Aerosoft A-321/320 project

[federalfsx 2]

Mathijs? How long? 

[federalfsx 2]

i need a good airbus ...

[Guest inbrekers1]

i need a good airbus ...

So do I. And I think I have found one. I think it's time to start asking my parents for money.

[paskie 3]

Yes fuel consumption is accounted for as far as I remember, its a feature of FSX that is often over looked because again it was something that Aces forgot to mention in the so called user manual. All I can say is try it and see, Ive never had any problems using this method and I have a lot of Addon Aircraft!

I must admit I too felt a little like you did when Aerosoft first mentioned that an Airbus was in Development (There is an earlier thread to this one in the forum board) and there were a few others also. But I must admit I don't have the time anymore to deal with deep system depths such as the PMDG models, I bought there BAe JS4100

Turboprop a little while ago but never flown it! I'm limited to weekend simming these days and that for a couple of hours at the most . So I came round to the idea that Aerosoft have got it right again. It will still be worth buying though and see how you get on with it I don't think it's too watered down as to not have fun with it no matter what level at simming you are

That's what I hope... I'm not an advanced simmer anyway, these are the features I'd like to find in the FMC:

1. Load the fsx programmed route

2. INIT-A and INIT-B pages (hope got the names right), with the FMC calculating the weights and v-speeds automatically for me.

3. DIR to point on route and ability to add a waypoint and a custom waypoint en-route, format fix/radio/distance if I remember correctly.

4. Ability to select a runway to land after receiving clearance from ATC with the ILS autotune.

Not really advanced stuff but enough to give you some interaction with the FMC. Anything more would be a bonus as far I am concerned.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

There have been a lot of questions about the actual content and depth of systems. So let me write up something right now. It's not final, we are still looking at some functions.

• FSX only (no FS2004 version possible)
• Very high end modeling and texturing
• No extended 2d panels
• As much as possible default FSX functions so external products and hardware can use it
• A320 and A321 models
• 12 liveries included
• Very advanced paint kit
• CFM and IAE engines (though the flight model and displays are based on the CFM)
• Highly detailed VC with extended animations and sounds
• Full FSX external sound set
• Easy on FPS
• 30 Euro sales price
• Release last day of Feb (or sometime later, hahahaha)
  
  We are not yet giving a full list of features for the systems as we don't know all of it at this moment. But let me give out some things. It's not intended as a start of a discussion as I simply cannot answer much more at this moment.
  
  
  • PFD and ND are very realistic (most likely not with terrain display as that kills FPS like little else and no weather radar as it is never realistic)
  • Engine display is very realistic
  • Systems display is near perfectly simulated within normal operation
  • Everything on the glareshield is solidly simulated
  • FADEC and FBW systems are better then we expected, rather good actually
  • All Flight Control Laws are used and will prevent any out of control flight (so Alpha Floor, Low Energy and Flight Envelope protection)
  • Engines are very realistic (apart from the nagging fuel burn issues when you fly at very low or very high cost settings, we don't care a lot actually about that)
  • GPWS is very good

  So this leaves you with an aircraft that is totally flyable. Pretty high end all over and looking extremely good. The FMGS is simplified in this version (we might do a more complex version later if there is demand for that). Apart from the pages that are more or less faked because it is a simulation (like startup pages, IRS etc) you will have

  [*]Fully updatable nav database[*]Full option to do the flight planning (airport, runway, waypoints, cruise altitude) and the option to change these things in flight[*]Radio page[*]Selected Nav page[*]Lateral Flight planning (allowing to enter flight plan, airport, runways, waypoints, cruise alt)[*]Simplified Performance page[*]Simplified vertical navigation

  So the project is clearly positioned between the default Airbus and the far more complex (and far more expensive) models from other development teams. This is commercial decision as we know from experience that this is the biggest market with a large margin. But it is also a decision based on our experiences and discussions with customers. We simply know that a lot of people are not able to find the time to fully explore the complex system other developers include. A lot of these people simply can't handle these aircraft and don't use them. You do not hear that a lot because nobody likes to write on a forum that he's not clever enough to fully understand a product. What we do see is the support needed for these aircraft, if we see a customer who bought the PMDG 747 from us and asks what the difference between airspeed and groundspeed is, there clearly is a problem between the product and the customer.

  There is also another reason for the simplifications. They are not as limiting as you may think. Here is a section from a mail written by a real A320 pilot that flies for a major airline over Western Europe. "You know Mathijs, all those vertical navigation and planning functions in the Airbus are great. They really work. They can safe a lot of fuel, they can make our life a lot easier. However there are sometimes whole days where we don't use them as ATC controls what level we fly, where we start to go up and down. Even when we got the room to make decisions ourselves we often don't bother because we think we understand wind and turbulence better then the system does. We know that if we get close to Milan a bit below the level suggested by the system ATC might let us cut a corner etc. I know you got the manuals and most likely know a lot of the pages on the MCDU better then me. But like I say, don't let the systems rule the sim. I see many of your customers who do things in the pit that we simply don't do".

  So that's it. Now don't start to post whole lists of questions if this or that is included. I'll mostly ignore them until we got more details to share.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

That's what I hope... I'm not an advanced simmer anyway, these are the features I'd like to find in the FMC:

1. Load the fsx programmed route

2. INIT-A and INIT-B pages (hope got the names right), with the FMC calculating the weights and v-speeds automatically for me.

3. DIR to point on route and ability to add a waypoint and a custom waypoint en-route, format fix/radio/distance if I remember correctly.

4. Ability to select a runway to land after receiving clearance from ATC with the ILS autotune.

Not really advanced stuff but enough to give you some interaction with the FMC. Anything more would be a bonus as far I am concerned.

on 2. As far as I know Vspeeds are manually entered and not calculate by the systems. We'll supply the tables as they are used by real pilots.

[Kwiss 128]

All for 30 Euro's Bargain!  

[paskie 3]

Thanks Mathijs,

this is a much welcolmed clarification.... you can count on me as a customer now, hopefully a happy one when I get my hands on it Keep up the good work!

[Kwiss 128]

on 2. As far as I know Vspeeds are manually entered and not calculated.

I think Fin did say that Vspeeds would be calculated in an earlier post has that changed?

Edit: Cant find the post so I'm wrong How will Vspeeds be calculated?

[jjlittler 2]

Remember everyone, the project looks as if it can bring back a lot if fun again to FSX. I hate boring flight planning prior to departure & watching the paint dry in the cruise. Most people (like Mathijs suggests in previous posts), just simply want to jump into a great looking VC an go! Only for those serious users/training pilots is where you really require detailed systems and FMS'; besides when flying online in Vatsim or IVAO, most ATC controllers give you heading and altitude/speed constraints when near to an airport anyways.

Just think, how many times have you sat in front of your PC for hours on end waiting and watching the plane fly itself and you going off to cut the lawn, cook dinner, watch TV or surf the NET cause you are simply bored out of your skull?. I know I have done it, how many of you are willing to admit the same?

I simply can't wait to see more vids and pics of this great looking plane which has re-kindled my interest in FSX again after purchasing and flying almost every addon out there since FS5 to FSX

Well done Aerosoft:D

James

[PH-BQG 3]

Remember everyone, the project looks as if it can bring back a lot if fun again to FSX. I hate boring flight planning prior to departure & watching the paint dry in the cruise. Most people (like Mathijs suggests in previous posts), just simply want to jump into a great looking VC an go! Only for those serious users/training pilots is where you really require detailed systems and FMS'; besides when flying online in Vatsim or IVAO, most ATC controllers give you heading and altitude/speed constraints when near to an airport anyways.

Just think, how many times have you sat in front of your PC for hours on end waiting and watching the plane fly itself and you going off to cut the lawn, cook dinner, watch TV or surf the NET cause you are simply bored out of your skull?. I know I have done it, how many of you are willing to admit the same?

I simply can't wait to see more vids and pics of this great looking plane which has re-kindled my interest in FSX again after purchasing and flying almost every addon out there since FS5 to FSX

Well done Aerosoft:D

James

I could not agree more. I do own several highly detailed aircraft from PMDG / Level-D, but I have noticed lately that I don't really feel like going through this whole process again before I can actually fly the airplane, most of all because it is very time consuming. Although sometimes I like to do some extensive flight planning, mostly during my holidays, I can't wait to buy this 'simple' Bus and just fly the thing! She looks absolutely stunning!

[Deniz 6]

• Full option to do the flight planning (airport, runway, waypoints, cruise altitude) and the option to change these things in flight

Best news ever !

[Chris. 39]

Sounds great.

You wrote "only" 12 liveries. Could we have a list of them?

Chris

[Akram 11]

i prefer " only " 12 liveries but exta details . of 1000 liveries design with paint

[matt oberdorfer 26]

What exactly do you mean by 'extended 2D panels?'

Is there anyway you could include the default GPS panel in the plane? It's fine if you don't, I'm just curious.

-Matt

[luvairbus 19]

what airline will be included in the 12 liveries ( Air Jamaica )

[Barnes 22]

Hi,

I must say that I have been following the "other" Airbus project for quite some time, but have recently come to the conclusion that it will not see the light of day in FSX for a very long time (if ever). That prompted me to have a look over here at this project, even though I had not been taking it seriously due to the fact it was being marketed as a lighter version of the A320. After reading this thread from start to finsh and seeing the way that the Aerosoft Bus has developed through the months, I must say that it looks more complex than I expected (probably more complex than the developers had intended when the project was announced).

The aircraft model looks superb and quite frankly, the systems look in-depth enough to provide immersion without having to spend a week trying to figure out how to get the thing off the runway.

I am officially sold on this Bus and look forward to seeing some previews of the A320 model.

Dave

[Chris. 39]

Hi,

I must say that I have been following the "other" Airbus project for quite some time, but have recently come to the conclusion that it will not see the light of day in FSX for a very long time (if ever). That propted me to have a look over here at this project, even though I had not been taking it seriously due to the fact it was being marketed as a lighter version of the A320. After reading this thread from start to finsh and seeing the way that the Aerosoft Bus has developed through the months, I must say that it looks more complex than I expected (probably more complex than the developers had intended when the project was announced).

The aircraft model looks superb and quite frankly, the systems look in-depth enough to provide immersion without having to spend a week trying to figure out how to get the thing off the runway.

I am officially sold on this Bus and look forward to seeing some previews of the A320 model.

Dave

Same is true for me.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

what airline will be included in the 12 liveries ( Air Jamaica )

You tell us and we'll see what can be done: http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=31387

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

What exactly do you mean by 'extended 2D panels?'

Is there anyway you could include the default GPS panel in the plane? It's fine if you don't, I'm just curious.

-Matt

Sure that would be no problem as we intend to keep a lot of things as close as possible to the standard FSX. I think it will even show the flightplan that you can make in the MCDU.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Some samples of the MCDU pages that are being worked on. If you compare them the real pages you will see that we sometimes change the layout a bit. The original pages sometimes got 6 colors and pretty small fonts, not very suitable for the use in the VC environment we intend to use. So where possible we make the fonts as big as possible to increase readability and we tend to default to a standard layout. All in line with our idea of usability while keeping the base of the system intact.

What I did not say yet is that we will do a lot of the systems in XML. That makes things a lot harder in development (and we are sure to see some freeware aircraft using sections soon) but it also opens the development to people who like to tweak or extend the functionality. We will not protect these parts in any way and will kindly look at request from people who need something changed in the model (click zones etc).

[antoinebacker 36]

Nobody said this up to this moment, but I will...

Don't make it a lot more complex (without adding a dummy mode), what I see is a small step above what I now know and I am looking forward to learning these systems. That's a challenge I like, just like I loved to get to grips with the Catalina. Just do not give into the people that push you to complexity. When I read updatable nav databases I get scared.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Nobody said this up to this moment, but I will...

Don't make it a lot more complex (without adding a dummy mode), what I see is a small step above what I now know and I am looking forward to learning these systems. That's a challenge I like, just like I loved to get to grips with the Catalina. Just do not give into the people that push you to complexity. When I read updatable nav databases I get scared.

And you should not be scared. We deliver the database and you should never need to touch it. Just ignore that and you'll be fine.

Load the aircraft, few clicks and the engines are running, release the parking brakes and you are off. This is an Airbus and Airbusses are in essence very simple aircraft to use. Even the pages on the screens will change automatically to show you what you need. We now showed some MCDU pages but it is perfectly possible to fly the real Bus without even looking at it. We have been in some flights doing recordings etc where the pilots hardly ever looked at it. When we seen that we asked the pilots. They said stuff like "yeah V² might have been 5 knots earlier, but we had 800 meters of runway to spare, who cares? She'll fly when she wants to." or even better: "but don't you like that rather positive jump from the runway when we got a bit more speed?". See even a flying computer like the Airbus is still an aircraft flown by people. When there are no passengers on board any corner is done at max bank, just like you and I would like to do. Note I am NOT saying pilots take risk they should not take. They know that 5 knots means death on a hot day, short high altitude runway. I have been in cockpits when the crew cruised onto the runway and applied power to take-off without much fuzz and I have been in cockpits where the aircraft was pushed back on reverse thrust to the absolute end of the runway and charts where studied for minutes before the crew decided it was safe.

If you can fly the default Airbus, you can fly our bus.

[curt1 23]

Complexity is in the eye of the beholder. Some people like FSX as a game, where others want a true to life simulation so they feel challenged and derive satisfaction from learning and succeeding. Neither one is right or wrong, it's just different strokes for different folks. That is why Aerosoft is targeting what I see as a middle ground, an approach to draw in customers from both camps. It needs to be "real" enough to draw in the "simulation" lovers, but simple in execution to draw in the "game" lovers. I still contend that a simulation can be made complex, but designed with shortcuts to simplify use for those who don't care about system depth. As Aerosoft moves toward completion, I hope they go ahead and add MORE depth if possible, then simply make an option of "beginner mode" to remove what might confuse a "game" only type user.

Curt

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Complexity is in the eye of the beholder. Some people like FSX as a game, where others want a true to life simulation so they feel challenged and derive satisfaction from learning and succeeding. Neither one is right or wrong, it's just different strokes for different folks. That is why Aerosoft is targeting what I see as a middle ground, an approach to draw in customers from both camps. It needs to be "real" enough to draw in the "simulation" lovers, but simple in execution to draw in the "game" lovers. I still contend that a simulation can be made complex, but designed with shortcuts to simplify use for those who don't care about system depth. As Aerosoft moves toward completion, I hope they go ahead and add MORE depth if possible, then simply make an option of "beginner mode" to remove what might confuse a "game" only type user.

Curt

Keep in mind that a real bus is flown by two highly trained, sober and rested pilots, hopefully well paid for what they do (though new pilots in the US make jack shit for the responsibility they got, always scares me when I fly in the US). Our average customer is a nice middle aged guy, on his own, after a long day in the office with a glass of beer in his hand, looking at a small screen and pretending to be a pilot.

I think your description "a middle ground, an approach to draw in customers from both camps. It needs to be "real" enough to draw in the "simulation" lovers, but simple in execution to draw in the "game" lovers" is very correct. The problem is that there is a rather limited group of customers that like the more complex stuff while it is very expensive to cater for them (Airsimmers admitted running out of money trying to get there and we fully understand). Joe Average who reads this forums thinks there are a lot of people wanting the complex stuff but the simple fact is that 85% of the people who will buy this product (hopefully) will never go to this forum. People here are preaching to the converted. I like a bit more complex model, you like a bit more complex model, the readers of this message like a bit more complex model, but the people who will pay for our our mortgages do not. it really is that simple.