Jump to content

Aerosoft Airbus X - Preview


Recommended Posts

Now even I am blown away by this. Honestly.

Framerates have always been a major concern in this project. Where it is very hard to optimize scenery, there is a lot to gain in aircraft modeling. Our goal has always been to stay close to the default Airbus of FSX, say not more then 25% below that in FPS. And while we are no adding the final bits to the daily build I was able to see how fast this bus is. The images were made on my own machine that was running loads of other apps at the time. Almost the complete MS office was open, browser windows and I was even playing the last episode of TopGear on the second screen (I have never seen closing applications made FSX seriously faster so I never care). The scenery was our new Kos (love that one) and I was using pretty high settings, real weather yada yada yada.

I attach 4 images and will make very little comments.

  • Default Airbus VC, 22,329 polygons, average framerate -> 37 fps
  • Our Airbus VC, 173,313 polygons, average framerate -> 41 fps
  • Default Airbus external, 49.902 polygons, average framerate -> 47 fps
  • Our Airbus external, 102,221 polygons, average framerate -> 37 fps
    Few comments...
    • XML might be a total bitch to debug, it's most certainly not slower then C++ in FSX.
    • Using highly skilled and trained artist pays off big time in aircraft development (all raise your glass and salute Stefan). He did explain what he did right and MS did wrong but after mentioning "cleaner mapping" I sort of lost contact.)
    • We got ourselves and aircraft that will not slow FSX down in complex environments.
    • Adding more polygons to the external model and making it shade itself hurts. We seen this in the F-16 and Catalina. If you disable self shading the default and our bus are much closer in fps.
    • The default Airbus got a very weird cockpit, almost no sight line is correct.
    • Promises a lot for the CRJ as that one is more optimized.
    • This is more then a few comments...

Hi Mathijs.I really can't wait to get my hands on this beauty; I count every single day when it will be release. About the FPS i don't know what to say .BRILLIENT

Mathijs you once told me about the modeling APU sound in the exterior view, can you please give some info, as when you go for a exterior check the first and most loud noise you will here is the APU.I hope it modeled as it adds to realism.

That's it, Aerosoft has given us a perfect AIRBUS. Can't wait to fly it

Thanking You

Sameer R Mankame

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 734
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am sure not your friend! I will wait for Airsimmer, the cockpit looks better, too!

I do not know if you know for what real pilots use the flightsim so I will tell you . They are simulating abnormal situation which are not comming up very often in real!

its so stupid in my eyes...you do checklists for handys, turbine rotating bye wind on the ground, high detailed gears and flaps (those things no pilot will see in the air and you always stated the bir

Posted Images

1) if i enter a frequency in the FMS (on the RAD NAV page, or however it is called in an airbus^^), and if i enter a course on which i want to fly to the VOR does the airbus show me a line which i have to fly on the go to the VOR with the heading i want? (i hope you understand what i mean). Mathijs, can you please show a screenshot of the ND if you make those inputs in the MCDU?

2)Which funktions does the AP actually have? (can someone please list them up?)

3)The new Concorde X has some effects which let the aircraft "drop" from the sky if you're flying much to fast, or that the weels can burn if you brake to strong. Is the airbus X having something similar?

4)in a youtube video i saw a display in the upper right corner of the vc (i think it shows the area behind the cockpit so that the pilots can see who is there if someone knoks at the door). Can someone load a screenshot of this display here?

5)as far as i know every single screen in the system display is there, but what is with the electric checklists for abnormal procedures? are a few of them simulated? if yes, which ones? (i don't expect all, only for the most "common" fails, as an broken engine, right?)

and by the way, the load manager looks amazing, but can we also load the fuel with the default fuel loader (even if i wouldn't to it, but it would be interesting to know), or with other tools?

1) if you use the correct setting, yes. In basic all the VOR functions are still as they are in the basic Cessna, you still need to know on what radial you are.

2) All the real airbus has, hard to list them as they are so interlinked with other systems.

3) We are not hot on failures. Or I can say that different, we are very realistic on failures. See an engine fully inop happens every few hundred thousands of hours. The need to deploy the RAT has only happened one single time in this type of aircraft (so once every few million flight hours). In fact we could claim to be realistic and you would never know, lol. But overall we see this as a flight simulator and not a system trainer.

4) Sure we have that. See the attachment. If you activate the camera you'll see the image. Just do not expect flight attendants with coffee.

5) See 3. There is a lot simulated, but deep multilevel failures are hugely complex and beyind the scope of this project. Let me state that another way. I know of a dev who spend three full weeks and 12.000 lines of code on a failure feature in an aircraft. And though thousands of people bought the product, nobody ever saw it. How we know? Well it was buggy and it would have shown a rather funny and rude error message. These are things that look good on a feature list of an aircraft double the price, not on this one. Keep in mind this Airbus is half the price of some other high end aircraft!

5a) Yes, as with all systems we try to keep FSX as standard as possible. You can use any tool to set passengers, cargo and fuel.

post-43-128207588299_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Mathijs!

I hope these two questions have not been asked, if so I apologize, but I couldn´t find anything

in this thread!

1. You wrote that the lightning is built in the model, so that it can light up the terrain...Are the strobe

lights also lighting up the ground, when you are landing at night...this is something I always see when

I look out of the window during a night takeoff or landing, but never have seen in any FS-aircraft...here I

just have a video, so you can see what I mean:

2. Do you plan to do the A319/A318 too?

3. If not, is the VC of your Airbus NOT included in the model, so you can merge it with the Project Airbus A318/A319?

Thank you for any answer, I really appreciate your work!

Kind regards,

Sebastian

1) No, it might be possible in a simpler aircraft, but in a medium sized like this it would have problems and might cause the external view to drop fps. We like to see us proven wrong on this but we don;t know how to get this done and still stay at 35 fps.

2) Not now, we'll see.

3) It's fully FSX, no converted FS2004 so the VC is a separate MDL. I have no idea on the Project Airbus models though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mathijs.I really can't wait to get my hands on this beauty; I count every single day when it will be release. About the FPS i don't know what to say .BRILLIENT

Mathijs you once told me about the modeling APU sound in the exterior view, can you please give some info, as when you go for a exterior check the first and most loud noise you will here is the APU.I hope it modeled as it adds to realism.

That's it, Aerosoft has given us a perfect AIRBUS. Can't wait to fly it

Thanking You

Sameer R Mankame

I am not promising that. It needs a lot of additional code and that causes a drop in fps. And fps are holy in this project.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mathijs,

Things are looking great and this August looks like a watershed month for FS.

I have one question,

On approach, SOP is managed mode for speed. Airbus uses a philosophy of constant Ground Speed rather than IAS like Boeing. Therefore, IAS will keep changing on finals to maintain GS depending on the winds. Is this modeled by your bus as well?

Cheers,

Dinshaw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Mathjis!

Thank you for anwering so quick!

When the VC is a seperate MDL file, it is definitely possible to merge it

with the PAirbus A318/A319....however I still hope Aerosoft will do them

after releasing the A320/321...

Kind regards,

Sebastian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Mathjis!

Thank you for anwering so quick!

When the VC is a seperate MDL file, it is definitely possible to merge it

with the PAirbus A318/A319....however I still hope Aerosoft will do them

after releasing the A320/321...

Kind regards,

Sebastian

But first an A330 would be better, even if they must correct some things in the vc then, but i'd like an long distance jet which has such brilliant grafics as the aerosoft airbus!

Those not so complex systems would be great for some long distances, too because there isn't so much which can brake down while i'm not at home and the aircraft flys alone^^

by the way, does someone know how long the A320 and the A321 can stay in the air?

regards

Emi

Link to post
Share on other sites

But first an A330 would be better, even if they must correct some things in the vc then, but i'd like an long distance jet which has such brilliant grafics as the aerosoft airbus!

Those not so complex systems would be great for some long distances, too because there isn't so much which can brake down while i'm not at home and the aircraft flys alone^^

by the way, does someone know how long the A320 and the A321 can stay in the air?

regards

Emi

well for 321 it depends on if it have 2 extra tanks on 2900Liters eatch or just standart as maximum 24,050 L (5,290 imp gal; 6,350 US gal) standard and optional 30,030 L (6,610 imp gal; 7,930 US gal) --> (wikipedia data) Then find your calculator mean i have heard you burn 3 ton of fuel for each on 1 hour. but hard to say exactly becaus depends on engine type and wind. i can say now i found my pilot book wher captains signs are and i fly from aar to tfs wher we fly for 5 huors and 15 min and spendt 16 ton out of 19.3 ton loaded to the 321

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now even I am blown away by this. Honestly.

Framerates have always been a major concern in this project. Where it is very hard to optimize scenery, there is a lot to gain in aircraft modeling. Our goal has always been to stay close to the default Airbus of FSX, say not more then 25% below that in FPS. And while we are no adding the final bits to the daily build I was able to see how fast this bus is. The images were made on my own machine that was running loads of other apps at the time. Almost the complete MS office was open, browser windows and I was even playing the last episode of TopGear on the second screen (I have never seen closing applications made FSX seriously faster so I never care). The scenery was our new Kos (love that one) and I was using pretty high settings, real weather yada yada yada.

I attach 4 images and will make very little comments.

  • Default Airbus VC, 22,329 polygons, average framerate -> 37 fps
  • Our Airbus VC, 173,313 polygons, average framerate -> 41 fps
  • Default Airbus external, 49.902 polygons, average framerate -> 47 fps
  • Our Airbus external, 102,221 polygons, average framerate -> 37 fps
    Few comments...
    • XML might be a total bitch to debug, it's most certainly not slower then C++ in FSX.
    • Using highly skilled and trained artist pays off big time in aircraft development (all raise your glass and salute Stefan). He did explain what he did right and MS did wrong but after mentioning "cleaner mapping" I sort of lost contact.)
    • We got ourselves and aircraft that will not slow FSX down in complex environments.
    • Adding more polygons to the external model and making it shade itself hurts. We seen this in the F-16 and Catalina. If you disable self shading the default and our bus are much closer in fps.
    • The default Airbus got a very weird cockpit, almost no sight line is correct.
    • Promises a lot for the CRJ as that one is more optimized.
    • This is more then a few comments...

Hi Mathjis,

I don't think enough people have congratulated you and your team for those truely stunning frame rate figures. Of course they intended to so on their behalf, can I just say, well done. Very, very well done!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it confirmed and final that no wingflex will be available? According to some earlier posts, it seems so... Very sad. Such a high quality, such a promising addon missing out this featue... I thought I will soon be buying a dream airplane, nearly pre-ordered, but if it's confirmed that no wingflex will be simulated I rather miss out this Airbus and wait for another airplane. I hope it's not true, and wingflex will be included!

Zsolt

  • Downvote 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it confirmed and final that no wingflex will be available? According to some earlier posts, it seems so... Very sad. Such a high quality, such a promising addon missing out this featue... I thought I will soon be buying a dream airplane, nearly pre-ordered, but if it's confirmed that no wingflex will be simulated I rather miss out this Airbus and wait for another airplane. I hope it's not true, and wingflex will be included!

Zsolt

This has been dealt with many times already on this forum and that is probably why someone has already marked you post down. Yes it is confirmed that wing flex will not be included. I am sorry you will miss out on this plane but perhaps you are being a bit narrow minded if wing flex is going to be a deal breaker for you. Do you realise that the wing flex you see on many of the addons out there is greatly exaggerated just so it can be seen?

If wing flex were accurately modelled on this aircraft it would be a movement of only a few pixels and the hit on frame rates would be very significant. As this product is designed to be as easy as possible on the rescources required to run it, it is better to leave out wing flex altogether. I'm sure the intended user would rather see smooth operation rather than stuttering wing flex on his less than top of the range machine.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only say wow right now. It seems Aerosoft is going to deliver a truly great product indeed, and for this I want to deeply congratulate them. You have all done an awesome job to provide an Airbus simulation that does more than the default, looks vastly better, but runs as good. I'm not sure how you guys keep pulling off these truly great products, but I hope you will continue to do so for a very long time still. I can only hope you will consider doing at least an A319, since this model is so very often operated. Alas, I will be just as happy if you will not do a A319 model. It seems to me the Aerosoft A320/A321 is one of those products that will end up setting an example, like the PMDG boeing 747; an aircraft that won't be easily forgotten!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it confirmed and final that no wingflex will be available? According to some earlier posts, it seems so... Very sad. Such a high quality, such a promising addon missing out this featue... I thought I will soon be buying a dream airplane, nearly pre-ordered, but if it's confirmed that no wingflex will be simulated I rather miss out this Airbus and wait for another airplane. I hope it's not true, and wingflex will be included!

Zsolt

Oh c'mon!! Five hundred posts about wingflex... Have you ever been in a 320? Have you ever seen strong wingflex like a 747? :wacko:

You need to fly not to look for 3 pixels wing movement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mathijs,

Things are looking great and this August looks like a watershed month for FS.

I have one question,

On approach, SOP is managed mode for speed. Airbus uses a philosophy of constant Ground Speed rather than IAS like Boeing. Therefore, IAS will keep changing on finals to maintain GS depending on the winds. Is this modeled by your bus as well?

Cheers,

Dinshaw.

More or less, our VNAV systems are simplified as they are by far the hardest bit to get to grips with for a customer who just upgrades from a simple aircraft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it confirmed and final that no wingflex will be available? According to some earlier posts, it seems so... Very sad. Such a high quality, such a promising addon missing out this featue... I thought I will soon be buying a dream airplane, nearly pre-ordered, but if it's confirmed that no wingflex will be simulated I rather miss out this Airbus and wait for another airplane. I hope it's not true, and wingflex will be included!

Zsolt

Oh the pain...the pain...wacko.gif

In all seriousness, may we please drop this wing-flex business? It's been thoroughly addressed by the developers and many posters on this forum, and I have developed a rapidly growing admiration for Mathijs and Co., who continue to exhibit incredible patience and fortitude in the face of the blindly persistant ones here.

I look forward to purchasing this Airbus as soon as it's availble.

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



×
×
  • Create New...