus was a perfect choice, as there isn't much 'good and serious' stuff around, but of Boeing aircraft their's plenty ranging from the leveld 767 to the PMDG 737/747/ possibly 777 etc... So it's likely aerosoft will come out with a boeing product, unless one of their 'big' clients asks for it ofcourse;) Correct me if i'm wrong Mathijs, but this is my point of view of how you guys 'handle'.

If they made a Boeing aimed at the same market and with the same complexity as they are doing this aircraft, I would definately buy it and I suspect I would not be alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's finally out!! I just bought and downloaded your Airbus X from the Aerosoft shop looks like it came out just an hour ago. I have to say it looks great and flies like a dream! Doesn't even slow down my computer at all. Thanks for another great product guys... oh wait is today April fools? wink.gif hehe sorry i just had to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's finally out!! I just bought and downloaded your Airbus X from the Aerosoft shop looks like it came out just an hour ago. I have to say it looks great and flies like a dream! Doesn't even slow down my computer at all. Thanks for another great product guys... oh wait is today April fools? wink.gif hehe sorry i just had to do it.

Well, depending on your location you are a day late unless you are in the Americas :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well hello there,

I have another idea, let me make it clear first, that the desire to do this aircraft comes from my deep respect

and apreciation for the people who made this wonderfull Airbus, and its visual quality!!!!

I have an idea:

If Aerosoft works together with flighhtsimlabs and the guys who made the SSTSIM internet site, together with British Airways and Air France,

And do this aircraft: (improve the visual model and VC of Flightsimlabs)

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-France/Aerospatiale-BAC-Concorde-101/1664857/L/&sid=cfbee763e4835a1082de1325de2f4674

http://www.airliners.net/photo/British-Airways/Aerospatiale-BAC-Concorde-102/1550081/L/&sid=cfbee763e4835a1082de1325de2f4674

http://www.airliners.net/photo/British-Airways/Aerospatiale-BAC-Concorde-102/1446387/L/&sid=cfbee763e4835a1082de1325de2f4674

http://www.airliners.net/photo/British-Airways/Aerospatiale-BAC-Concorde-102/1171528/L/&sid=cfbee763e4835a1082de1325de2f4674

Well first we will fly the virtual sky with the awesome Bus!! ofcourse.

Good day to you all.

Maarten Hulst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Aerosoft works together with flighhtsimlabs and the guys who made the SSTSIM internet site, together with British Airways and Air France,

Maarten I got honestly no idea what you are talking about. FlightSimLab already released their great Concorde, we got no plans to do another Concorde. There are also no plans to work together with my friends over at FligthSimLabs, there is no project big enough for a team that large.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our idea is to simulate the work of the pilot (it's called flight simulator and not system simulator right?) and that the temperature in cargo hold 3 is not important

...

as long as people do not expect great FPS in a PMDG aircraft and not great system depth in what we do, it's all fine.

Let's compare apples to apples, please. The 747 is an ancient model in the history of FSX, not surprising that your Airbus can beat it on FPS. PMDG has demonstrated that they can do state-of-the art systems simulation and get good FPS with the MD-11, and they have the JS-4100 which focuses on core pilot operation (i.e. no failure engine and such) and combines very good looks with great FPS.

I appreciate what you are trying to do with the Airbus, but the idea that you somehow have a focus on *flight* simulation that is absent in PMDG products is absurd.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm extremely worried that the painters are using the "Captain Sim" dull/horrible methods vs the quality of PMDG, Quality-Wings & Project Airbus versions with their sharp and vibrant paints. The model has the best virtual cockpit and exterior detail I've ever seen in FSX but the repaints look rather dull with no alpha. :(

Some high-end and well-known painters (worked with quality-wings, etc) had an interest in working with your group, what happened? Sorry about the critical post but I and others want the best quality Airbus for flightsim. :)

I hope these paints are are only alpha/beta and not final release versions...Darryl

uuhm, could you be more precise? "These paints"... What paints do you mean exactly, and what is your problem with them? I've done a few that I'm quite happy with, but if you don't like them, I would like to know why?

On another note:

Mathijs, what is going on with this piracy thing?

I did not upload anything to piratebay as far as I know, I invested hours and hours in this bus, and suddenly, everything is halted, the paintforum is closed, and we hear no more.

(not that we heard much before that, I never received an answer to my requests over the last month for feedback on my paints either).

I understand how this piracy thing must be extremely upsetting, but as a painter who does this for free, and for Aerosoft, I am starting to feel somewhat annoyed about the lack of feedback on my paints, and information about this matter. Could you enlighten us (the painters) please?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate what you are trying to do with the Airbus, but the idea that you somehow have a focus on *flight* simulation that is absent in PMDG products is absurd.

Well you read something in my post that I did not write there. We sell PMDG, I consider the PMDG crew my friends, (we talk almost daily) and I for sure think they are very very very good. So I most certainly did not claim any such thing. I just stated we got a very different idea and that that has an effect on performance. See we do not care about the cabin, or about flushing toilets like some of our fine competitors have done, We also do not do any maintenance stuff, so you won't be able to swing the nose cone open to service the weather radar. We don't even care about the right seat, it could very well be that most of the switches on that side will not work in the Airbus. What we care about is the left seat (and we put the PF there) and what goes on there. We do not fully rule out the tasks of the PNF but they got a low priority for us. So you can manipulate the temperature controls of the cabin, but do not expect any serious code behind that.

And you know, Robert of PMDG agrees with that. He wants to simulate the aircraft with all the controls the crew can reach from their seat. We do not, we want to simulate the job of the PNF in the right seat. We don't even claim to come close to the system depth of PMDG. What we do claim is a lot better FPS then the MD-11.

I got them both here. I think ours looks better in the VC and I know it gets a lot better FPS. And you know, PMDG would agree and they would not mind at all. They accept that what they do has it's price. Just as we do. Different ideas, different customers. You think that idea is absurd, I say you are mistaken, most of all because you read something I did not write.

To make the point I made comparable screens of the MD-11 (that I love) and the Airbus (that I will love when it is done, lol). As you will see the PMDG is dead and cold with all system off and though I tried to get the same on the Airbus our current beta does not allow me to switch off most systems. So a highly disadvantage position for our product. I think you will see the difference in FPS. Now please note this is NOT bad for the PMDG, for what they deliver that product is nice on fps. It just shows a difference in approach. Some people will prefer the system depth (and I assume you are one of those), others will put the emphasis on other bits.

post-43-127023317742_thumb.jpg

post-43-127023318114_thumb.jpg

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Mathijs,

I'm sorry if my ideas are not so realistic, I indeed don't have a clou about how the flightsim market works,

but I was so impressed with youre product.

Maarten, I will shut down this line of posts as it makes little sense.

I got the Concorde and I think the VC is pretty amazing for an aircraft so complex, I doubt that we could do it much better while keeping the same performance. And I am not saying this because it has been done by a good friend, I am saying this because it is just very good work.

Now let's keep to the Airbus here, okay?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...