What customers think

[Emi 5161]

I'd love wing flex. Adds to the immersion. Would be awesome to have while waiting for proper descent fixes to come.

Won't be done due to it being not realisitc on an Airbus of this size. The A330 will have wing flex, but not the tiny ones. Their wing's done flex to much in reality! If you've ever been in one in which they did I'd never fly with that airline again!

The second reason is that for the little (in the sim it would actually only be one or two pixels) they flex it isn't worth the additional framerateloss.

Wingflex topic closed, further posts about it will be deleated!

[gardan 4]

I'll stay with my opinion - the best FSX Airbus product at this moment.

There are bugs and calculation errors (I posted some in SP1 thread) but if you flew the first NGX version you would understand that every software has them, and gets better as flaws are solved.

Bonjour à tous,

Je partage complètement cette analyse.

.. et bonne année 2013 à tout les simmeurs.

[sampa 30]

Well, you can add me to the list of the initially-impressed-but-now-not-so-much. One of my early comments is included the the initial post but after a number of flight hours my opinion has changed quite a bit.

It is still the best FBW Airbus for FSX, but as I've learned how to fly and operate the AXE I'm finding that the problems have become more prominent. They were always there, but as I was busy trying to fly the thing they took a back seat. Now that I'm comfortable operating it I can spend more time observing it's behaviour, and seeing things that I didn't have time to see before.

It's early days yet, and it has promise, so let's see where AXE goes from here.

TTFN

[d_mitri 6]

Airbus339 you seem to forget that they pointed out from the begining that this will not have a full featured MCDU. It is a mid priced product and not a full featured $80 PMDG.

That being said I agree with both you and sampa above about some points. The observation I have obtained after settling into the new airbus.

The TOD even after descending earlier than expected is still too erratic and I don't think passengers would appreciated drops with descending from 1,000 fpm to 5,000 fpm. In turn what this does is increase my airspeed. In the checklist the copilot will sometimes apply air brakes. Still, I am now in class B airspace on approach and instead of losing speed I am still at 200+.

The only remedy to this situation is to manually take over the throttle management and reduce my speeds down to 180 or less to make for an easier approach to 130 to 140 kts.

[SahinCe 24]

Airbus339 you seem to forget that they pointed out from the begining that this will not have a full featured MCDU. It is a mid priced product and not a full featured $80 PMDG.

First, this addon is the best A320 at the moment.

No nooo.. you cannot say ‘this is a cheap aircraft compared to the PMDG or another addon’ every time there is a malfunction.

1. This aircraft is not the cheapest for example à Airbus X was €40, Airbus X Extended is €20 this equals 40 + 20 = €60.You cannot say the price of an Airbus X is excluded to this equation, because I have not done a single complete flight with the Airbus X and deleted it more than a year ago (who didn’t?).
   
   
2. Often whenever there is a bug you refer to the capacity of FSX itself, that's not fair. How come there are many other addons in which these problems don’t occur (the PMDG excluded).
   

Summary: This Aircraft is €60 (€60 x 1.31 = $78.6) and not €40 and if customers buy this product they are entitled to a working addon (obviously, as they paid for one).

[d_mitri 6]

Yes, but I never said or insinuatied this product is cheap. I said it was "mid priced" and not a full featured simulation like the PMDG 737.

It is my understanding that the developers never intended to make this a fully featured airbus sim. It has many features removed or that will not be modeled.

It is a very well done simulation with a few small issues that once addressed will make it near perfect.

[SahinCe 24]

It is a very well done simulation with a few small issues that once addressed will make it near perfect.

Agreed wıth this as that is what im expecting.

Also, my message above wasnt directed to you.

Regards.

[Joshua Che. 1601]

After about 10 flights I think I have my opinion of this aircraft. Simply: with this version 1.02c the aircraft is unflyable

1) Takeoff. Scary "end-of-runway" rotation due to a combination of bad Vspeeds and elevator effectivness (missing in the Known issues)

2) AP violent at low altitudes both with LNAV and VNAV (at higher altitudes it's better) (missing in the known issues)

3) The last part of the flight is really scary with fantasious descent and sometimes fantasious LNAV (especially with "S-shaped" STARS)

4) Fuel planner is good, but A320 can make short flights, less than 200 miles and less than FL310 (missing in the known issues)

5) FMC is missing enormous quantities of data (missing in the known issues)

6) Some FMA indications are missing, some important ones like "Drag required" (missing in the known issues)

In conclusion in each part of the flight (apart from taxi and maybe cruise) has bugs..

I have spent my money and I'll use it for a few weeks more hoping for improvements, as now it's totally messed up

There are many good sides as well like sound, the copilot function, lights and some more... that's what is pushing me to fly it. But when rotation comes up everything springs to my mind and it's really disappointing

I will update the known issues now. If you search the forum, you would have noticed post by ME acknowledging SOME of the points you listed.

Some of the invalid points though: 3) depends. 4) not a bug. 5) Not simulated to a certain degree 6) was NEVER (DRAG etc) intended to be simulated. not a bug.

[Joshua Che. 1601]

Enough. All such will it be fixed? post will be deleted. Create you own thread in the appropriate place.

[Mladen 55]

Hi!

I bought Airbus X Extended when v1.02c was released and after completing several flights I wish to share my thoughts with the community.

This addon is an enormous improvement over the original Airbus X which ended in my Recycle bin right after v1.22 was released. Airbus X Extended is on a good way to become an excelent addon once all the bugs and some system behaviour are corrected. One thing that enoyed me from the begining was excessive number of camera views in the cockpit, which I deleted to be able to fly, but that is who I am - a Simmer and not a Gamer.

At this time we can see a lot of problems which can be put in 3 categories:

1. Not understanding Airbus philosofy/logic - Airbus is very different from all other aircraft and to be able to program and fly the bird you have to understand how it works, which requires some reading, learning and help from forum Support

2. Obvious bugs - if you can recreate a CTD every time then it is a BUG and you can not blame FSX. If the addon requires FSX with NO TWEAKS it should be clearly stated in the System Requirements!

3. Uncomplete development and coding errors - if you wander why there is no "Yo-Yo" in the PFD the answer is simple: it would show that "MANAGED DESCENT" is not modeled, that it is just Open Descent which should take into account vertical constraints. If a mouse wheel movement turns one knob/switch in one direction and the other knob/switch in the opposite direction it is a coding error.

With all this said, I must admit that I like Airbus X Extended very much and enjoy flying it, but future enjoyment depends directly on bug resolving, error correction and system completion. I am not missing greater system depth, wingflex, independent FO displays or more eye candy as the present configuration is satisfactory and completely suits my needs.

Not to forget, the Support immediatelly after release was really 24/7 and I must say it was amazing.

Mladen

[jrotaetxe 242]

Is the wheel temperature at altitudes going to be fixed? Wheel temperature usually is around the 40+ celsius at (for example) 35,000ft which is just not possible.

On other hand, i really like the attitude of some forum members pressing the "DOWN" arrow on most of Airbus339 posts. Most if not all of what he is saying is true and the aircraft is not reliable right now. If anyone disagrees is because they don't know how to fly it anyway.

Some things are being addressed, some things won't be because they were never meant to, but it's still there and unlike the wingflex on A320 series joke, these are actually problems which people who enjoy flying an Airbus would like to see fixed.

Thank you

+1

We (as customers) can be somewhat collaborative and in my case, try to be constructve.

But if you are in the side of the provider, you cannot afford certain positions. If you launch a product to the market, and you state certain characteristics you find that make your product different, once launched, you cannot avoid certain obligations, no matter if the product costs 1 0r 100.

Everybody can undestand the appearing of bugs in a new product, but the designer must have clear that such things could have never happened.

The provider must understand a customer is not a beta (or alfa) tester.

Te provider must consider the impact of every concrete bug and the importance it has. May be is "only" a misinterprtation of a certain value, in a roww of 100 values corretly interpreted, but if that value leads to an uncontrolled situation, I would not give it a weight of 1% of importance.

You MUST make the effort to explain what are you doing and which things you consider are an error and which things you consider are not. Using third parties as a disclaimer (even in the case it is the real situation) is not a good strategy.

If we dont use the product correctly, teach us. And consider there are several ways to do one thing in the right way (and more in the wrong).

And be humble enough to recognise the pattern. The medium value given for the customer to the product is close to 6. That is the situation.

And the bird does not deserve such a qualification.

What are you doing to earn the 9 or 10 it deserves?

Regards

Jon

[Joshua Che. 1601]

Everybody can undestand the appearing of bugs in a new product, but the designer must have clear that such things could have never happened.

Never in your day or life think this way. It will NEVER ever happened that there will be no bugs in a software.

[jrotaetxe 242]

Never in your day or life think this way. It will NEVER ever happened that there will be no bugs in a software.

I'm very happy to hear the first part of your declaration.

Not sure if the second one is a disclaimer... Must admit it is certain, but let me ask you a question.

How would you feel if the Sw. project mgr of EADS-AIRBUS stated such assertion about the FBW of the A380?

Ok. I have not purchased the real thing, so I must be a little more flexible. I am alfa tester in my dayly work. The things I deal with use massively Sw. Very spesialised Sw. Real time, and is the kind of product that in the event of a bug, the potential disaster is huge. Believe me. Enormous.

There are bugs. I live with them and I dream with them, but there are some kind of bugs you can not have. You must consider the market target of this product and the reaction of an IVAO/VATSIM pilot when the bird loses control once and again. The word "untrustable" is a red light for this kind of Sw, and I have already read somewhere. And not written by me.

I stop here.

Finally, let me state one thing. I am not irritated with the situation so far. I can undestand you better than you imagine. But a clear statement of what is going on inside R&D is necessary.

I know is a promise to your customers, and once declared, you cannot say no... But launching a product is a promise to your customers also, and Aerosoft has done. So keep doing the thing.

And, again. The product deserves a 9 at least. Its potential is huge and in the parts it functions well, they perform superb, so this indicates me how ambitious have been the designing targets, and is a congratulations from my side for everybody in the crew.

I am a supporter of this product, and you can see that in my posts, so do not leave the effort when 90% is done

Regards

[Joshua Che. 1601]

But a clear statement of what is going on inside R&D is necessary.

I know is a promise to your customers, and once declared, you cannot say no... But launching a product is a promise to your customers, and Aerosoft has done. So keep doing the thing.

Which is why I dont promise anything yet. Because once promised, it cant be taken back, the only one we promise to fix as BEST WE CAN is Bugs. We will NEVER ever promise features. If it appears is magic.

[jrotaetxe 242]

And another thing, Mr. Che.

Seeing you working on Sunday and answering my, to say politely, not very pleasant oppinions, makes me very confident you all are going to fulfill our expectations.

Regards

[G-BOVY 10]

+1

[Max Reverse 344]

And another thing, Mr. Che.

Seeing you working on Sunday and answering my, to say politely, not very pleasant oppinions, makes me very confident you all are going to fulfill our expectations.

Regards

This is a very good post, and should be extended to all the phantastic guys at the Beta Team and the restless developers!!

[Finn 873]

To ever think that it´s possible to make an addon that is bugfree from the very first release version is naive.

I have been in this business for 5 years now, been through 10 realeases as well as acting as beta tester before all this and never have I seen an addon released that didn´t needed a patch, update, SP or what ever You like to call it. Not even the most simple GA addon is released without problems.

Also note how complex the addons has become. Remember the Dreamfleet 737-400 ?, then compare it to the PMDG 737 NGX and You will see how things have evolved during the last 12 years. At that time the Dreamfleet 737 was simply the most complex addon available. Today none of You would be happy with that.

Whenever You double the level of complexity, You quadrodouble the developement effort required as well as the "bug" level that might occur.

Look on every highend addon (A2A Accusim aircraft, PMDG Airliners, Coolsky etc...) and each and everyone needed more than just one patch.

An Airbus is one of the most complex airliners around. It has alot more automated stuff and computers than any other airliner, all this needs to be simulated. Most of these systems are interlinked, so a small bug cascades to other systems, so fixing one thing might much easier introduce new bugs elsewhere.

There is a good reason why only very few developers ever have tried to make an Airbus for Flight simulator and also why many of them failed (Aerosofts Airbus X V1 included to a certain degree).

As I said, I have been through quite a few projects, but I have never seen any developers work as hard and as determined than on the Airbus X Extended. At the same time I have never seen a group of beta testers so skillfull, hardworking - and that in a very efficent way, than on this project.

At this point I must say that I only worked partly on the Airbus x Extended, so all kudos goes to Joshua, Choobe, Frank, Rolf and Steffen.

If we had to wait for, what could be regarded as, a 100% bugfree Airbus, then it would never be finished. No company would be able to finance that.

We knew that there would be bugs in the release version and we where perfectly honest to the customers about that at release.

Everyone who followed the preview forum was made aware, and in the support forum this was made clear too.

It´s hardly a month since release and there has allready been 2 hotfixes. Both developers and beta testers has been almost 24/7 in this support forum doing their best to help people getting the most out of the Airbus x Extended.

We even has made a special forum to deal with the throttle issue some of You have seen, where we really go into deep with each and every one.

Further hotfixes and SP's are planned, so no one can claim Aerosoft nor it´s developers and beta testers to simply steal their money.

No one, except You the customer, are more interested than us to make this an excellent product also acting as a base for other Airbus types (A318, A319, A330).

Finn

[Max Reverse 344]

Hey,

what is going on here today

Finn, thats a very impressive and honest statement.

+ 1**

[jrotaetxe 242]

I drive your attention to "you all", Max...

Going to fly the beauty now... See you later

Regards

[copilot767 19]

To Finn..

Are you working with the known MCDU SID CTD errors for comming hotfixes...Can see people that have updated c++ files still have CTD...And I dont want to change a lot in my software. .If a patch from Aerosoft is the solution. .

Christian from Denmark:-)

[Finn 873]

To Finn..

Are you working with the known MCDU SID CTD errors for comming hotfixes...Can see people that have updated c++ files still have CTD...And I dont want to change a lot in my software. .If a patch from Aerosoft is the solution. .

Christian from Denmark:-)

No..

I only work on the ECAM and Aircraft overhead systems stuff.

Finn

[sampa 30]

Finn

I don't think anyone has questioned the dedication and effort of the developers, and if they have they are not paying attention. The level of commitment to the project is obvious to anyone who follows the forums here, and most of us understand the complexity and systems integration involved in an Airbus. Clearly a project like this will have bugs on the initial release, as you say a bug free Airbus for FSX isn't possible.

But, and it's a big but, the SID CTDs issue is a biggie. Whether that's an AXE issue or a Navdata Pro problem, the customer isn't interested, there are airports and runways that are unusable with AXE.

Like most here, I have confidence that the developers are working flat-out to get to the bottom of the problems, and I'm prepared to stick with it to see how AXE evolves.

TTFN

[SahinCe 24]

But, and it's a big but, the SID CTDs issue is a biggie. Whether that's an AXE issue or a Navdata Pro problem, the customer isn't interested, there are airports and runways that are unusable with AXE.

Like most here, I have confidence that the developers are working flat-out to get to the bottom of the problems, and I'm prepared to stick with it to see how AXE evolves.

TTFN

I have my SID CTD provisional solved by using AIRAC1212 (NaviGraph or NavDataPro)

[Airbus339 129]

After some misunderstandings (?) I'm back... waiting for my posts to be shown again, I'll stay quiet in the corner

Airbus339