BartV 3 Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 Mathijs Your accomplishments in Flight Simulation addon software are outstanding. Even back in Lago FS2000 time, the FS Traffic addon was groundbreaking and thanks to your drive for innovation and perfection, Aerosoft is now offering many of the best scenery packages available on the market. Thanks to you and Aerosoft, FS simply never gets boring! However you will not getting of my support, either morally or financially, on the Airbus 320 project. I found it hard to bring under words what I feel, but I found the perfect description on the forum of a competitor who exclusively sells aircraft addons. Regarding aircraft, the simulation should respond to you precisely how the airplane would respond to you- without excuses and without having to give leeway because it is "just an MS platform." I'm very disappointed by your and Aerosoft's attitude regarding realism on the Airbus 320. A dedicated group of FS users, those who are interested in learning advanced procedures and often have real flight experience as well, are being left in the cold. And these users are longing for a decent A320 sim, as after all these years of FS development this is still not available, something of which you are very aware. The Airbus 320 software is not challenging and does not provide the learning curve which is the most satisfying feature of learning a new aircraft. Your excuses, as to make it more user friendly, are not valid as there are more than enough options available to adapt any software according to the user's level of experience. I keep supporting you and Aerosoft, and I'll keep buying your products which do reach the level that I came to expect from you. Your history has proven that you are aware that FS is NOT just an MS platform that should cater to the customer like MS does. Please let your genuine feeling of what's right for the FS community prevail over commercial pressure. Kind regards Bart 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William G 11 Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 Gez, enough with the declarations of outrage already. They were very open about the target market this was aimed at from the very beginning. They continually mentioned it throughout development. They have been as open with their communication on this project as any company I have seen. I understand those that prefer complex simulations, I do myself, but I knew what this was going to be before buying it. If it isn't the complexity you wanted it is not their fault, they delivered the complexity they promised at a price that reflects that level. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balus 43 Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 ..... However you will not getting of my support, either morally or financially, on the Airbus 320 project. fair enough, so why are you here? Trolling perhaps? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Golding 159 Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 One could say the same about your post Bartv! Whilst you may want a very detailed high-end product and in case you still missed the ever repeated point "this was never intended to be a complex add-on!" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BartV 3 Posted October 3, 2010 Author Share Posted October 3, 2010 Guys, read my post. I'm not attacking Aerosoft's communications in this project. Yes, it was clear before the product was released, let's move on. The dedicated usergroup has seen their market restricted to a few aircraft with very few additions in the last 2 years. And still no Airbus, while the market for "no time for config and checks" users was already filled with other Airbus products before the release of this one. There are only 3 developers, including Aerosoft, which I see competent to create or at least delegate the creation of the level of aircraft that all FS users deserve. They should have ONE common attitude: regarding aircraft, the simulation should respond to you precisely how the airplane would respond to you- without excuses and without having to give leeway because it is "just an MS platform." Therefore I want to express my disagreement with the current attitude shown by Aerosoft, and the missed opportunity for the A320 that this attitude has caused. I'm getting worried that this trend of releasing aircraft who are "directly aimed at the user who likes to fly and not to spend too much time on configuration and pre-flight checks" which was already pioneered by another company is becoming universal and will spread to the other high level developers, especially if we would allow them to do this without objecting on a forum like this. It is presented as a nice gesture towards newer users, they can buy a professional aircraft and they can just start the engines with CTRL+E. But in reality it is based on false reasoning and seems to be used as a commercial excuse for mediocre or poor development of an add-on. It is possible to release software which caters to every FS user, by allowing them to select the level of difficulty that the add-on should present. I know that Mathijs listens to his customers. This is the only reason for this post. I hope it rings a bell. Kind regards Bart 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 873 Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 As a developer on this project I must say... Main problem we have, is that we have given You one of the best and most realistic looking aircraft ever done for FSX. Both external and VC is top notch. This was done for a professional project Aerosoft was doing - So we asked us self why not port this into FSX ? We here at Aerosoft internal developement never strived to compete against companies like PMDG, Level-D or any other highend addon developers. What You see is an astonishing model, this makes You want more, wich we never ever promised. Right from the start we told openly that this was not for the diehard flightsimmer, but merely something between the default Airbus and the Airbus from Wilco/Feelthere. Honestly I think we suceeded doing so. We never promised a MCDU at all, but found that we needed to make one due to community request. The MCDU has become much more complex than planned actually. Have we failed to deliver ? I think not... With serveral thousand download copies sold, I would have expected many more angry posts here. Note that people buying download products, know how to use the internet and certainly would have found their way into this forum. Most posters who complain here, compares the Airbus X with highend addons they own and reports bugs thay only see cause they have more than average knowledge about the Airbus or aircraft systems. That shows to me that they are not our intended target group, but merely customers knowing about other highend addons and then hoped for something better than promised buying the Airbus X. Seeing posts like "unflyable" makes me wonder.... I have no problems flying the Airbus X in neither auto nor manual mode. The Wobble at AP disconnect exist and cannot be remedied entirely, but I have no problem managing it. That is both in a fully loaded and an almost empty Airbus. Flaming the beta testers is not fair either. They have done a tremendously good job in my eyes. But some issues was only noted by some testers, while not by others. Other bugs, reported by the testers has not been solved at release, cause on a complex addon, what this actually is, You cannot keep postponing release cause some issues exist. It would then have been a question about releasing with known bugs (Actually noted when released) or not releasing it at all. Other companies are not acting any different. Our main goal was to deliver an addon for the flightsimmer that doesn´t have alot of time for his hobby and for those who want to fly rather than reading a manual with complex systems descriptions. An addon wich they know, cause they have flown on holiday with it maybe. The Airbus A320 is good for this, cause most systems are automatic. Starting up the airbus does not require alot from the Pilot. Some say that we missed this point, cause the Airbus X has become more complex than it should be, but I disagree.. I can get the Airbus up flying with a procedure less than one A4 page long: -Load FSX flightplan -Select Cold and Dark -Both Battries on -Fuelpumps on -APU start -APU bleed on -Engine one start -Engine two start -APU off Taxi to runway -Set flaps one notch -Set throttles full forward -Rotate -Gear up -Press AP1 -When "LVR CLB" Flashes on the PFD -> set throttles to CLB At cruise altitude: -Set approach altitude in FCU ALT Window and push the knob. Once starting descend (wich happen automatically if above item has been set): -Help slowdown with speedbrakes -On the MCDU PERF APPR page press "Activate Appr Phase" -> "Confirm Appr Phase" -Set ILS freq and course -Set flaps -Set gear -Arm spoiler -Set autobrakes -Press APPR -Press AP2 -When RETARD is called bring throttles to idle -Press F2 for reverse thrust -Once below 60 knots disengage reverse thrust by moving throttles slightly out of idel position, wich also retracts spoilers. Voila Long list ? I don´t think it can be shorter if any kind of reality should exist. Finn 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deputy Sheriffs mopperle 4162 Posted October 3, 2010 Deputy Sheriffs Share Posted October 3, 2010 Nearly 100% agree with Finn. And there are some points that people complaining about various issues should keep in mind: 1. The AirbusX is flyable! 1. AirbusX is not that kind of product where you need a learning curve like the excellent products from PMDG 2. but it is also not that kind of aircraft where just press "STRG+E", full throttle and up, up and away 3. Yes, there are some issues, due to the fact that Aerosoft had to make a decision to model the aircraft based on the exiting FBW in FSX or to program a completely new enigine. I'm sure the decision was based on a lot of things. 4. Have you ever asked yourself why there is no complex (like PMDG) version of the Airbus available, 4 years after FSX has been released? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BartV 3 Posted October 3, 2010 Author Share Posted October 3, 2010 Hi Finn Thank you for your reply. I do not own the product based on the reasons described above. But when I read the feedback on this forum, I agree that you did not failed to deliver on what you promised. Nor did you communicate it wrongly. Please understand that this is not the issue. It has nothing to do with any of the current issues (i.e. bugs) post-production. The issue is related to the attitude that Aerosoft has shown towards the design of this add-on, something for which you and the development team are not responsible as you followed the instructions put forward by your employer and you did a great job in that aspect. That's why I was directly speaking to Mathijs in my original post. In my eyes, Aerosoft is able to produce addons who are as advanced as the other products you mentioned (most other developers are not, so I won't post this on their forum). Mathijs is a great leader with years of experience and Aerosoft has developers who did crazy things and extended FS in a way we could never imagine. We all know that an Airbus is missing in the product range put forward by PMDG, Level-D, etc while Wilco and other producers already developed an Airbus for the user group that the Aerosoft product targets. The advanced dedicated user group is also a group of people with less spare time on their hands, often professionally active in a very demanding IT or aviation related job. They are fast learners, eager to study advanced procedures, often fly in real life themselves, and want to make the best of their spare time by learning to fly challenging new aircraft. I'm trying to speak up for them, as they are after many years and promises still deprived of an Airbus addon. I believe Aerosoft missed an opportunity by adopting the same attitude as 95% of the other FS developers. However, the future is still bright, and one of the 5% remaining developers published an attitude for Aerosoft to consider, an attitude which caters to all users of FS, both new and advanced. Call it trolling, but only by posting this here on the forum and letting my voice be heard I might provoke a little change at Aerosoft. I know that Mathijs listens. Again, I hope this rings a bell. Kind regards Bart 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 873 Posted October 3, 2010 Share Posted October 3, 2010 The difference between the highend addon developement teams and our is that they comprise of highly skilled professional coders backed up by reallife pilots who are actually part of the developement team. They also get close help from the actual aircraft manufacturer. Like PMDG who get alot of help and advice from Boeing themself. We do not.... We have a few contacts to airline pilots who help us as far as their time permits. The developement phase for those comapnies are not 1 year like on this Airbus, but merely 2-3 years with 3-4 profesional coders, backed up by aircraft manufacturer engineers. Could Aerosoft do the same ? Yes they could, but that has never been Aerosofts main focus. Aerosoft sells scenery and aircraft. Sceneries published for small developement groups outside Aersoft as well as their own internal developement. The same with Aircraft addons - but the internal developements at Aerosoft has almost entirely been focused on smaller GA and Bushflying aircraft. recently we have done more special aircraft like the F-16, Glider X & K as well as vintage aircraft like the Hughes H-1 and Catalina. Thats also why we never strived to compete against the highend addon developers nor the other Airbus addon for FS9 done by the company I aint allowed to call by their name. But some people didn´t want to listen to what we promised. They kept on hoping - and even demanded - Airbus X to be more than it is. I´m sorry for them if they feel let down, but we they where forwarned ! And to repeat myself (for the 10th time or so) and point out what Mopperler also asks above..... ...Have anybody ever asked themselfes why no one has developed a much more realsistic Airbus ? It is clear to see that there is agreat potential in releasing a complex Airbus - so why did no one - even PMDG build one ? Or why did that other company fail to deliver even a FS9 version ? Because they are bad developers or because there are aircraft users rather will se released demand ? No... FS(X) and Airbus simply don´t go well hand in hand together. The Airbus is so much different from what FS(X) can handle that many systems needs to be custom coded. But also the logic behind the ECAM and aircraft systems are so complex that it would require code equal to the real thing to function realistic. So believe me - there are alot of other aircraft wich also are complex, but easier to code withing FSX that other companies rather will do those and have succes rather than start into the Airbus hell of FADEC, FBW, ECAM, FCU/MCDU stuff only to get flamed by the comunity and risc getting a bad name. Thats why we at Aerosoft started this project, being totally honest about what to expect and what NOT to expect. We simply didn´t want to go into a Airbus addon calling it realistic or highend - cause we knew that there would be an extreme risc failing that. We simply had this extremely good looking external model + an astonishing Virtual cockpit from another project. Our idea was to make an addon looking extremely good for those wanting to have an easier time flying from A-B after work when their kids are put to bed and their wife or husband positioned at the TV. Most often less complex addons comes with a equal less good looking model. Knowing the sales number vs people who complain (not number of posts, but rather number of different people) I know that we did not fail, but it is still not nice to see that some people missed the concept behind our project and spread their outrage through various forums. Finn 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAPTEJNLN 237 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Well said Finn, and realy understand you at some point it just gets to much. and must say it is hard to find any awenser as time passes as so many post about the same.. that is some thing people should think about, how hard it is to find any awenser. but all in all grate job Aerosoft for me it seems wery stabil and a good combination. But finn just 1 thing i dont understand why the 2 sensetives. 1 when ap is on and under 100 ft another one when manual flight ? that was my biggest chalenge and therfor turned of FBW as slow control when manual and then just to the other end so sensetive i nearly don need to touch the yoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn 873 Posted October 4, 2010 Share Posted October 4, 2010 Please ask MS... The default FBW, wich we use, is totally undocomentet in the SDK. Once we started using it during developement we didn´t see any troubles with it, mainly because most tests was done with AP control. We didn´t know that so many people would handfly the Airbus, cause that contradicts the whole concept for the real Airbus. The concept of the real Airbus is that as much are automated as possible - also flying it ÷autoland, wich isn´t used that much in reality. But I don´t have much troubles handflying Airbus X myself. I agree that it is more sluggish than it should be, but changing that would compromise AP behaviour. Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts