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

Yes, just double checked and you can see inside the cabin through the windows.

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.

Eye candy is indeed a big focal point, but pilot flying remains the primary focus, with good fps being second on the list. The performance is approx. 5 fps less than with the default Airbus, which given the level of detail of the external model, is pretty good you will have to admit.Check this out for example...

I'm happy with the design decisions that Aerosoft is making with this aircraft. No wingflex = no problem on an A320, in my view. As long as the systems are sufficient (not too dumbed down) and the fps are as advertised I will be buying, and praying for the advanced add-on (I'm one of those burnt by Airsimmer).

I'm happy with the design decisions that Aerosoft is making with this aircraft. No wingflex = no problem on an A320, in my view. As long as the systems are sufficient (not too dumbed down) and the fps are as advertised I will be buying, and praying for the advanced add-on (I'm one of those burnt by Airsimmer).

I for one would prefer wingflex to windmilling turbine blade animations...Cheers, SLuggy

Eye candy is indeed a big focal point, but pilot flying remains the primary focus, with good fps being second on the list. The performance is approx. 5 fps less than with the default Airbus, which given the level of detail of the external model, is pretty good you will have to admit.

Certainly not denying it's a pretty thing, wing flex or no, but it's fairly apparent from the gamble many took on the Airsimmer A320 that the pretty which people are interested in where the A320 is concerned, is 'pretty realistic'. I'm no programmer, but I am a reasonably capable 3D modeler, and if what I really wanted and felt was lacking, was a good looking A320, I'd have knocked one up myself years ago. But since I am no programmer, I can't make what I'd really like, which is an A320 that has really high fidelity systems modeling. And one thing of which I am certain, is that whoever pulls that one out of the bag will make a shedload of money, because they can be sure that they could name their price for it, and still have many takers.Al

I for one would prefer wingflex to windmilling turbine blade animations...Cheers, SLuggy

Ditto.

I for one would prefer wingflex to windmilling turbine blade animations...

This Airbus, like most things in life I guess, is a series of trade offs and compromises. No such thing as building all things for all people. With PMDG models you get the top notch fidelity but it comes at the expense of a very steep learning curve and the need to have a decent rig, same with Captain Sim where you have a gazillion animations but again at the cost of a lot of fps.I think that Aerosoft would simply prefer to have people ######ing about no wing flex as opposed to low fps. Given the target market of the initial version this makes a lot of sense.

It is interesting how the phrase "From where the pilot sits" (or something to that effect) is constantly used on their forums when referring to what is modeled/animated, but then windmilling turbine blades are modeled. You'd think the pilot would see flexing wings before he'd see windmilling turbine blades. :( With regards to performance, from how much it is referenced, you would think adding wingflex was going to completely destroy the performance of this add-on. Sort of a contradiction.I have a request to developers (and I only speak for myself); Please don't sacrifice details to save a frame per second here or there. I don't expect an aircraft to perform the same as the default aircraft that came with the original product. I pay for add-ons to get "more", and with more comes a performance hit at times. If an add-on is going to be missing details like flexing wings and whatnot, while at the same time not offering that much system fidelity, than I am just don't see the point in purchasing it.I wish Aerosoft the best with their product, but I was hoping for a little bit more. I think am going to pass on this one.

.......................You'd think the pilot would see flexing wings before he'd see windmilling turbine blades...............

I would like to think that the pilot would see the windmilling turbine blades on his initial walkround inspection and probably wouldn't even see the wings from the moment of take off to the moment of touchdown. If he is spending time admiring the wings then I dont want to be a passenger on his plane :(

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.

Have fun with disrespecting people then.On topic again - I firmly believe that those who fly on VATSIM or IVAO prefer SID/STARs over manually punching in waypoint, and - god forbid - outdated default FSX or FS9 waypoints. Manual waypoint entry might mean that you're in for some mean speed-typing if you need to change your STAR enroute. I can't understand their decision on this, why open up Navigraph compatibility only half way? I mean if their FMC can read the data, what's the reason for "disregarding" SID or STAR data? Is it that much of a step up in programming complexity?Aerosoft has proven reliable in the past, so if they do decide to make an advanced version, I'll be all over it, and (again)I do assume that that goes for a lot of others too. But as it's presented now? meh...

I would like to think that the pilot would see the windmilling turbine blades on his initial walk-around inspection and probably wouldn't even see the wings from the moment of take off to the moment of touchdown. If he is spending time admiring the wings then I dont want to be a passenger on his plane :(

The add-on is supposed to be based around the pilot flying the aircraft, not walking around it. lol :(

As I stated before implementing wing flex would have cost anywhere from 3 to 8 fps so let's say on average 5 fps. Now the animated windmilling is something you will only ever see at the gate so it makes no difference in terms of fps at all whilst wing flex would negatively impact fps wise during all phases of flight. From this persepctive it is not simply choosing one over the other. Windmilling the model can easily "afford" whilst wing flex much less so.With regards to disregarding SID's & STAR's from the outset this project was never intented to cater to the crowd who require this functionality and it is only due to the pressure applied since the project was announced that Aerosoft have agreed to implement it (and other yet to be confirmed functionality) in the advanced version later in the year.Please remember that Aerosoft have a very specific target market in mind with this product (not the folks who frequent any fs forum that is for sure) and their primary aim remains to satsify this goal. The advanced version will be for us the seasoned/online users. So to those who say that the current presentation of the product is meh, well that is pretty much exactly how it should be.

As you would all likely have heard the Aerosoft Airbus X has been delayed until August. The reasons behind this decision, an updated feature list together with a number of new screenshots are available here. There is also a pic of the new smartphone/ipad checklist application.

Hehe, SIDs and STARs are in. Now it'll perfectly fit my needs. :)Thanks,Dirk.

Hehe, SIDs and STARs are in. Now it'll perfectly fit my needs. :)Thanks,Dirk.

Lateral Flight planning (allowing to enter flight plan, airport, waypoints, cruise alt, SIDs & STARs and airways not supported)Unfortunately it looks like SIDS/STARS (and airways??) will have to wait for the advanced version.

Despite the 'liteness', I think that looks like a nice package. Couldn't give a toss about all that I-phone stuff myself, but I'm sure it'll please the gadget freaks. It will be good if they do a later higher-spec upgrade for people who buy the first incarnation, so you can soup it up on the features front. If that is the plan, I suspect they'll get a lot of takers. 30 quid seems like a good price too.Al