smokeyupahead 3 Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 I think you should stick with Navigraph and if you can add the bus to topcat,wing flex is useless imo,I've been on an airbus recently I they hardly flex,it would be a waste of resources,same for weather radar imo. Vnav is important,sid and star costraints,fbw and more... David Di Domizio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane 4 Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 wing flex is useless imo,I've been on an airbus recently I they hardly flex I always noticed the wingflex on the Airbus flights I have been on. Here are a few pics. I had a really great one but I can't find it now (it pretty much destroyed the entire "they hardly flex" arguement). http://www.airliners.net/photo/TACA/Airbus-A320-233/1780681/M/ http://www.airliners.net/photo/Nouvelair-Tunisie/Airbus-A320-214/1780276/M/ http://www.airliners.net/photo/China-Southern-Airlines/Airbus-A320-214/1780100/M/ http://www.airliners.net/photo/AirAsia/Airbus-A320-216/1779329/M/ http://www.airliners.net/photo/Shenzhen-Airlines/Airbus-A320-214/1779327/M/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bionicCrab 7 Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 I dunno... The wingflex on A320 is nothing compared to the flex on the A330/A340s.. I'd much rather the droopy control surfaces that would be far more authentic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokeyupahead 3 Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 I always noticed the wingflex on the Airbus flights I have been on. Here are a few pics. I had a really great one but I can't find it now (it pretty much destroyed the entire "they hardly flex" arguement). http://www.airliners.net/photo/TACA/Airbus-A320-233/1780681/M/ http://www.airliners.net/photo/Nouvelair-Tunisie/Airbus-A320-214/1780276/M/ http://www.airliners.net/photo/China-Southern-Airlines/Airbus-A320-214/1780100/M/ http://www.airliners.net/photo/AirAsia/Airbus-A320-216/1779329/M/ http://www.airliners.net/photo/Shenzhen-Airlines/Airbus-A320-214/1779327/M/ Of course they do flex but nothing compared...lets say to the 737 NG to mention an aircraft of similar size. Plus the movement of the flex in fs is so not real...kind of to jerky for me... Anyway I'm not gonna cry if they do it I would just rather have other things taken care of right now. David Di Domizio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pkay Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Will there be a fair payment system? You can not expect that we will again pay a full price, who buyed the basic version. That would not be fair because you do not develop a new aircraft from the ground up. Your use parts from the old, so we are ready for pay, but partially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alehead 126 Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 If this is an open wishlist: I would like to see a custom FBW that actually works as Airbus designed it in all phases of flight, with an accurate rendition of the autothrottle system as described in the FCOM ( interms of active/armed positions, TOGA N1, FLEX/MCT N1, and the fact that once you have gone to TOGA, you cannot go back to FLX, just MCT... stuff like that...) Extended capability in the FMGS to include custom flight plan entry using waypoints and airways, departure/arrival procedures, runway selection, ILS autotune, constraints, custom waypoints, overfly/fly-by waypoints, and the associated smoothing of the plotted course on the ND. Weights and balance that actually reflect correct operating weights of the aircraft modelled (new load manager?) Improved refresh rates in the cockpit displays ADIRS simulation and ability to set different align times like quick, 3mins, 10mins FMGS to support all the Airbus modes of climb and descent, OP CLB and OP DES for example... What I do not need personally is: Wx radar simulation Terrain Wingflex (the minimal wingflex in the A320/1 wing is not worth the additional performance cost in my opinion) VC rain (nice effect but comes with a cost too...) Failure modelling would be a nice addition, but the work associated with the abnormal procedures and ECAM action stuff is horrendous and one of the reasons why the "other" Bus for FS9 has been having such development problems I believe... in addition to all the other hokus pokus stuff... As regards the package and pricing - it would be nice to see this as an addon for the addon, so those not wishing to delve deeper into the Airbus world can stick with the current "basic" (for wont of a better word) version, and those wishing to go the "full" hog may purchase the base package (AirbusX) and then purchase the Systems upgrade addon... At the end of the day, most of the work (ignoring the addition of say A318/9) seems not to be on the modelling/texture front... Either way, that is a decision to be met by the development team at Aerosoft and them only... we only make suggestions and not demands... Andrew Edited to add FMGS capability of airway insertion... thanks Alexander! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Wurz 42 Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 I would like at least Airways to work, the A319 and a proper approach mode with managed speed. If there will be more, it is fine to me, but I would like at least see those 3 things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alehead 126 Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 In addition to my list above, I would like to see correct animation and use of the trimmable horizontal stabiliser, which is essential to the correct appearance of Airbus aircraft, as well as the ability to enter the THS value for takeoff on the associated PERF TO page (Flaps 1 THS 1 UP or similar...) And when I command pitch on the sidestick, I would like to see the THS actually moving to the correct THS setting as the autotrim trims out and holds the pitch commanded to return the G load to +1 on stick centred... One of my current pet peeves with AirbusX... no animation of the THS... Andrew 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shorty 5 Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 if you include the A318 and A319, i would love to see the A319 CJ and/or LR version to run private or corporate flights transatlantic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stroman 0 Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Hi, Would it be possible to implement some sort of ACARS simulation through the FMC (to obtain weather, or to make some sort of communications with "the office"). I think acars is a big part of pilot's daily routine, but I never see it simulated. Kind regards, Nico ps: would still love to see VC raindrops, even if it comes at a price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly2high 5 Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Hi mathjis, I think this would make a perfect add-on 1. Sid and Stars 2. Fmc with ability to set speed and altitude for every waypoint. 3. (onlineflying) Working Tcas Jan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mindyerbeak 7 Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 I third that along with an A340. Plenty of A318,19's in the pipeline already. I would pay full price again for those models. a330 and 340 ? Ohh yes,yes and yeysss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow 107 Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 Will there be a fair payment system? You can not expect that we will again pay a full price, who buyed the basic version. That would not be fair because you do not develop a new aircraft from the ground up. Your use parts from the old, so we are ready for pay, but partially. http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=38888&view=findpost&p=256440 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Del57 0 Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 HI Mathijs I would be very happy with all of your suggestions,especially to set speed and altitudes at way points,plus a few extra titbits, you might have up your sleeve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayster 41 Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 These stuffs are a must: VNAV simulated in every aspect SID STAR with navigraph integration AIRWAYS management REAL THR/RED and CLIMB Altitude management HOLDINGS A-FLOOR and OVERSPEED protection simulation ECAM ACTIONS at least some of them AIR CONDITIONING SUOND dipendent to the PACKS ON or OFF TCAS-IVAO integration ALTITUDE AND SPEED MANAGEMENT FOR EACH WAYPOINT FBW improvement Agree with above, also maybe it would be possible to include a flight plan converter so that people can still use FSX for a quick flight plan? maybe incorporate it into the load manager? How about a failure generator too, oh and the a318/19 models would be good too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ESzczesniak 25 Posted September 17, 2010 Share Posted September 17, 2010 The Airbus X is beautifully modeled and I am quite happy that you are looking in to an "advanced" version. I've only had a few flights, but here is what I'd add: 1. Expansion of CDU/FMGS: In particular I'd like to see the ability to build a flight plan within the FMGS including departure airport and runway, SID, airways, STAR and arrival airport and runway. After that, being able to input speed/altitude constraints would be my next choice. I'd be happy to see allowances to select custom climb, descent and cruise speeds instead of hard coded speeds. However, I rarely actually change these data, so I can't argue much for it. Holds and fixes would be nice too, but I can live without those as well. 2. INS alignment: Truthfully I am not all that concerned about modeling drift, etc. Really, I would primarily like to see an option to require an alignment time period and to require that we flip the switches to align them. 3. Tuning of the VNAV: I don't know that I really need EVERY aspect modeled, but I would like to see a more flexible modeling for both managed and open VNAV. 4. Manual handling: I understand that the Airbus X was designed to be flown the way an A320/321 is normally. However, often aircraft really are hand flown on departure and final approach and while she handle's fine on departure, handling on finals is quite stubborn (we'll see how well it may be worked out with 1.20 though). 5. More thorough climb/thrust reduction profiles. In particular, the ability to set a thrust reduction height separately from an acceleration height so that we can model noise abatement procedures (typically thrust reduction at 1500 ft AFE and acceleration height at 3000 ft AFE). 6. I would like to see an option for VC rain...although I can easily live without it. 7. I like the idea for an ACARS simulation, but that's quite a bit extra work there. Like others, I am ok without a WXR, terrain display or wing flex. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatthewS 32 Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 AUTOMATED FLIGHT Potentially a complete new FBW system +1 Isn't the FBW what makes the Airbus unique? So IMHO you must simulate the FBW properly and then you will have a unique product feature that no one else has! You have already stated that the systems are not going to be PMDG level of complexity so if I want complex systems I will continue to fly PMDG 747/MD11 and the LDS767. However if I want to experience the unique Airbus FBW experience then I must purchase the Airbus X Advanced version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolanh 21 Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 Some others have said the same in other ways. What makes an Airbus an Airbus? I could list things that I think would be included, but I leave that to the experts and Airbus pilots. Then take a subset of those things and put them in the next-level product. Hopefully you have advisers to take suggested details and look at these from a systems approach for feasibility. What should be included in this subset of Airbus attributes? A special brew that gives the next level of immersion in each of the subsystems. Prioritize items and consider a third level of simulation, meaning two more products after the basic product. From what I've read, it seems that other Airbus attempts have failed to approach the state of the best Boeing simulations and that scope may be the problem. So, if there is too much to be covered, then maybe smaller chunks are the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THORmx 0 Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 I have yet to buy the Airbus X, as I'd like more systems, primarily FMS (FMGS/CDU). My list: -as much as can be done simulated FMS/FMGS/FMGC/MCDU operations (sid/stars, holds, all the possible ways to enter waypoints, vnav, runways, parameter editing) -True FBW -All 320 family models (A318-A321), including the double truck Air India, and the Business models. -I'd gladly pay a lot for that! A319/A320 are my fav's, not a fan of the underpowered A321 though. -A good load manager system (maybe already included). -Pop-Up's for the different displays, especially the FMC (MCDU) whatever Airbus calls it -After all of the A31/2 series, maybe a good feature rich A345/6! -Altitude Call Outs for sure If I think of more I'll add to this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shane 4 Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 Why is it people continually mention that Wingflex and other graphical enhancments are not worth the performance hit? Where is this "huge" performace hit everybody thinks exists? Same with the VC rain effects. PMDG added VC rain effects to the J41 and there was nowhere near a huge performance hit from it's addition. PMDG has Wingflex for the MD-11 and performance is pretty darn good, and that aircraft has a crazy amount of systems modeled as well. Is everybody getting 10 fps from add-ons with Wingflex? No. lol People feel "droop" from lack of hydraulic pressure is good to add....but not something you will see every time you fly the aircraft? I don't get it. How often do people expect to see "droop" from the hydraulic pressure? I think some folks blow the performance hit from wingflex and vc rain effects WAYYYYYYY out of proportion. Many seem to have forgotten that there are add-ons already out for FSX that have wingflex or VC Rain effects and have quite good performance. Last time I checked, the PMDG J41 was pretty highly regarded as is the PMDG MD-11. Thoughts/opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pao13 32 Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 Launching this advanced together with new models (A330-A340) would be amazing !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guenseli 76 Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 Launching this advanced together with new models (A330-A340) would be amazing !!!!! yes, and also simultaniously the A380 and the A350... I think the boundle shouldn't cost more than 30$ I have thought, that after several years of addon developing it must be clear, that development needs several month, mostly years of time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakisG 0 Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 Hallo Everyone!!! Im really fascinated with your Airbus X, but I have some questions... Firstly: Will the Airbus X Boxed Version include all that features, Mr. Mathijs mentioned??? And do you recommend it for Airbus A32X fans??? Thank you all!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sash79 0 Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 Hi Mathijs, first of all: The Aerosoft Airbus X is a really successful addon for FSX! Very good work! So my wishes for the advanced version: - adding A319 / A318 - a refined MCDU (SID/STARS, airways, runways and so on) - maybe a copilot or just more call-outs (V-Speeds, gear-up and so on) - a fully functional radio panel - a fully functional overhead panel - a stronger taxi light would be nice The design is already perfect (in my opinion)! Thanks for this wunderful Airbus!!! Greetings Sash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
online1972 1 Posted September 18, 2010 Share Posted September 18, 2010 Here are my 50 EUR cents to the discussion. It took me 15 years of trial and error to find a woman that was both smart and beautiful. Now I have found an Airbus that is fantastic over expectations in its own league beautiful. Other developers are going to get grey hair if they try to compete with the quality of the visual appearance especially the VC is fabulous. A more realistic MCDU will make the Airbus X both beautiful and intelligent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
![Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account]](https://forum.aerosoft.com/uploads/monthly_2023_09/Aerosoft_Social_Media_Profilbild_Neu23.thumb.jpg.03721825e6a434ed4af0c8b2b73a5898.jpg)
Recommended Posts