That is certainly the market Aerosoft might be aiming for, and I know that far more simpler add-ons will be bought than will PMDG MD-11s, but one suspects that for such an add-on, the A320 might not be the best choice, given that many who are not die-hard systems-lovers will probably prefer something entirely different from the default FSX aircraft (which includes an A321) in the same way that I suspect they would probably prefer (and buy) something other than an add-on C-172 or Caravan.I cheerfully handed over the best part of 100 quid for an Ariane 737NG for FSX because the default one was not enough for me, and also bought the ISG gauges so I could soup up the default one too, but I reckon Joe Blow would buy a different Boeing than the 737 for FSX, since there is already one that comes with it. Look at how well Aerosoft did with their Catalina for example.Al

The "basic" version of the Aerosoft Airbus that is being released will have an FMC and a plane with 90% of the functions that are used day to day as Mr. Kok said. The only things that I recall missing are SID/STAR capability, VNAV, Fuel Planning and some other minor things. The FMC still has the basic functions such as cost index, flight planning (excluding SID/STARs as previously mentioned), basic performance pages, etc. It seems pretty advance to me with just those features, because it has more than the default A320 and it also has a simulated EICAS, hydraulics, pneumatic, fly-by-wire FCC, etc. systems. Heck, as long as an airliner doesn't use the Garmin G500 as its navigation system, its good for a lot of the flying community! :( I totally understand and agree with your opinion though Chock. I think people that are interested in the systems will probably be drooling looking at the visuals for the first time in flight sim history anyway. :(

The "basic" version of the Aerosoft Airbus that is being released will have an FMC and a plane with 90% of the functions that are used day to day as Mr. Kok said. The only things that I recall missing are SID/STAR capability, VNAV, Fuel Planning and some other minor things. The FMC still has the basic functions such as cost index, flight planning (excluding SID/STARs as previously mentioned), basic performance pages, etc. It seems pretty advance to me with just those features, because it has more than the default A320 and it also has a simulated EICAS, hydraulics, pneumatic, fly-by-wire FCC, etc. systems. Heck, as long as an airliner doesn't use the Garmin G500 as its navigation system, its good for a lot of the flying community! :( I totally understand and agree with your opinion though Chock. I think people that are interested in the systems will probably be drooling looking at the visuals for the first time in flight sim history anyway. :(

Well if no SID/STAR and VNAV is implemented then those last 10% are the biggest ones I've ever seen... :(This renders it useless for VATSIM or IVAO flyers. Not that there are that many of us? Well maybe not completely useless... at least we can use some good old fashioned maths to figure out our required descent schedule. I'm also assuming here that no SID/STARs means no navdata? Default FSX waypoints only? It'll attract the screenshot takers but I don't see anyone wanting to take her for a spin into a busy Class B airspace online without proper terminal procedures.Good luck with the sales figures on this one, Aerosoft. Really. God knows you'll need it.

Well if no SID/STAR and VNAV is implemented then those last 10% are the biggest ones I've ever seen... :(This renders it useless for VATSIM or IVAO flyers.

If you cannot fly on VATSIM without pre-programmed SIDs and STARs, then you are a very poor (sim) aviator. What would you do in an aircraft without an FMS?Figuring out when to start your descent (just to make sure that the controller doesn't start you down too late) is not exactly rocket science either.As for navdata, the thread about the Airbus over at the Aerosoft forums starts with some very nice pictures and a list of features. One of them reads "Fully updatable nav database (navigraph)"

One of their spokespeople did say there will be an elementary version of VNAV included in the basic version. As development has progressed, I can see they're trying to find the right balance between realism and simplicity. They don't want to discourage casual simmers who want a great looking bus, but then get stuck trying to figure out all the details. For the more serious simmers, I'm confident they will complete the advanced version by fall 2010.

no sid/stars is a huge disappointment for me, I don't care much about 100% systems and honestly don't even know how an Airbus works! I am a Boeing guy, but am willing to give it a try. Sid/stars is a deal breaker for me though. Otherwise I'd buy in to Arianes 737NG series, they haven't delivered on sid/stars yet

If you cannot fly on VATSIM without pre-programmed SIDs and STARs, then you are a very poor (sim) aviator. What would you do in an aircraft without an FMS?Figuring out when to start your descent (just to make sure that the controller doesn't start you down too late) is not exactly rocket science either.As for navdata, the thread about the Airbus over at the Aerosoft forums starts with some very nice pictures and a list of features. One of them reads "Fully updatable nav database (navigraph)"

What a nice and polite thing to say to someone. I'm sure you're well aware that there are SID/STARs without single (or even dual - intersecting radials) navaid based waypoints. I was referring to those, and assumed that no SID/STARs = no navdata. If you would have quoted me correctly, you would have understood that. But as you say, if navdata is up to date, you can always add them manually. SID/STARs save you a lot of typing though. It's not like the VRS where you need to enter coordinates I hope. That's accurate for the F/A-18 - not accurate for an Airbus.TOD is easily figured out roughly. I like the (FL difference /1000)3 + 10nm one best. That's still not accurate. More than adequate for GA I think, but if you want to plan properly for fuel then you'll need winds aloft and such to be taken into consideration. "Well, 100kts headwinds on top, then 15 kts tailwind down to TL and finally 10 kts gusting to 15 crosswind for the rest. Guess I'll need to bring about xx gallons more then?" I'm guessing that Aerosoft's VNAV might be just a version of that formula and without real wind corrections and such. If they don't want the detailed simmers but only the screenshot takers then I think that's not a biggie either. In fact they might as well go ahead and release it now with the default FSX Airbus avionics. That might be a very good idea. That'll let us use "true airmanship" if we follow your logic, trisager. :(

I'm guessing that Aerosoft's VNAV might be just a version of that formula and without real wind corrections and such.

Is this guess any better than your "assumption" that it would ship with default navdata only?I don't know if you can define winds on a per-waypoint basis in the Aerosoft Airbus, but I do know that I rarely bother to fill in winds at various altitudes on my descent path when flying FMS-equipped airliners. Sure, it gives some uncertainty as to where exactly to begin my descent for best fuel economy, but usually the controller will start me down before my calculated TOD anyway. I also do not use the FMS to calculate how much fuel I need for a trip - I'm sure you can probably do that, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with realistic operation.It is OK to be critical of a product - even one that hasn't been released yet - but criticism that is based on "assumptions" grabbed out of thin air and naive statements to the effect that the lack of pre-programmed SID/STAR support "... renders it useless for VATSIM or IVAO flyers" does not command a lot of respect.

The Aerosoft airbus is interesting, but their design decision regarding the flexing wings throws me for a loop.They essentially stated that system functionality was not their main focus and what they wanted was a great looking (visually) Airbus that is more middle of the road systems wise, one that would appeal to a larger audience. Then they remove/decide not to add in the flexing wings to save on FPS. If the systems modeling is more middle-range, I would have thought they were going to be as detail-oriented as possible on the visual aspects of the product. Wing-flex alone should not have altered the performance all that much, right?IMO, and again, this is just my opinion, I would have preferred flexing wings over little things like see-through cabin windows (which, IIRC, somebody told me it has).

Will be waiting for the advanced version. It looks like a nice bird though.

Aerosoft has stated that their Airbus will use Navigraph cycles, so I expect it to be easy to implement SIDs/STARs in the Advanced version.

Wing-flex alone should not have altered the performance all that much, right?IMO, and again, this is just my opinion, I would have preferred flexing wings over little things like see-through cabin windows (which, IIRC, somebody told me it has).

The indication was that implementing wing flex would have cost around 3 to 6 fps and the desicion was made to rather "spend" these fps on the VC and external model. The concensus is that wing flex looks good on a feature list but the fact remains that the vast majority of people would look at it once or perhaps twice, think "hmmm, nice" and never bother with it again. I tend to agree with this concensus but that is just my opinion.There are no cabin views whatsoever (i.e. views from inside the cabin looking out). The Aerosoft Airbus X is focused 100% on the left hand seat to the point that no right seat view is included at all. Even the fold out table on the right is not animated like the left is...

There are no cabin views whatsoever (i.e. views from inside the cabin looking out). The Aerosoft Airbus X is focused 100% on the left hand seat to the point that no right seat view is included at all. Even the fold out table on the right is not animated like the left is...

I was referring to being able to see into the passenger widows from outside of the aircraft. I hope that clarifies what I meant.

I think Ark makes a good point in mentioning that if eye candy is a big focal point, then it seems hard to reconcile the decision to not include wing flex.Al

I don't care much for bouncing wings, but I must say cruising at altitude looking at my PMDG 744F with its wings bent real high, light on fuel, looks really awesome