Reading this thread is like watching "Groundhog Day". I predict the discussion will switch to wingflex shortly.

Interesting point :( My point is, that the Aerosoft devs tell you whatever they like if you request a missing feature of their product. As seen on that SID STAR issue.Concerning wingflex, they state, that those wings are rather rigid (which I believe too) and you would only see very few flex, if ever. So I'm not demanding this feature.In the old days, you could believe everything from the devs when they explained why something was implemented and other things not. Nowadays, they tell you about non necessary SID and STAR, about how good that default fly by wire suddenly is and so on. Their intention: To get around the blame that they've avoided extra code to be programmed on that already expensive product.No shame to avoid complexity, a big shame if you are kidding your customers about the need of some features. Less complex product? Look how friendly and honest Just Flight presents their less complex product. Differs a bit from that new Aerosoft style, doesn't it?

Concerning wingflex, they state, that those wings are rather rigid (which I believe too) and you would only see very few flex, if ever.

There's a few pics on Airliners.net that show quite a bit of wingflex on the A320.

Can anyone actually state with any degree of certainty whether the Aerosoft Airbus has a custom FDE or shares that of the default? The Aerosoft forums themselves are vague on the subject, to say the least.Is it comparable to the Wilco bus which isn't too bad in my opinion? Or really as bad as the default, which for me is unflyable?ThanksIan

I need to get some popcorn :PI was unhappy about the SIDS STARS as well, but I was part of the beta testing team and found it not too complicated to enter the STAR waypoints by hand. Usually I do my flight planning with FSbuild. I connect on IVAO get the ATIS and clearance for departure with the SID. Check the destination airport runway and choose the correct STAR and generate my flight plan. Ok it's not as cool as with the PMDG J41 but it works well. And if I got the STAR wrong I just correct the false waypoints. Aerosoft never said STAR's weren't used, but they said that often when flying in to some airports the pilots had to input them manually because all the info is not ALWAYS available in the CDU...In two weeks one of my buddys is switching to copilot in the A320 with Swiss... I'll drop him an email ;)

Can anyone actually state with any degree of certainty whether the Aerosoft Airbus has a custom FDE or shares that of the default? The Aerosoft forums themselves are vague on the subject, to say the least.Is it comparable to the Wilco bus which isn't too bad in my opinion? Or really as bad as the default, which for me is unflyable?ThanksIan

Well, I hardly ever flew the default A321, so I'm no expert, but yesterday just to see, I loaded it up, took it for a quick flight, then loaded up the Aerosoft A321. It certainly doesn't fly exactly like the default bus, but there are some similarities. Aerosoft's bus does feel underpowered, although I have heard that complaint made of the real plane, too. I find the fly-by-wire controls are "better" with the Aerosoft bus, by which I mean I find it easier to control, but it requires a light touch. I think flying with a yoke with a mushy zero point may be part of the problem. So I would say, tentatively, better than default. I've never flown the Wilco plane, so I can't compare.

Can anyone actually state with any degree of certainty whether the Aerosoft Airbus has a custom FDE or shares that of the default?

It uses neither the default flight dynamics, nor the default autopilot............with certainty.

I have flown the heck out of this thing since the day after it was released. Autolandings have not given me problems. But today at lunch I tried a manual circuit. What I discovered was there are two different Airbusses. One is the responsive one that kicks in at 100 feet when landing; the other is all the rest of the time. Above 100 feet (and watch out for that transition) the controls are barely responsive and the trim doesn't work at all. As soon as you hear "100," BAM! it's a whole 'nuther ballgame. This doesn't seem right.

I have flown the heck out of this thing since the day after it was released. Autolandings have not given me problems. But today at lunch I tried a manual circuit. What I discovered was there are two different Airbusses. One is the responsive one that kicks in at 100 feet when landing; the other is all the rest of the time. Above 100 feet (and watch out for that transition) the controls are barely responsive and the trim doesn't work at all. As soon as you hear "100," BAM! it's a whole 'nuther ballgame. This doesn't seem right.

Exactly the same as the default FSX a321. Because as much as they may have changed the systems and aircraft.cfg/airfile the FBW is still 100% default FSX.

I really don't know what to discuss. Paul, just said that it isn't the default FDE and autopilot.José

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.

I'm flying version 1.11 and I don't find it like the default airbus...but then I have not tried to over-rotate either :) Of course, when able, I hand fly the landings (computers off), so I can't verify landing behavior with the full computers activated. I cheat in doing so, but I really like hand flying--and have the Airbus because I fly if for business travel a lot (passenger) and like the bird....Bill

I just flew a flight between Heathrow and Frankfurt. All in all it was an enjoyable flight. I had one time where I ran into an overspeed situation, but other than that, no problems. I hand flew the final approach and didn't run into any issues in the last 100 feet. The one thing I'm less than excited about is the way they handle the controllers. Setting up the throttle correctly can be a pain.

Exactly the same as the default FSX a321. Because as much as they may have changed the systems and aircraft.cfg/airfile the FBW is still 100% default FSX.

It isn't and we're testing a new one as we speak, that will deal with the 100ft problem. We will solve this...

I found it interesting how the CFM and IAE versions share the same FDE and sounds. I always thought there was a difference between the two. Don't some operaters choose the IAE version over the CFM due to different takeoff/flight characteristic?

I found it interesting how the CFM and IAE versions share the same FDE and sounds. I always thought there was a difference between the two. Don't some operaters choose the IAE version over the CFM due to different takeoff/flight characteristic?

They don't have the same FDE, if you look at the files the CFM's clearly have more thrust.

They don't have the same FDE, if you look at the files the CFM's clearly have more thrust.

Funny to see that all variants share the same soundset then, IAE go CFM there. Talking about a 50+ dollar addon here that goes light on the systems and has its focus on appearance and sound. Well, at least it should.