I this going to be a service pack kind of a thing (free for existing users) or completely separate product?

This improvement pack will be available separately for the different Airbus Series versions

Sure,Lets start with the FBW system, These systems are extra-ordinarily complex and we could spend hours talking only about the operation of the ELAC, SEC, and FAC computers, their interaction with the FMGC, their Laws and Downgrades, respective ECAM Functions, etc.Notice that none of the above is modeled, besides for "Normal Law" (And that's not even fully modeled)I'd be interested to do tests on the Flap/Slat computer's interaction with the SEC's and Spoiler operation, as I recall it's almost certainly not fully modeled.There are also beautifully made diagrams of which ELAC's control which Aileron Hydraulic systems (ELAC one operates the blue hydraulic system on the left aileron, and the green hydraulic system on the right aileron, and is the first priority of the two ELAC systems, Elac two is exactly the opposite in control of ELAC one for the respective hydraulic system/aileron, and is of Second Priority for the servo loop....).The A320 is extra-ordinarily complex, the wilco barely scratches the surface of it's systems. the "MCDU" is only one of the most visible items of so many more pieces. in the inner workings and operation of the airplane. It's a pretty light airplane system wise compared with what's been done by other developers. Like I said, it's not a bad airplane, but it's fairly simplified in light of the airplane it's trying to model. (Compared with the very accurate boeing sims available for FS)There's also the matter of exactly what the different FBW laws do, and the way it's been modeled by Wilco. Even their "Normal Law" is not "Right" in that at high speeds you have just as much authority over the ailerons as at low speed. the FBW increases/decreases the aileron command to achieve a specific roll rate. FBW system does not hold Pitch, it holds G........ Autotrim is Not Fly by Wire, it's not 1/100th of the FBW system, and is ultimately just another "Pilot Assist" feature of the MANY pilot assisting features in an Airbus, most of which are not in the Wilco, or in any A320 that's been released as of Today.Ryan.

Can you give me some examples of what you mean? It's FMGC is no less complicated then the PMDG 744, or LDS-767. It models LNAV, VNAV, Autoland, All but Over speed protection in FBW. It models pitch without the need to trim (FBW) well. It supports SIDS and STARS, it even models the FADEC throttle system. What am I missing? If you are talking about ACARS and other sub functions of the FMGC, then yes it is light then, but then neither does the PMDG or Level-D products model those functions.

Good on them! Wilco must be amazed that even now their product is still the only one available for FSX. After the failure of Airsimmer and the various vapourware buses, they're doing the right thing by breathing some new life into the old dog. As other's have said, it's already a pretty good simulation of the A320, and it'll be interesting to compare it with the Aerosoft bird - particularly the 'advanced' version, whenever that arrives..Ian

Considering how "Deep" of an airplane the A320 is, the wilco bus is really very light. does it have complexities? sure, there's a good list of features above the default functions. yes it has an FMGC, and managed/selected modes for the autopilot etc. so.....All things considered - No it's not complex in the sense of what has been done in FS. It's rather light, this is further amplified if you have a good understanding of the A320 in general.Many simmers don't care for that level of simulation though, which you've answered yourself by not fully understanding how "Deep" of an airplane it is beyond the a Partly functional FMGC, a simplified LNAV, VNAV, and a partly functional FBW system included with the Wilco A320. Like Scoob said though, it has its market - The mega high fidelity is more niche than the simplistic designs. Many of these "advanced" things are items simmers might use once, others may use them almost all the time, depends on the person.It's like owning a Rolex, or a Tube amplifier. Many people "Hear" that they are better, but a lot of people may never grow to appreciate their complexities.(Shrugs)

So what exactly do you consider as "light" and what as "hard core"? The Wilco A320 is in my mind no light aircraft. The Overland series of aircraft are light, and the default ones are light. Planes stop being light when there is a FMGC, VNAV and LNAV, after which it enters the realm of "medium" aircraft. According to your own logic, if the Wilco Airbus is light, than the LDS767 is medium, and the PMDG 747 is hard core, as is the PMDG MD-11.I personally am rather pleased to hear that there will be an update (but why must it come right after I completed my simflight review about this plane -.-). i hope that the remaining issues will be fixed. One thing they absolutely must fix is the FDE problem. If they do not fix that, many other problems are sure to remain.I'll also add one more thing: the only completely reliable plane I know off is the LDS767. Nothing I know gets better than that plane. It always works. Also the PMDG 747 does not always work as I want it to.

Much of what has prevented a truly realistic Airbus (other than the A300) from showing up in FS, is because it isn't a Boeing, and there is that 'if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going' nonsense from many people, which has perpetuated some prejudice against an Airbus in terms of volume sales. Thus a complex treatment of an Airbus has problems that are twofold; it is a tricky sales proposition at a high or low price, but a high price is what would inevitably have to be charged considering the development work that is involved if a developer takes it on alone. As has already been pointed out, deep complexity is not what most simmers want either, and if it was, we wouldn't be getting it for less than fifty notes even if a developer could take a chance on getting high volume sales, that's for sure.It's a complex system at the heart of a fully FBW Airbus, that I do know, since I've worked on the things, but it certainly is not beyond the realms of possibility to simulate most things realistically if one is willing to try, just so long as any developer which contemplates doing so with an Airbus knows that it is not going to be as simple as banging out an airliner with a bit of a fancy autopilot and a nice exterior model, which in truth, is probably what the vast majority of simmers actually do want, so the temptation to do that instead is great indeed when aiming for an attractive price point. Look at what Just Flight have made and how much they are charging for it. The saving grace here should be that as complex as the Airbus systems are, they were not designed to be complex to operate, so a fully complex airbus sim should in fact not be a million miles away from what less hard core simmers actually do indeed want.I would most likely pay 200 quid for an FS add-on that was a realistic shot at an A320, since I am interested in the systems from having worked on them, but I'm well aware that I'm probably one of few people who would, yet I think that if a developer had a serious crack at it from scratch, that would be a realistic price considering the work which would be involved in pulling it off to any reasonable degree - a niche within a niche if you will. So I'm not especially hopeful of ever seeing a truly realistic A320 for FS, although I'd be more than happy if I were to be proved wrong. After all, we do have a fairly realistic standalone Orbiter simulator, so you never know. And just maybe, all is not lost...It's definitely a bit of a 'watch this space' time with airliner flight sims of the European variety. If Aerosoft go ahead with their flight sim and make an A320 flagship for it that is particularly realistic, that is the kind of thing that might swing it in terms of making complex development viable, since I daresay many would take a punt on a new flight sim even if they preferred a Boeing, and who knows, maybe that is the plan given that Aerosoft have that A320 in the wings? Plenty of the work is already done if we consider that they might combine that and their non entertainment real-world commercial aviation sim work.Or even more interestingly: A complex problem and one which might even emulate the real world in terms of a solution at some point - with so many developers making Airbuses, or trying to, what if several FS add-on developers combined to make one Airbus, just as several aircraft manufacturers combined to make the real thing? I bet if a few of them combined what they had done, we'd be over halfway to a decent effort already - a virtual EADs if you will :( After all, many of us do that anyway with merges, so why not a couple of developers?Al

LSH has also gone in the above direction with their simulation, LDS has to the very least at some extent (I'm not fully familiar with things like the 767's Hydraulic system etc. So I'm not one to talk about the 767-300).I consider light, anything that hasn't pushed its way in terms of complexity, an IRS could be just a fancy way of saying the airplane knows its GPS position....Or it could be an actual triangulation of 3 units co-ordinating a position interpreted by the FMC and spit out as a co-ordinate for display in comparison to a route on an ND, each of the 3 IRS' can also have a random drift, and require VOR/DME for updating, and/or GPS.And if you Inop the GPS shouldn't the airplane behave as you would expect the real one to?I consider this to be an idealogy of an airplane that lends itself to something other than light. Light airplanes are the minimums of a simulation in my personal opinion, so yes I would classify the wilco (at least in its current state) as a light airplane. It's got a fairly minimal level of simulation in each sector of the airplane, many parts are not modeled at all. (That's not a bad thing, it has its place in the market but it doesn't lend itself to the "Very detailed" category) Perhaps in its next incarnation it will move away from that to a degree. (or maybe entirely) It's yet to be known.Ryan

So what exactly do you consider as "light" and what as "hard core"? The Wilco A320 is in my mind no light aircraft. The Overland series of aircraft are light, and the default ones are light. Planes stop being light when there is a FMGC, VNAV and LNAV, after which it enters the realm of "medium" aircraft. According to your own logic, if the Wilco Airbus is light, than the LDS767 is medium, and the PMDG 747 is hard core, as is the PMDG MD-11.I personally am rather pleased to hear that there will be an update (but why must it come right after I completed my simflight review about this plane -.-). i hope that the remaining issues will be fixed. One thing they absolutely must fix is the FDE problem. If they do not fix that, many other problems are sure to remain.I'll also add one more thing: the only completely reliable plane I know off is the LDS767. Nothing I know gets better than that plane. It always works. Also the PMDG 747 does not always work as I want it to.

Ryan, Are you the Ryan Briggs of Airsimmer Customer Support. If you are, then you might want to identify yourself as such, since you have a dog in this hunt. That being said, your insight into what is involved in creating a "realistic" Airbus for FS9 or FSX is appreciated.

I am not here on behalf of Anybody, and if you read all of what I've written above I make no notions to any company, but as an opinion of personal taste. Otherwise yes I work for AirSimmer, whom has a product which some aspects shine, and others create a layer of tarnish. I'm not here to promote AirSimmer, and I get paid hourly, so I have no dog in the hunt - As I will make no benefit from the companies success or demise.I've not said anything that is untrue to my understanding, and Scoob, or Eric, or Wilco, are welcome to correct me if I am infact wrong about something.In Summary, Yes I am, but I'm sharing my experience with a product I've owned since shortly after its release, and have nothing to gain or lose by the success or failure of any company in this industry. So do you believe I am approaching this matter with bias?

Ryan, Are you the Ryan Briggs of Airsimmer Customer Support. If you are, then you might want to identify yourself as such, since you have a dog in this hunt. That being said, your insight into what is involved in creating a "realistic" Airbus for FS9 or FSX is appreciated.

So do you believe I am approaching this matter with bias?

Ryan:Actually yes, it does appear that way. I know there is a fine line between working for a competing company and levying a personal opinion, but your comments were pretty critical of the Wilco product and giving for the complete train-wreck that is the Airsimmer Airbus it comes across as a little suspect even though I am sure that was not your intention. You said BY NAME "the wilco barely scratches the surface of it's systems..." but Airsimmer has barely scratched getting a working Airbus period, much less anything else. So not trying to disrespect you but your comments as an Airsimmer "employee" comes across quite hypocritical when you don't mention the tremendous weaknesses of the Airsimmer product when criticising an Airbus product from a personal standpoint....just sayin'

The fact of the matter is I never said the AirSimmer bus did or didn't do anything though, did I? I offered and still offer no opinion, no promotion or desire of association with AirSimmer while here, I seperate my work and play have you noticed?.I've observed It to be a fact that the Wilco barely scratches the surface of the A320, I think it would be rediculous to claim otherwise.I also think it would be rediculous to claim that the Basic Edition is a deep systems simulation, or that it doesn't have CTD issues for many users which are crippling until a patch is released that fixes them. This is (Or rather was) a thread about wilco, and thus my comments. The idea that the Wilco is Complex (In comparison with offerings from Level-D/PMDG's boeings) is false. If you further include that the A320 as an airliner is much more complex than either the McDonnel douglas, or Boeing Offerings from both the above mentioned "Premier" developers You may understand that it actually is very simplistic in the scheme of a very complex airliner (The wilco), but it gets the job done. This further goes to say Nobody's Released a "high fidelity A320". The AirSimmer Basic is just that, Basic (And buggy - people are waiting to see how the patch will be, this is known). The feature set on the Wilco is what many may seem to consider complex (There's an overwhelming emphasis on the airplane having an MCDU/CDU which is good for navigation and sids stars etc.(Navigation functions) which isn't even half the meat and potatoes of what's to see in the real deal, and the heavier side of systems simulation and subsystem interactions (LSH, PMDG, LDS, A2A, etc. who've gone high fidelity with their respective simulations). I'd also be curious to hear your personal claims of the AS "Trainwreck" (Since you're very vague in your desciription), but I don't think this is the thread for that.Since I am biased though (as of your opinion) Discredit what I've said and take it with a grain of salt. as that's all it can be worth in a bias matter. :( Ryan

Ryan:Actually yes, it does appear that way. I know there is a fine line between working for a competing company and levying a personal opinion, but your comments were pretty critical of the Wilco product and giving for the complete train-wreck that is the Airsimmer Airbus it comes across as a little suspect even though I am sure that was not your intention. You said BY NAME "the wilco barely scratches the surface of it's systems..." but Airsimmer has barely scratched getting a working Airbus period, much less anything else. So not trying to disrespect you but your comments as an Airsimmer "employee" comes across quite hypocritical when you don't mention the tremendous weaknesses of the Airsimmer product when criticising an Airbus product from a personal standpoint....just sayin'

If they can at least fix the VNAV, then perhaps it will be a welcome addition even though I am not thrilled about having do dish out cash again since what is available now is not that great.If you ever let the FMC control the climb and decent with the current Wilco Airbus offerings, you are no doubt aware that it is costing a fortune in barf bags for your passengers. :(

I think people have different definitions of the meaning of "light". Without a formal definition, the term "light" is subjective. This is one of the consequences of not having community standards. As I have said in other discussions, standards should be created - definitions, compatibility, customer service rights... AVSIM and FS.com could partner to create standards. Payware companies could sign on to it and pledge to uphold the standards - it would be a like a Good Housekeeping seal of approval for FS. Not trying to add more work to someone's plate. I'd gladly help.

I may be wrong but shouldn't a commercial team member be labeled here in the forums? I remember a recent back-n-forth between two developers here on this topic. Maybe AVSIM can set the record straight.The Wilco Airbus is more than a light and basic "barely scratching the surface" airbus simulation. And I believe most would agree with me. It does a very decent job within normal operations. It's true that Ryan never mentioned airsimmer until someone popped the question so I don't think he brought an AS agenda to this thread but he's biased never the less. Why? Don't push the wilco bus far to the left side of the scale based on the sky-high bar set by another developer who has delivered nothing but...well that sky-high bar. Please don't quote in details what's essentially the promised feature list of AS and then call Wilco bus "barely scratching the surface". An advertised promise is not exactly comparable to an actual product. Haven't the empty AS promises created enough hot air in our community for years? Just my own opinion.

'light' is what over 95% of the FS 'community' wants. very very VERY few want sub sub sub and sub system simulation. being 'light' is not a fault, or a bug.for developers the 'return on investment' decreases quickly with each added level of system detail.there is also the matter of cost. for the hours of code and test required for a sub-sub-sub system simulation you cannot expect a <$50 price-point. just look at the cost of PMDG products, for example, and the number of 'attack threads' created about simulation/game cost.--

I'm willing to spend much more than the "traditional" $50. Quality has its price. Look what an external FMC costs, look what Project Magenta takes for PM Systems + the Airbus suite. There is a market for sub-sub-subsystem sims, the audience is only very small. But those people are willing to pay, I bet. Sure, everyone likes the idea to get everything for free, but that ain't how the world works...Andreas

Do you have the Wilco A320 or A330? What do you consider light with it? It models a FMGC, LNAV, VNAV , Most of the FBW functions (except Over Speed for the A320 series), Autoland, and it does it for the most part pretty well. I'll give you the external model is not done too well, but that is easily corrected by merging the Project Airbus model to it. If the update builds a better external model and maybe a new VC, fixes the FBW overspeed protection on the A320, it will be a real contender.

I have them all. Do you have the original manuals? Compare what's in the Thales MCDU guide and what you find in the Wilco products. Let alone all the wealth of other systems that you don't find in the Airbus Series (ELAC, FAC, flight laws and downgrading, working autotrim,...). You get a "teaser" of a real Airbus with what Wilco sells, that's all, these Airbus are indeed "light" products, no doubt.I guess most people highly underestimate the complexity of the Airbus series. I dare to say they're the most complex airliners bare none. The complexity is needed to leverage the pilots from the work burden. Guess why most new pilots are Airbus 320 rated first here in Europe - an easy to fly plane for "beginners". Boeings are a different class and "hand work" is needed there.