Aerosoft Airbus X - Preview

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Mathjis

Thank you for that reply, just what i wanted to hear, i like to sound of smooth flight from takeoff to landing!

Will pre flight preparations be simple too? Will all the required V1/Vr/V2 speeds be provided and will it be simple to calculate Stabiliser trim settings for the take off weight? This is something that is often overlooked by developers, C of G and all that. Quite important, difference of speeding down the runway and needing pull right back on the stick to get her in the air, or, it turns into a space rocket because there's too much trim!

Stu

Not I am not at my desk so I do not have all documents, but I do not think you calculate trim settings because all stabilizer trim is fully automated in normal conditions. But you will need to (or rather you can) enter the weights and they will be used to calculate the FLEX settings. The whole preflight is pretty realistic, we only skip the fake INS things as those are just nonsense in FSX.

[Emi 5161]

is there the possibility that we'll get a few videos of take off and landing this weekend, please?

would be great to see the airbus i action again...

regards

Emi

[Bizzy 20]

I can' t wait.... After End of march after Mi may .... Nothing !

I hope soon

And Barcelona, Orly, Munich , Amsterdam(fsx) any date of release... ????

I love Aerosoft but i became crazy to wait

[Chris. 39]

I can' t wait.... After End of march after Mi may .... Nothing !

Hi,

they started to test the flight model. I don't know which part will be tested next or how long the "to do" list is but all what we can do to push the project forwards is.... nothing.

So, we all have to wait for a release somewhere in 2010.

Chris

[Popcorn 18]

I can' t wait.... After End of march after Mi may .... Nothing !

We need to give Mathijs and team a break. It's very evident that they are working hard on this project. The fact is that when a product is in beta, unexpected things come up that require attention. There is no developer on the planet that gets something 100% right the first time around. I have no doubts that Aerosoft will bring us the best bus simulation there is for FSX and I'm sure it will be here in a relativly short time. Maybe by the end of May, maybe not; but one thing is for sure...It will be released when the team is 100% satisfied with the product they will deliver to us and I wouldn't have it any other way. Reason being is that Aerosoft is one of the very few developers I can trust with my money and I know that whatever I purchase from them, it will be a damn good product.

[Maverickmatze 21]

Not I am not at my desk so I do not have all documents, but I do not think you calculate trim settings because all stabilizer trim is fully automated in normal conditions. But you will need to (or rather you can) enter the weights and they will be used to calculate the FLEX settings. The whole preflight is pretty realistic, we only skip the fake INS things as those are just nonsense in FSX.

I think you still have to adjust the trim for T/O. You have to enter all the necessary weights, then you have a calculated CG and Trim setting. Thereafter you just have to SET the trim for takeoff. But that's a question I allways had to think about, too.

Please correct me if I'm wrong

Best regards

Mat

[iliaRUSpilot 1]

Mathijs, will you release Airbus in May 2010? I If yes i will DANCE

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I can' t wait.... After End of march after Mi may .... Nothing !

I hope soon

And Barcelona, Orly, Munich , Amsterdam(fsx) any date of release... ????

I love Aerosoft but i became crazy to wait

Just take it as it comes.

[DuckyLucky 11]

The whole preflight is pretty realistic, we only skip the fake INS things as those are just nonsense in FSX.

I have to disagree... IMHO the fake INS thing adds to the FS pilot experience the kind of realism many of us like (if only because it is part of what the pilot has to put up with in real life). Running through all the other preflight items while you wait for the INS to align, then to eventually see the displays finally come alive when the INS alignment completes is a very satisfying experience

Why do we enjoy add-ons like FSPassengers and FS2Crew? Because they make it more so... as real as it gets.

Granted, I suppose real life pilots wish it were an instant process

I understand you must fake it but hey, that's what we simmers do every time we fly, lol.

Anyway, I hope INS alignment is considered for inclusion in the planned advanced upgrade. The alignment time could be made adjustable for those who want a little less realism - thats how a few other add-ons have done it.

[Guest CFG278]

I think you still have to adjust the trim for T/O. You have to enter all the necessary weights, then you have a calculated CG and Trim setting. Thereafter you just have to SET the trim for takeoff. But that's a question I allways had to think about, too.

Please correct me if I'm wrong

Best regards

Mat

You have to set the trim for T/O. If you have not set the trim the following sequence will happen with the airbus: After pulling the side stick for rotating the airbus the plane will not rotate, but ... --> autotrim will start to trim the airplane nose up --> after a few seconds the nose will rise. That's the crucial point: If you do not set the trim for T/O you are not able to rotate the airbus as fast as it is necessary. Not a good idea for T/O's with a small runway margin left.

Just my 2 cents ...

[Maverickmatze 21]

You have to set the trim for T/O. If you have not set the trim the following sequence will happen with the airbus: After pulling the side stick for rotating the airbus the plane will not rotate, but ... --> autotrim will start to trim the airplane nose up --> after a few seconds the nose will rise. That's the crucial point: If you do not set the trim for T/O you are not able to rotate the airbus as fast as it is necessary. Not a good idea for T/O's with a small runway margin left.

Just my 2 cents ...

I see. Is there any chance to load the Airbus so there's a nose-up moment even with 0° trim (in real world Airbus)? Then - I guess - the contrary would happen. You'd rotate the aircraft automaticly even before Vr and you'd really have to be careful not to stall the Airbus assuming that you'd become airborne ;-)

[Guest CFG278]

I think a nose-up moment is the last what any cockpit crew would like to have during take-off run.

http://jetphotos.net...d=331903&nseq=0

[fratfw 12]

I have to disagree... IMHO the fake INS thing adds to the FS pilot experience the kind of realism many of us like (if only because it is part of what the pilot has to put up with in real life). Running through all the other preflight items while you wait for the INS to align, then to eventually see the displays finally come alive when the INS alignment completes is a very satisfying experience

Why do we enjoy add-ons like FSPassengers and FS2Crew? Because they make it more so... as real as it gets.

Granted, I suppose real life pilots wish it were an instant process

I understand you must fake it but hey, that's what we simmers do every time we fly, lol.

Anyway, I hope INS alignment is considered for inclusion in the planned advanced upgrade. The alignment time could be made adjustable for those who want a little less realism - thats how a few other add-ons have done it.

I agree with you, since this is a part of a crucial procedure and directly linked to the flight I think that should be simulated.

Other things are temperature in the cargo and stuff like that, not really used to simulate the fly.

Fra

[Rónán O Cadhain 71]

Hey Mathjis i have an question.do you know an DVD that says how the Airbus works?that describes every system like in smartcockpit?i dont wanna read i do better watch.Anyone knows an DVD that describes the Airbus that im an Airbus Expert?And your airbus just fantastic.oh yeah and what does this button next to the wiper?

PS:How do you manage so much projects?Bae,Airbus Project,CRJ,Aerosoft FS2012,MA Hamburg,Holiday Airports.Isnt that too hard?

ITVV does a great set of DVD's really informative and tells you all about the systmes and that but not how to use it thought. Great watch all the same.

[Maverickmatze 21]

I think a nose-up moment is the last what any cockpit crew would like to have during take-off run.

http://jetphotos.net...d=331903&nseq=0

lol that's a great picture. I agree with you, one of the last situations any cockpit crew would like to endeavour during take-off run is a nose-up moment ;-)

[JusJ 2]

Hi Mathijs,

This is my first post, but I have been viewing this board, and the Airbus preview threads in particular, since you announced your Airbus X product.

I am in a category of customer that you may not have identified yet for this product. I like accurate, complex airliners (Level D 767, DA Fokker 70/100, PMDG J41 are my favourites), however I never really get into the very obscure systems or failures (I have little time to do that). I just like to start up the aircraft, input the flight plan (generated by FSX, no fancy flight planning software), fly from A to B using normal procedures, enjoy the scenery on the way, and then land using normal procedures (sometimes ILS, sometimes manually, depending on the weather). I don't care about setting the cargo hold temperature or doing emergency procedures. I put a premium on realistic, immersive looks of the aircraft and cockpit, good FPS, and accuracy of the few systems that I use.

So, even though I only buy complex airliners, I think that your Airbus X (with the systems concessions that you have made) will still be perfect for me. I think I only ever use 30% of the systems that have been programmed in the other products I've referred to above (but I pay a high price for the unused 70%).

Now, I have three questions.

One of the most important things that I look for in an addon aircraft is accurate flight dynamics. So when it is on autopilot or flown manually, I need to know that the aircraft is 'on the numbers' and feels correct (as much as is possible on a personal computer). So my first questions is, have your beta testing airbus pilots verified that the Airbus X handles and performs correctly in comparison with the real aircraft?

I am a little lazy when I program the FMS/MCDU on addon aircraft. I like to have the option of automatically inserting weights and v-speeds. My second question is, can you give us the option to do that automatically by, for example, right clicking the LSK next to the relevant item on the MCDU (some other products, like the PMDG 737 for FS9 gave this option).

I know you have had some delays completing this product, and I see that you still aim for a May release. Unfortunately for me, and my fellow Australian customers, our currency has started to fall rapidly against the Euro and US dollar. Every day that passes, this product gets more expensive for me. So my third question is, can I pay for this product now and then download it when you release it? I've done this before with another Airbus-that-must-not-be-named and got burned, however I have faith in Aerosoft, as one of the most reputable flight simulator addon publishers, that I will have a much different and more satisfying experience with the Airbus X.

The third question is made a little tongue-in-cheek, however I confess that every day waiting for this product to be release is killing me with suspense (not just burning a bigger hole in my wallet)!

Anyway, good luck with the remainder of your beta testing. I look forward in great anticipation to your release of this product. I hope you can answer my questions above.

Regards,

JusJ

PS- Despite my preference for straight-forward flying, I will still buy your advanced systems upgrade if/when it is released (just because I like to know what I am flying is as realistic as can be).

[ahuimanu 36]

The whole preflight is pretty realistic, we only skip the fake INS things as those are just nonsense in FSX.

The whole of the "sim" is fake, so why is the process/procedure of setting up an INS system nonsense? Why include radios? Why have an INS page in the MDCU? Why fully animate the doors? Why show chocks (the plane won't roll away on its own and the "chocks" won't stop the plane from rolling)? It is your product, so you can of course target the market you think appropriate, but I don't understand this push/need for "lite" and watered-down airliners. The joy of a simulated airliner is the ability to cheaply and leisurely learn how to operate a simulation of the aircraft. Why not just make a Piper Cub if simplicity is what is desired.

My point is: it is difficult to call the threshold of "nonsense" in FSX when just about all of it is fake.

I felt the need to comment as the statement I quote above seems out of touch with the following from the first post in this thread: "Startup from a fully cold aircraft fully realistic"

I think part of the reason that the A320 is going a little overtime is that the product has a bit of an identity problem - it's not sure if it wants to be a full-fledged simulator or a "lite" product.

It looks good and I'll likely chance it, but some of the design decisions are somewhat odd (esp. those related to the MCDU - viz. "Fully updatable nav database (navigraph)," followed closely by "SIDs & STARs and airways not supported;" very odd and somewhat contradictory.

[wind5urfer 32]

The whole of the "sim" is fake, so why is the process/procedure of setting up an INS system nonsense? Why include radios? Why have an INS page in the MDCU? Why fully animate the doors? Why show chocks (the plane won't roll away on its own and the "chocks" won't stop the plane from rolling)? It is your product, so you can of course target the market you think appropriate, but I don't understand this push/need for "lite" and watered-down airliners. The joy of a simulated airliner is the ability to cheaply and leisurely learn how to operate a simulation of the aircraft. Why not just make a Piper Cub if simplicity is what is desired.

My point is: it is difficult to call the threshold of "nonsense" in FSX when just about all of it is fake.

I felt the need to comment as the statement I quote above seems out of touch with the following from the first post in this thread: "Startup from a fully cold aircraft fully realistic"

I think part of the reason that the A320 is going a little overtime is that the product has a bit of an identity problem - it's not sure if it wants to be a full-fledged simulator or a "lite" product.

It looks good and I'll likely chance it, but some of the design decisions are somewhat odd (esp. those related to the MCDU - viz. "Fully updatable nav database (navigraph)," followed closely by "SIDs & STARs and airways not supported;" very odd and somewhat contradictory.

Bingo, I really am looking forward to this product like you wouldn't believe!! But that statement right there hit the nail on the head.

[Tom2010 3]

The whole of the "sim" is fake, so why is the process/procedure of setting up an INS system nonsense? Why include radios? Why have an INS page in the MDCU? Why fully animate the doors? Why show chocks (the plane won't roll away on its own and the "chocks" won't stop the plane from rolling)? It is your product, so you can of course target the market you think appropriate, but I don't understand this push/need for "lite" and watered-down airliners. The joy of a simulated airliner is the ability to cheaply and leisurely learn how to operate a simulation of the aircraft. Why not just make a Piper Cub if simplicity is what is desired.

My point is: it is difficult to call the threshold of "nonsense" in FSX when just about all of it is fake.

I felt the need to comment as the statement I quote above seems out of touch with the following from the first post in this thread: "Startup from a fully cold aircraft fully realistic"

I think part of the reason that the A320 is going a little overtime is that the product has a bit of an identity problem - it's not sure if it wants to be a full-fledged simulator or a "lite" product.

It looks good and I'll likely chance it, but some of the design decisions are somewhat odd (esp. those related to the MCDU - viz. "Fully updatable nav database (navigraph)," followed closely by "SIDs & STARs and airways not supported;" very odd and somewhat contradictory.

+1

[simon747 98]

+1

Well I hope it stays as simple as possible and am glad they are being a little vague on certain items. I am sure it is not intentional. Alot of you guys want added functionability of certain systems where some of us may find it a waste of time becuase we will never use. I want the flight computer-type stuff to stay lean and simple as they initally proposed. We know its going to be a good looking aircraft, fly well, awsome vc and easy to use. I believe the delays are just minor bugs they are fixing for us either model related as they have mentioned or other items related. They still seem to be pushing the product to the enrty-mid level market and that won't change with the delays I believe (and hope)

My two cents anyhow:)

Simon

[fratfw 12]

Well I hope it stays as simple as possible and am glad they are being a little vague on certain items. I am sure it is not intentional. Alot of you guys want added functionability of certain systems where some of us may find it a waste of time becuase we will never use. I want the flight computer-type stuff to stay lean and simple as they initally proposed. We know its going to be a good looking aircraft, fly well, awsome vc and easy to use. I believe the delays are just minor bugs they are fixing for us either model related as they have mentioned or other items related. They still seem to be pushing the product to the enrty-mid level market and that won't change with the delays I believe (and hope)

My two cents anyhow:)

Simon

I understand the needs of who wants load the plane and fly in 1 minute, I like complex and deep simulations and of course my hope is that Aerosoft will implement more and more on this add on, but sometimes i like fly easily without stay half an hour programming mcdu and other stuff.

So I suppose Tha best way should be permit options, on the wilco model...same product different users and way to use it... very simple and comfortable for users.

I hope that with the release of the more complex version we will be exactly in this condition.

Cheers

[cbd80 258]

The whole of the "sim" is fake, so why is the process/procedure of setting up an INS system nonsense? Why include radios? Why have an INS page in the MDCU? Why fully animate the doors? Why show chocks (the plane won't roll away on its own and the "chocks" won't stop the plane from rolling)? It is your product, so you can of course target the market you think appropriate, but I don't understand this push/need for "lite" and watered-down airliners. The joy of a simulated airliner is the ability to cheaply and leisurely learn how to operate a simulation of the aircraft. Why not just make a Piper Cub if simplicity is what is desired.

My point is: it is difficult to call the threshold of "nonsense" in FSX when just about all of it is fake.

I felt the need to comment as the statement I quote above seems out of touch with the following from the first post in this thread: "Startup from a fully cold aircraft fully realistic"

I think part of the reason that the A320 is going a little overtime is that the product has a bit of an identity problem - it's not sure if it wants to be a full-fledged simulator or a "lite" product.

It looks good and I'll likely chance it, but some of the design decisions are somewhat odd (esp. those related to the MCDU - viz. "Fully updatable nav database (navigraph)," followed closely by "SIDs & STARs and airways not supported;" very odd and somewhat contradictory.

Hi. I was initially sceptical of a lite version being produced as I've grown out of dummed down aircraft. I like more of a challange and real simulation.

However, working on the beta I've seen that Aerosoft have a very good approach to this, something which I've only seen before with the CLS DC-10 and maybe 747-200.

Aerosoft have produced a model of landmark quality. Beyond that they are ensuring the systems are modelled to a realistic depth. All the overhead panel switches are clockable and the correct logic is applied. This means you can do a by the book cold and dark startup if you like. Options are provided to load the aircraft in certain states, making flexible for different users.

The airbus is a very automated aircraft as it is, making it easy for a user to adopt.

The IRS isn't like in a Boeing. It's a simple case of entering your current position and aligning; these options can still be performed. It's just that nothing actually happens after that and it isn't really something you use these days. It's a reference for the computer and a backup for the pilot.

The integration of the Navigraph database means that VORs etc can be entered on the FMC. It's great that you can do this on a lite version! You can also simply import your flight plan. It's only the option to select SIDs and STARs in the FMC that have being cut out. Nothing to stop you entering the points as part of your flight plan.

Airbus X does have a clear identity. It is a realistic simulation of the airbus, where the little things that you don't really use are cut back on, and the user is aided with some calculations in the FMC. This is a lite as it gets. But those little bits of help is what will make this appeal to a large market.

I think you can still enjoy this as a non lite product too as it's been made to be flexible. I'm loving it!

If you've seen lite products before like the CLS 300 series were the overhead panel isn't clockable, default gps etc; this is a million miles away from that yet still appealing to a large variety of skill sets.

The level of realism in terms of implementing the logic is what is taking time in development. There's a lot of logic and subsequent interactions between systems. It just takes time and unfortunately we are all just going to have to be patient.

I don't think many will find fault with this product.

ChriS

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I have to disagree... IMHO the fake INS thing adds to the FS pilot experience the kind of realism many of us like (if only because it is part of what the pilot has to put up with in real life). Running through all the other preflight items while you wait for the INS to align, then to eventually see the displays finally come alive when the INS alignment completes is a very satisfying experience

Why do we enjoy add-ons like FSPassengers and FS2Crew? Because they make it more so... as real as it gets.

Granted, I suppose real life pilots wish it were an instant process

I understand you must fake it but hey, that's what we simmers do every time we fly, lol.

Anyway, I hope INS alignment is considered for inclusion in the planned advanced upgrade. The alignment time could be made adjustable for those who want a little less realism - thats how a few other add-ons have done it.

Well you are right of course. And for sure it got to be part of an Airbus project intended for a more advanced and experienced user. But for this project it just makes no sense. I would need three manual pages for something the user we got in mind for this project would hardly understand and actually would not care a lot about. I know there are some pretty nifty INS systems in some aircraft but in the end it is all the same, the correct location mixed with some random error is displayed after a few minutes of waiting.

I know some people (not you btw) are still not okay with the idea we got. But ease of use without compromising on most things is what this project is about. We're sorry if some people find it a shame something so beautiful is not kitted up to a very high degree of realism. But believe me there is a good market for something like this in fact it's bigger then that for the highest complexity products. If you know what an INS does you are actually already not in the customer group we got in mind, lol.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I think part of the reason that the A320 is going a little overtime is that the product has a bit of an identity problem - it's not sure if it wants to be a full-fledged simulator or a "lite" product.

Not really, the problems are more in getting the integration of the systems done in a simulator that is very much based on Boeing ideas. The project never changed in idea.

It looks good and I'll likely chance it, but some of the design decisions are somewhat odd (esp. those related to the MCDU - viz. "Fully updatable nav database (navigraph)," followed closely by "SIDs & STARs and airways not supported;" very odd and somewhat contradictory.

Mmmmm you got to use some database so why not use the better one if it does not matter at all to the user? It's very much in line with the whole idea behind the product. Besides, we heard from a lot of VA pilots they like this one and there Navigraph support is a very good thing.

[fratfw 12]

Not really, the problems are more in getting the integration of the systems done in a simulator that is very much based on Boeing ideas. The project never changed in idea.

Mmmmm you got to use some database so why not use the better one if it does not matter at all to the user? It's very much in line with the whole idea behind the product. Besides, we heard from a lot of VA pilots they like this one and there Navigraph support is a very good thing.

Hi Mathijis,

what about the actual or future support for external home cockpit, maybe with something like project Magenta drivers?

cheers

Fra