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.

...and not very attractive nor comfortable for a single pilot on A320 jet, that was my point vs. their claim "it is ideal for online flights where workload can be high" in the first place in case you misread it.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 responded to this thread once and hope they can add DPs/STARs as well as VNAV. It would be a huge loss to have a beautifully modeled aicraft like this without these simple FMS/FMC features!!!It pretty much makes it unflyable on vatsim.... which is where they stated in the forums it will be good for. Not that it isn't possible - but try flying a jetliner on vatsim into a major hub without a STAR lol....btw, most recent preview shots:http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=34108

I think a lot of people will get very dissapointed with this Airbus. Since the Airsimmer fiasco i see a lot of desperate people banging the doors of Aerosoft, pledging for an advanced Airbus...sorry guys, you won

It would be a huge loss to have a beautifully modeled aicraft like this without these simple FMS/FMC features!!!

If it was indeed simple as you say to develop a fully functional MCDU and VNAV system it would have been done from the start.

I think a lot of people will get very dissapointed with this Airbus. Read the Aerosoft thread again, think about the timeframe until the "advanced module" comes and then think Airsimmer dedicated years to their product...and still failed.

I disagree. Those who will be dissapointed will be "hardcore" simmers who for some reason expect a PMDG/LDS level sim from something which was very clearly never made out to be that. If someone buys it without reading the feature list then that is another story. Aerosoft have also clearly stated that the advanced version will be done within a couple of months and you can rest assured that (if required) they can simply contract anyone they need to accomplish the task.

I disagree. Those who will be dissapointed will be "hardcore" simmers who for some reason expect a PMDG/LDS level sim from something which was very clearly never made out to be that.

Those are exactly the ones Abat was referring to, I think :(

Aerosoft have also clearly stated that the advanced version will be done within a couple of months and you can rest assured that (if required) they can simply contract anyone they need to accomplish the task.

Hm. The Airbus was announced in May 2009, with planned completion "late summer". To be completely fair, they didn't mention which summer :(I think it is great that Aerosoft will be adding features to their Airbus, but that entails the risk that some will buy the initial release with the expectation that it will later be brought up to PMDG-level systems. Those are likely to be disappointed.Of course, if you believe that the most important feature of a sim airplane is being able to load SIDs/STARs, the upgrade may be just what you are looking for.

actually this Airbus was absolutely ignored until the Airsimmer fiasco. Suddenly hordes of Airbusless beggars assault the only 320 in sight trying to mold it into "PMDG or Level-D class".

And can you blame them? The Airbus absolutely refuses to be tamed for Flightsim, so any project will be seized upon. But I think most sensible Airbus enthusiasts will be chuffed to bits if a good-looking, realistically handling and stable product emerges. If an advanced version with greater FMGS capability follows on from that, then all well and good. Who knows, maybe this one will quietly develop into the 'bus we've been waiting for... :( Ian

Those are exactly the ones Abat was referring to, I think :(

Perhaps so but then where does the "a lot of people" come into it? This is a minority group without a doubt, even more so when you consider that the dissapointed ones are those who bought it without first finding out what it does and does not do...

Since there's no FMS how does LNAV work? It's using FSX' flight plan like the default A320? Does it have autoland?

The Airbus has an MCDU as opposed to a Boeing style FMS/FMC and it is simulated to a large extent. Please see this post for some screenshots of the various screens (please note that these are from the beta). You can indeed use the default FSX flight planner and yes, autoland is also featured. As is full compatability with Navigraph updates by the way.

Perhaps so but then where does the "a lot of people" come into it? This is a minority group without a doubt,

No doubt, but a very vocal minority. I fully expect to see the "nerdrage" that Abat is talking about.

No doubt, but a very vocal minority. I fully expect to see the "nerdrage" that Abat is talking about.

Perhaps you are right but I can also state that: a) no one will care if they rage as life is just too short and b: if they cannot read the feature list before buying then I am not sure they qualify as "nerds" - more like idiots.But I hear ya, and so does Aerosoft, which is why they have agreed to extend the initial version in the near future.

Beautiful VC texturing but this one is SO NOT FOR ME, or anyone else who enjoys realistic airliner simulation.This aircraft will be based around the default FSX functionality, that means you'll be taking off under 'Vertical Speed' reference, (totally unrealistic for any airliner) instead of with reference to 'airspeed by pitch', you'll have the default A/T system which only holds airspeeds, not proper thrust settings for the correct phase of flight, and I doubt you'll have any FBW application (I could be wrong on this last one but fear I'm not) or autotrimming effect of any type (exactly like the naff default A321).An A320 with no FBW, limited to climb and descent by V/S, and a totally unrealistic autothrust system.No thanks - the visuals are stunning but it's a shame that the functionlity of the airplane appears to be 'sub-CLS' !

Beautiful VC texturing but this one is SO NOT FOR ME, or anyone else who enjoys realistic airliner simulation.This aircraft will be based around the default FSX functionality, that means you'll be taking off under 'Vertical Speed' reference, (totally unrealistic for any airliner) instead of with reference to 'airspeed by pitch', you'll have the default A/T system which only holds airspeeds, not proper thrust settings for the correct phase of flight, and I doubt you'll have any FBW application (I could be wrong on this last one but fear I'm not) or autotrimming effect of any type (exactly like the naff default A321).An A320 with no FBW, limited to climb and descent by V/S, and a totally unrealistic autothrust system.No thanks - the visuals are stunning but it's a shame that the functionlity of the airplane appears to be 'sub-CLS' !

Aerosoft have stated a few times on their forum that they have a good fly by wire system.

This aircraft will be based around the default FSX functionality, that means you'll be taking off under 'Vertical Speed' reference, (totally unrealistic for any airliner) instead of with reference to 'airspeed by pitch', you'll have the default A/T system which only holds airspeeds, not proper thrust settings for the correct phase of flight, and I doubt you'll have any FBW application (I could be wrong on this last one but fear I'm not) or autotrimming effect of any type (exactly like the naff default A321).An A320 with no FBW, limited to climb and descent by V/S, and a totally unrealistic autothrust system.

Hi LongyearLike you, I am going to make an assumption here - with the difference being that my assumption is visibly correct, whilst literally not a single one of yours is. My assumption is that you did not even take a moment to read any of the information about the Aerosoft Airbus X available on their forums before deciding to post what you make out as facts, am I right?So then to set you straight: All phases of flight with the correct thrust mode settings are simulated so there is no need to stick to vspeed modes as pitch modes are also simulated. Furthermore there is a seriously good FBW implementation with full auto trimming.Just to add that Aerosoft are concurrently developing this Airbus for a commercial client, that should tell you something about the fidelity of the simulation.Pretty pictures do not the whole story tell...

Is the Wilco Airbus a decent representation of the Airbus systems?