Mike, Have you tried the Aerosoft Airbus? It may not be 100% the original, but I'm still working my way throughover a hundred pages of systems and procedures to figure out how to fly this bird correctly. And no, it does not fly likethe 737NG that I am familiar with. It is definitely more than an "Airbus Lite" and for many, I would think itprovides enough of a challenge to merit the $40 or so that they charge for it.

Nah, I've already wasted my money on the Wilco Airbus "PIC" Is there any reason to buy the Aerosoft aircraft also because I will expect that it will model even less than Wilco does. Albeit the Aerosoft Bus is probably prettier.

What was wrong with the Wilco bus? It looked like 90% of systems were modeled very well.

So which one of you crazy cats is going to try and merge the Wilco Panel with the Airbus X model?You all know you want to try it. lol

Oh, there are disadvantages to that for sure. Just think about it, you fly online, the controller is assigning you to a different STAR than the one you originally planned for. Now you have to Aviate, Navigate, Communicate and reprogram the FMC manually. And play the role of both the captain and the FO at the same time. This can be a bit hectic to say the least.

Thats what the pause button is for.

Thats what the pause button is for.

The perfect solution...if it wasn't frowned upon with extreme prejudice on the VATSIM network.

How is the "simple" VNAV function really working? In case of a flight level change is there a visible prediction when the new flight level will be reached?

As far as I can tell there is no prediction of the TOC and TOD so you are back to default Airbus there ie start your descent 3NM out for every 1000' in altitude.

As far as I can tell there is no prediction of the TOC and TOD so you are back to default Airbus there ie start your descent 3NM out for every 1000' in altitude.

This is not entirely true; there seems to be an issue with TOC and TOD dependent on the number of waypoints in the MCDU. If you have more than five waypoints before reaching the TOC or more than five after the TOD the indications for these points won't show.. This has been brought up on the Aerosoft forum and I guess this will be solved in SP1.

Sorry guys but it seems that Aerosoft missed the whole point to he Airbus. The BEAUTY of the Airbus is not in its detailed flap canoes but in its highly automated systems that greatly reduces the workload of the pilots. The BEAUTY of the Airbus is not in the shape of its nose but in its fully automated flight and protection systems that "idiot-proofs" the aircraft vs its Boeing counterparts. The BEAUTY of the airbus is in the technology of the Airbus that makes it unique.If you develop an Airbus "lite" that doesn't behave like an Airbus then it is NOT an Airbus representation no matter how accurately the outside skeleton is modeled. In the same way that a Ferrari replica built on a Honda chassis and Corvette engine is not a Ferrari no matter how accurately the body LOOKS like a Ferrari when sitting in the parking lot...its all in the systems and behavior that makes all the difference. I am so sad to see the recent trend that moves away from the beauty of the mechanics of aircraft to simply how photo-realistic the virtual cockpit can be. :-( Over the years this hobby has indeed moved away from being a "simulation" to being just a "game."

Ditto that.The "western world" and its culture have passed their zenith and have entered the phase of decadence. All the developments that you can see, even here in the FS community, is a consequence of that downward movement: Form over function, gadgets rule, life and the things therein should be as easy as eating and drinking, thinking is obsolete, not wanted and avoided by people.I can only hope that some bastions of resistence will continue to exist for those who don't go conformal with the rest of our society. And I hope that Aerosoft or someone else will finally come up with a "real" A320. The're already too many "light" versions of planes on the market.Just my 2 cent.

Ditto that.The "western world" and its culture have passed their zenith and have entered the phase of decadence. All the developments that you can see, even here in the FS community, is a consequence of that downward movement: Form over function, gadgets rule, life and the things therein should be as easy as eating and drinking, thinking is obsolete, not wanted and avoided by people.I can only hope that some bastions of resistence will continue to exist for those who don't go conformal with the rest of our society. And I hope that Aerosoft or someone else will finally come up with a "real" A320. The're already too many "light" versions of planes on the market.Just my 2 cent.

Agree 100%. Let us hope Aerosoft follows through with an Airbus-systems version 2 to complement form with function. “In all things it is better to hope than to despair” -- GoetheBest regards,David Vega

Hi,ok downloaded airbus x and it does what it says on the box...superb.....it can be complicated if thats how you want to fly, or easy, it's your choice or a mixture of both!Nice quality aircraft outside views great, and getting round the vc cockpit is brilliant with some easy clicks..what a change from pressing loads of buttons to get where you want tomy verdict go by nowMhazy

I've made a few flights in the Airbus X, and overall I'm pretty happy. There may be some small bugs, but Aerosoft seems to be giving them attention on their forums, and for the most part they didn't affect me anyway.I also own PMDGs 747 for FSX, and I used their 737 back in the old FS2004 days. Airbus X probably doesn't model half the systems these do, especially when it comes to the FMC. I would think of Airbus X as being somewhere between a stock aircraft and a PMDG aircraft in terms of systems modeling. But for me, that's fine. That's the way I fly - casual. I'm sure a lot of newbie-simmers who download PMDGs 747 feel overwhelmed by the extensive documentation that they have to read. Maybe Airbus X can be an introduction into more complex aircraft like PMDGs, sort of a stepping stone approach.As for the lack of a 2D panel - they have set up certain views in the cockpit to give you access to the different panels. So, as you cycle through the views (or use the hotkeys) you will come across a view of the "dashboard" that is quite easy to read, and looks a lot like a 2D panel would. Same goes for the overhead and the FMC, So, the lack of a 2D panel is basically irrelevant in this aircraft.- Martin

Ditto that.The "western world" and its culture have passed their zenith and have entered the phase of decadence. All the developments that you can see, even here in the FS community, is a consequence of that downward movement: Form over function, gadgets rule, life and the things therein should be as easy as eating and drinking, thinking is obsolete, not wanted and avoided by people.I can only hope that some bastions of resistence will continue to exist for those who don't go conformal with the rest of our society. And I hope that Aerosoft or someone else will finally come up with a "real" A320. The're already too many "light" versions of planes on the market.Just my 2 cent.

"Form over function, gadgets rule, life and the things therein should be as easy as eating and drinking, thinking is obsolete, not wanted and avoided by people".Let's see, the "whole point" of the Airbus, according to some above, is that pilots don't have to work, or think, or do manual stuff to fly the airplane. Why, it's even the Airbus core for being--to build an airplane where the gadgets rule, and flying is as easy as eating and drinking, and typing in that STARS, so the computers can do all the work.I wonder how many Airbus accidents have occurred precisely because when the computers get confused, and give the airplane back to the "pilots"---they can't do much with it.Please--at least strive for some consistency of thinking. The real Airbus, according to your logic, is the peak manifestation of "thinking is obsolete"...Don't get me wrong, I feel as comfortable in the real world as a passenger in an Airbus or a Boeing--but really--to equate a complex piece of software that models an extraordinarily complex aircraft to a "middling" degree, hardly signals the downfall of western thinking.Bill

Hi,ok downloaded airbus x and it does what it says on the box...superb.....it can be complicated if thats how you want to fly, or easy, it's your choice or a mixture of both!..

Complicated ? how would the bus x be complicated ?ThanksVic

Complicated ? how would the bus x be complicated ?ThanksVic

The user has the choice of entering in quite a bit of information into the FMC (relatively speaking), or just hittng LSKs and having the information placed automatically. Also, you can chose various panel states (cold and dark, etc..). Definitely not as advanced as some add-ons, but not completely "fidelity-free" either.On a side note, the Tutorial flight is quite good, IMO. After flying it I was able to hop in and do some CAT III landings pretty much error free (pretty much...lol).

The user has the choice of entering in quite a bit of information into the FMC (relatively speaking), or just hittng LSKs and having the information placed automatically. Also, you can chose various panel states (cold and dark, etc..). Definitely not as advanced as some add-ons, but not completely "fidelity-free" either.On a side note, the Tutorial flight is quite good, IMO. After flying it I was able to hop in and do some CAT III landings pretty much error free (pretty much...lol).

Oh yes. For some reason I didn't think that could be called complicated.Maybe because I'm used to the pmdgs and everything else "is" light to me.The airbusx is a really nice plane with a great looking vc.It must have one of the best,if not the best, vc around.