Jump to content

Aerosoft Airbus X - Preview


Recommended Posts

I've been watching the progress of the A320 since it was announced and am still excited for my first flight in it once it's released. The standard, and level, of detail that went into the visual model is simply superb! I wish everyone on the team great success with the A320, and all the other projects.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 830
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have a question, why has the Airbus X no wingflex? I love the Wingflex

Yes thats right, you are just a beta tester, yet you are still able to make comment on the intended customer base. What makes me assume, is the same way you assume in a previous posting that the in

Lost the release window for today. We got an issue on a clean machine we test the installers on and for the last few hours we were not able to track it down. Very pissed off but working on it. Sor

Posted Images

aerosoft please make a statement: is this forum only used for telling how great the plane looks and how great aerosoft is? are the people who post only positive things about the airbus and aerosoft canidates for free copies or next beta testing?or is this forum used for criticism, argues and discussion like forums normally are?

I'm not affiliated with Aerosoft, so I can't speak on their behalf, but I would like to say this to Vibraman and others:

As you can see no one from Aerosoft has prevented you from speaking your mind. What you do see is a (heated) debate amongst simmers themselves. Now the "problem" as I see it (and I've said this before) is that the "hard core"-simmers want to turn this add-on into something it is not meant to be. Aerosoft aims this product at a specific type of simmer. In doing so, they are fully aware that they may lose the "hard core"-simmer as a customer for this particular product. And they accept that. They may do an advanced version if they see a profitable market for it (meaning the possible profits outweigh the necessary investments). Maybe they are unsure at the moment that such a market exists, or (more likely) they aim to diversify (regarding levels of complexity) their product range.

So, having said that, let's turn the question around, shall we? With all due respect: why don't the proponents of an "advanced"-version accept that this product, in its current form, may not be what they are looking for and just say "No thanks, I'll pass on this one" and move on? Aerosoft has accepted that, so why can't you? It would surely stop the ruffling of feathers you see in all the replies to the posts of the "hard core"-simmers.

Now, should Aerosoft decide to do an "advanced"-version, you can bring all of your concerns about fidelity to the threads that will undoubtedly follow such an announcement. Sounds like a fair deal to me, don't you think ;)?

  • Upvote 11
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not affiliated with Aerosoft, so I can't speak on their behalf, but I would like to say this to Vibraman and others:

As you can see no one from Aerosoft has prevented you from speaking your mind. What you do see is a (heated) debate amongst simmers themselves. Now the "problem" as I see it (and I've said this before) is that the "hard core"-simmers want to turn this add-on into something it is not meant to be. Aerosoft aims this product at a specific type of simmer. In doing so, they are fully aware that they may lose the "hard core"-simmer as a customer for this particular product. And they accept that. They may do an advanced version if they see a profitable market for it (meaning the possible profits outweigh the necessary investments). Maybe they are unsure at the moment that such a market exists, or (more likely) they aim to diversify (regarding levels of complexity) their product range.

So, having said that, let's turn the question around, shall we? With all due respect: why don't the proponents of an "advanced"-version accept that this product, in its current form, may not be what they are looking for and just say "No thanks, I'll pass on this one" and move on? Aerosoft has accepted that, so why can't you? It would surely stop the ruffling of feathers you see in all the replies to the posts of the "hard core"-simmers.

Now, should Aerosoft decide to do an "advanced"-version, you can bring all of your concerns about fidelity to the threads that will undoubtedly follow such an announcement. Sounds like a fair deal to me, don't you think ;)?

Could not have said it better myself. It seems like common sense should prevail, but it sure has taken along time to get through to some. Anyways, it is a week away and I could not be happier. I get to fly again! Cool.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And GPS? Once again, your head is down there with the FMS for that. That one's "direct-to feature will take care of the first waypoint, yes. Now, do you prefer to manually input the other 11? Or simply being able to select something like ROKIL26? Either way, once again you can't do either without using the FMS. Or can you?

I wondering why you think he should have to enter 11 other waypoints ?

I count 5 (Actually 4, 'cause you'll have to enter ROKIL anyway): ROKIL DM421 DM429 DM439 and GUDEG. And if I want to shorten the transition, I replace the last two with DM428 and DM438.

There is no need to enter all the others in between, because you'll fly on a straight line from DM421 to DM429.

So where's the big deal?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

why don't the proponents of an "advanced"-version accept that this product, in its current form, may not be what they are looking for and just say "No thanks, I'll pass on this one" and move on?

I'm happy to do that, Aerosoft isn't getting a penny from me for this Airbus, I won't lose any sleep over it and I'm sure Aerosoft won't either. What surprises me a little is the amount of people that come on here insisting how things are "in the real world" without having a clue actually how the "real world" works and in the process insisting that the real pilots and air traffic controllers here are lying.

I fully support the observations of those that say claiming that this aircraft is "ideally suited to online flying" is misleading at best. Obviously Aerosoft have done their homework and think there's a market there but if the target market doesn't know what a SID or STAR is or doesn't even know the difference between V1, Vr and V2 I'm surprised that they'll hand over money to fly an Airbus. I come to associate Aerosoft with good quality products, so for them to produce something that is lacking in that department seems to confuse their brand. But hey, good luck to them, I hope it's a success, but I really think they should be sticking to scenery though as that's they seem to do best.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wondering why you think he should have to enter 11 other waypoints ?

I count 5 (Actually 4, 'cause you'll have to enter ROKIL anyway): ROKIL DM421 DM429 DM439 and GUDEG. And if I want to shorten the transition, I replace the last two with DM428 and DM438.

There is no need to enter all the others in between, because you'll fly on a straight line from DM421 to DM429.

So where's the big deal?

Good catch. :)

And you're right, in most situations the five waypoints will suffice, and in some of the other situations it would not be a big deal to not have all waypoints programmed - it will still be easier though (things like me re-clearing you direct to another waypoint of the transition). It's the difference between pressing three buttons or pressing seven.

And in general, I still think having pre-programmed SIDs, STARs and transitions selectable is the easiest way, which brings me back to the question why omitting this feature (which is included in the real airplane to ease pilot's workload) make's this an easier to-use add-on.

It's not as having such a feature would force anyone to use it, or to learn its concepts. And, although every "hardcore-simmer" will probably cringe at this, having such a feature would be the only way to use SIDs and STARs without having to learn their concepts (push three buttons, watch beautifully rendered airplane do everything correctly).

So, to sum up, IMHO Aerosoft's decisions are perfectly valid, and theirs to make. I just disagree with some assumptions (on real-life and simulation behaviour) presented here with regards to them.

Regards,

Robert

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol Aerosoft will have start an other thread just for commercial pilots, I haven't a clue what everyone is talking about :rolleyes:  

I am with you, the last couple of pages in this topic I completely don't understand what is all about.

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

Since it seems to be taken over by Pilots vs ATC I'll throw in a real conversation between the two in real life.

The controller working a busy pattern told the 737 on downwind to make a three-sixty--do a complete circle, a move normally used to provide spacing between aircraft.

The pilot of the 737 complained, "Don't you know it costs us two thousand dollars to make even a one-eighty in this airplane?"

Without missing a beat the controller replied, "Roger, give me four thousand dollars' worth."

And on that bombshell; back to topic maybe? :)

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you have no clue about commercial jet training... maybe you know some about PPL but rest seems mystery to you. On the other hand, which FIR are you on?

No, obviously I only know about actual operations of commercial jets in a high-traffic approach environment at places like Frankfurt, Munich or London Heathrow, as witnessed from looking over their shoulders on multiple familiarization flights. And from witnessing which kind of instructions from me work well for them and their systems and which ones cause workload, confusion, ruffling of (paper-)charts etc.

What they do in their training might be different (as we work differently during ATC training in the simulator compared to what we do with "live" traffic).

As I stated, I work at Munich Approach.

If you wish to make further assumptions about my knowledge feel free to PM me, I am always interested in the views of pilots and ATC alike.

Regards,

Robert

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, first to clarify, I am talking about real life procedures here. In that context, what are you talking about when you say"GPS"? Since that's just one of the systems the FMS uses for navigation reference, you still have to look at and use the FMS here.

Now, RNAv transitions are completely disconnected from any VOR/DME, they are pure coordinates. So you can't use any of that for lateral guidance, regardless how well prepared you come. And GPS? Once again, your head is down there with the FMS for that. That one's "direct-to feature will take care of the first waypoint, yes. Now, do you prefer to manually input the other 11? Or simply being able to select something like ROKIL26? Either way, once again you can't do either without using the FMS. Or can you?

I'm not a pilot, I am an air traffic controller. We have to learn how our procedures are flown, and I have flown into "my" airport on the flightdeck of a CRJ and an A320. They used the FMS, as I had expected, but I am now curious about your whizz-bang method allowing you to leave it aside, just as Aerosoft left it aside in their A320 ( which I'm still going to buy btw).

Regards,

Robert

I think you are missing the point that was made earlier (you are not the only one). You seem to be believing that one pattern is like any other. It's not. Do not generalise what you know of 1 pattern to any other approach. Different approach are flown in many different ways and if you are ATC you surely understand there is more to an approach than just a computed STAR. There are a multitude amount of reasons why a STAR would not be computed as there are many ways it would. You narrow thinking is a bit worrying for an ATC may I just add. Up here we often rely on guys like you to vector us more often than I need to use a STAR. Maybe I need to spend more time in the simulator. Let's stop with the SID/STAR issue, Aerosoft has done a great job with Airbus X, lets test it ourselves and see how she flies before making any judgement. Again, I don't recall Aerosoft making a statement about never including the SID/STAR in the future, so let's wait and see.

Regards

D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I do the walk around... (May vary) Listen my friend, I am not here to argue with you. If you think commercial aviation revolves around sids or stars, then good for you. I just commented on your statement that it is realistic. I disagree on that. Reasons already stated by SimPilot767. We work in a dynamic environment which asks for some flexibility. At my homebase ATC will cut me some slack and get me in fast. Being familiar with the airport helps too (We can fly the approach blind) And I'll guarantee you, if you need a preprogrammed Stars to get the pattern, you won't make it in a real simulator.... realistic flying? The FO would enter data, if necessary, but usually we'll fly and adjust without the fmc, and on approach one looks in, one looks out. And, again, for real flying take out a Cessna or similar. Not an airliner. It's like comparing an English sports car with a bus. (sorry for the Italian, German sports car fans, I like the british classics)

Right. We have included things like windmilling engines, traffic cones etc because the pilot sees those things when he does his walk around. Thanks for your comments btw.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are missing the point that was made earlier (you are not the only one). You seem to be believing that one pattern is like any other. It's not. Do not generalise what you know of 1 pattern to any other approach.

I am fully aware that there are very differing procedures, for ATC and pilots alike, in different countries and within these countries at different airports. And all of these procedures, as different as they are, have good (general and local) reasons.

To make it fully clear what I meant - the Aerosoft Airbus X, as it stands right now, is unrealistic if I want to simulate the experience of a real airliner flying into Munich, or some other large airports I named. For other airports, that is not the case.

Regards,

Robert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, the manual speaks of mouse usage, left click, right click etc...but doesn't discuss how to apply the "push" button that's necessary on the FCU. Hoping it's not the middle mouse button, as EZCA camera controls that for it's pan view feature. What's working out for the beta testers on this?

Curt

No, just the left and right buttons.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents, Ladies, I removed a bunch of posts (most from vibraman) and some who were a bit to personal.

Let me say it one more time, we did not include SID and STAR loading because we decided this would make the project to complex for some users. A controversial decision obviously but one we stand behind. As you read from many people it does not matter a whole lot because (a) you can still insert and fly them (or just fly them) and (B) because in a crowded environment they are not so important (as actual pilots explained here time and time again). If you can't live with this, don't buy the product and hope you never start liking older generations of aircraft that simply do not have the capability to load them (aircraft that still fly of course).

It's after all a miracle that pilots still have the cojones to fly A300s that, would you believe it, don't even know what a SID or s STAR is.:rolleyes:

Now we (uh I) said it was ideal for online flight. Perhaps I should have said 'ideal for online flight for the kind of customers we had in mind for this product, people like me'. Our friends with the VA's and online flying organisations sure like it as they hope to it will bring in some new pilots who are a bit afraid of all the complexity of some other aircraft.

So let's close these two topics with that okay? Don't want to spend what's left of this weekend playing moderator. Got better things to do.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am fully aware that there are very differing procedures, for ATC and pilots alike, in different countries and within these countries at different airports. And all of these procedures, as different as they are, have good (general and local) reasons.

To make it fully clear what I meant - the Aerosoft Airbus X, as it stands right now, is unrealistic if I want to simulate the experience of a real airliner flying into Munich, or some other large airports I named. For other airports, that is not the case.

Regards,

Robert

Exactly, nobody questioned the fact that there are different ways to (make the pilot) fly an approach or a departure, but it limits the controllers to use the full range of tools available to them to manage traffic flows as well as it limits the pilot in his realistic experience since he connot make use of all procedures as he would in real life. It has always been said that the Airbus X is based on the pilot's perspective, but Airbus (the manufacturer) phliosophy is based on reducing the pilot's work load. Especially in an online flying environment, the Airbus X would rather increase the work load (not only SIDs and STARs but also RNAV transitions and holdings), i.e. the point is that, even though all the other features the Airbus X has seem to be very well designed (e.g. I am amazed by the model and the lighting), it is far from being ideal for online flying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, nobody questioned the fact that there are different ways to (make the pilot) fly an approach or a departure, but it limits the controllers to use the full range of tools available to them to manage traffic flows as well as it limits the pilot in his realistic experience since he connot make use of all procedures as he would in real life. It has always been said that the Airbus X is based on the pilot's perspective, but Airbus (the manufacturer) phliosophy is based on reducing the pilot's work load. Especially in an online flying environment, the Airbus X would rather increase the work load (not only SIDs and STARs but also RNAV transitions and holdings), i.e. the point is that, even though all the other features the Airbus X has seem to be very well designed (e.g. I am amazed by the model and the lighting), it is far from being ideal for online flying.

This is the exact reason why I don't fly online, would love too but, it all seems to complicated, I can only use an FMC to fly online? Serious question here as I was hoping to join and use this Airbus for that reason :(  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Every SID and every stare is flyable by using normal radio navigations intruments VOR and ADF. That's not very suitable with the Airbus systems...

I also saw the Autoland preview. The touch down is definitely to rough with a final negative Vertical speed to high! Around -600 ft/m.

Is this the best you can do or do we have to expect something better for the release?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents, Ladies, I removed a bunch of posts (most from vibraman) and some who were a bit to personal.

Mathijs, you removed every one of my posts (and the ones from Robert I was referring to), but can you please explain the reason for that? In none of my words I adressed anybody in a personal way, let alone attacked someone. Sorry, but that's censorship.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathijs, you removed every one of my posts (and the ones from Robert I was referring to), but can you please explain the reason for that? In none of my words I adressed anybody in a personal way, let alone attacked someone. Sorry, but that's censorship.

Well I was rather thorough in my deletion because I wanted to get rid of a rather fruitless discussion. If I deleted something that should have stayed there, sorry. The problem is that this topic is read by a lot of potential customers and if they see a lot of bickering and negative people they might think there is a problem (with a product that's not even released). I think we can agree we have been very open and honest about what this project includes and what it does not include. We have also been very forthcoming in explaining the reasons behind it. But to repeat the same thing over and over so a fresh troll can have it's go at it is beyond my fragile patience, lol.

Is that censorship, perhaps it is. We pay for this forum and as it is a company forum, we decide what is seen here and now. Now I think most will agree that we have very relaxed rules here, there are some folks around here that are not welcome in other places and you can be a lot more outspoken then in most other forums.

If I removed message from you that should have stayed, I apologize, next time I'll hide them so we can restore them where needed.

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well after all this discussion I have to put in my two cents.

I don't know how or when to use SID / STARS, or even what it is. I don't know how to read charts.

But I like to fly a little bit after work to relax. Just a 2-3 hours flight. And the default Airplanes are too easy

So the Aerosoft Airbus is the right thing for me.

Regards

Klaus

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

On a less serious note (all that moderation made me get a glass of wine at 16:30!), one of the least exiting but nevertheless cool things in this project is that we are using it to rebuild our development standards. You seen that in the modeling that gets some rather spectacular results, but also in small things. For example from now on, we'll try to use only one aircraft.cfg per project. This makes it easier to keep track of changes and above all makes it a lot easier for customers to tweak things. See the aircraft.cfg now has ALL the the elements in the project, we just comment out what's not used in that particular aircraft.

Of course it also appeals to the more Germanic drive for neatness of Aerosoft. I never seen a aircraft.cfg look as neat as this. And don't worry, it does not mean it eats up more memory or make FSX slower. I got one aircraft.cfg that has half of Gone With The Wind inside and FSX doesn't care. No sense of literature that program. We'll make sure AFS2013 appreciates the fine arts more.

aircraftcfg.jpg

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On a less serious note (all that moderation made me get a glass of wine at 16:30!), one of the least exiting but nevertheless cool things in this project is that we are using it to rebuild our development standards. You seen that in the modeling that gets some rather spectacular results, but also in small things. For example from now on, we'll try to use only one aircraft.cfg per project. This makes it easier to keep track of changes and above all makes it a lot easier for customers to tweak things. See the aircraft.cfg now has ALL the the elements in the project, we just comment out what's not used in that particular aircraft.

Of course it also appeals to the more Germanic drive for neatness of Aerosoft. I never seen a aircraft.cfg look as neat as this. And don't worry, it does not mean it eats up more memory or make FSX slower. I got one aircraft.cfg that has half of Gone With The Wind inside and FSX doesn't care. No sense of literature that program. We'll make sure AFS2013 appreciates the fine arts more.

aircraftcfg.jpg

Very clever  :D

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...