Aerosimmer A320 first impressions.

[psolk 3,040]

The PMDG 737 is more advanced than the basic edition when it comes to the systems. However the advanced version is going to be far more advanced than the PMDG 737.

As far as I am concerned the advanced version is vaporware as of today... What if the sales of the basic version do not meet the mark they need to hit to continue development? What if they still do not have enough $$ to continue after all the refund requests? Where does that leave the advanced version?Furthermore with all due respect to Les, reading some of the other posts that refer to the lack of things like a CLB page, PROG page, TOD calculation etc.. and then listen to a comparison to the PMDG product line which does all of that and then some is just a joke IMHO.I agree with the visuals and sound of CS and the functionality just below WILCO.-P

[Guest SF22]

As far as I am concerned the advanced version is vaporware as of today... What if the sales of the basic version do not meet the mark they need to hit to continue development? What if they still do not have enough $ to continue after all the refund requests? Where does that leave the advanced version?Furthermore with all due respect to Les, reading some of the other posts that refer to the lack of things like a CLB page, PROG page, TOD calculation etc.. and then listen to a comparison to the PMDG product line which does all of that and then some is just a joke IMHO.I agree with the visuals and sound of CS and the functionality just below WILCO.-P

You just need some belief that they'll succeed. Not everyone is looking for a complex aircraft. If they however would abandon the advanced version we won't have a complex Airbus for a long long time. The earliest another developer would release a realistic A320 would be in 2012 or 2013.

[Dillon 2,197]

Good show Les,Can you elaborate on the CTD.I have the impression that it's more an Out Of Memory, considering your remark about the large textures....Of course I can be very wrong...Luc Brusselmans

Hey Luc it's hard to nail this down with a definent cause but from what I've seen this is NOT an OTM issue. I've seen no messages on my machine to that effect.

I would have thought a bug like that rendered it totally unfit for purpose. Isn't the whole point of Flight Simulator to be able to get through a whole flight?

Very true but this bird has just left the hanger and with the years of development put into it I highly doubt it will get dropped in it's current state. If we can spend 3 years farting around with FSX that was supposed to work far better than it did out the box we can surly wait a few weeks for Airsimmer to get this issue straightened out. I'm sure we'll see a patch far quicker than the response time we had from Microsoft with FSX. For the record this add-on has far better performance than I've ever got from FSX and this is on my new machine. To add one more point it's a very interesting add-on to behold considering how long we've waited for a decent Airbus in Flight Simulator to materialize (maybe it's just me). So just having it to dig into a bit for a few weeks even with it's issues is interesting as it's a really cool bird on so many levels (and this is just the 'Basic' version).

The name is Airsimmer not "Aerosimmer"... lol.

I see I've made this mistake more that a few times, I'm getting old (37)... :( :( :(

Hi, Les!1. Is there an option to assign key strokes?2. How much functional is the MCDU in the Basic version? Any significant limitations influencing the whole flight?3. Is the fuel load taken into consideration by MCDU?4. What AIRAC does it use and is it updatable?5. How is the 2D panel (the visuals, functionality, night lighting and FPS)?6. Are there side views for the 2D panel?7. Are the VC and no-VC models separate?8. Are there wing views modelled?9. And do you really recommend a product that will CTD before you complete a flight? B)

1. No2. You can add waypoints directly on the flight plan page. You have the ability call up runways for your takeoff/departure airports which we all know is very helpful especially on approach. The FMC has a feature where you can open up the various doors on the aircraft, call up external power, and call up pushback instructions. 3. Yes4. I have no idea at this point5. I'm not too crazy about it but I never us a 2D panel these days. It seems functional enough...6. Didn't check, this is truly a VC/cabin add-on threw and threw. That's where the real work was put in on this bird.7. There is no VC and no-VC option I've found but again I wasn't looking for something like this. 2D panels went out for me 4 years ago...8. In the cabin (which is very nice I might add) you can see the wings out the window. As with the real bird you can't see the wings from the cockpit.9. I'm so confident all issues will get fixed, yes... Most add-ons released have bugs but it's up to the simmer to say what looks promising and worth the wait. This bird looks promising enough to learn other features while we wait for certain issues to get fixed...

Since the 737NG had a higher functional FMC (ie: no speed/altitude calculations) I wouldn't put it in that class. It's probably more in line with CLS!

Wow that's loaded coming from someone that doesn't own it. You have a slight point with the FMC but CLS's birds are 'lite' and don't have near the functionality of this model. Here's where this add-on makes up for a more robust FMC:The older PMDG 737NG doesn't:1. Model Fly-By-Wire2. offer a Push Back Feature3. have every switch in the VC modeled with future options for all switches to actually function (75% of them function now). 4. offer LCD screens that are adjustable and self luminating5. call up external power through a feature in the FMC not to mention open various doors (not realistic but nice in the confines of FS)6. have adjustable seats in the VC inlcuding the rear jumpseat. The seats are actually the proper size in the cockpit compared to PMDG.7. offer full adjustable night lighting for the various panels in the VC not just a dome lightI can go on and on but I don't have the bird in front of me now. Like I said this is just the Basic model and there's so much. It's a little unfair to compare such an old model to this A320 it was just a point to say how far we've come. A few years ago this bird would have been considered hardcore but look how far progress has been made. When the Advanced version of the Airsimmer A320 comes out it's going to be outstanding period (which is putting it lightly). I'm sure PMDG's NGX is going to be in the same ball park but all the original PMDG 737NG has on this effort is more options in the FMC and that's not saying much. It's like computers in general, what's cheaper today cost thousands yesterday, there's nothing wrong with that.

If this plane is as good as PMDG, then why are there so many people requesting refunds. You guys are wanting this plane to be good so bad(as do i), that you are grasping to any little good thing somebody says about it and running with it. If you want a comparison, try visuals with CaptainSim, with less functionality than Wilco.There is no doubt in my mind that the bus will be an awesome plane once the issues get ironed out, but as it stands right now...it's...well...disappointing.

This plane is good and as always it's something you have to see for yourself. People are upset about the upgrade pricing that's non-existent at this point. I don't like this either but just the same the actual product is great after only a couple days from release from a brand new Developer. Now if we're are still talking CTD's in January 2010 then you have a point but I don't believe that will be the case. I'll give it to you as to the Captainsim visuals but I worked on the Feelthere Airbus before it's release and am here to tell you this add-on is on par in many areas and better in other areas than the Feelthere model. I agree with you some issues with the Airsimmer A320 are disappointing but were you around when PMDG released their first real add-on for Flight Simulator after leaving the 'Fly!' platform? Although the 737NG didn't have a CTD issue it had it's share of bugs and yes people complained about the pricing of the various mods including the 800/900 addition. Don't get me wrong I can't defend Airsimmer's lack of vision concerning upgrade pricing but in the confines of actual product issues every new startup developer has their problems and PMDG is no exception. This product is outstanding in it's potential so it's false to say people are grasping for whatever they can to make something bad look good. Anyone who has the actual product on their computer can make educated assessment, outside of that it's pure speculation..... B)

As far as I am concerned the advanced version is vaporware as of today... What if the sales of the basic version do not meet the mark they need to hit to continue development? What if they still do not have enough $$ to continue after all the refund requests? Where does that leave the advanced version?Furthermore with all due respect to Les, reading some of the other posts that refer to the lack of things like a CLB page, PROG page, TOD calculation etc.. and then listen to a comparison to the PMDG product line which does all of that and then some is just a joke IMHO.I agree with the visuals and sound of CS and the functionality just below WILCO.-P

I outlined above outside of the FMC what advantages this add-on has over the four year old PMDG 737NG which is laughable to even be debating about. For a Basic add-on I'm surprised the MCDU is as functional as it is. Since when do we dismiss a whole add-on based on one feature. Again outside of the FMC/MCDU (which WILL get updated with the Advanced version) this thing surpasses PMDG's 737NG is every way as it should since it was released yesterday and the PMDG model was released 4 years ago. That's a testimate to PMDG's outstanding effort so long ago if we're even putting it in the same sentence as today's higher end add-ons. It's supposed to have a more detailed FMC it was considered hardcore back then. You have purist that saying it should have had a functioning IRS as well but it didn't. Like I said a BASIC add-on in it's truest since shouldn't have a functioning MCDU, it should be displaying default info like what we found in the Eaglesoft Citation X v1 and nothing on the ND screen. Instead we have more in this Basic add-on than many of the other offerings touting much more from other developers. Either way this thing has room to grow and for a Basic model I'm impressed.

[Mike T 208]

The older PMDG 737NG doesn't:1. Model Fly-By-Wire2. offer a Push Back Feature3. have every switch in the VC modeled with future options for all switches to actually function (75% of them function now). 4. offer LCD screens that are adjustable and self luminating5. call up external power through a feature in the FMC not to mention open various doors (not realistic but nice in the confines of FS)6. have adjustable seats in the VC inlcuding the rear jumpseat. The seats are actually the proper size in the cockpit compared to PMDG.7. offer full adjustable night lighting for the various panels in the VC not just a dome lightVERY Interesting post but you are completely wrong on most of your points concerning the PMDG 737NG.1. The 737NG does not have a FBW model because it ISN'T a FBW aircraft. the 737NG has CWS which is a hybrid flight control system and that is modeled in the B737NG.2. The 737NG DOES INDEED have a Push Back Feature (with steering too.)3. OVER 75% of the overhead panel on the 737NG IS INDEED modeled. The only system omission is the IRS panel.4. 737 LCD screens are adjustable and "self-illuminating".5. To call up external power simply engage the parking brakes with the engines off and the external power available light will illuminate...no seperate panel needed.6. Adjustable seats? Seriously? Does ANYONE really care about adjustable seats?7. Agreed, night lighting in the PMDG NG is not adjustable.Also, the PMDG was not released 4 years ago, it was released almost SEVEN years ago and first made available for FS2002 with a compatibility patch so that it would work in FS2004. So, you are trying to extoll a BRAND NEW product vs a SEVEN year old product and think that is a good comparison? Also, how in the world could you "recommend" the Airsimmer A320 when it has a CTD problem? A CTD in ANY product is a show stopper, period, whether its PMDG, LDS or anyone else. You can't recommend a car that stops working each time you drive it how in the world could you "recommend" a product that has a CTD each time you use it???? :( Why not wait until Airsimmer actually FIXES the known bugs before making a recommendation? Surely, Airsimmer has kept NONE of their promises or hype concerning this aircraft over the years of development so how can anyone in their right mind then turn around and have full confidence that they will start now? Making recommenations like that is very reminiscent of a shady used car salesman trying to pawn off a car he knows to be broken.Also, let's step back a second and straighten out what the Airsimmer IS and ISN'T. The Airsimmer A320 in its current form IS the advanced model, it is just an unfinished advanced model that Airsimmer ran out of money developing and released the unfinished and buggy current model by justifying it as a "basic" model. Airsimmer had absolutely no intent on releasing a "basic" model at all until they ran out of money. Just wanted to set the apple cart right because you had it totally upside down.

[Guest nordicskies]

Absolute nonsense Mike, you are just being pedantic. What Les meant that the PMDG did not need to worry about modelling complexities like FBW, which this aircraft does. Do you think you're impressing anyone by pointing out that the 737NG doesn't use FBW?? ....... I think most people here are onto that .......It was clearly obvious Les was not putting the 737NG down (to everyone but you), he was merely responding to all the people intent on making comparisons between this new A320, and the 737NG.Les is simply offering some FACTS about the ADD-ON itself, not the AS upgrade policy, which is very welcome!You and others have already made your mind up and hate this product before it's even had a chance, so why stay in the debate? Be off and fly your 2003-made 737NG if that's all that meets your expectations!I for one welcome more posts like Les's that actually talk about the good and bad points of this plane as it currently stands.No need to defend PMDG, they are the best out there, no contest on that, but give other new devs a chance, who are aiming to raise the bar.Magne

[Benjamin J 751]

One question only, a yes or no will suffice: can I save the panel state (a la LDS767 and PMDG 747) or not?

[Guest Tingoose]

As far as I am concerned the advanced version is vaporware as of today... What if the sales of the basic version do not meet the mark they need to hit to continue development? What if they still do not have enough $$ to continue after all the refund requests? Where does that leave the advanced version?Furthermore with all due respect to Les, reading some of the other posts that refer to the lack of things like a CLB page, PROG page, TOD calculation etc.. and then listen to a comparison to the PMDG product line which does all of that and then some is just a joke IMHO.I agree with the visuals and sound of CS and the functionality just below WILCO.-P

I must admit that my first thought was . . . "will the advanced version ever see the light of day now that a basic version has been released?". There are other examples of addons that were released with a promise of further features in the future and for these features to fail to materialise; eg. DA's Fokker 70/100 vc. I hope that Airsimmer don't become one more in this list!

[altstiff 71]

One question only, a yes or no will suffice: can I save the panel state (a la LDS767 and PMDG 747) or not?

No

[Dillon 2,197]

VERY Interesting post but you are completely wrong on most of your points concerning the PMDG 737NG.1. The 737NG does not have a FBW model because it ISN'T a FBW aircraft. the 737NG has CWS which is a hybrid flight control system and that is modeled in the B737NG.2. The 737NG DOES INDEED have a Push Back Feature (with steering too.)3. OVER 75% of the overhead panel on the 737NG IS INDEED modeled. The only system omission is the IRS panel.4. 737 LCD screens are adjustable and "self-illuminating".5. To call up external power simply engage the parking brakes with the engines off and the external power available light will illuminate...no seperate panel needed.6. Adjustable seats? Seriously? Does ANYONE really care about adjustable seats?7. Agreed, night lighting in the PMDG NG is not adjustable.Also, the PMDG was not released 4 years ago, it was released almost SEVEN years ago and first made available for FS2002 with a compatibility patch so that it would work in FS2004. So, you are trying to extoll a BRAND NEW product vs a SEVEN year old product and think that is a good comparison? Also, how in the world could you "recommend" the Airsimmer A320 when it has a CTD problem? A CTD in ANY product is a show stopper, period, whether its PMDG, LDS or anyone else. You can't recommend a car that stops working each time you drive it how in the world could you "recommend" a product that has a CTD each time you use it???? :( Why not wait until Airsimmer actually FIXES the known bugs before making a recommendation? Surely, Airsimmer has kept NONE of their promises or hype concerning this aircraft over the years of development so how can anyone in their right mind then turn around and have full confidence that they will start now? Making recommenations like that is very reminiscent of a shady used car salesman trying to pawn off a car he knows to be broken.

I'll conceded some of these points here because I rushed threw a few things to answere everyone's questions. First off this is not a sales pitch but more so balance the playing field a little because so many of us were taken back a bit because of the no upgrade policy. I opted to buy the product and share my findings with everyone versus the slug fest that's been brought down on this add-on and developer. It's up to everyone to make their own decision as to buy or not this particular add-on. If a new Hybrid model was being sold for the first time that I knew saved gas but had some things than needed worked out I say overall that the car had potential. It's a different world talking about a car versus an add-on and that's where I think people miss it. If you going to put this on the level of something in the real world there's too much time being spent behind a computer. We can afford to let an add-on sit on standby util a patch is released heck many did that (and are still doing it) with FSX. This thing runs ten times better than FSX did when it was released and the CTD's aren't present on every flight...No on to the 737NG, first off it's insane to compare these two and that wasn't my original intent. Fine, you got me on the exact years it's been out...1. Great you made your point...2. Help me find it...3. No one never said just the overhead I'm talking about the whole VC. I'm not going to waste my time going over everything those that own the A320 and the 737NG know there's many switches in the VC on the older model that just don't work.4. Maybe I've missing something all these years but I'd like to know the switch in the 737NG VC that brightens and darken the displays. During dusk/dawn the displays in the 737NG don't lite up until all VC lighting comes up with FS9's timed lighting. If you look at add-ons like Feelthere's 737 the screens have their own luminance no matter what time of the day it is making the ability to read then easy at times like dawn/dusk before all other lights come up in Flight Simulator. I know you know there's periods right before night time where the VC can be very dark especially if you don't have a dome light. The 737NG has a dome light feature that in essence brightens up the VC as if it departed from reality (I won't elaborate as most know what I'm talking about).5. I forgot about that feature your right.6. Adjustable seats can be argued one way or another who cares the main thing I was trying to say is you don't had toddler sized seats in the cockpit of the A320 like what's found in the 737NG. The size of the seats in the 737NG was totally wrong as they were smaller than they should have been (yes I've been in the real bird).7. At least we agree on something...Again (AGAIN), the 737NG like you've stated is a seven year old add-on and not worth flat out comparing with a new model. We all have the 737NG but this angst against the Airsimmer A320 is foolish for those that don't even have the product. I can see being mad about the handling of it but to flat our rebuke it when you don't own it or really know nothing about it is insane. That more than anything prompted me to buy the bird before I let myself fall into this trap. Hopefully Airsimmer fixes all that's wrong with this add-on and releases the Advanced model because I'd love to see many around here eat their words.8. I almost forgot to mention that the 737NG was released with some crappy loud internal sounds. I currently use Des Braban's sound set located here on Avsim which is outstanding. Airsimmer by contrast was released with an outstanding sound set which stands for where things are today with the quality of our add-ons all around. The new trend of sound set's really took off with Level-D's modeling of the actual cockpit environment. Before sounds were created as if one was sitting in the cabin on top of the engines. So the seven year time frame between these two add-ons has been good and like I said to even call up PMDG's seven year old model is a testimate to how great it was/is...

[mgh 89]

Very true but this bird has just left the hanger and with the years of development put into it I highly doubt it will get dropped in it's current state. If we can spend 3 years farting around with FSX that was supposed to work far better than it did out the box we can surly wait a few weeks for Airsimmer to get this issue straightened out. I'm sure we'll see a patch far quicker than the response time we had from Microsoft with FSX. For the record this add-on has far better performance than I've ever got from FSX and this is on my new machine. To add one more point it's a very interesting add-on to behold considering how long we've waited for a decent Airbus in Flight Simulator to materialize (maybe it's just me). So just having it to dig into a bit for a few weeks even with it's issues is interesting as it's a really cool bird on so many levels (and this is just the 'Basic' version).If, as reported, it can't apparently complete a flight without a CTD it isn't a decent Airbus. Why should customers who've paid money for it have to wait at all to get something that's fit for purpose? This is not a matter of a few switches or buttons not functioning as they should - thae aircraft is not fit for purpose as released AirSimmer are in breach of every consumer/contract law that I know of. No one should have to wait in the hope that AirSimmer will speedily fix it.IAslo, am not a sanguine as you that Airsimmer will develop a fix for the basic model or release the advanced one. The most realistic interpretation of the situation is that AirSimmer has (or is) running out of cash to finish this add-on and that in the effect of the economic crisis their backers/bankers won't let them have any more. If the sales of the basic version don't provide enough cash then AirSimmer could go belly-up with no fix and no advanced model. Incidently, although I don't know the details of the arrangement between AirSimmer and Flight1, I'd be very surprised if Flight 1 had gotitself into the position of underwriting AirSimmer. I suggest if Flight 1 pays a refund then AirSimmer won't get that money.

[Dillon 2,197]

If, as reported, it can't apparently complete a flight without a CTD it isn't a decent Airbus. Why should customers who've paid money for it have to wait at all to get something that's fit for purpose?

The same reason people sat around waiting for a year after FSX was released waiting for it to get fixed (which in my book still hasn't happened after two SP's).... No one is asking you to buy this add-on, it's just my opinion based on my findings and knowing how hard the software programming game can be (I see great potential here). I still can't fathom people settling for a sim that runs worse than FS9 and in order for it to run to some satisfaction sliders have to be turned down making it look like or worse than FS9. People bought $5,000 computers and still couldn't get the thing to run smoothly. Hours upon hours over years were spent tweaking FSX in this community yet we come here only 'TWO DAYS' after this product's release trashing it like it's the worst thing ever created (not the policy mind you but the actual product itself that most don't even have on their PC's. What's funny is some of you guys might not even have a CTD issue if you bought it)....Jumping back to FSX for a moment some today report with Windows 7 FSX runs great on today's mid-range machines, finally after 3 years (they still can't max all the sliders to see the sim in all it's glory). You might say this is not a fare comparison but neither is trashing a product you don't own further it hasn't even been on the market 3 full days. I'd put money on Airsimmer (which I have) in that it's not going to take a year to release the first patch that addresses the CTD issue. I'd go out on a limb and say they won't close up shop and move on leaving the add-on with lagging performance issues like what we saw with FSX. So if you want an answer to your question go to the FSX forum and ask them why they bothered with a title full of issues for so long? Why do people support one thing and flame others (with greater potential to get fixed mind you)??? We can't even give a simple add-on a few weeks let alone a whole sim 3+ years... I'd like to know the answer to this myself... I give this add-on three months at the most to fix everything, with FSX it's 3 years and counting and people still believe in it, embrace it, and fully support it... Microsoft dogged us worse than Airsimmer could ever do; Put that on top of the fact Airsimmer bothered to make yet another FS9 title instead of getting on the 'FSX only' bandwagon is crucial in my book. Looking at this product and seeing it's an FS9 release prompts me to support them because once all is fixed this add-on is going to be a blast in FS9 versus what we'd get if FSX was the only option.

[Mike T 208]

Absolute nonsense Mike, you are just being pedantic. What Les meant that the PMDG did not need to worry about modelling complexities like FBW, which this aircraft does. Do you think you're impressing anyone by pointing out that the 737NG doesn't use FBW?? ....... I think most people here are onto that .......It was clearly obvious Les was not putting the 737NG down (to everyone but you), he was merely responding to all the people intent on making comparisons between this new A320, and the 737NG.Les is simply offering some FACTS about the ADD-ON itself, not the AS upgrade policy, which is very welcome!You and others have already made your mind up and hate this product before it's even had a chance, so why stay in the debate? Be off and fly your 2003-made 737NG if that's all that meets your expectations!I for one welcome more posts like Les's that actually talk about the good and bad points of this plane as it currently stands.No need to defend PMDG, they are the best out there, no contest on that, but give other new devs a chance, who are aiming to raise the bar.Magne

Seriously? What are you talking about?

[Dillon 2,197]

Seriously? What are you talking about?

He's making perfect since to me 'Mike T'.

[Mike T 208]

He's making perfect since to me 'Mike T'.

Which part makes sense?

[flightwatch 68]

Which part makes sense?

Why not compare the A320 to the PMDG MD-11...eh...nevermind.