Support overload. We are currently seeing 65% more demand for support then we normally see. We can only assume this is because more people are at home due to the corona crises. Our complete support staff is online and they are working flat out, but it will take some days before we can scale up resources. Please be patient.

Jump to content
jgcomp

Airbus X MCDU

Recommended Posts

I purchased Airbus X and I must report that I ma highly deceived that the MCDU is lacking several important features such as Airport Departure Runways, SID, STAR, Airport Arrival Runways, etc. Before using FSX, I owned and operated the Airbus series from Phoenix Software and, all will agree that while the Phoenix aircraft did not have all the eye candies/features of the Aibus X from Aerosoft, it had MCDU functionality much superior to Aerosoft. For all that is, I must go back to using my LVLD 767 and my PMDG 747 which offer more realistic MCDUs. Until Aerosoft comes up with a patch for what I consider a serious flaw on the part of Aerosoft. If I could get a reimbursement, I would gladly give it back. It is not worth using as it is.

JGComp

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. For any complaints you have, you must contact support@aerosoft.com directly. However, did you not read the specification of the product before you purchased? It does not mention any of the MCDU functionality that you mention.

Addionally, I must add that despite the lack of SID/STAR functionality. You are able to program or import a flight plan including SIDs/STARs so the MCDU isn't as limited as you may initially think.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem with adding the sids and stars but I think that programming in a departure or arrival runway should be added.

JeffG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...the MCDU is lacking several important features such as Airport Departure Runways, SID, STAR, Airport Arrival Runways, etc...

These things are NOT lacking, because they were never expected to be there.

Timo

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't believe the way some people near to Aerosoft is reacting to this request of many simmers. Aerosoft has always been for me distinct from other software developers because they actually answer to the community. Now, they have in their hands the chance of managing the reference Airbus for years, and they are loosing it! Why, I wonder.

OK, you are honest, nobody doubts, the MCDU that many people demands here is not in the previous and announced specifications of the product. It's true. But it is not enough. Why? Because, as jgcomp pointed before, we were already using MCDU with this possibilities, even from FS9, and from models of Airbus previous to the AS one. I have been suffering for years the limitations of the Wilco products: primitive visuals, zero feedback from developpers... But in this ancient plane I can work with runways, SIDs, airways and STARS's.

My dream was just a plane equal but without these issues. I would pay more money with pleasure for that, because, as many other people, we are still waiting for THE definitive A320 (yes, as you can suppose, I am one of the sad AirSimmer Extended Team victims).

So, Aerosoft, you have the real chance to fill a decisive slot in the flight simulation world. I think that this particular question of the FMGS is a true "red line" between toys and planes, and most of us we want planes, and you use to do some of the best planes in the market. Congratulations for that, and all my hope for the future development of the AS Airbus X.

Best regards,

Félix Fernández de Castro (LEAS, Spain)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, you are honest, nobody doubts, the MCDU that many people demands here is not in the previous and announced specifications of the product

at the moment they don´t even fulfill their own simple demanded specification of the product anouncment. if they had focused more on the flightdynamics, A/T and A/P and maybe added some of the missing features,many people would like to see, they would not have such big problems now with the behaviour of the plane because they would taken more care about that instead of just creating a nice panel.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

My dream was just a plane equal but without these issues. I would pay more money with pleasure for that, because, as many other people, we are still waiting for THE definitive A320 (yes, as you can suppose, I am one of the sad AirSimmer Extended Team victims).

Oh, how I understand how you feel there, Felix! I am also one of the ET, annoyed at what has happened over there... I have long since called that a failed investment... I stay away from the forum, not worth the heartache...

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still very surprised over these issues. We have made it clear time and time and time again that this was a product aimed at the people with low experience and this has not changed during the whole development of the product. The product is in fact more complex and more advanced then we intended it to be. Now clearly some people expected something else and I am sorry for that. But everybody who spend any time on this forum would have known. Just do a search for SIDs and you will see the topic coming up many many times.

Comments as 'they are loosing it' simply make no sense. Certainly not in the same post that praises us for being open to customers. We have been VERY open to customers about this product.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...