Aerosoft Airbus X - Preview

[vali 31]

This is how it looks on my Nokia E71:

[Guest vibraman]

You can have your opinion, but you do contradict yourself. If you fly as close to the real one as possible, you wouldn't fly with a 2D. Besides that, Aerosoft made it clear this is for a specific target, which you're obviously not.

It's not Vibramans opinion people react to, but the repeating of the same all over again. I am sorry, but it is a bit like my son, who - when I tell him no - tries in different ways to get what he wants. Sometimes products will come out that don't cater to your needs; don't buy it! And the discussion is irrelevant anyway, because Aerosoft has announced an upgrade. So better wait and see what that entails.... Might be the answer to your prayers

you repeat the same thing all over again: how wonderful this aircraft is and how amazing it looks...it´s boring too..you don´t get what real simulation means.

it has also nothing to do with flying 2d or vc panel.it has something to do how you manage to fly from A to B and lern the technique of an aircraft. if you can open a window it´s nice but useless for flying.even you must see that.but i will stop now because some of you really have no idea what flying in a sim like fsx can be and there´s no reason why you should.but maybe you keep something in mind: if somebody has a different opnion than you there´s no need to compare him to a death horse and be unobjective.

p.s i will buy this aircraft even if i still have the same opinion like i already said, because i simply miss a airbus for fsx no matter how realistic or not it is

[Diesel10 2]

but i will stop now...

Thank you.

[Jeroen Rutgers-Herenius 167]

you repeat the same thing all over again: how wonderful this aircraft is and how amazing it looks...it´s boring too..you don´t get what real simulation means.

Where in this thread did I mention how great this bus looks?

But again, that isn't what this is about. You simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that there are simmers that like to fly less complicated planes. They are a part of our community and that is where Aerosoft sees an opportunity to sell a product. I like flying pmdg, I have the MD11, JS41 and 747. I also have the Maddog and - less complicated - the pic 737 and airbus series. All with FS2crew to add realism. But for me it comes down to my mood. When I come home from work, I sometimes don't feel like going through the motions. I just want to load a flight - skip the fs2crew checks - and just fly a bit. Sometimes I even lack the time to do it "proper" If I would I'd have to end the sim before I even taxied out to the runway.

The misconception of this bus is that it is a default plane. It isn't, it does simulate systems, just not to the extend that you have to be an engineer.

[Guest Hirth]

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 bird is focused on the pilots left seat) but what the pilot sees and usees is a fmc WITH sid´s and stars as an example, this you don´t do...poor aerosoft...you missed the chance to be the first one who makes a good serious airbus for fsx. the way it seems now is a very very good modell with lots of gimmicks but not to be used for serious online flying.

tarik

Hehe you are so right!

+1

[Alvaro 33]

You can have your opinion, but you do contradict yourself. If you fly as close to the real one as possible, you wouldn't fly with a 2D. Besides that, Aerosoft made it clear this is for a specific target, which you're obviously not.

It's not Vibramans opinion people react to, but the repeating of the same all over again. I am sorry, but it is a bit like my son, who - when I tell him no - tries in different ways to get what he wants. Sometimes products will come out that don't cater to your needs; don't buy it! And the discussion is irrelevant anyway, because Aerosoft has announced an upgrade. So better wait and see what that entails.... Might be the answer to your prayers

I wish I had a multimonitor option to fly. I bought Track ir and even with that, for me it is horrible to fly in VC mode. I know it is not the mos realistic way to fly, but I think it is more important to simulate the procedures in each phase of flying than fly a direct GPS route in VC. Each one flies like he wants. I have an opinion about simulation and this bus does not give me at this moment what I expect, nothing more, nothing less

[Shaun Fletcher 570]

I will not buy this aircraft because of the absence of 2D cockpit and the absence of depth in systems.

Regards

I'd have to agree with the hypocrisy of that one, in real life you only get a 3D cockpit.

[saprintz 82]

it has nothing to do with crying...they said focused on the pilots seat...fmc is more pilot seat then all the useless other stuff. i´m not talking only about sid and stars the programming of the fmc is one of the main aspects while flying. more then opening a window, pull out a jump seat or table which is completley useless. the fmc is not. so all functions of the fmc which are possible to simulate should be in there, because this focused on the pilot flying the aircraft. if aersosoft would have said we focus on funny gimmicks and good looking vc and modell i would not say anaything.

Emphasizing pilot duties is a lot different than modeling *only* pilot duties. Read the thread's 1st post. The outside-the-aircraft features you so casually dismiss are important to a lot of the audience.

*** This gets lost in all the SIDS/STARS stuff: No Aerosoft A32X pilot *has to* program a single waypoint into the MCDU. Default flight-plans are the main idea. Or don't even bother w/ that if you don't want....

Yet if you *want* to add the SID/STAR waypoints, you can do that. The functionality to do that (manually) is there; and it was only later added to the feature list. Added several months in, not so many ago. And it was a significant undertaking. Read the older forums. So is there any way to see this *at all* in a more positive light?

I understand that to keep hearing an answer you don't like must be frustrating. (It must frustrate others to keep reading the same comments too, given your mark-downs.) But this SID/STAR thing has been beaten to death. Really. Is it *that* big of a deal, given the realities that have been mentioned? (That the route / procedures are often programmed manually, and that they're frequently abandoned because of ATC and the inherently dynamic flight environments?)

How often do you think an Airbus touches down at the time its loaded flightplan says it will?

So let's stop acting as if MCDU SID's/STAR's capabilities were the aircraft's main automation advances, some fundamental-to-flying feature you're being denied. No, the main automation advances were the protections, flight control laws, limits, etc... (Just TRY to stall it. Good luck!) But we are all still *piloting* an aircraft after all, right? Not just managing, as if it's a Windows7 upgrade. Many, many pilots feel strongly about automation over-dependence, and yes, even some Airbus pilots who use a lot of it. (I live w/in 15 miles of AOPA HQ. Highly varied crowd over there.) The sentiment is that if a pilot is *that* dependent upon strict procedure, it's a little dangerous, because the ability to adapt may become rusty. Thankfully, in reality, it's not all as strictly adhered to as some in these forums may say. Consider... if you've got an Airbus waiting in line 20 miles from KDCA, with some Boeings up there too, does the controller give the Airbus priority just because it's more automated and has flightplan procedures, fuel-economy, etc., strictly punched in? No way. They must all ultimately *fly*.

Please, just remember... you the customer may *still choose* to fly the aircraft as strictly or as loosely as you want. A wide range of people will be pleased. No, not everyone. But perhaps a little perspective is in order with this SID/STAR issue?

[Guest vibraman]

Emphasizing pilot duties is a lot different than modeling *only* pilot duties. Read the thread's 1st post. The outside-the-aircraft features you so casually dismiss are important to a lot of the audience.

*** This gets lost in all the SIDS/STARS stuff: No Aerosoft A32X pilot *has to* program a single waypoint into the MCDU. Default flight-plans are the main idea. Or don't even bother w/ that if you don't want....

Yet if you *want* to add the SID/STAR waypoints, you can do that. The functionality to do that (manually) is there; and it was only later added to the feature list. Added several months in, not so many ago. And it was a significant undertaking. Read the older forums. So is there any way to see this *at all* in a more positive light?

I understand that to keep hearing an answer you don't like must be frustrating. (It must frustrate others to keep reading the same comments too, given your mark-downs.) But this SID/STAR thing has been beaten to death. Really. Is it *that* big of a deal, given the realities that have been mentioned? (That the route / procedures are often programmed manually, and that they're frequently abandoned because of ATC and the inherently dynamic flight environments?)

How often do you think an Airbus touches down at the time its loaded flightplan says it will?

So let's stop acting as if MCDU SID's/STAR's capabilities were the aircraft's main automation advances, some fundamental-to-flying feature you're being denied. No, the main automation advances were the protections, flight control laws, limits, etc... (Just TRY to stall it. Good luck!) But we are all still *piloting* an aircraft after all, right? Not just managing, as if it's a Windows7 upgrade. Many, many pilots feel strongly about automation over-dependence, and yes, even some Airbus pilots who use a lot of it. (I live w/in 15 miles of AOPA HQ. Highly varied crowd over there.) The sentiment is that if a pilot is *that* dependent upon strict procedure, it's a little dangerous, because the ability to adapt may become rusty. Thankfully, in reality, it's not all as strictly adhered to as some in these forums may say. Consider... if you've got an Airbus waiting in line 20 miles from KDCA, with some Boeings up there too, does the controller give the Airbus priority just because it's more automated and has flightplan procedures, fuel-economy, etc., strictly punched in? No way. They must all ultimately *fly*.

Please, just remember... you the customer may *still choose* to fly the aircraft as strictly or as loosely as you want. A wide range of people will be pleased. No, not everyone. But perhaps a little perspective is in order with this SID/STAR issue?

you still don´t get my point. it´s not only about sid´s and stars. e.g default flightplans. every serious simmer knows how bad the default flightplanner is.even aerosoft knows that or why do you think you sell so many copies of the flighsimcommander? what about a good vnav? less important for a pilot then switching out a table? the frustrating point is not that i hear an answer i don´t want to hear over and over again.the frustrating point to me is that aersosoft has the possibility to do a great aircraft but refuses to do it perfect.

if people like to come home and fly without learning or reading a lot of manuals that´s fine.you can use the default airbus or you can even use the most complicated addon or this airbus x. if you don´t want to pogram a fmc or do any flightplanning...or change any waypoint from the plan...fine no problem, you just need to know how to start the engines and you can go whereever and however you want.so this is really a bad argument and the developer should know this.sorry to me this is just an bad excuse why you don´t pay that much attention to the simmers that would like to have more system depth instead of eye candies. i don´t want to talk about release dates but from the post of matthies in april he should have been dead now (he said april or i die)...i don´t want him to die

if you will do all this things in a advanced version it would be great and as i said i will buy it in any case...even the basic version but why you say that all the important fmc stuff is not important for real flying. all this sounds just like a bad excuse to me, sorry. you say so many pilots don´t use sids and stars for flying...that maybe right for sure but at least they can put them in the fmc if they like. this is just an example, you can take the same for vnav lnav etc.it´s simply great if you have the option of great system depth and realism so the pilot can decide if he wants just to fly or complex simming.

[simon747 98]

you still don´t get my point. it´s not only about sid´s and stars. e.g default flightplans. every serious simmer knows how bad the default flightplanner is.even aerosoft knows that or why do you think you sell so many copies of the flighsimcommander? what about a good vnav? less important for a pilot then switching out a table? the frustrating point is not that i hear an answer i don´t want to hear over and over again.the frustrating point to me is that aersosoft has the possibility to do a great aircraft but refuses to do it perfect.

if people like to come home and fly without learning or reading a lot of manuals that´s fine.you can use the default airbus or you can even use the most complicated addon or this airbus x. if you don´t want to pogram a fmc or do any flightplanning...or change any waypoint from the plan...fine no problem, you just need to know how to start the engines and you can go whereever and however you want.so this is really a bad argument and the developer should know this.sorry to me this is just an bad excuse why you don´t pay that much attention to the simmers that would like to have more system depth instead of eye candies. i don´t want to talk about release dates but from the post of matthies in april he should have been dead now (he said april or i die)...i don´t want him to die

if you will do all this things in a advanced version it would be great and as i said i will buy it in any case...even the basic version but why you say that all the important fmc stuff is not important for real flying. all this sounds just like a bad excuse to me, sorry. you say so many pilots don´t use sids and stars for flying...that maybe right for sure but at least they can put them in the fmc if they like. this is just an example, you can take the same for vnav lnav etc.it´s simply great if you have the option of great system depth and realism so the pilot can decide if he wants just to fly or complex simming.

Well just leave it as it is then. You can wait for the advnaced version; so you are all set? No point in complainung anymore what has been discussed previsouly. And I am a basic simmer and I dont really want to fly the defualt bus thank-you:) Thats whay this is product is for me....now can we all talk about something else? World Cup, What great flights we have done; geez louise!! lol

Simon

[simon747 98]

you still don´t get my point. it´s not only about sid´s and stars. e.g default flightplans. every serious simmer knows how bad the default flightplanner is.even aerosoft knows that or why do you think you sell so many copies of the flighsimcommander? what about a good vnav? less important for a pilot then switching out a table? the frustrating point is not that i hear an answer i don´t want to hear over and over again.the frustrating point to me is that aersosoft has the possibility to do a great aircraft but refuses to do it perfect.

if people like to come home and fly without learning or reading a lot of manuals that´s fine.you can use the default airbus or you can even use the most complicated addon or this airbus x. if you don´t want to pogram a fmc or do any flightplanning...or change any waypoint from the plan...fine no problem, you just need to know how to start the engines and you can go whereever and however you want.so this is really a bad argument and the developer should know this.sorry to me this is just an bad excuse why you don´t pay that much attention to the simmers that would like to have more system depth instead of eye candies. i don´t want to talk about release dates but from the post of matthies in april he should have been dead now (he said april or i die)...i don´t want him to die

if you will do all this things in a advanced version it would be great and as i said i will buy it in any case...even the basic version but why you say that all the important fmc stuff is not important for real flying. all this sounds just like a bad excuse to me, sorry. you say so many pilots don´t use sids and stars for flying...that maybe right for sure but at least they can put them in the fmc if they like. this is just an example, you can take the same for vnav lnav etc.it´s simply great if you have the option of great system depth and realism so the pilot can decide if he wants just to fly or complex simming.

Well just leave it as it is then. You can wait for the advnaced version; so you are all set? No point in complainung anymore what has been discussed previsouly. And I am a basic simmer and I dont really want to fly the defualt bus thank-you:) Thats whay this is product is for me....now can we all talk about something else? World Cup, What great flights we have done; geez louise!! lol

Simon

[Guest Hirth]

you still don´t get my point. it´s not only about sid´s and stars. e.g default flightplans. every serious simmer knows how bad the default flightplanner is.even aerosoft knows that or why do you think you sell so many copies of the flighsimcommander? what about a good vnav? less important for a pilot then switching out a table? the frustrating point is not that i hear an answer i don´t want to hear over and over again.the frustrating point to me is that aersosoft has the possibility to do a great aircraft but refuses to do it perfect.

if people like to come home and fly without learning or reading a lot of manuals that´s fine.you can use the default airbus or you can even use the most complicated addon or this airbus x. if you don´t want to pogram a fmc or do any flightplanning...or change any waypoint from the plan...fine no problem, you just need to know how to start the engines and you can go whereever and however you want.so this is really a bad argument and the developer should know this.sorry to me this is just an bad excuse why you don´t pay that much attention to the simmers that would like to have more system depth instead of eye candies. i don´t want to talk about release dates but from the post of matthies in april he should have been dead now (he said april or i die)...i don´t want him to die

if you will do all this things in a advanced version it would be great and as i said i will buy it in any case...even the basic version but why you say that all the important fmc stuff is not important for real flying. all this sounds just like a bad excuse to me, sorry. you say so many pilots don´t use sids and stars for flying...that maybe right for sure but at least they can put them in the fmc if they like. this is just an example, you can take the same for vnav lnav etc.it´s simply great if you have the option of great system depth and realism so the pilot can decide if he wants just to fly or complex simming.

Yes that's it!

I don't Know where a Pilot how is approaching at Frankfurt will have the time to insert all STAR or transition waypoints by hand into MCDU.

I am talking about online flying and there are many users how want to fly this bird online!

So the easyest way to stop the SID/STAR questions is, just to add this function in the bus!

[Guest Hirth]

you still don´t get my point. it´s not only about sid´s and stars. e.g default flightplans. every serious simmer knows how bad the default flightplanner is.even aerosoft knows that or why do you think you sell so many copies of the flighsimcommander? what about a good vnav? less important for a pilot then switching out a table? the frustrating point is not that i hear an answer i don´t want to hear over and over again.the frustrating point to me is that aersosoft has the possibility to do a great aircraft but refuses to do it perfect.

if people like to come home and fly without learning or reading a lot of manuals that´s fine.you can use the default airbus or you can even use the most complicated addon or this airbus x. if you don´t want to pogram a fmc or do any flightplanning...or change any waypoint from the plan...fine no problem, you just need to know how to start the engines and you can go whereever and however you want.so this is really a bad argument and the developer should know this.sorry to me this is just an bad excuse why you don´t pay that much attention to the simmers that would like to have more system depth instead of eye candies. i don´t want to talk about release dates but from the post of matthies in april he should have been dead now (he said april or i die)...i don´t want him to die

if you will do all this things in a advanced version it would be great and as i said i will buy it in any case...even the basic version but why you say that all the important fmc stuff is not important for real flying. all this sounds just like a bad excuse to me, sorry. you say so many pilots don´t use sids and stars for flying...that maybe right for sure but at least they can put them in the fmc if they like. this is just an example, you can take the same for vnav lnav etc.it´s simply great if you have the option of great system depth and realism so the pilot can decide if he wants just to fly or complex simming.

Yes that's it!

I don't Know where a Pilot how is approaching at Frankfurt will have the time to insert all STAR or transition waypoints by hand into MCDU.

I am talking about online flying and there are many users how want to fly this bird online!

So the easyest way to stop the SID/STAR questions is, just to add this function in the bus!

[Guest Hirth]

you still don´t get my point. it´s not only about sid´s and stars. e.g default flightplans. every serious simmer knows how bad the default flightplanner is.even aerosoft knows that or why do you think you sell so many copies of the flighsimcommander? what about a good vnav? less important for a pilot then switching out a table? the frustrating point is not that i hear an answer i don´t want to hear over and over again.the frustrating point to me is that aersosoft has the possibility to do a great aircraft but refuses to do it perfect.

if people like to come home and fly without learning or reading a lot of manuals that´s fine.you can use the default airbus or you can even use the most complicated addon or this airbus x. if you don´t want to pogram a fmc or do any flightplanning...or change any waypoint from the plan...fine no problem, you just need to know how to start the engines and you can go whereever and however you want.so this is really a bad argument and the developer should know this.sorry to me this is just an bad excuse why you don´t pay that much attention to the simmers that would like to have more system depth instead of eye candies. i don´t want to talk about release dates but from the post of matthies in april he should have been dead now (he said april or i die)...i don´t want him to die

if you will do all this things in a advanced version it would be great and as i said i will buy it in any case...even the basic version but why you say that all the important fmc stuff is not important for real flying. all this sounds just like a bad excuse to me, sorry. you say so many pilots don´t use sids and stars for flying...that maybe right for sure but at least they can put them in the fmc if they like. this is just an example, you can take the same for vnav lnav etc.it´s simply great if you have the option of great system depth and realism so the pilot can decide if he wants just to fly or complex simming.

Yes that's it!

I don't Know where a Pilot how is approaching at Frankfurt will have the time to insert all STAR or transition waypoints by hand into MCDU.

I am talking about online flying and there are many users how want to fly this bird online!

So the easyest way to stop the SID/STAR questions is, just to add this function in the bus!

[Guest Hirth]

you still don´t get my point. it´s not only about sid´s and stars. e.g default flightplans. every serious simmer knows how bad the default flightplanner is.even aerosoft knows that or why do you think you sell so many copies of the flighsimcommander? what about a good vnav? less important for a pilot then switching out a table? the frustrating point is not that i hear an answer i don´t want to hear over and over again.the frustrating point to me is that aersosoft has the possibility to do a great aircraft but refuses to do it perfect.

if people like to come home and fly without learning or reading a lot of manuals that´s fine.you can use the default airbus or you can even use the most complicated addon or this airbus x. if you don´t want to pogram a fmc or do any flightplanning...or change any waypoint from the plan...fine no problem, you just need to know how to start the engines and you can go whereever and however you want.so this is really a bad argument and the developer should know this.sorry to me this is just an bad excuse why you don´t pay that much attention to the simmers that would like to have more system depth instead of eye candies. i don´t want to talk about release dates but from the post of matthies in april he should have been dead now (he said april or i die)...i don´t want him to die

if you will do all this things in a advanced version it would be great and as i said i will buy it in any case...even the basic version but why you say that all the important fmc stuff is not important for real flying. all this sounds just like a bad excuse to me, sorry. you say so many pilots don´t use sids and stars for flying...that maybe right for sure but at least they can put them in the fmc if they like. this is just an example, you can take the same for vnav lnav etc.it´s simply great if you have the option of great system depth and realism so the pilot can decide if he wants just to fly or complex simming.

Yes that's it!

I don't Know where a Pilot how is approaching at Frankfurt will have the time to insert all STAR or transition waypoints by hand into MCDU.

I am talking about online flying and there are many users how want to fly this bird online!

So the easyest way to stop the SID/STAR questions is, just to add this function in the bus!

[Guest Hirth]

you still don´t get my point. it´s not only about sid´s and stars. e.g default flightplans. every serious simmer knows how bad the default flightplanner is.even aerosoft knows that or why do you think you sell so many copies of the flighsimcommander? what about a good vnav? less important for a pilot then switching out a table? the frustrating point is not that i hear an answer i don´t want to hear over and over again.the frustrating point to me is that aersosoft has the possibility to do a great aircraft but refuses to do it perfect.

if people like to come home and fly without learning or reading a lot of manuals that´s fine.you can use the default airbus or you can even use the most complicated addon or this airbus x. if you don´t want to pogram a fmc or do any flightplanning...or change any waypoint from the plan...fine no problem, you just need to know how to start the engines and you can go whereever and however you want.so this is really a bad argument and the developer should know this.sorry to me this is just an bad excuse why you don´t pay that much attention to the simmers that would like to have more system depth instead of eye candies. i don´t want to talk about release dates but from the post of matthies in april he should have been dead now (he said april or i die)...i don´t want him to die

if you will do all this things in a advanced version it would be great and as i said i will buy it in any case...even the basic version but why you say that all the important fmc stuff is not important for real flying. all this sounds just like a bad excuse to me, sorry. you say so many pilots don´t use sids and stars for flying...that maybe right for sure but at least they can put them in the fmc if they like. this is just an example, you can take the same for vnav lnav etc.it´s simply great if you have the option of great system depth and realism so the pilot can decide if he wants just to fly or complex simming.

Yes that's it!

I don't Know where a Pilot how is approaching at Frankfurt will have the time to insert all STAR or transition waypoints by hand into MCDU.

I am talking about online flying and there are many users how want to fly this bird online!

So the easyest way to stop the SID/STAR questions is, just to add this function in the bus!

[simon747 98]

Yes that's it!

I don't Know where a Pilot how is approaching at Frankfurt will have the time to insert all STAR or transition waypoints by hand into MCDU.

I am talking about online flying and there are many users how want to fly this bird online!

So the easyest way to stop the SID/STAR questions is, just to add this function in the bus!

Don't you listen; they will add that hopefully in the advnaced version; not in this one....if you guys keep it up we may never get the airplane altogther! The problem is solved as there will be two versions and everyone is happy. So really whats the point of going over and over and over the same thing!!

[bionicCrab 7]

Hirth: Uhmm you do realize it's the job of Frankfurt ATC is to take you off the STAR in order to expedite traffic....

And for the rest of you... GOOGLE VASFMC...

[mopperle 4162]

Hirth: somebody who is spamming this thread by posting five times the same should be banned for quite a while!

Otto

[Bruce Hamilton 97]

its so stupid in my eyes...

i will buy this aircraft even if i still have the same opinion...

What is stupid is buying an airbus you know won't satisfy you. Perhaps Airsimmer or Wilco are more to your liking.

[saprintz 82]

the frustrating point to me is that aersosoft has the possibility to do a great aircraft but refuses to do it perfect.

if people like to come home and fly without learning or reading a lot of manuals that´s fine.you can use the default airbus or you can even use the most complicated addon or this airbus x. if you don´t want to pogram a fmc or do any flightplanning...or change any waypoint from the plan...fine no problem, you just need to know how to start the engines and you can go whereever and however you want.so this is really a bad argument and the developer should know this.sorry to me this is just an bad excuse why you don´t pay that much attention to the simmers that would like to have more system depth instead of eye candies.

Hi vibraman. Yes, I do get your point, and the heart of it is simply that features you want are not included, and those features are fundamental to your enjoyment, so you're frustrated....

You say Aerosoft "could" do the aircraft you want, but "refuses to do it perfect." How can you so easily forget that features mean consequences... as to schedule, cost, price, and so on? Seems a little naive and almost insulting to say Aerosoft just "refuses," as if there's a sadistic motive. Nope. Probably just your inner "I want" part manifesting... and everyone knows that's worst when it's for something otherwise so close to what you want.

The thing is, many people have their own "I want" lists (even the developers). The sum of all you've said is: any feature that is 1) widely enough wanted, 2) not plainly a mere secondary aircraft function, and that 3) has been done before is vulnerable to nearly a demand.

And "You've done it before" means what exactly? That it necessarily takes a lot less time 2nd time through, and will cost very little? Neither. It's economically naive to assume. These are not modular aircraft where parts of systems can be easily exchanged, as if Legos.

You admit you fly in one way, and others in other ways. Great! Which should mean... things "fundamental" to other peoples' style of flying are just as valid as those fundamental to *your* style, right? If Aerosoft tried to make the A32X model everything that's not secondary, wanted by enough people, and has been done before, imagine... it would soon have a VERY complex and costly (and probably unprofitable) project on its hands.

Here's the bothersome thing: you continue to speak as if *no* MCDU capabilities beyond default flight-planning are even included. Haven't you kept up? That is FAR from the truth. It's not implemented how you want it, no, it will take more time, but you can still get the result you want. Not ideal, but apparently the "balance" point of this product.

No product can please everyone, and it seems you may be on that fringe. That's too bad. This is all just a hobby that's supposed to provide fun, after all.

[saprintz 82]

Yes that's it!

I don't Know where a Pilot how is approaching at Frankfurt will have the time to insert all STAR or transition waypoints by hand into MCDU.

I am talking about online flying and there are many users how want to fly this bird online!

So the easyest way to stop the SID/STAR questions is, just to add this function in the bus!

No one online can fly into Frankfurt unless they have electronic SIDS/STARS and a "yellow brick road" displayed on a glass ND? Serious question.

[Guest Hirth]

No one online can fly into Frankfurt unless they have electronic SIDS/STARS and a "yellow brick road" displayed on a glass ND? Serious question.

sure, but that's not the way they do in real!

Come on guys, everyone knows that it is a Standard way to fly with an airliner!

If you do not like it, we can also talk about Arc or VOR\DME approach!

Will it be possible with the bus?

[simon747 98]

What is stupid is buying an airbus you know won't satisfy you. Perhaps Airsimmer or Wilco are more to your liking.

Nicely said and agreed!!!

[The Dude 6537]

Aerosoft Airbus X Normal Procedures 02: Preliminary Cockpit Preparation video now available: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=XKLT4SDTcek

Note the sounds. What you hear is NOT the engines starting, it's just the cooling fans in the panel. They are very very loud. In fact, while in cruise you hear more cooling fans then wind noise or engine noise. Just try explaining that to new customers.. archhhh.

Hi Mathijs,

first of all, thumbs up for doing an exellent job. I have to correct you on the cooling fan soundset though. I have the pleasure of sitting in an A320 Family cockpit almost 10 hours a day. The noise the cooling fan(s) make is spot on for the older models of the Bus. The one Aerosoft is modeling, newer generation with LCD's and such, are actually quite silent. Only during electrical power switching do the fans, low speed/high speed, make some noise. But I am just nitpicking here. Keep up the good work!!!

Cheers, Jean