Wow, I think PMDG and some other great airliner companies are gonna have a run for their money in terms of 3D quality. Everything on this plane looks like its 3D. Even the Main Landing Gear doors have 3D things on them, and Aerosoft said it only gives you 3-5 less FPS than a default aircraft (although you can't really know for your exact system.) Perhaps like other developers have said, 3D gauges are less stressful on the system than 2D gauges? Simply put this is AMAZING! I think I might buy this (Even though I'm not allowed to play FSX till June :().Pictures:http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=33282http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?sh...st&p=203122http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?sh...st&p=203127UPDATE: I just heard this is not FSX. This is a beta of Flight Sim LIVE aka FS11!! :( (just kidding :()

Looks very very great, but I can hardly believe it is frame rate friendly, it has only 3D panel and usually the virtual cockpit has an inpact on video fluidity. Anyway, waiting for you comments, I am curious. Bye.Riccardo

We concur. Very well done. :(

Looks very very great, but I can hardly believe it is frame rate friendly, it has only 3D panel and usually the virtual cockpit has an inpact on video fluidity. Anyway, waiting for you comments, I am curious. Bye.Riccardo

They save a lot of fps by not adding all kinds of things a lot of other devs add, like wing flex, a cabin, etc. (which I won't miss at all). Also the system aren't very advanced, which helps too, of course. BTW The latter is not a bad thing, because I have had my share of advanced airliners but in the end I always used them with rather basic options (like in the MD-11 I always used all automatic systems and never went into manual modes, so all that was wasted on me): so this Airbus is just the airliner for me. It has the looks and the systems still go deep enough to get the idea I am actually flying an Airbus. :(

...Perhaps like other developers have said, 3D gauges are less stressful on the system than 2D gauges?Pictures:http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=33282http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?sh...st&p=203122http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?sh...st&p=203127

3D Gauges are less intense on the system then all 2D gauges, but performance I bet that statement isn't true if you program poorly.

What will be interesting is if they decide to proceed with the idea they mooted for having a crack at a more in-depth version systems-wise that uses this 3D model at some point in the future. It does look spectacularly good though, there's not much doubt about that.Al

Being involved with the alpha & beta of this bird I can categorically state that graphically speaking there is nothing out there to match the fidelity of this model, both inside and out. The VC is, without a shadow of a doubt, the best I have ever seen and the only other VC which comes anywhere close to it is PMDG's fantastic J41. There is not a single low res or flat texture inside the VC - no matter how hard you try to find one (and I have tried real hard!)As has been demonstrated in the past a high-fidelity airbus is no easy accomplishment in FS due mostly to the fact that the SDK and FS itself is very much geared for Boeing style aircraft and as a result a massive amount of custom xml coding is going into this bird. The beta started a week or so ago and I can assure you that not a single stone is being left unturned, no matter how small.A note on the wing flex which was mentioned above - indeed there is no wing flex in this model but the reason is that the real ac has very little wing flex when compared to Boeing ac and one would be hard pressed to actually see it inside the sim. From this perspective it makes little sense to waste resources on wing flex.The external lighting is reminiscent of what was done with the L-39 Albatros, which is a first for a tubeliner in FSX.[/url]Here are some more detailed pics from the beta:http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?sh...st&p=212029http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?sh...st&p=212505

A note on the wing flex which was mentioned above - indeed there is no wing flex in this model but the reason is that the real ac has very little wing flex when compared to Boeing ac

Who told you that? :(Sorry but that's wrong. (This Airbus looks really awesome though!)

Even though I'm not allowed to play FSX till June :(

Why not? Just curious :( That product does look stunning.

Who told you that? :( Sorry but that's wrong. (This Airbus looks really awesome though!)

Hi DavidSee from this post on down.

Hi DavidSee from this post on down.

Thanks Konrad but I repeat, this is completly wrong.You may not see the input by the flight controls, but it is being provided to the P-CIO (Pilot-Computer Induced Oscillations) that computes these oscillations ("wingflex" in FS language) giving rate inputs to the Airbus Flight Control system.And there are oscillations, you can believe me :--)

The model looks nothing short of amazing, inside and out.However, Aerosoft has a solid track record of delivering sluggish code that makes FSX unplayable from a performance (FPS) standpoint - so keep your hopes down on actually flying that Airbus. The CEO of that company has totally lost it, if you're in for a good laugh google up that FSX tweaking PDF he published. What it will come down to with most of their addons is, all sliders to the left, traffic off, weather off, FSAA off - and THEN you'll have a great experince in enjoying their products. Install their F-16 and go from locked 30FPS to 10 and you will see what I mean. There is a lot eye candy but these addons cannot exist in a sim setup where you don't want to work sliders every other minute.OK just for reference, here it is, and it is hilarious:http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=30796Just for the laughs:"I prefer the 4650 for FSX as it is the fastest card I can find for it." Ummm, obviously he is flying without clouds, otherwise he would have noticed that 4650 and 4850 are horrible when it comes to rendering any severe weather. Great tip for your customers.Or about Water: "In fact most of the year, most of the world a low setting like Mid 1.x looks best." Ummm, OK if you are a blind man, maybe.But my favorite about Scenery: "The lowest settings (fully off) for mesh and autogen are actually the most realistic." RIIIIIIIIIIGHT!

Hi DavidWill pass on your comments to the powers that be.However, in your personal opinion, is the wingflex on the A32x significant enough visually speaking to warrant losing what would be a couple of fps to implement it? Bear in mind that is not a full blown pro-level sim and no one said that there was no wingflex at all - just that it is not really significant enough for folks to actually notice it once things are scaled down inside the sim.

With regard to wing flex on models in FS, I'm currently in the process of reviewing Aerosoft's other Airbus, for Avsim (the SimCheck A300). That does not feature wing flex either, and whilst it does not seem like it would be a big deal, I can tell you that it does look a bit odd with the wings remaining completely rigid when you see external views of it at various stages of flight. Apparently they were going to implement it on the A300 model, but decided not to do so in the end, because of the impact on frame rates and the fact that the A300 does not exhibit a lot of wing flex.I've done a fair bit of research on the A300 for the purposes of that review, including a lot of comparative visual checking on the FSX model, and it does indeed seem that the A300 does not appear to exhibit a lot of wing flex from the many hundreds of pictures I've studied, but there definitely is some. The lack of it on the FS model does stand out a bit to me personally, and until I actually spent some time looking into this, I would have said it was not a big deal to have no wing flexing feature, but appearance-wise for screenshots, I have to say that it is quite a big deal to see it not taking place.Like a lot of things, you only really miss it when it is gone, and it really does become very apparent when it is not there. This was in fact actually one of the first things that jumped out at me on the SimCheck A300 when I first checked out external views of it in FSX. Incidentally, re another comment above regarding Aerosoft, their A300 gets very good frame rates.The review of the SimCheck A300 will be submitted to Avsim this week by the way, so if you are an Airbus fan, look out for it shortly. That's an interesting aircraft, and knowing the interest there is in a decent Airbus for FS, I've gone into quite some detail on it.Al

Thanks Konrad but I repeat, this is completly wrong.You may not see the input by the flight controls, but it is being provided to the P-CIO (Pilot-Computer Induced Oscillations) that computes these oscillations ("wingflex" in FS language) giving rate inputs to the Airbus Flight Control system.And there are oscillations, you can believe me :--)

I'm not sure where your info comes from David, but having seen both the forum posts and the beta, I too was wondering about just how much the A32X wing actually moved.On a flight last week, I paid a lot of attention to the watching the wings and whilst it's true that the wingtip could be said to "judder" whilst taxiing over bumps, I'd have to say there's very little to suggest wingflex.In something like a 747 or even more so, A380, there are very obvious differences in the wingtip position based on fuel load and lift. I'm sure most people have looked out of the window of a 747 during take off roll and watched the height of the wingtip gradually get higher and higher before lift off, and that kind of aircraft very obviously has "wing flex". However, the A32X is nothing like this and to display 747 style wing flex on an A32X in FS is just plain silly and totally unrepresentative of the real thing. Same thing will be true of the DF727X, which will also not "feature" wingflex because regardless of what people think, the real thing doesn't have "bouncy" wings.As for someone elses comment of frame rates; you need to bear in mind that like Flight 1, Aerosoft both publish in house products as well as those of other developers, so it's a bit harse to make a sweeping comments From what I've seen to date, the AS A32X is only marginally shy of the default A321 in terms of frame rate affect.