And in your meaning "things go well" when realizing that you paid lots of money for the default autopilot and the default fly by wire mixed up with some bugs and nice optics?

What do you mean by default autopilot? I don't know where it gets its control logic from, but from the user's perspective it does not behave anything like the default autopilot.

Check in the aircraft.cfg, you will find the entry fly_by_wire=1 or similar... that means it is invoking the default FSX fly by wire found in the A321 default...No custom fly by wire stuff going on in here...For what I have, I fell that €38 is too much...And to think I could have had the Carenado C208B (with all the amazing improvements I see on avsim) or the MilViz C310Rinstead...My mistake for jumping in too quickly... should have learned my lesson with Airsimmer...Andrew

I spent the better part of labor day flying it. Autoland seems fine, but I'm still on the fence. Since the first patch it screams skyward initially at 5000 vs. Agreed that the Aerosoft halo effect is insulating it a bit from criticism.

I spent the better part of labor day flying it. Autoland seems fine, but I'm still on the fence. Since the first patch it screams skyward initially at 5000 vs. Agreed that the Aerosoft halo effect is insulating it a bit from criticism.

I noticed that when you start lining up with the rwy and you hit appr the plane goes nuts and tries to climb at 4000ft/mn.I have to disconnect the ap and land it manually otherwise I end up crashing or something.

I noticed that when you start lining up with the rwy and you hit appr the plane goes nuts and tries to climb at 4000ft/mn.I have to disconnect the ap and land it manually otherwise I end up crashing or something.

Huh, that's one problem I never saw. One of the highlights is how well it does autolands (maybe a little hard).

v1.11 has been released and is available only as a full new installer in your Aerosoft user account.FYI the 1.11 update includes:

• Autobrakes changed
• Outer wingtank qty going negative issue solved
• Added autothrottle disconnect sound
• Small autoland adjustment (but it still needs the correct weight!)
• Wing view issue fixed
• QNH in MCDU now accepts InHg too
• Better climb perfomance
• Spoiler arming changed to non FSX standard (right click to arm)
• Nose wheel animation changed
• All installer issues fixed
• If "CONF 3" is choosen on PERF APPR page, then landing checklist will command flaps 3 instead of flaps FULL
• Autoland light now lights up when conditions are not right
• Update rate of PFD and ND increased
• Tuned VOR now not shown when aircraft is on top of it
• Vol-6 Step by Step guide changed

And in your meaning "things go well" when realizing that you paid lots of money for the default autopilot and the default fly by wire mixed up with some bugs and nice optics?Believing in a somehow advanced version while the standard one already is a pricey thing with the need for service packs isn't that clever from a customers point of view."Complexity between default aircrafts and advanced ones" doesn't mean that you can build systems wrong, it means that some things will be missing while vital parts are present. This Aerosoft bird does things wrong and vital parts of an airbus (like all the managed stuff, which reduces workload) are missing. Together in one pricey and nice looking package, this should be the one to buy for customers interested in easy to fly birds? I don't think so. Even the autoland isn't working correctly so how could this be a "less complex" aircraft for those that just want to jump in.I think Aerosoft showed its real intention with this Airbus: Grabbing lots of money (they actually raised the price to the maximum value a "less complex" customer might want to pay) while giving you a working beta version without essential Airbus features and nice sounds and optics only.If it wasn't Aerosoft, everybody would blame the company for delivering a half finished product with a very bad value. Well, it now is Aerosoft and therefor people believe they bought something good while slowly realizing, that there's a long way to go for this product to become flyable like those old Wilcos which cost nearly the same and give you lots of models to fly.So where's the objective point of view here?

I didn't want to buy it at first, I prefer a NG, but I did. Knowing that, because it is aerosoft, they will iron out the flaws that comes with software. Even Microsoft and Apple have to apply patches and updates.The other advantage about aerosoft is that they state clear what it is. On their forums (when they work, because that is the only irritating thing lately, the forum being offline) there is a list of what you can expect. And to be honest: if you can't fly this airbus, you may consider aerosoft subway simulator or trainz, after all, it is easier to stick to rails and just accelerate and decellerate.

If you need Sids and Starsprogrammed for you in order to fly, this plane is TOO complex for you. Try an easier one. :)

And.. if you need stars and sids you might consider electronic flight bag by aivlasoft.The software exports all your plans straight into the fmc. I'ts neat. You can try it free for 30 days. I have it and I like it

I spent the better part of labor day flying it. Autoland seems fine, but I'm still on the fence. Since the first patch it screams skyward initially at 5000 vs. Agreed that the Aerosoft halo effect is insulating it a bit from criticism.

Oh dear. It's looking increasingly like the Airbus curse has struck again..I've been holding off buying it because of the comments about the FDE. So DOES it feel like the default bird? Because on my system that thing is all over the place. Even the Justflight product is supposed to have a re-worked airfile..Ian

Yep, I'm afraid it flies exactly like the default A321.  I had initial enthusiasm for this aircraft, based mainly on its admittedly stunning look and sounds....but, you know when you over-rotate the default a321 on takeoff and it just starts to dive into the ground after 200ft on the climb?Yep, the aerosoft Airbus does exactly that. I can't imagine how they hope to iron out the managed mode problems.  They've fudged it basically.  We've gone from an overpowered A321 to an underpowered A320/321 that looks good. Oh well, back to Wilco for me.

If you need Sids and Starsprogrammed for you in order to fly, this plane is TOO complex for you. Try an easier one. :)

Its too unrealistic for me. If Aerosoft is not capable of programming very basic features like SIDs and STARs then I guess I'll just stick to the Leonardo Maddog until PMDG releases their NGX instead

Yep, I'm afraid it flies exactly like the default A321.  I had initial enthusiasm for this aircraft, based mainly on its admittedly stunning look and sounds....but, you know when you over-rotate the default a321 on takeoff and it just starts to dive into the ground after 200ft on the climb?Yep, the aerosoft Airbus does exactly that. I can't imagine how they hope to iron out the managed mode problems.  They've fudged it basically.  We've gone from an overpowered A321 to an underpowered A320/321 that looks good. Oh well, back to Wilco for me.

That's a shame..I was in the market for a new toy. It was a toss up between the Aerosoft bus and the QW 757. I'm now glad I went for the Boeing.Ian

Its too unrealistic for me. If Aerosoft is not capable of programming very basic features like SIDs and STARs then I guess I'll just stick to the Leonardo Maddog until PMDG releases their NGX instead

I t has nothing to do with capability, it has everything to do with time and management. They don't have the luxury of 5 years like PMDG. So considering what they've done in 1 year they really make everyone else look bad. Oh did i mention they also plan 20+ products releases this year as well. Plus flying Stars all the way is highly unrealistic and is never done at ANY staffed airport, as confirmed by numerous pilots. Hence the exclusion.

...Plus flying Stars all the way is highly unrealistic and is never done at ANY staffed airport, as confirmed by numerous pilots. Hence the exclusion.

This is just wrongEDIT: so I just asked a friend of mine who flies 744s for KLM" 21:47 @wims • spawnz 21:47 @wims • there's this guy that is arguing: 21:47 @wims • "Plus flying Stars all the way is highly unrealistic and is never done at ANY staffed airport, as confirmed by numerous pilots. Hence the exclusion." 21:47 @wims • is that true? 21:48 spawnz • usually the last part of the star is replaced by a couple of vectors 21:48 @wims • yeah of course 21:48 @wims • but there's this addon plane that does not let people add stars through the CDU 21:48 @wims • and people are arguing that this doesnt matter cause they dont fly stars in real life 21:49 spawnz • oh thats ridiculous wims"