Jump to content
Finn

Airbus X Version 2

Recommended Posts

Bravo, Aerosoft, these are very very good news.

I think Aerosoft gives a very strong feedback to the customers and to the community (look at these open forums, for instance).

So, thanks a lot again. The Airbus X is already a big plane, now I'm sure it will be betwen the greatest.

Felix Fernandez de Castro (Oviedo, Spain)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great News,

do you have any date for the relase ?

regards ,

Jules

Nope....

No timeline here...

Finn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YEAH!!!laugh.gif

This is great news! My eyes have been craving to see this thread since someone first mentioned the Airbus Advanced!laugh.gif

Good luck!

Waiting for three greens, Rocketeer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG! What a relief!

I just hope the simple stuff is sorted like no longer starting up using the default cessna, switching of ELAC systems to land the plane and basically tip toeing around this aircraft to minimise the possibility of a CTD.

Believe me I'm not moaning, I just can't wait for a brilliant product to work properly and enjoy more than I already do!

Come on Aerosoft, you can do it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG! What a relief!

I just hope the simple stuff is sorted like no longer starting up using the default cessna, switching of ELAC systems to land the plane and basically tip toeing around this aircraft to minimise the possibility of a CTD.

Believe me I'm not moaning, I just can't wait for a brilliant product to work properly and enjoy more than I already do!

Come on Aerosoft, you can do it!

Using the standard startup situation will still be necessary, just like for al other high end addons - thats a FSX limitation.

Since the FBW system will be custom coded, nose dip issue should be solved.

The new MCDU code means that we no longer will use the GPSModule wich is causing the CTD´s - so hopefully the new MCDU won´t cause CTD's either ;)

Finn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see development on the upgrade package. Looking forward to see if the enhancements and improvements to the flight model and systems are on a par with the amazing aircraft modelling and texturing you all did for the basic package. If so, I believe many will return to using AirbusX, myself included...

May I make a small comment though. You stated, "Just note that a fully simulated down to the smaller parts of an Airbus will not happen. Not with Airbus X 'Advanced' nor with any other upcomming Airbus. My point is that it simply can´t be done."

Of course, a simulation engine that is essentially a game is never going to fulfil all the requirements of a full motion 100% aircraft simulation as found in commercial aviation training such as LFT and so on. FSX is not that far away from this in certain areas, as PMDG and a few others (A2A in their accusim projects) have demonstrated a lot. Call me an idealist, but I really do not believe that people here expect a 100% simulation of any commercial or whatever aircraft. There are a number of developers that have shown that "it can't be done" is a dangerous statement, Aerosoft included...

There is quite a difference between "it can't be done" and "we can't do it", though many developers may not like to admit that they cannot do things.

I'll be looking forward to seeing the development of the advanced package and, as an early and subsequently somewhat miffed and disappointed buyer of the basic AirbusX, would hope that I can add the advanced package to the basic Bus.

I have faith that Aerosoft has taken the comments and criticism to heart and will provide an addon package to the AirbusX that is worthy of the Aerosoft name. As Mathijs has mentioned in another context, there is alway a reputation on the line, particularly when releases perhaps do not go quite as hoped or planned.

I wish you all the best in the development and testing phases and look forward to seeing the fruits and blinding reviews!

Andrew

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the standard startup situation will still be necessary, just like for al other high end addons - thats a FSX limitation.

Since the FBW system will be custom coded, nose dip issue should be solved.

The new MCDU code means that we no longer will use the GPSModule wich is causing the CTD´s - so hopefully the new MCDU won´t cause CTD's either ;)

Finn

Believe me Finn, if starting up using the default cessna is all I need to do then I'm happy as a pig in.... Well you know!

I just wonder what comparison will now be sewn between airbus x and the upgrade coming out shortly for the wilco airbus series called 'evolution' costing £16.56.

Hopefully aerosoft will be a bit more reasonable with the price what with airbus x only being half the model that wilco is before the upgrade?

Before anyone gets upset with the half the model, I simple mean in regards to FBW and MCDU systems. Don't forget I still love Airbus X.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see development on the upgrade package. Looking forward to see if the enhancements and improvements to the flight model and systems are on a par with the amazing aircraft modelling and texturing you all did for the basic package. If so, I believe many will return to using AirbusX, myself included...

May I make a small comment though. You stated, "Just note that a fully simulated down to the smaller parts of an Airbus will not happen. Not with Airbus X 'Advanced' nor with any other upcomming Airbus. My point is that it simply can´t be done."

Of course, a simulation engine that is essentially a game is never going to fulfil all the requirements of a full motion 100% aircraft simulation as found in commercial aviation training such as LFT and so on. FSX is not that far away from this in certain areas, as PMDG and a few others (A2A in their accusim projects) have demonstrated a lot. Call me an idealist, but I really do not believe that people here expect a 100% simulation of any commercial or whatever aircraft. There are a number of developers that have shown that "it can't be done" is a dangerous statement, Aerosoft included...

There is quite a difference between "it can't be done" and "we can't do it", though many developers may not like to admit that they cannot do things.

I'll be looking forward to seeing the development of the advanced package and, as an early and subsequently somewhat miffed and disappointed buyer of the basic AirbusX, would hope that I can add the advanced package to the basic Bus.

I have faith that Aerosoft has taken the comments and criticism to heart and will provide an addon package to the AirbusX that is worthy of the Aerosoft name. As Mathijs has mentioned in another context, there is alway a reputation on the line, particularly when releases perhaps do not go quite as hoped or planned.

I wish you all the best in the development and testing phases and look forward to seeing the fruits and blinding reviews!

Andrew

Ok then let´s say "We here at Aerosoft can´t do it"..

But note that PMDG makes Boeing aircraft, wich are alot simpler when it comes to avionics and software.

Try to read the realworld manual, just for the ECAM system and You will see how much more complex the Airbus is.

Have You ever asked Yourself why PMDG haven´t made an Airbus, considering how big the demand from the FS community is ?

I´m sure that would have ade a much better business making an Airbus than the much less known MD-11.

Just because a Boeing can be simulated down to near realistic detail does not mean that the same can be done for an Airbus.

What seperates Boeings from Airbusses are FBW, FADEC and alot more automation and feedback on aircraft systems.

If a aircraft system fails on the Airbus, You not only get a warning or caution on the ECAM displays, but also a comprehensive check list on how to isolate the problem as well as how to restore it.

There is really a reason why no one has done a detailed Airbus for Flight Simulator and that those who tried ultimatly failed.

An Airliner is not just an Airliner.

Whether FSLabs will be able to make what You wish for has still to be shown.

Other than an announcement that they are planning to make one, nothing else has been said or shown.

Finn

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok then let´s say "We here at Aerosoft can´t do it"..

But note that PMDG makes Boeing aircraft, wich are alot simpler when it comes to avionics and software.

Try to read the realworld manual, just for the ECAM system and You will see how much more complex the Airbus is.

Have You ever asked Yourself why PMDG haven´t made an Airbus, considering how big the demand from the FS community is ?

I´m sure that would have ade a much better business making an Airbus than the much less known MD-11.

Just because a Boeing can be simulated down to near realistic detail does not mean that the same can be done for an Airbus.

What seperates Boeings from Airbusses are FBW, FADEC and alot more automation and feedback on aircraft systems.

If a aircraft system fails on the Airbus, You not only get a warning or caution on the ECAM displays, but also a comprehensive check list on how to isolate the problem as well as how to restore it.

There is really a reason why no one has done a detailed Airbus for Flight Simulator and that those who tried ultimatly failed.

An Airliner is not just an Airliner.

Whether FSLabs will be able to make what You wish for has still to be shown.

Other than an announcement that they are planning to make one, nothing else has been said or shown.

Finn

Why do I get the feeling that you have totally misunderstood me Finn?

Your response reads as a person who feels attacked, and that was DEFINITELY NOT my intention...

If you look closely at my post I am wishing you all the best for the development of the advanced project. I use the analogy of PMDG/A2A and so on purely as a means of stating that the phrase "it cannot be done" has often been proved wrong. I do not doubt for one minute the complexity of the A32S series, or any Airbus for that matter and have read large portions of the real world FCOMs and even talked to a couple of A320 pilots about various handling aspects.

PMDG have done aircraft to date, to which they have a direct link... The JS41 was Robert Randazzo's chariot before he moved onto jets as a pilot, and PMDG has an industrial partnership with Boeing. I do not wish to speculate as to why PMDG has not approached the A32X or any other Airbus for that matter. That is their issue... I also wouldn't say that Boeings are simpler than Airbus per se...different, yes...

Also, have a look at the MD11(X) failure module and how the consequences of not acting correctly can lead to additional systems shutdown or failure...

Fact of the matter is, Aerosoft tackled the A320. The first offering looks like the A320/1, an excellent graphical rendition, if not the best graphical rendition on the market even (though I haven't compared the various models on offer directly with each other, not that I would care...). However, the first offering does not handle like an A320. I hope this handling aspect will be improved, such that it more closely resembles the FBW concept of Airbus. An exact replica of the flight model will indeed be difficult. Time will tell if any developer ever manages to get that behaviour correct. If it does turn out to be totally impossible, then so be it.

The list of additions and fixes you have posted so far certainly looks inviting and I will repeat myself here in wishing you and the rest of the Aerosoft team all the best in the development, testing, and release to market of what we hope to be a definitive package in A320 simulation for FSX.

I am certainly looking forward to seeing it!

Andrew

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do I get the feeling that you have totally misunderstood me Finn?

Your response reads as a person who feels attacked, and that was DEFINITELY NOT my intention...

If you look closely at my post I am wishing you all the best for the development of the advanced project. I use the analogy of PMDG/A2A and so on purely as a means of stating that the phrase "it cannot be done" has often been proved wrong. I do not doubt for one minute the complexity of the A32S series, or any Airbus for that matter and have read large portions of the real world FCOMs and even talked to a couple of A320 pilots about various handling aspects.

PMDG have done aircraft to date, to which they have a direct link... The JS41 was Robert Randazzo's chariot before he moved onto jets as a pilot, and PMDG has an industrial partnership with Boeing. I do not wish to speculate as to why PMDG has not approached the A32X or any other Airbus for that matter. That is their issue... I also wouldn't say that Boeings are simpler than Airbus per se...different, yes...

Also, have a look at the MD11(X) failure module and how the consequences of not acting correctly can lead to additional systems shutdown or failure...

Fact of the matter is, Aerosoft tackled the A320. The first offering looks like the A320/1, an excellent graphical rendition, if not the best graphical rendition on the market even (though I haven't compared the various models on offer directly with each other, not that I would care...). However, the first offering does not handle like an A320. I hope this handling aspect will be improved, such that it more closely resembles the FBW concept of Airbus. An exact replica of the flight model will indeed be difficult. Time will tell if any developer ever manages to get that behaviour correct. If it does turn out to be totally impossible, then so be it.

The list of additions and fixes you have posted so far certainly looks inviting and I will repeat myself here in wishing you and the rest of the Aerosoft team all the best in the development, testing, and release to market of what we hope to be a definitive package in A320 simulation for FSX.

I am certainly looking forward to seeing it!

Andrew

I did not take Your post as an attack.

I just wanted to explain how much different the Airbusses are relative to other Airliners - nothing more.

I´m just trying to keep the "hype" down for the Airbus implementation into FSX, cause FSX is really not up for the task simulating the Airbus way of doing things. Infact we are hitting some real limitation of FSX trying to do so.

And believe me there is a distinct difference between Boeing 737NG's and Airbusses. Boeings are much simpler when it comes to flight control and handling of caution/warnings.

Just look on the cockpit arrangement.

In Boeings You ahve a large Yoke in front of You, cause it is meant to be controlled that way much more than an Airbus, where the sidestick is hidden away in a corner.

In a Boeing You need to configure fuel, electrical etc. manually. In an Airbus You hardly need to touch the overhead under normal circumstances.

This fact alone means that there is a much greater need to have systems to keep the pilots updated on system states as well as how to handle them manually if they fail.

I rarely feel attacked by forum posts, I just feel the need to try to explain people that there is a huge difference between Being and Airbus philosofy, reflected by the sheer extend of software running in an Airbus, cause alot of people don´t seem to recon that, but regard and Airliner with 4 displays and an overhead equal to another aircraft producers Airliner seemingly equipped with the same.

Jus try to compare the documnets between a Boeing 737 and a Airbus 32X here:

-Boeing 737NG: http://www.smartcockpit.com/plane/boeing/B737/

-Airbus 32X: http://www.smartcockpit.com/plane/airbus/A320/

Now look on what FSX has to offer Boeing wise versus Airbus wise and I´m sure that You can see what I´m trying to tell.

Best regards

Finn

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Finn,

is there any information about new models like a330 and a340 or a319 and a318?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Finn,

is there any information about new models like a330 and a340 or a319 and a318?

For now we only talk about upgrading the current A320/321.

Finn

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Finn,

It looks like you've been quite active in this thread for now, and so I have a single question I would like to have answered if possible!?

I have touched this topic already once, but haven't received a straight forward answer...

Is the Aerosoft Team capable of implementing the winglights? With winglights I mean the lights illuminating the engine intake and the wings leading edge (slats)?

Please give me positive feedback, because for the exterior model to be complete this is the last accessory missing!!!unsure.gif

Hoping for 3 greens, Rocketeer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will it a free update for airbii X owners? :)

EDIT: Nvm I can't read. :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Finn,

It looks like you've been quite active in this thread for now, and so I have a single question I would like to have answered if possible!?

I have touched this topic already once, but haven't received a straight forward answer...

Is the Aerosoft Team capable of implementing the winglights? With winglights I mean the lights illuminating the engine intake and the wings leading edge (slats)?

Please give me positive feedback, because for the exterior model to be complete this is the last accessory missing!!!unsure.gif

Hoping for 3 greens, Rocketeer

Lights are really porked in FSX, even compared to FS9.

If we would do the winglights, then we needed to make them custom, something I´m not sure would be worth it and maybe even introduce other anomalities.

Finn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I right in saying that you will make an update for airbus x as it is now to fix the FBW with custom coding and make this available to everyone who has bought airbus x as a free update and then another update which is at a cost for updated MCDU with SIDS/Stars? Just seems a bit unfair if you don't?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I right in saying that you will make an update for airbus x as it is now to fix the FBW with custom coding and make this available to everyone who has bought airbus x as a free update and then another update which is at a cost for updated MCDU with SIDS/Stars? Just seems a bit unfair if you don't?

Though no details can be said yet, Your request make sense.

In the end we might have two updates.

One that take care of known issues and one that includes added features.

The fact that Airbus X doesn´t have SID/STAR and a more realistic VNAV function is so by design, thus they are not bugs - just missing features.

Finn

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though no details can be said yet, Your request make sense.

In the end we might have two updates.

One that take care of known issues and one that includes added features.

The fact that Airbus X doesn´t have SID/STAR and a more realistic VNAV function is so by design, thus they are not bugs - just missing features.

Finn

I think I speak for every Airbus X owner, that would be the sensible way forward.

A update to finally iron out bugs and properly coded FBW and a separate upgrade for the higher detailed MCDU (with the possibility of using the keyboard to enter information into scratchpad).

I would be happy with that, just very impatient! Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I speak for every Airbus X owner, that would be the sensible way forward.

A update to finally iron out bugs and properly coded FBW and a separate upgrade for the higher detailed MCDU (with the possibility of using the keyboard to enter information into scratchpad).

I would be happy with that, just very impatient! Lol

Sounds reasonable to me!wink.gif

The 1st as a routine update and the 2nd as an extension to the Airbus X "basic"?!

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...