An employee from a company that can't deliver what they promise coming here undercover to bash Wilco. Talk about hypocrisy.I knew there was something fishy when i saw his first post.

Ryan I'd have to agree with Erhem here. Until you guys get a solid product out the door I'd hold off saying anything about another comparable product. I'd love to see the Airsimmer product in all it's glory but as it stands Feelthere's model is the most completed simulation of the Airbus currently offered for FS. It's been that way for years while others have made only promises.

Probably the same reason Scoob isn't..

Does that make it right?

Does that make it right?

I suppose there is a thin line between a "developer" and "developer support role" :(

I suppose there is a thin line between a "developer" and "developer support role" :(

So thin as to be invisible to my naked eye.

If you want my opinion, I think that Ryan has actually been fairly above board here and did remain on topic, in keeping his comments related to the Wilco product. Until the subject of Airsimmer was broached, he certainly did not appear to be promoting that in any way I could see.Al

Al, Ryan is the "face of Airsimmer" on their support forums. I think when you're talking about another developer's product, that MAY be important to some people. My intention was not to bring up the Airsimmer discussion again. As I stated, I'm glad Ryan can add his perspective on the difficulties of creating a realistic Airbus for FS.

Planes stop being light when they enter the FMC,LNAV,VNAV,etc,etc realms? Pity that somebody did not tell Wilco Publishing so when they brought out the abysmal 777.And given their track record with that product,matched by an equally non-existent support,I for one will giving their updated Airbus A320 a very wide berth.Case of 'once bitten twice shy',so to speak.

If you want my opinion

And if you want mine, one shouldn't completely get away with publicly calling it's competitor's product so basic it's not even "scratching the surface" by merely saying "oh it's only my personal opinion". Especially when his supporting argument consists little but a detailed recital of his company's fairytale like promise that has fooled our community once and again for years. Commercial developers don't bluntly promote their products here because they aren't supposed to. But a smart few wave the "it's my personal opinion" and "I have rights too here" flag and shoot away comments and arguments in these forums with rapid fire. Does that sound familiar? I won't give examples because if you need one you are just an occasional visitor here at most. At the end their points and stance are so obviously related to their own products and interest that it puts a bad taste in everybody's mouth. This is all really more than I care to say on this. But I believe on a grander scheme it takes both under reacting and over reacting molecules to achieve an overall equilibrium. Well this time I'm an over reacting one, because balance in avsim forums...now that's something I do care about.

Commercial developers don't bluntly promote their products here because they aren't supposed to. But a smart few wave the "it's my personal opinion" and "I have rights too here" flag and shoot away comments and arguments in these forums with rapid fire. Does that sound familiar? I won't give examples because if you need one you are just an occasional visitor here at most. At the end their points and stance are so obviously related to their own products and interest that it puts a bad taste in everybody's mouth.

Agree 100%. Makes me wonder if some would make better products if they weren't too busy flying their flag here day in and day out. But getting back to the OP, I'd consider getting a decent/updated Airbus model.

@ Ryan B, I'm thinking a paid position with Airsimmer puts you in the criteria of getting the yellow letters. I'll take care of that tonight.@ Scoob, same thing, except you can PM one of us if we're wrong. I don't know what you do. I asked about a month ago and you didn't respond.......or I didn't get a response for some reason.

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.

Standards are great, that's why there are so many of them :)

I'll take this perspective: V2 of the ERJ is a very nice addition in so many respects, but some things are persistently bad with no correction in sight. I'll expect about the same from any V2 of the Airbus series. Thus, I'll probably hold my money back for FlightSimLabs. However, Eric M. is talented and perhaps he'll really do well with V2 if he is involved.

I too think that a lot of confusion arises from what people think is lite or in depth simulation. I myself enjoy all of PMDG offerings however I never use the failures, I am really only interested in normal flight operations, which means mostly that the plane needs to be operated in the correct way and you need to work the FMC and it operates as it does in plane under normal ops, ie it has proper vnav lnav sid/stars whatever (I think the J41 is pretty perfect in this way), I don't care if the toliet lights don't work if the left tire gets a puncture or this hydraulic system controls these things in a failure. I am not training to be a Airbus Pilot and if i ever had to fly one because the pilots passed out or something I would pray that the plane was still able to be operated by autopilot and the FMCG which I would hopefully know how to operate for normal operations!So a indepth simulation for me is one that simulates normal operations, to call that a lite sim is to say that all those pilots up there are just been lite pilots while flying us around the world :( The in depth system failure omg the coffee maker wont run we lost the right engine drive is super indepth for me and I assume pilots themselves only experience them in the simulator for their working careers, with a very few really unlucky ones getting it in flight. I appreciate for some people this makes the simulation a in depth one, but for me they are not relevant to flying the plane in its day to day operations, and as such are icing on the cake. Paul

Definition of "Light Airplane" - the other guy's product.

I too think that a lot of confusion arises from what people think is lite or in depth simulation.I myself enjoy all of PMDG offerings however I never use the failures, I am really only interested in normal flight operations, which means mostly that the plane needs to be operated in the correct way and you need to work the FMC and it operates as it does in plane under normal ops, ie it has proper vnav lnav sid/stars whatever (I think the J41 is pretty perfect in this way), I don't care if the toliet lights don't work if the left tire gets a puncture or this hydraulic system controls these things in a failure.I am not training to be a Airbus Pilot and if i ever had to fly one because the pilots passed out or something I would pray that the plane was still able to be operated by autopilot and the FMCG which I would hopefully know how to operate for normal operations!So a indepth simulation for me is one that simulates normal operations, to call that a lite sim is to say that all those pilots up there are just been lite pilots while flying us around the world :( The in depth system failure omg the coffee maker wont run we lost the right engine drive is super indepth for me and I assume pilots themselves only experience them in the simulator for their working careers, with a very few really unlucky ones getting it in flight. I appreciate for some people this makes the simulation a in depth one, but for me they are not relevant to flying the plane in its day to day operations, and as such are icing on the cake. Paul

I fully agree with you Paul, never play with failure option :(