Like most of you I

I'd rather wait for AirSimmer. They'll probably release soon, although no date is given at this time.I'm also getting tired of all those no-compromise-fly-by-wire Airbuses...Regards,

Is it really worth it to have yet another thread for this topic...?Jason

No one is forcing you to read it. And if AXP would get their forum up then you would probably see less posts like this.

>No one is forcing you to read it. >>And if AXP would get their forum up then you would probably>see less posts like this. ...and being locked by Lou Betti because he's probably too ashamed to talk about this 'issue'.Regards,

I wonder if we've reached the point where, given the complexity we now demand from add-on aircraft, it is no longer possible for designers to meet our demands realistically within the life of a sim. I'm not saying that this is the case here - just wondering, that's all.

I think you have a good point Gavin....another reason why I am stretching the life of my sim. :)

regardsEdaka Capt. P[/font color]i[/font color]c[/font color]a[/font color]s[/font color]s[/font color]o[/font color]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/edetroit100/Ed3.jpgMy FS9 Videos] AMD Athlon 64 3500+, 1024Mb PC3200 DDR, 300Gb HD 256Mb DDR Nvidia 7800 GTX PCI-E, Audigy 2 ZSViewsonic VP2130b 21.3" LCD[/font color

Gavin has a very very valid point.Demands are so high, that even the professional teams are having trouble making dreams a reality.I must say. I am also very sad about the current state of affairs at AXP. I would never have believed that it would turn out like this, after what went on last year.Tero

On the other hand, developers really set the limit as to what is possible and what isn't ("raising the bar"). So far, the bar that developers have set has satisfied nearly everyone. If Devs/publishers (for example, Feelthere/Wilco) can't meet the standards set and yet price/advertise their product in the same class it is entirely their fault that they bit off more than they could chew. No one demanded that AXP raise the bar the way they did, in fact everyone was quite surprised at what they said they were capable of doing. I looked at all the old AXP posts in the forum and remembered how amazing everything was when they first announced the project, things I never even would have demanded as a customer or thought were possible were being worked on.

>On the other hand, developers really set the limit as to what>is possible and what isn't ("raising the bar"). So far, the>bar that developers have set has satisfied nearly everyone. >If Devs/publishers (for example, Feelthere/Wilco) can't meet>the standards set and yet price/advertise their product in the>same class it is entirely their fault that they bit off more>than they could chew. No one demanded that AXP raise the bar>the way they did, in fact everyone was quite surprised at what>they said they were capable of doing. I looked at all the old>AXP posts in the forum and remembered how amazing everything>was when they first announced the project, things I never even>would have demanded as a customer or thought were possible>were being worked on. AlexFair point mate - can't argue with that.Personally I think AXP have just gone underground and that any day now will jump back into life with an available product. They're doing top secret beta testing as I type! I buy one lottery ticket each week ;-)

The question number 1 for me is what happened to Vauchez. He doesn't the even support his own sceneries...Regards,

Very true - 'all' I want is an LDS or PMDG level A32x. That in itself would be revolutionary - no giant leaps required, not by me anyway. regards,Mark

The Wilco bus has the ELAC computers nailed as much as I would expect from a desktop simulation, and to me thats the only thing that really differs.All I would love is to have the OP and managed CLB/DES predictions, proper FLEX calculations and stuff that LVLD, Flight1 ATR give us for immersion, to be wrapped up and I would be haapy to buy the product. Rob

"That in itself would be revolutionary - no giant leaps required, not by me anyway."The thing with an airbus is that modelling proper FBW is a giant leap in itself. A Bus that looks like a bus but flies like a Boeing is absolutely unnecessary, the ageing PSS does a decent job at that.

You shouldn't be upset against the developers who do their best to provide us a good Airbus simulation. Give them the necesary time for this. As an Airbus product developer, I can tell you the Airbus aircrafts are much more complex than Boeings just because they are more recent aircrafts. They have more automated systems, such as fly-by-wire, FADEC, and others... and all the systems are linked together. This makes the simulation complex, especially if the failures are also simulated.But I'm not saying Airbus are more advanced aircrafts than Boeings... Look at the most recent Boeing aircrafts (777 and 787). I'm sure they are as complex as the Airbus, and this may be why they have never been modeled completely for FS.Eric