Aerosoft Airbus X - Preview

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

At 200km/hr, aerodynamic breaking may be very effective, but the aircraft typically has to slow down to 45km/hr or less before it can turn off the runway safely. At those speeds, wheel breaks are necessary - and surface contamination becomes important.

Also, you drive Bugattis? Some people have all the luck.

Yeah, okay. But that would cause the braking distance on a wet runway a bit longer. It enforces what I say, why does a wet or snowy runway increases braking distance so much if aerobraking is more effective then wheel brakes?

And yes, I am lucky. But the guys with the hyper cars do like my light Elise that has no steering /brake assist and no electronics, just a lot of horses and rubber. You would be amazed how many cars you get to drive if you are just a nice guy. Look if you buy a Porsche for 150.000 Euro you can drive it fast, but there is always some idiot is a 35k trackday car that's faster. Letting others drive it and go "goddamn this thing goes like stink" really boosts your ego.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Looking at discrete trends is a good place to start with the subject of stopping an aircraft. A-10A charts happen to be within arms reach, it's a light aircraft relative to medium/large airliners, and it has huge drag surfaces; so I'll use it as an example. At 50,000lbs; a clean A-10 requires ~2,150ft to stop on a dry runway with flaps and speed brakes fully extended. At an identical Landing Index; with flaps and speed brakes fully retracted, the distance is only increased to ~2,800ft (~30% increase). A couple of reasons for this, and a good place to start is drag force. In the world Aeronautics, we're used to looking at coefficients since they are a great point of comparison between aerodynamic bodies (similar to BMEP in internal combustion engines). But, we're presently concerned with Newton's Second Law, so force is the order of the day. When air is the only fluid involved, Drag force is defined as:

Fd = 0.5*Air_Density*Cross_sectional_Area*Cd*Velocity^2

You can quickly see that the only two dynamic variables during a single landing run are Cd and Velocity. At approach/landing speeds, Cd is primarily a function of Reynolds Number.

Rn = Air_Density*Characteristic_Length*Velocity/Absolute_Air_Viscosity

Trends based on Reynolds number tend vary by order of magnitude (10^1, 10^2, .... , 10^N) and between 20kts & 150kts, there's not going to be much change. So, Drag Force is heavily dependent on velocity. This makes drag devices relatively effective at high speed, but exponentially worse as speed decreases. This is where ground interaction comes into play..and where the physics gets really complex. But, the good news is that we all have a qualitative understanding of weather conditions on vehicle performance....hopefully not too many cars were smashed in the process.

In brief; empirical data and the associated physics (causality) tend to support the notion that drag devices provide a relatively large contribution initially, but stopping power is primarily dependent on surface/wheel interaction.

Riiiiight... if I understand this (at all), it means that I underestimate the shift in effectiveness from aerobraking to rubber on tarmac braking.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

just add shockwave light redux... perfect!

mmm no. They look better at the light source, but they do not actually light up anything. And as we work from the cockpit and not the external point of view we feel it is more important to see what you are about to hit then if the landing light has a nice glow (even if the air is dry).

[Paul_Smith 8]

Yeah, okay. But that would cause the braking distance on a wet runway a bit longer. It enforces what I say, why does a wet or snowy runway increases braking distance so much if aerobraking is more effective then wheel brakes?

On landing, aerobraking (spoliers, flaps, reverse thrust etc.) will get you from 140 down to 70 knots in roughly the same distance regardless of runway condition, after that, they have little effect and it is all down to friction between the tyres and the surface. It is the same reason that the spoiler on the bugati does not extend until you are above 70mph (120kmh), below that speed, it has no effect.

[Mudman 5]

Hi,

it might be a very specific question, but has any of the beta testers ever tried using the Saitek panels (Multi, Switch and Radio-Panel) with this Airbus?

I'm just asking, because 90% of the payware addon planes don't or just partly work with them. I'm still searching for one to properly use with them (with a little more system depth than the default planes).

Mudman

[Emi 5161]

when are the translated manuals be released? are they going to come directly with the download when the bus gets released in a few days, or do we have to wait?

[Emi 5161]

Hi,

it might be a very specific question, but has any of the beta testers ever tried using the Saitek panels (Multi, Switch and Radio-Panel) with this Airbus?

I'm just asking, because 90% of the payware addon planes don't or just partly work with them. I'm still searching for one to properly use with them (with a little more system depth than the default planes).

Mudman

i think they should work because aerosoft has said that they have done most of the airbus on the default flightsims basics and so there should be no problems, but we'll see if some of the testers answers...

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Mathias was expecting his little easter egg to take at least thirty minutes, I hope he is not going to get similar surprises on Monday.

I honestly do not understand the implication here.

As long as customers understand the limitations we think we got a kick ass product for a very reasonable price. A product that does not include an animated nose cone showing the weather radar (I know many pilots flying the airbus that never seen that open), nor does it include failure systems that simply never happened in the millions of hours the type flown. As long as that principle is understood there will be very little surprises.

Now the purists (also the most vocal and 'online' folks) will protest. But they simply do not see what we see. This is a product for a large group of people, not for the small incrowd on the forums. We actually sell these things and we can compare. We know how many PMDG aircraft are sold (and how many are send back because the customers claimed 'they just do not work'). We know how many Concordes we sell compared to the very basic Airbus collections on sale right now.

To be short and brutal. Paul if this is not an aircraft for you we'll have to deal with that. The product is aimed solidly at what I can handle in online flight (online ATC). I am just one guy with a lot of manuals and a bit of time. Not two highly trained professionals. At the same time we got real Airbus pilots who say that what we use is what they use in their flights in a crowded environment. For these people this is what flying an Airbus is like. What we did not simulate are the bits they LIKE to use but can't use because the sky is not empty.

[simon747 98]

So the question I have been nagging to ask...does this bus fly better than the defualt a321? I usually fly the Posky 737-700 for FSX which is ok I can land by hand which is nice; still slightly odd to fly. In peparation for the much-awaited Aerosoft bus, I have been using the default A321 (yuc) (the default airbus panel sucks btw) and find it ok, but not great.

So Aersoft guys or Beta Testors.....how is she now as she nears some sort of completion? If you say better than the default bus flight chartortistic-wise, I will happy as can be as the visual effects and new system added have already won me over; however if you say big improvement over the defualt bus on flight char alone I will be in even a happier man:)

Any comments from those who have flown would be welcomed as systems stuff has overshaodowed flying stuff lately on this thread

if you are allowed to say...

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

when are the translated manuals be released? are they going to come directly with the download when the bus gets released in a few days, or do we have to wait?

Not 100% sure on that. The Dutch and Russian are in progress now by people who are quickly becoming my new best friends, The other languages will lag a bit. But don't worry, the manuals are written with the kind of customer like you in mind. If it is nice to use but not needed (and the Airbus is FULL of those things) the manual will tell you. Just skip these things and have fun.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Hi,

it might be a very specific question, but has any of the beta testers ever tried using the Saitek panels (Multi, Switch and Radio-Panel) with this Airbus?

I'm just asking, because 90% of the payware addon planes don't or just partly work with them. I'm still searching for one to properly use with them (with a little more system depth than the default planes).

Mudman

Mmmmm. most will work (it was a big deal for us) , only when we really could not use default systems they will not work. Just do not expect to be able to switch the nose wheel light from taxi mode to take-off mode in hardware. But then again, I can tell you real pilots don't use that switch a lot.

[tup61 185]

At the same time we got real Airbus pilots who say that what we use is what they use in their flights in a crowded environment. For these people this is what flying an Airbus is like. What we did not simulate are the bits they LIKE to use but can't use because the sky is not empty.

Oh yeah, this is my kind of plane! I never ever used all the 'deep' options on my other 'hardcore' airliners: in fact, they only confused me every now and then or screwed up a flight...! With this one I can't go wrong in ANY way you can think of.

[raymar 4]

I honestly do not understand the implication here.

As long as customers understand the limitations we think we got a kick ass product for a very reasonable price. A product that does not include an animated nose cone showing the weather radar (I know many pilots flying the airbus that never seen that open), nor does it include failure systems that simply never happened in the millions of hours the type flown. As long as that principle is understood there will be very little surprises.

Now the purists (also the most vocal and 'online' folks) will protest. But they simply do not see what we see. This is a product for a large group of people, not for the small incrowd on the forums. We actually sell these things and we can compare. We know how many PMDG aircraft are sold (and how many are send back because the customers claimed 'they just do not work'). We know how many Concordes we sell compared to the very basic Airbus collections on sale right now.

To be short and brutal. Paul if this is not an aircraft for you we'll have to deal with that. The product is aimed solidly at what I can handle in online flight (online ATC). I am just one guy with a lot of manuals and a bit of time. Not two highly trained professionals. At the same time we got real Airbus pilots who say that what we use is what they use in their flights in a crowded environment. For these people this is what flying an Airbus is like. What we did not simulate are the bits they LIKE to use but can't use because the sky is not empty.

Well said.

I for one am looking forward to Monday and having a great flying experience. I have 5,000 + logged hours as a real pilot in GA aircraft and have never seen (up close) or touched a real Airbus. Not many in service on the Gulf Coast of the USA. I am closing in on my logged flight time with almost that much time on the various forums. I need to fly more and read less. Yes, I have some PMDG, CS, JF, and LVL-D airliners already. I actually even have the new JF A320x downloaded but not installed because I am on vacation the month of August, but will be home on Sunday. Just in time for the Aerosoft A320x.

RayM

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

So the question I have been nagging to ask...does this bus fly better than the defualt a321? I usually fly the Posky 737-700 for FSX which is ok I can land by hand which is nice; still slightly odd to fly. In peparation for the much-awaited Aerosoft bus, I have been using the default A321 (yuc) (the default airbus panel sucks btw) and find it ok, but not great.

So Aersoft guys or Beta Testors.....how is she now as she nears some sort of completion? If you say better than the default bus flight chartortistic-wise, I will happy as can be as the visual effects and new system added have already won me over; however if you say big improvement over the defualt bus on flight char alone I will be in even a happier man:)

Any comments from those who have flown would be welcomed as systems stuff has overshaodowed flying stuff lately on this thread

if you are allowed to say...

"Big improvement"

There is no comparison. We might partly use the same systems it's a whole new aircraft because the engines are not like thew space shuttle booster rockets and because we got a lot of additional rules working. I am going to go out on a limb and say this is the best airbus flight model done to date, even including our esteemed competitor who I am not allowed to name and who does not do FSX.

Now is that without issues? No. FSX was build on a Boeing platform and there are some things we got issues with. I am sure those can be avoided by replacing a lot of the FSX code. But that would mean loosing our FPS advantage. It's all nice to have a superb aircraft but if you got to screw down scenery to FS2002 level we think something is wrong. See we sell scenery and aircraft. A balance is needed.

On my system our Airbus in VC is faster then the default airbus. Even though it has 4 times the polygons and 6 times the amount of code running. It looks a lot better (understatement of the year) and it works like the real thing. And still is faster. No other aircraft addon does that on my system,

[CRM320 41]

Yeah, okay. But that would cause the braking distance on a wet runway a bit longer. It enforces what I say, why does a wet or snowy runway increases braking distance so much if aerobraking is more effective then wheel brakes?

And yes, I am lucky. But the guys with the hyper cars do like my light Elise that has no steering /brake assist and no electronics, just a lot of horses and rubber. You would be amazed how many cars you get to drive if you are just a nice guy. Look if you buy a Porsche for 150.000 Euro you can drive it fast, but there is always some idiot is a 35k trackday car that's faster. Letting others drive it and go "goddamn this thing goes like stink" really boosts your ego.

I feel the Anti-skid issue coming up so I attached a few shots the manual on the subject. (Chapter 6 of your A320 system briefing has got 5 pages on Braking) If you have it in hand it might be easier to read than me trying to explain. I am looking through my FCTM to see what is actually written on the subject, will post pdf if I find anything of interest.

Regards

D

[Mudman 5]

Mmmmm. most will work (it was a big deal for us) , only when we really could not use default systems they will not work. Just do not expect to be able to switch the nose wheel light from taxi mode to take-off mode in hardware. But then again, I can tell you real pilots don't use that switch a lot.

That sounds great. Most important is for me to use the autopilot and com-panel. I don't know why, but tuning the frequencies and setting up the autopilot with these little knobs makes my day.

[simon747 98]

"Big improvement"

There is no comparison. We might partly use the same systems it's a whole new aircraft because the engines are not like thew space shuttle booster rockets and because we got a lot of additional rules working. I am going to go out on a limb and say this is the best airbus flight model done to date, even including our esteemed competitor who I am not allowed to name and who does not do FSX.

Now is that without issues? No. FSX was build on a Boeing platform and there are some things we got issues with. I am sure those can be avoided by replacing a lot of the FSX code. But that would mean loosing our FPS advantage. It's all nice to have a superb aircraft but if you got to screw down scenery to FS2002 level we think something is wrong. See we sell scenery and aircraft. A balance is needed.

On my system our Airbus in VC is faster then the default airbus. Even though it has 4 times the polygons and 6 times the amount of code running. It looks a lot better (understatement of the year) and it works like the real thing. And still is faster. No other aircraft addon does that on my system,

Well that makes me a very happy man indeed. I am totally willing to work through some issues or imperfections in a RC stage in order to gain a visual improvment, better systems, better flight dynamcs, and well-controlled fps over the default a321. Things will improve overtime when all of us are flying it on our various systems. I don't use alot of stuff and addons besides sceenry and ai, so just fly go!. Sounds like it will work like a charm for me. GOOD JOB!

Can we pre-order the download? Is there any real advantage to that if we can, or is it best just to pay and download on release day?

Simon

[fastnet 0]

We will be offering repaints as packs (with installers etc) based on regions (NW Europe, SE Europe, Asia, Rest) and we'll also offer the repainters options to upload their files individually. Of course we claim zero rights on the great efforts of the repainters.

Er, but you won't be charging us for these will you?

[OPabst 2091]

Er, but you won't be charging us for these will you?

What part of the statement was unclear here? Did you ever have payed for a paintkit? How was it?

[balus 43]

What part of the statement was unclear here? Did you ever have payed for a paintkit? How was it?

Remember another A320 by PSS? They charged for repaints, and sold them in packs.

[limp 29]

Hi,

it might be a very specific question, but has any of the beta testers ever tried using the Saitek panels (Multi, Switch and Radio-Panel) with this Airbus?

I'm just asking, because 90% of the payware addon planes don't or just partly work with them. I'm still searching for one to properly use with them (with a little more system depth than the default planes).

Mudman

I use them, for the moment radio panel works, landing gear and flaps lever work.

EDIT : Autopilot DOES work as well and all other buttons on switch panel aren't very useful so I don't touch them...

Let me add that AP lights work as well... I didn't push the buttons because I prefer clicking on the knobs

[Tristan Marchent 11]

even including our esteemed competitor who I am not allowed to name and who does not do FSX

Can I have a guess?

[gobby 10]

So what's the current status of development?

What bugs remain?

And when will you release?

You once said in August, but is it possible?

[OPabst 2091]

Remember another A320 by PSS? They charged for repaints, and sold them in packs.

And, where they are?

[Mudman 5]

I use them, for the moment radio panel works, landing gear and flaps lever work.

EDIT : Autopilot DOES work as well and all other buttons on switch panel aren't very useful so I don't touch them...

Let me add that AP lights work as well... I didn't push the buttons because I prefer clicking on the knobs

Thank you for the info. Seems I have found my future aircraft.