I'm not a fan of Mathjis, but this is one item where I have to agree with him. In line flying, just how often is one able to make use of VNAV? Getting a "PD" descent is a pretty infrequent occurence - at least in the eastern half of the US.At least 99% of the time, ATC decides when you start down, and with the capping and tunneling that goes on, there isn't much opportunity to use VNAV in the manner for which it was designed (for economy). Typically, the only thing it's good for is to take the skill out of making a crossing restriction.The lack of VNAV isn't a big deal if you plan on flying the airplane the way it's used in the real world.As long as it comes with Open Climb/Descent (I can't imagine that VS/FPA modes wouldn't be included) you'll have everything you need.

Lack of full VNAV is not really an issue, but:

But I know, it's only me and my opinion...Dirk.

No, I agree with you. Seems a bit silly to create such a fantastic looking piece of work, but leave it crippled. Lack of VNAV is an eye roller, but I can live without it for the reasons I mentioned above. But the inability to fly STARs is a kick in the shorts. I don't see how it can be viewed as a "hardcore niche" function, given that it is standard practice to file and fly these procedures.It's so gosh darn pretty I'd love to get it, but I wouldn't do it until it's a more complete product. Perhaps the "advanced" version will fit the bill?Oh, and another thing... Why is there such an attitude on Aerosoft's part about not doing an A319? There's practically nil difference between the A319/320 systems and structure, so all they'd have to do is cut the fuselage down and it would be done. Somehow they justified modeling the A321's modified wings and flaps which is a significant task, yet they refuse to shorten up the fuselage to do the A319. Does that make any sense?Are they using the same cockpit for both, or did they actually model the differences between the A320/321? Will the latter have ACT's, and the different pack configuration? Just curious.

Most SIDs and STARs can be flown using the basic navigation instruments, you don't need a flight management computer (or whatever it is called on tbe Airbus) to do that. Just make sure that you file your Vatsim flight plan with the right equipment capability.

without SIDs & STARs it's unflyable online. Add no holding I guess...actually make the workload much worse.

I must agree to this one. Flying online, as ONE person, not having a FO, all work relies on you: thus I have to say, not having SIDs/STARs is really lot of work in the online environment, especially at busy airports. I fly ONLY online, I have already been in many pretty tricky situations where quick reaction was a real factor, and I don't know how many times FMC already helped - a lot. Especially those SIDs/STARs which you would just punch in, if something suddenely changed.This Airbus will be a definitive no-go for me, although my FSX is pretty neat now. Looks is not everything. Too bad.

Most SIDs and STARs can be flown using the basic navigation instruments, you don't need a flight management computer (or whatever it is called on tbe Airbus) to do that. Just make sure that you file your Vatsim flight plan with the right equipment capability.

I think everyone is aware that they "can be flown". He was talking about the workload - you are forgetting that you replace two persons usually.

Most SIDs and STARs can be flown using the basic navigation instruments, you don't need a flight management computer (or whatever it is called on tbe Airbus) to do that. Just make sure that you file your Vatsim flight plan with the right equipment capability.

With the increasing number of RNAV procedures that require GPS or IRS, I don't know that the term "most" is accurate anymore. Besides, flying the Coney Climb or the Canarsie Climb out of NYC is not something you typically want be be doing on raw data. We dispatched the CRJ without an FMS fairly regularly, so I know it can be done. But it was always a BFD, and was a severe PITA for the crews and ATC, both.Really, airbus drivers don't fly around tuning and identifying VOR's just to fly an arrival, so Aerosoft's claim of "simulating the pilot's job, not the airplane" falls a wee bit flat.It's a real looker, though. I'll give them that.

I think everyone is aware that they "can be flown". He was talking about the workload - you are forgetting that you replace two persons usually.

The statement I responded to was the one about the aircraft being "unflyable online" without SID/STAR capability. That is not the case.I have flown many aircraft on Vatsim that did not have an FMS capable of flying a SID/STAR on its own. You either get out the charts, or just ask for vectors. Not very difficult.

Aerosoft have heard loud and clear the request for a more complete "fmc" simulation and the chances are in fact very good that such a version will be released in the next few months. Those who need the functionality can just wait a bit longer. I can also add that the "advanced" version would be just an upgrade to the original version, at a small extra cost.

Looking forward to this Airbus and its upgrade...I'll probably pick it up as soon as available to become familiar with its flight model and handling, while waiting patiently for the more advanced FMS. She's a real looker.

The statement I responded to was the one about the aircraft being "unflyable online" without SID/STAR capability. That is not the case.I have flown many aircraft on Vatsim that did not have an FMS capable of flying a SID/STAR on its own. You either get out the charts, or just ask for vectors. Not very difficult.

I have to agree that you *are* able. And there are indeed many other options. But simply, as I flew many hours on VATSIM, I know how tedious it can be without the FMC being a *single* person.

without SIDs & STARs it's unflyable online. Add no holding I guess...actually make the workload much worse.

+1 You gotta factor in we're only 1 person flying when on vatsim etc... no FO to help out with the navigation or programming the FMS etc etc

Aerosoft have heard loud and clear the request for a more complete "fmc" simulation and the chances are in fact very good that such a version will be released in the next few months. Those who need the functionality can just wait a bit longer. I can also add that the "advanced" version would be just an upgrade to the original version, at a small extra cost.

perfectly fine with me. I just hope they deliver on their promise. Aren't people still waiting for certain promises like the Project Fokker virtual cockpit?

I'll probably pick it up as soon as available to become familiar with its flight model and handling, while waiting patiently for the more advanced FMS.

We shall see, but I wont be holding my breath, a couple of months is not enough time to build this functionality into an aircraft, call it more like 6 months for a team like PMDG that does this type of programming a lot and much longer than that for Aerosoft who lets face it haven't done anything this complex before.

perfectly fine with me. I just hope they deliver on their promise. Aren't people still waiting for certain promises like the Project Fokker virtual cockpit?

Aerosoft will deliver - though I would hardly call their statement that they are likely to make an advanced version a promise. The Fokker is only published by Aerosoft - your enquiry re the VC should be directed at Digital Aviation.

The Fokker is only published by Aerosoft.

Flight1, actually: http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?search...xtsearch=TAY620Although I'm sure it's Aerosoft's fault anyway :(

Flight1, actually: http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?search...xtsearch=TAY620Although I'm sure it's Aerosoft's fault anyway :(

Right you are! The other three DA boxed products are published by Aerosoft. Hard to keep up with who's who in the zoo sometimes...