Disappointed, not 100% realistic

[Paul Hansen 3]

I'm a bit disappointed.

Don't get me the wrong way, because I think Airbus X is one of the most beautiful models I have ever seen for FSX. But what I understood about complexity when I read the review before I bought it, is a cockpit where everything works just like the real deal. I have flown the Airbus product from Wilco for quite a bit now where I was used to setup the FMC manually, for the departure and arrival runway, flex temp and almost everything else. Now I have sadly, in some way, spend 37.95 € on a plane just to find out that it isn't that complex as I have thought and hoped it to be.

Again, I really have to make clear that it's a beautiful model, and the sound effects is really great...but I do miss that last realism to it.

So my hopes and prayers are, that the developers would make an advanced user update so everything is working, at least on the instrument and navigation part.

Paul in Denmark

[Robert Halmich 8]

I'm a bit disappointed.

Don't get me the wrong way, because I think Airbus X is one of the most beautiful models I have ever seen for FSX. But what I understood about complexity when I read the review before I bought it, is a cockpit where everything works just like the real deal. I have flown the Airbus product from Wilco for quite a bit now where I was used to setup the FMC manually, for the departure and arrival runway, flex temp and almost everything else. Now I have sadly, in some way, spend 37.95 € on a plane just to find out that it isn't that complex as I have thought and hoped it to be.

Again, I really have to make clear that it's a beautiful model, and the sound effects is really great...but I do miss that last realism to it.

So my hopes and prayers are, that the developers would make an advanced user update so everything is working, at least on the instrument and navigation part.

Paul in Denmark

Hi Paul,

I was thnking the same until Mr. Kok wrote they will be providing an upgrade in the future. I had no hesitation purchasing the AX after reading that and I am extremely pleased up until now.

Looking forward to purchasing the upgrade.

Best,

Robert

**EDIT** I tried looking for the information regarding the "upgrade" but cannot find it anywhere at the moment. I have posted asking if there was a possability of an MCDU upgrade along with a question as to whether Aerosoft would consider designing the A330 and A340... lets see what they say.

[Paul Hansen 3]

Hi Paul,

I was thnking the same until Mr. Kok wrote they will be providing an upgrade in the future. I had no hesitation purchasing the AX after reading that and I am extremely pleased up until now.

Looking forward to purchasing the upgrade.

Best,

Robert

**EDIT** I tried looking for the information regarding the "upgrade" but cannot find it anywhere at the moment. I have posted asking if there was a possability of an MCDU upgrade along with a question as to whether Aerosoft would consider designing the A330 and A340... lets see what they say.

Thanks for the reply Robert. It's nice to hear an upgrade would be available in the future. Let's hope for the best. I want total realism, as far as you can go in a simulator.

[Legend 3]

Well, technically it has been said that there may be an advanced version in the future, but no promises - it depends on what people want.

Personally speaking I would love to see it. As good as the Bus is already, I think it's still too much like the default FSX aircraft, as far as procedures go. All normal procedures can be taught with a good manual (like PMDG did with their TRS for the 747).

[Shaun Fletcher 570]

Hello Folks,

Though theres no denying the fact that all along it was stated numerous times about this project and what it was about.

It was well advertised in the Preview Forum from the outset about its complexity level.

[Martin Martinov 22]

Dear Shaun,

You are correct and Aerosoft has stated many times about the level of complexity of this product. However as I said elsewhere I will not purchase the AX yet, exactly because of the basic systems level . I have the suspicion that other FSX users have the same state of mind. Which is such a shame, because the level of graphics detail is amazing (and perhaps one of the best in the recent releases).

While remaining neutral with my credit card I will keep following closely the progress of this product.

Would you do a statement about Aerosoft future intentions to release a more comprehensive version of the A320 X?

Best regards,

Martin

[mopperle 4162]

Would you do a statement about Aerosoft future intentions to release a more comprehensive version of the A320 X?

Best regards,

Martin

That's what Mathijs wrote August 15th in the old AirbusX thread:

I'm perfectly honest, we have not spend more then a few hours thinking about the more complex version. It could be easy to say yes we'll consider it but it would be an empty promise. We'll see. Getting this one out of the shop is hard enough.

And there is nothing to add and no need to ask for an "advanced" or whatever version over and over again!

If Aerosoft decides to make an "advanced" version, I'm sure they'll let us know.

[Guest Closed]

Generally speaking, you are right Shaun, it was clearly marketed as something in between the 'default' Airbus and a High End Complex Sim.

However, in practice, I think in some areas Aerosoft 'pushed' the marketing a little too far; for example, the 'Managed Flight' (VNAV) depiction is poor in the current product; you simply cannot model the Airbus Methodology of 'managed climb' using the default FSX autopilot, because the default AP does not model any ability to manage speed by varying the pitch of the aircraft.... (the default AP can only manage speed using it's basic autothrottle). In the Airbus (as in most airliners) the climb is achieved by using a set N1 reference during the climb, speed (eg V2+15 or 250kts) is then 'held' by the pitch of the aircraft been varied, thus leading to a varying (reducing) vertical speed.

If, in the marketing, Aerosoft had not claimed to have (even a 'simplified') "Managed" mode, I think people would have had more realistic expectations for this product.

I do think this product has some amazing qualities to it, but they are being overshadowed by a poor current depiction of the following areas; core automatic flight, FBW and FDE, MCDU.

Kind regards,

David

[Paul Hansen 3]

Generally speaking, you are right Shaun, it was clearly marketed as something in between the 'default' Airbus and a High End Complex Sim.

However, in practice, I think in some areas Aerosoft 'pushed' the marketing a little too far; for example, the 'Managed Flight' (VNAV) depiction is poor in the current product; you simply cannot model the Airbus Methodology of 'managed climb' using the default FSX autopilot, because the default AP does not model any ability to manage speed by varying the pitch of the aircraft.... (the default AP can only manage speed using it's basic autothrottle). In the Airbus (as in most airliners) the climb is achieved by using a set N1 reference during the climb, speed (eg V2+15 or 250kts) is then 'held' by the pitch of the aircraft been varied, thus leading to a varying (reducing) vertical speed.

If, in the marketing, Aerosoft had not claimed to have (even a 'simplified') "Managed" mode, I think people would have had more realistic expectations for this product.

I do think this product has some amazing qualities to it, but they are being overshadowed by a poor current depiction of the following areas; core automatic flight, FBW and FDE, MCDU.

Kind regards,

David

You are absolutely right David.

[Andy B. 40]

I don't agree David, the managed mode is simplified, it follows a set of rules for the climb and sets power and vertical speed rates according to those rules, it is managed but not managed in the sense Airbus does it.

[ertan 31]

I don't agree David, the managed mode is simplified, it follows a set of rules for the climb and sets power and vertical speed rates according to those rules, it is managed but not managed in the sense Airbus does it.

well, on the product page it is said: "Starts descend automatically when reaching TOD" this is simply a lie untill now or am i doing something wrong? so no matter how simplified this is a sure "no go" sorry. there are many things like this which makes customers feel sad i think...

[vali 31]

Well, at this moment, I don't have the feel of a realistic behavior of Airbus seen from the cockpit left seat. I don't discuss about failures and ECAM memos, advanced systems behaviour but about performing a flight from A to B as it was stated in preview forum. A simple look in many Airbus movies for example will show very often usage of MCDU, OP CLB, OP DES... FCU and MCDU are the core parts of it (fly-by-wire) and unfortunately these are at this moment weak points of Airbus X. I can not perform short airport tours because of vnav and PERF Approach activation which I can not do, I have to fly it more manually... but it's an Airbus. This is my impression, stated before also.

I still hope that Aerosoft will take the proper decision and improve the product, a lot of effort was put into it and it is not so much left to have it right in my opinion, I have the feeling that a lot more customers will be more happy then. I don't want to say, except the graphics, that I will still have to fly Wilco(for it TOD is my problem) better than Airbus X...

[ertan 31]

to me it simply looks like this:

aersoft took the flightdynamics of the default airbus including the FWB (that´s why there is this issue with the loss of manually flightcontroll and trim blow 100ft) powered down the engines because they think it´s unrealistic (that´s why the airbus x can´t reach m 0.78 on cruise alt.) and spent the rest of the time doing a very nice beautiful vc.

but this is no real new aircraft, this is just a nice panel. even though you stated many times what is included and what not, this is simply fooling customers in my eyes. proof me if i´m wrong with something...

[Thomas_EDDT 59]

to me it simply looks like this:

aersoft took the flightdynamics of the default airbus including the FWB (that´s why there is this issue with the loss of manually flightcontroll and trim blow 100ft) powered down the engines because they think it´s unrealistic (that´s why the airbus x can´t reach m 0.78 on cruise alt.) and spent the rest of the time doing a very nice beautiful vc.

but this is no real new aircraft, this is just a nice panel. even though you stated many times what is included and what not, this is simply fooling customers in my eyes. proof me if i´m wrong with something...

+1

absolutely right. i think the same.

[Wiseblood 8]

+1

absolutely right. i think the same.

Precisely the same.

When you marketed it as 'basic', I didn't think you meant this basic.  I don't give a monkeys about SIDS/STARS, but I did expect authentic FBW.

This is the default A321 with a spit shine and a polish. 

Jeez...

[CRM320 41]

I do find it mind blowing to be reading some people talking how great the sound pack is on the Airbus X. Yes external sounds and cabin sounds are great but to us who fly the full motion simulator (ok, once every six months but still) ECAM, CALLOUT, TCAS and Warning sounds are just awful and far from being realistic. We had to swap them ourselves. Not mentioning a lot of CALLOUT are missing. We knew the depth of the Airbus X systems so we have to queries about that, but one thing we really thought was a shocker is the glass cockpit display, jagged lines display all over. Awful really. We did find it surprising considering the amount of polygon available within FSX. A dev team "we wont name them here" who released a 320 for FS9 managed to achieve really smooth graphics, lines and fonts on the glass cockpit displays, I am struggling to understand why the Airbus X display such a poor graphics within the glass cockpit. For us this was a major blow and we aren't flying Airbus X anymore. The least we expected was for the glass cockpit and system sounds to be spot on and Aerosoft (in our opinion) failed to deliver. Shame. I'd like to know why the glass cockpit is so poor in terms of graphics, maybe Mathijs can explain. We also mentioned in this forum during development the lighting within the flightdeck was far too orange and far too dark (especially as this cannot be adjusted in flights) , we were disappointed that this issue had not been looked into. oh well.

Regards

D

Before I get any reply mentioning the "you knew the specs before buying the product" I'd like to reiterate that we have no issue with the lack of system depth. Our issue are related to Airbus "immersion" and little details we feel were overlooked.

[fratfw 12]

I do find it mind blowing to be reading some people talking how great the sound pack is on the Airbus X. Yes external sounds and cabin sounds are great but to us who fly the full motion simulator (ok, once every six months but still) ECAM, CALLOUT, TCAS and Warning sounds are just awful and far from being realistic. We had to swap them ourselves. Not mentioning a lot of CALLOUT are missing. We knew the depth of the Airbus X systems so we have to queries about that, but one thing we really thought was a shocker is the glass cockpit display, jagged lines display all over. Awful really. We did find it surprising considering the amount of polygon available within FSX. A dev team "we wont name them here" who released a 320 for FS9 managed to achieve really smooth graphics, lines and fonts on the glass cockpit displays, I am struggling to understand why the Airbus X display such a poor graphics within the glass cockpit. For us this was a major blow and we aren't flying Airbus X anymore. The least we expected was for the glass cockpit and system sounds to be spot on and Aerosoft (in our opinion) failed to deliver. Shame. I'd like to know why the glass cockpit is so poor in terms of graphics, maybe Mathijs can explain. We also mentioned in this forum during development the lighting within the flightdeck was far too orange and far too dark (especially as this cannot be adjusted in flights) , we were disappointed that this issue had not been looked into. oh well.

Regards

D

Before I get any reply mentioning the "you knew the specs before buying the product" I'd like to reiterate that we have no issue with the lack of system depth. Our issue are related to Airbus "immersion" and little details we feel were overlooked.

I agree,

the sound set of gpws an tcas are really not good at all...try to see a you tube video in a320 cockpit and you will feel the difference.

[MatthewS 32]

but one thing we really thought was a shocker is the glass cockpit display, jagged lines display all over. Awful really. We did find it surprising considering the amount of polygon available within FSX. A dev team "we wont name them here" who released a 320 for FS9 managed to achieve really smooth graphics, lines and fonts on the glass cockpit displays, I am struggling to understand why the Airbus X display such a poor graphics within the glass cockpit.

Not sure but I think Aerosoft used standard XML gauges and not custom written C gauges.

[Paul Hansen 3]

I'm flying online, so it's critically important that I can choose the departure and arrival runways incl. the SID and STARS. What I don't understand is, why have aerosoft chosen to write RWY in the FMC if you're not able to choose it, it is just grayed out.

[Ayster 41]

I'm flying online, so it's critically important that I can choose the departure and arrival runways incl. the SID and STARS. What I don't understand is, why have aerosoft chosen to write RWY in the FMC if you're not able to choose it, it is just grayed out.

It was repeated ad-nauseum before release that the Airbus X did not feature SID and STARS, I don't know why people are complaining when they were told this would not be included! I imagine AS put the RWY annunciation in to show a more realistic looking PFD during take off. And on the subject of VNAV, this is from the product page...

Flight control unit (autopilot) features:

• Managed modes:
  • Auto throttle speed set according to altitude
  • LNAV Managed lateral mode, follows MCDU flight plan
  • VNAV Managed vertical mode: note that VNAV is simplified to be easier to use.
    • Sets both speed and climb behavior according to aircraft altitude
    • Starts descend automatically when reaching TOD

It was never stated by Aerosoft to be 100% realistic,... Now it still has its problems, but on the whole its not bad, and AS are working on Patches to improve the VNAV and the autothrottle issues.

Don't get me wrong, I love the "study sims" of PMDG etc (in fact I have most of their products) but this product was never marketed this way, it was always said to be for the casual simmer who wanted a bit more than the default models, but didn't want the complexity of a study sim. I find it good for when I don't have time to do a full preflight and run through all the proceedures, and want to quickly jump in and fly!

[ertan 31]

It was repeated ad-nauseum before release that the Airbus X did not feature SID and STARS, I don't know why people are complaining when they were told this would not be included! I imagine AS put the RWY annunciation in to show a more realistic looking PFD during take off. And on the subject of VNAV, this is from the product page...

Flight control unit (autopilot) features:

• Managed modes:
  • Auto throttle speed set according to altitude
  • LNAV Managed lateral mode, follows MCDU flight plan
  • VNAV Managed vertical mode: note that VNAV is simplified to be easier to use.
    • Sets both speed and climb behavior according to aircraft altitude
    • Starts descend automatically when reaching TOD

It was never stated by Aerosoft to be 100% realistic,... Now it still has its problems, but on the whole its not bad, and AS are working on Patches to improve the VNAV and the autothrottle issues.

Don't get me wrong, I love the "study sims" of PMDG etc (in fact I have most of their products) but this product was never marketed this way, it was always said to be for the casual simmer who wanted a bit more than the default models, but didn't want the complexity of a study sim. I find it good for when I don't have time to do a full preflight and run through all the proceedures, and want to quickly jump in and fly!

"Starts descend automatically when reaching TOD" was stated but it does not do. so it´s 1 vs 1

[Andy B. 40]

"Starts descend automatically when reaching TOD" was stated but it does not do. so it´s 1 vs 1

It does work as long as you don't have more than 5 waypoints before TOC and after TOD, this is known issue and I hope it can be fixed. If the TOC or TOD arrows don't show on the ND or you haven't prepared the FCU properly then it wont descend automatically.

[ertan 31]

It does work as long as you don't have more than 5 waypoints before TOC and after TOD, this is known issue and I hope it can be fixed. If the TOC or TOD arrows don't show on the ND or you haven't prepared the FCU properly then it wont descend automatically.

lol and tell me how you do that without the possibility by entering airways on a flight with more then 200nm? ah ok fly eddl-lemd with dct gps maybe

[Andy B. 40]

You can have a million waypoints between TOC and TOD if you want, so what is your point? but you can have only 5 before TOC and 5 after TOD, its not a problem for me, if you do your planning properly many of the waypoints can be removed anyway.

[Alexander Wurz 42]

You can have a million waypoints between TOC and TOD if you want, so what is your point? but you can have only 5 before TOC and 5 after TOD, its not a problem for me, if you do your planning properly many of the waypoints can be removed anyway.

Well if someone want to programm a STAR/RNAV Transitionm maually, like I do, then you have many waypoints after an actuial TOD. Look at the NERDU transition for LOWW for example