I have to admit (for the first time, in public)...

[tup61 185]

...that now I know the ins and outs of this Airbus X, I am longing more and more for an advanced version...

There. I've said it. Not because of SIDS and STARS and wingflex (I couldn't care less!), but there are just too many buttons and options (MCDU!) inop, and the more I fly this plane, the more that hurts.

That doesn't mean I don't love this Airbus X anymore: I sure do and I will be flying it for quite some time (it's the only big plane I fly right now), but now I know the basics (which is 'all' there is) I just want more!!! And it wouldn't surprise me if the target group (which, I know, isn't us here on the forum) would want more too after getting to know the basics!

So, Aerosoft, please continue to fix this bird and when you are done, take a weekend off, have a party, go nuts, and then come back on monday (any monday in the future will do) and decide if you want to go the extra mile (or miles) and make this one complete.

[Robert Halmich 8]

I agree wholeheartedly... I need more. Please Aerosoft make a more complex version.

[bionicCrab 7]

what an eloquent way of saying what we're all demanding...

[smokeyupahead 3]

...that now I know the ins and outs of this Airbus X, I am longing more and more for an advanced version...

There. I've said it. Not because of SIDS and STARS and wingflex (I couldn't care less!), but there are just too many buttons and options (MCDU!) inop, and the more I fly this plane, the more that hurts.

That doesn't mean I don't love this Airbus X anymore: I sure do and I will be flying it for quite some time (it's the only big plane I fly right now), but now I know the basics (which is 'all' there is) I just want more!!! And it wouldn't surprise me if the target group (which, I know, isn't us here on the forum) would want more too after getting to know the basics!

So, Aerosoft, please continue to fix this bird and when you are done, take a weekend off, have a party, go nuts, and then come back on monday (any monday in the future will do) and decide if you want to go the extra mile (or miles) and make this one complete.

I know how you feel!!!

I'd be happy for now if it did the things a simplified version should...had my first flight today and things didn't quite work out well.

I'll post more details,I wrote them down.

Advanced is the key word...:-)

David Di Domizio

[CaptainMike707 6]

Whereas I recognize the design philosophy that Aerosoft built the Airbus X under, I cannot say that I understand or sympathize with it.

I would, of course, say that I bought it with the full knowledge of what it was. I did so because I like Aerosoft, I think they're one of the few development teams in the FS world right now that still seems to have enough life in it to last (PMDG and CaptainSim are pretty much the only other ones that I really believe in at the moment... I think LevelD, too, if they'd ever work on their 757). Anyway, point is, I bought the Airbus X knowing what it is.

However, I bought the aircraft not so much because I wanted it, but because I wanted something and it was the closest I could get. I find the Wilco Airbus series to be completely annoying... like most of their products other than the ERJ-145 v2 series which somehow managed to be amazing. The market that most stuns me as being underdeveloped is the 737 Classic and Airbus families.

Aerosoft, of course, knows their target market and are the only ones that sees their profit. However, I have the feeling that making an Airbus with such appeal and potential in the eye-candy department without backing it up with equally appealing advanced systems is a bit of a red herring. I have no reason to impute any ill-will to the Aerosoft team, but their frenzied repetition of their reasoning for not building an advanced simulation seems much more like they're trying to convince themselves rather than the community. Many different developers have released advanced simulations with the ability for either multi-tiered difficulty settings, or an in-sim way to "point and click" to different aircraft states like the Airbus X has. Were they too lazy to go the extra mile? I don't know. It legitimately confuses me.

But, all in all, the aircraft is beautiful and I am happy with my purchase and will continue to fly it. At the same time, every time I take it out of the hanger, there are going to be lingering doubts in the back of my mind... An advanced Airbus simulation is so wanted (and, indeed, demanded) in this community, I think anyone that claims making a simplified version would be a better fit for the market isn't very in touch with the community. The business would be like sucking up money with a sponge.

[curt1 23]

From the first paragraph of the Owner's Manual:

"This Airbus had a long and complex history and to be honest everybody in the project is happy we reached the end. Doing a complex modern airliner is not easy-- we underestimated that for sure! But it was great fun and a learning experience like nothing else".

With all due respect to Aerosoft, and I do like them a lot, isn't this statement telling us why they did just a basic version? I don't think they desired to tackle a complete airliner project, because it's not their specialty. They probably didn't think they would make a profit on it if they invested numerous more hours on development. I think they're uncertain if a complete Airbus can occur...and don't want to have wasted many hours for nothing. That quote above caught my eye immediately, and I think many overlooked it. If you were to ask anyone with Aerosoft if they are capable of doing a complete Airbus with all MCDU features, customized FDE, etc...I think the answer would be 'maybe'. There would be no shame in that either, because no one else has developed an Airbus sim that appeals to hardcore simmers...the closest one is Wilco.

Curt

[Royce 10]

...that now I know the ins and outs of this Airbus X, I am longing more and more for an advanced version...

There. I've said it. Not because of SIDS and STARS and wingflex (I couldn't care less!), but there are just too many buttons and options (MCDU!) inop, and the more I fly this plane, the more that hurts.

That doesn't mean I don't love this Airbus X anymore: I sure do and I will be flying it for quite some time (it's the only big plane I fly right now), but now I know the basics (which is 'all' there is) I just want more!!! And it wouldn't surprise me if the target group (which, I know, isn't us here on the forum) would want more too after getting to know the basics!

So, Aerosoft, please continue to fix this bird and when you are done, take a weekend off, have a party, go nuts, and then come back on monday (any monday in the future will do) and decide if you want to go the extra mile (or miles) and make this one complete.

I know how you feel...

Waiting

But I find a temporally solution

The Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) for Microsoft® Flight Simulator FSX

• You no longer need to dig for charts as all the charts are calculated and rendered based on the current route setup
• The charts are automatically shown up as per the demand of the actual flight profile

This works such a FMS with SIDs and STARs, you can create the Flight Plan in a FSX format and modify it in flight.... But anyways... we need the SID and STAR option...

You can download it from here: http://www.aivlasoft.com/download/index.html and the manual too...

Its very good... you have a fully functional 30 days trial... I hope that aerosoft fix this

[ThrottleUp 1]

I do not have this airplane yet because I am waiting for the DVD box to come out hee hee, I like DVDs

However I felt compelled to reply to this topic. I can understand where the OP is coming from. We all know that there are basically 3 types of simmer when it comes to flying airliners in flight sim.

1. Casual (CTRL+E and takeoff from the taxiway)

2. Intermediate (Some realism, proper engine-start sequence, adheres to departure profiles, some calculations for fuel burn, top of descent, proper push from gate, follows RW shcedules)

3. Hardcore (Nothing but the best will do, full systems modelling, full flight planning, simulates external pre-flight check by walking around computer desk wearing Captains hat)

As far as I can tell Aerosofts new A320 is for #2 type of simmer and there is nothing wrong with that and I personally feel it needs no more improvement. I say this because advanced A320 for #3 type simmer catered for elsewhere by companies like Airsimmer. PMDG also cater for this type of simmer with their Boeing planes. The #2 type simmer is a huge market (I belong to it myself) and its really nice to see companies like Aerosoft develop a product like this. We get an awesome visual model, a superb flight deck but with a good balance between system complexity and ease of use for the intermediate simmers. Therefore I feel Aerosoft does not need to add more systems and make it more complex - they excel at making intermediate type aircraft simulations. Good examples are Catalina & Twin Otter. I have them both and really enjoy them.

Now of course its Aerosofts choice in the end, if they want to make complex A320 model of course they can but I just wanted to give my thoughts

[nolanh 21]

Concerning the basic aircraft, I find myself thinking that the decisions on where to limit functionality could be changed a small amount, resulting in a more pleasing experience for more of us.

For instance, the details of how we can use the MCDU could have been different without a lot of effort. The ability to manually enter waypoint speed and altitude constraints would have been good to have. This could be stored and still not used by the flight systems. It would be documentation only, but it would be very helpful to many customers.

In addition, the automatic global recalculation of displayed altitude constraints is, to me, not useful and even confusing. This is especially noticeable for waypoints that are part of an approach procedure. These should not be changed automatically, should they?

Since vertical navigation is not modeled for the flight system, I don't understand why the constraints should be automatically changed at all. These calculations, if done at all, should be used to display an "unable" warning (not sure about the actual warnings) if anything. I know that some constraint updating is done in the real aircraft, but it is done in very specific circumstances, and this product is just doing a global change of all waypoints across the board. I think the functionality should be limited in a "do nothing" manner instead of adding inaccurate functionality.

Having said that, I realize that no matter where the line is drawn when doing a limited simulation of a complex system, there will always be someone who is unhappy.

Some of the decisions seem arbitrary, though, including those I have listed above.

For those who are experts on Airbus systems, I know I probably have made mistakes in some assumptions, I just don't know what they are. My statements are made based on my limited knowledge and experience.

[duckbilled 30]

I do not have this airplane yet because I am waiting for the DVD box to come out hee hee, I like DVDs

However I felt compelled to reply to this topic. I can understand where the OP is coming from. We all know that there are basically 3 types of simmer when it comes to flying airliners in flight sim.

1. Casual (CTRL+E and takeoff from the taxiway)

2. Intermediate (Some realism, proper engine-start sequence, adheres to departure profiles, some calculations for fuel burn, top of descent, proper push from gate, follows RW shcedules)

3. Hardcore (Nothing but the best will do, full systems modelling, full flight planning, simulates external pre-flight check by walking around computer desk wearing Captains hat)

As far as I can tell Aerosofts new A320 is for #2 type of simmer and there is nothing wrong with that and I personally feel it needs no more improvement. I say this because advanced A320 for #3 type simmer catered for elsewhere by companies like Airsimmer. PMDG also cater for this type of simmer with their Boeing planes. The #2 type simmer is a huge market (I belong to it myself) and its really nice to see companies like Aerosoft develop a product like this. We get an awesome visual model, a superb flight deck but with a good balance between system complexity and ease of use for the intermediate simmers. Therefore I feel Aerosoft does not need to add more systems and make it more complex - they excel at making intermediate type aircraft simulations. Good examples are Catalina & Twin Otter. I have them both and really enjoy them.

Now of course its Aerosofts choice in the end, if they want to make complex A320 model of course they can but I just wanted to give my thoughts

I agree with this totally. I think another product that falls in to this category is the QW757. It will be even better after they release the FSX native version in a couple weeks.

There are a few reasons why I fall in to this category (#2)

1. Time - I need to be able to have everything down in a few flights. I have the checklist down with this aircraft now and it means that it will get a lot of use even out of it if I switch to something else for a few flights. I am not a pilot; I don't want to be a pilot. FS is a combination of experience rolled in to one package for me - the cockpit experience is a major part but not the only part.

2. ATC - I use default ATC. From what I have seen, it is the best option available. VATSIM doesn't cover AI and other add ons seem too robotic. If you use default ATC, you can't use SIDS, STARS and VNAV. It is a trade-off I am willing to make. If someone came up with a ATC add on that kept all of the functionality and quality (voice) of the default ATC, I may change my mind. BTW, it also has to adapt to add on scenery. If a scenery package doesn't have a particular navaid, ATC shouldn't be asking me to use it. I don't want the most current data - I want the exact data that is in my sim (I realize the default ATC doesn't do a great job at this from time to time).

QW received a lot of posts like this and they did end up adding some more advanced features. I, nonetheless, wouldn't go in to the PMDG forum and ask them to simplify their products just to meet my needs. I buy products that are for me and I avoid product that don't suit me. Of course, there are improvements that can be made to this product (A318/A319 expansion pack and bug fixes) but it is what it is at this moment. I welcome any enhancements of this product as long as they don't open up new can of worms.

And BTW Jeroen, I am not saying that your request isn't valid. I know how you feel - you have an add on that is almost what you wanted but it is not quite there. I have been there many times. My comments about the demands are more directed at people that have posted in other forums about this subject (and similar add ons). This product has taken a bashing at AVSIM and I think it isn't really fair. I really like it and I think Aerosoft delivered on its promise for the most part.

[tup61 185]

And BTW Jeroen, I am not saying that your request isn't valid. I know how you feel - you have an add on that is almost what you wanted but it is not quite there. I have been there many times. My comments about the demands are more directed at people that have posted in other forums about this subject (and similar add ons). This product has taken a bashing at AVSIM and I think it isn't really fair. I really like it and I think Aerosoft delivered on its promise for the most part.

Well, the addon IS what I wanted and expected. I also like it and I also think Aerosoft delivered what they promised.

I am also a category #2 flyer, in fact, I am a category # 1.5 flyer, I think. I do not adhere departure profiles, I never ever calculated ANYTHING (last week I even 'loaded' more fuel during a flight because my guess was awfully wrong, haha!), I don't follow RW plans... but I do like to do things in the VC (which I never leave) in a rather realistic way (cold and dark, I use FSX ATC (for the exact same reasons you do btw!), pushback, proper procedures etc.) So I do think I fit in the target group rather well. (Although you could also say I am hardcore in a very specific area! ) But it's exactly how I said it: now I know all there is too know, I would love to get more of this! When you like the music of a certain artist, you like to get some more tracks of that artist. And I like this Airbus and I would love to see some more 'tracks' (buttons and options) added. Not that I would become a real hardcore flyer, but just for the fun of it!

I also have to say I liked getting to know this plane, how things work etc. And now I know that, I'd like to learn more. So as I said, I will be flying this plane for quite some time, but I would't mind if more goodies were added. (And again, it won't have to be SIDs and STARs because I won't use them anyway.) So my request wasn't really to make this bus hardcore (sorry if I gave that impression) but just to add more stuff to it.

[Finn 873]

Apart from SID/STAR, Airways, holdings and a more complete VNAV simulation I don´t know what more to add.

An Airbus is really easy to use as long as You keep all white lights turned off on the overhead.

But if, after having flown the Airbus X for a while, feel that You can go further to more complex addons, then we have fullfilled the purpose

Next aircraft I can reccomend is the PMDG J41 or Wilco 737 PIC.

Finn

[tup61 185]

Apart from SID/STAR, Airways, holdings and a more complete VNAV simulation I don´t know what more to add.

An Airbus is really easy to use as long as You keep all white lights turned off on the overhead.

True, of course I'd also like to see complete VNAV, but when it comes to buttons, a lot of them do nothing at all, like on the pedestal (the entire radio section) and the overhead (even though you won't have to use them). And even if I wouldn't use it all, it would be nice if all the MCDU buttons would show something: right now 4 or 5 give you the menu.

Ah, well, you know, I guess that what I am trying to say (in the end) is that I am happy with my purchase. If you are happy with something, you always want more. Well, I do...

[Qatsi58 6]

True, of course I'd also like to see complete VNAV, but when it comes to buttons, a lot of them do nothing at all, like on the pedestal (the entire radio section) and the overhead (even though you won't have to use them). And even if I wouldn't use it all, it would be nice if all the MCDU buttons would show something: right now 4 or 5 give you the menu.

Ah, well, you know, I guess that what I am trying to say (in the end) is that I am happy with my purchase. If you are happy with something, you always want more. Well, I do...

Yeah, for the radio switch it would be nice if they would make it the FSX default avionics on/off. Because that switch is missing in the Aerosoft bus.

[tup61 185]

Yeah, for the radio switch it would be nice if they would make it the FSX default avionics on/off. Because that switch is missing in the Aerosoft bus.

That wasn't what I was thinking about, really (do we need an avionics onoff switch in the Airbus...? I am already very happy with the fact that I can load a cold and dark cockpit where everything is turned off!). I was talking about the NAV and STBY buttons on the radio. For instance.

[Andy B. 40]

One thing you have to remember is that the more working buttons and click spots you have in a FSX VC the worse the performance (FPS) is, I think Aerosoft did the right thing to keep these INOP or double redundant systems from showing anything.

[tup61 185]

Yes, of course, very true...!

[Qatsi58 6]

That wasn't what I was thinking about, really (do we need an avionics onoff switch in the Airbus...? I am already very happy with the fact that I can load a cold and dark cockpit where everything is turned off!). I was talking about the NAV and STBY buttons on the radio. For instance.

No, not really that important i can do well without. It was because FsPassengers wouldn't allow me to use the radio (though everything in the Airbus was ON, radio too). I loaded the Bus after the default Cessna of which i had switched avionics off. The radio is part of avionics, so i thought it would just be nice to have that switch really do something

I mean, without FsPassengers you don't have to switch the radio on, it will work either way.

[Maxloading 48]

I really like the Airbus. the only thing I miss is the ability to enter the airways instead of typing in each waypoints.

The liveries are also superb!

AlainV