We are looking for two additional A330 pilots to join our advisory team.  We will ask for credentials (sorry for that), but if you are willing to assist contact us on mathijs.kok@aerosoft.com

Jump to content

Aerosoft Airbus X - Preview


Mathijs Kok
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Root Admin

Hi Mathjis and Aerosoft Team,

Great to hear this - sounds like you guys are close to resolving/completing last issues - I would echo others support for the 'taking enough time to get it right' approach, and the open-ness policy.

As we are getting close and this thread is for previews could I request a screenshot like the following -

http://hci.ucsd.edu/...320-cockpit.jpg

basically a cockpit 'panorama' - I've looked through all the screenshots a few times and I don't think we have a shot like this. Don't know if its the intention to do a further series of final teaser screens? - I also appreciate your earlier note in that screenshots take time to prepare so no worries if not possible at the moment.

Thanks in advance and things are looking great - like everyone I'm looking forward to that first TO/GA charge down the tarmac,

Martin

Something like this? Sorry for the missing Nav Display, that was just in progress as I made the shot.

post-43-127323739687_thumb.png

post-43-127323740826_thumb.png

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something like this? Sorry for the missing Nav Display, that was just in progress as I made the shot.

Hi Mathijs,

Many thanks for posting these - she looks great. No worries re the Nav - work in progress!!

I had read in a post on the previous thread that the visors were not going to be modelled so its great to see on the second picture. I'm sure I'm not alone on this but I really appreciate features such as this, wipers, opening windows etc. as for me they really add atmosphere and 'feel' to the flight deck. Its great to be able to taxi round a grey and rainy Manchester UK airport with the wipers going to find yourself landing a couple of hours later in a sunny visors down situation in Menorca.

All the best,

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mathijs, I know you have your hands full with all those projects but if you have a chance and please, could you make a comparison about the product when it was conceived to the product that will come out soon, I mean, I 'm reading and have been interested in this project since the very begining and I loved the fact that this project was going to be a wonderful model with mostly default systems, I don't like intensive systems simulated that require a lot of manual reading.

I've been following the conversation and sadly have seen that this project has evolved to a more complex simulation with people asking for more and more systems be incorporated (which honestly I don't give a rat's ass about those systems), but how much more complex is it now, that would be my question. For a guy that likes to just jump in, fly and enjoy the visuals without complications, this "evolution" could be dissappointing, am I going too far? Is this still going to be enjoyable for people like me and maybe, the market you initially aimed for? I'd appreciate your comments on this. Thanks!

Jose Valdez.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Root Admin

Mathijs, I know you have your hands full with all those projects but if you have a chance and please, could you make a comparison about the product when it was conceived to the product that will come out soon, I mean, I 'm reading and have been interested in this project since the very begining and I loved the fact that this project was going to be a wonderful model with mostly default systems, I don't like intensive systems simulated that require a lot of manual reading.

I've been following the conversation and sadly have seen that this project has evolved to a more complex simulation with people asking for more and more systems be incorporated (which honestly I don't give a rat's ass about those systems), but how much more complex is it now, that would be my question. For a guy that likes to just jump in, fly and enjoy the visuals without complications, this "evolution" could be dissappointing, am I going too far? Is this still going to be enjoyable for people like me and maybe, the market you initially aimed for? I'd appreciate your comments on this. Thanks!

Jose Valdez.

I am not sure where the 'default systems' idea came from, it's simply not true, we have not used any of the systems of the default Airbus (expect the rather good sections of the FBW system). But what we do use is default FSX variables as much as possible. Not only because that makes it faster, it also ensures the biggest possible compatibility with other addons and hardware. If you just want to jump in and fly there are actually only two things that could bug you.

  • First of all there is something you have to keep in mind when you load fuel. The Airbus insists on fueling the engines from the wing tanks. So if you load the center tank full and the wing tanks half she will start to complain. Of course the automated fuel system will start to pump fuel from the center tank to the wing tanks but until that is done you will see warnings. Just make sure the wing tanks are 100% full if you got any fuel in the center tank.
  • Secondly the throttle. That's a bit special in the Airbus because you don't use it a lot. The manual will explain this in great detail and we'll also have a video to explain it.
    All the other stuff is dead simple, just as an Airbus is. Starting the engine is two clicks (or Control-E), flying manually is bit weird (as she will always stay in the attitude she is in when you release the stick) but when you get used to that you wonder how Boeing pilots can stand their aircraft. We got rather detailed systems for hydraulics, pneumatics, aircon etc. But these are all running automatic. You can see how they work and adapt them but just like in a real Airbus you can also just forget them. You can disable one PAC and see how it affects the temperature of the aft cabin section, you can even try to use another source of air to control the temperature. Or as said you can just forget about that and just fly. ALL (okay most) OFF THE AUTOMATED SYSTEMS ARE DETAILED. Now where we start to simplify is on a few areas.

    • Failures. All the default FSX problems are supported but we did not program serious problems. We could also say we done them realistic (engine failure every 38.000 hours, RAT deployment conditions every 400.000 hours etc) but that would be a lie, though you would never know, lol.
    • Some systems, like the INS. These are all systems that we could do but are a pain the neck to use. They also add very little to the actual simulation.
    • Some sections of the MCDU, most noticeably detailed detailed vertical navigation and some of the flight planning (SIDs/STARs/Airways etc). We are using the Navigraph database and not the outdated FSX database because we insist in doing the sections we do as good as possible. It's also not a major deal as aircraft that do NOT have these systems also fly SIDs and STARs, they just program them manually or just fly the manually (as is also done a lot in Airbusses).
    • But in the end, I promise you that you will be in the air 15 minutes after installing and that it will be rather realistic. You are in fact exactly the customer we have in mind for this project. It looks good, it works realistic, but the workload is reduced.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Root Admin

Hi Mathijs,

Many thanks for posting these - she looks great. No worries re the Nav - work in progress!!

I had read in a post on the previous thread that the visors were not going to be modelled so its great to see on the second picture. I'm sure I'm not alone on this but I really appreciate features such as this, wipers, opening windows etc. as for me they really add atmosphere and 'feel' to the flight deck. Its great to be able to taxi round a grey and rainy Manchester UK airport with the wipers going to find yourself landing a couple of hours later in a sunny visors down situation in Menorca.

All the best,

Martin

I spend half this day tweaking the wiper sound to match the animation... Hate FSX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs

Yup, I know what you mean... I have a love-hate feeling for FSX too... :rolleyes:

yes, i have exactly the same opinion as you have! If fsx runns well than it's maybe the best sim (and not only flightsim) on market, but when the errors start, then ... (you know what i mean)!

a little question:

is the route on the ND being displayed with round "corners" when you reach a waypoint, ore is it just a straight line?

(yes i know that this question has been answered befor, but i can't find it, sorry...:D)

thanks for anybodys answer!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But in the end, I promise you that you will be in the air 15 minutes after installing and that it will be rather realistic. You are in fact exactly the customer we have in mind for this project. It looks good, it works realistic, but the workload is reduced.

Enough said, I'm sold! Thank you for this info, now all I have to do is wait for this great product to be released.

Jose.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spend half this day tweaking the wiper sound to match the animation... Hate FSX.

Hi Mathijs - looking at how everything is going all these extra's you guys are putting in will really make your product stand out. I've only ever tried to make one plane using FSDS3 a while back and I never finished it - I can't imagine how much work goes into an add-on as complex as this, and I guess the frustration too!!

I would say agian all the efforts and attention to detail are much appreciated - hence all the excitement you guys have generated with this.

Kind regards,

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick done some experiments with a new style of images... we like them!

Hi Mathijs - my wife is really into photography and loves doing these 'fish-eye' (if thats the right term!!) images - if only I get her to like planes too!

Nice way of presenting - love the level of detail/textures/everything.

Forgot to say on the previous screenies how well I thought the night lighting is done in the cabin - not that I've ever been up front in th dark but from what I've seen on stuff such as below -

Kind regards,

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are those panoromic images? Very nice indeed!

Yes, there are several individual images stitched together, normally this technique is used to create panoramic photo's.

Sadly the quality is lost a little in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Deputy Sheriffs

good pictures!!! but where are the speed and the altitude tape on the PFD? are they reworked at the moment ore can cou even deactivate them in the airbus?

a little question about the frames: if the aerosoft twinotter runnes well with let's say 20 fpm, is the airbus x running with the same framerate then? or how much frames do you expect?

i hope more then with the captainsim 767:lol:!

is it possible that you can tell us the systemrequirements which are need as minimum for the airbus? (yes, i know that they can change a lillte because the airbus is still in work, but it is possible to say for example 2X 1.6 Ghz CPU ore something like that, or?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good pictures!!! but where are the speed and the altitude tape on the PFD? are they reworked at the moment ore can cou even deactivate them in the airbus?

a little question about the frames: if the aerosoft twinotter runnes well with let's say 20 fpm, is the airbus x running with the same framerate then? or how much frames do you expect?

i hope more then with the captainsim 767:lol:!

is it possible that you can tell us the systemrequirements which are need as minimum for the airbus? (yes, i know that they can change a lillte because the airbus is still in work, but it is possible to say for example 2X 1.6 Ghz CPU ore something like that, or?)

What are your system specs, Emi? It depends on what CPU clock you have and the number of cores too.

In any case, only to think about the FPS's it could give in a Core Duo @ 2,8 and 4 GB of RAM only makes me tremble... :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great pics there Mathijs!!

On the pre-order page for the airbus x ( http://www.aerosoft.....cgi?showd160!0,5483906210,11177 ) it states that the minimum specs are as follows:

Windows XP/Vista/7

FSX SP2 (or Acceleration Pack)

Multi Core CPU

1 GB RAM (2 GB highly recommended)

512 MB Graphics Card

i meet every requirement except for the graphics card, i have a NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT, which is a 256mb graphics card.

does anyone know how this will effect my frameraes?

my full specs are:

Windows Vista home premium

intel core 2 quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz

3GB RAM

NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT

thanks,

Webb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mathijs, I have been following this project for a long time and i love the improvements that you guys have done on this bird. I just have small question , i always fly on Vatsim and i was wondering if we are going to be able to add SID/STARS into the aircraft and not only GPS Points as sometimes Vatsim Tower's asks yo to change the VOR intersection Point and you cant change on GPS. I will really like an answer and iam really sorry for my english

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mathijs, I have been following this project for a long time and i love the improvements that you guys have done on this bird. I just have small question , i always fly on Vatsim and i was wondering if we are going to be able to add SID/STARS into the aircraft and not only GPS Points as sometimes Vatsim Tower's asks yo to change the VOR intersection Point and you cant change on GPS. I will really like an answer and iam really sorry for my english

If you read the page before, you'd see the answer right there: http://www.forum.aer...ndpost&p=226991

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...