Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

oldbear

The Airbus Curse

Recommended Posts

I've just been checking out the Aerosoft Airbus X support forum. It really does appear that this product is a bit of a dog's dinner. I'm really sad, as I'd been looking forward to buying it, once the inevitable initial glitches had been sorted, but from what I've been reading it's getting worse, not better. I'm not talking about the presence, or otherwise, of certain features like SIDS and STARS. I'm referring to basic handling, pitch and power management, and stability. It seems to be falling a long way short for many customers. I wish Aerosoft all the best with it, and I'm hoping a load of people will pipe up and tell me it's working great for them, but from the volume of complaints and queries it's looking like the FS Airbus curse has struck again.And btw, what happened to that Wilco update that was mentioned here on AVSIM a while back? Now might be a good time.. Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what wilco has up there sleeves? hehe hopefully its good, for the people that own the wilco airbus. it seems the airbus x has had a few problems the new update and has lowered frame rates. it will certainly affect the performance of the plane when they add more stuff into it hopefully it gets all sorted out. biggest problem with airbus is the fact that they are so complicated with the many automated systems which is hard to reproduce in flight simulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've just been checking out the Aerosoft Airbus X support forum. It really does appear that this product is a bit of a dog's dinner. I'm really sad, as I'd been looking forward to buying it, once the inevitable initial glitches had been sorted, but from what I've been reading it's getting worse, not better. Ian
I'd say, give it some time. It is pretty darn good already and I'm hopeful that the remaining issues will be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seldom go out of my way to be critical of products and tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. But Aerosoft's Airbus X is one of the few addons I really wish I could have my money back for. It is very nice looking, and can be flown after a fashion, but way too many problems for a major developer's release. Runwaway speed on descent is just one of them; the throttle wants to keep the engines revved up. I hope they continue improving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I does seem like when they fix one problem, they create another problem.Overspeed is almost impossible to avoid unless you descend with full spoilers. If FBW is on (AP off), the aircraft handles like the Goodyear blimp. If you use the workaround to switch FBW off, it handles like a F-16.The spoilers worked fine in 1.11 for me - better than most aircraft. I have a Saitek TQ and I use the button below the axis for arming the spoilers. In 1.20, this not longer works. And yes, 1.2 is slightly harder on FPS but it isn't the doomsday scenario that people are making it out to be on the forums. I know Aerosoft is trying to accommodate their customers with improvements but people requested a higher refresh rate with the displays. When they gave them a higher refresh rate, FPS dropped.When they released 1.2 some people had problems with 1.11 not being completely uninstalled. Perhaps they should have worked on the uninstaller? It seems like it should have taken care of the removal of the product without manual intervention.Overall, I do like the aircraft but they need to get this one working properly and they need to get the livery installation straight. They need to tune out the requests for an advanced model for the time being. I believe they have a ton of repaints that they have not released yet. As for the ones that were included, some of the paints were sloppy and had to be corrected by the community. I also think it is a little embarrassing that a European developer didn't know the proper call sign for British Airways (yes, they used "British Airways").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They need to tune out the requests for an advanced model for the time being.
My opinion is they should have gone the route of going for a full blown advanced simulation from the start. That what PMDG do every time and I can't see their sales going through the floor as a result.The approach that Aerosoft have taken has alienated a lot of potential customers, and as a result of their inability to get what appears to be a light simulation working correctly I doubt people will be lining up to buy an advanced copy of the Airbus on release day.Mind you, if they can't get this working correctly then I shudder to think how a full blown simulation would have worked.Bryan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My opinion is they should have gone the route of going for a full blown advanced simulation from the start. That what PMDG do every time and I can't see their sales going through the floor as a result.
That's because its PMDG you mention and they know how to make great addons. AirSimmer tried what you suggested but they that's a very different story: they tried to do a PMDG-esque simulation and they not only went through the floor, they fell so hard they pretty much drilled a hole to China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
biggest problem with airbus is the fact that they are so complicated with the many automated systems which is hard to reproduce in flight simulator.
But it's basic flight problems that the Airbus X seems to be suffering from. I seem to remember the PSS A320 flew like it was on rails, with a good representation of Airbus autotrim, and you could fly it manually very smoothly. The Wilco job is pretty good too in that respect. I just wonder why many people can't even get the Aerosoft bird to behave at all. Is it THAT difficult? I could easily live with simplified systems in such a good-looking product, if only the aircraft itself was flyable. Many are saying it isn't.I'm enjoying the QW 757 at present, which I got instead, but it was the 'bus I was really after. Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it's basic flight problems that the Airbus X seems to be suffering from. I seem to remember the PSS A320 flew like it was on rails, with a good representation of Airbus autotrim, and you could fly it manually very smoothly. The Wilco job is pretty good too in that respect. I just wonder why many people can't even get the Aerosoft bird to behave at all. Is it THAT difficult? I could easily live with simplified systems in such a good-looking product, if only the aircraft itself was flyable. Many are saying it isn't.I'm enjoying the QW 757 at present, which I got instead, but it was the 'bus I was really after. Ian
Hi Ian, yes that's true I dont own the airbus x yet so I'm keeping a close eye on the development. patches, updates, but the fact that it has basic flight problem's kinda sucks. this is so far from what I have read on the forum's from people that own it. The hardcore stuff is cool but I stick with more of the simplified systems glade your enjoying the QW757 its a fun package. hopefully the airbus x gets better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a strange add on and I am having trouble putting my experience with it in to words. It definitely looks and sounds great - no problems in that department. I have had less problems with it than most people. Aside from the quirky climb and descent issues, the throttles worked well from day one. I also have not had problems with crashes.It just seems like they chose to pursue the most complicated aspects of an Airbus (FBW) and they sacrificed the the FDE and navigation. At the very least, it seems like you should be able to disconnect the AP and actually fly the aircraft. I don't care about SIDS and STARS or altitude restrictions. These don't work with the default ATC so I don't use them. The problem is the product has no approach data - not from the default GPS or STARS. To me, that seems like the worst combination of features.An analogy would be a auto manufacturer sets out to create a car that is fast and has great gas mileage. The realize that they can't have both and end up producing a car with a top speed 30MPH that gets 10MPG. I just seems like in their quest to produce a product that would moderately satisfy everyone, they ended up with something that satisfies no one. QW was able to pull it off but perhaps a hybrid product is not possible with an Airbus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest veeray
But it's basic flight problems that the Airbus X seems to be suffering from. I seem to remember the PSS A320 flew like it was on rails, with a good representation of Airbus autotrim, and you could fly it manually very smoothly. The Wilco job is pretty good too in that respect. I just wonder why many people can't even get the Aerosoft bird to behave at all. Is it THAT difficult? I could easily live with simplified systems in such a good-looking product, if only the aircraft itself was flyable. Many are saying it isn't.I'm enjoying the QW 757 at present, which I got instead, but it was the 'bus I was really after. Ian
If you fly it like a Boeing yes it's totally unflyable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you fly it like a Boeing yes it's totally unflyable...
What do you mean? You should be able to fly an Airbus manually just like a Boeing - control inputs, pitch and power. The basics don't change, despite autotrim and FBW.Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you mean? You should be able to fly an Airbus manually just like a Boeing - control inputs, pitch and power. The basics don't change, despite autotrim and FBW.Ian
I agree. They should have concentrated on making the aircraft flyable by hand fist. It seems like hand flying was an afterthought with this product. Sully would have ended up in Central Park if he was flying the Airbus X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sully would have ended up in Central Park if he was flying the Airbus X.
Sully was flying a 320 :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree. They should have concentrated on making the aircraft flyable by hand fist. It seems like hand flying was an afterthought with this product. Sully would have ended up in Central Park if he was flying the Airbus X.
Very likely right. My impression is that they made this product for a commercial customer (Air Berlin is my guess) and then decided to extend it to create a hobbyist product. It is likely that their commercial customer didn't care about flight model fidelity and Aerosoft has covered their end by making it clear this isn't a "real as it gets" product. The propensity towards "lite" products appears increasingly to me like a CYA move when the motivation, will or skill to "take it all the way" is lacking. Once you really get into it, it is possible to reach PMDG-level. In any case, there are very few A-level dev houses anymore. I'm going to delist LevelD at the end of the year if peep on the 757 doesn't materialize. I like to think of the 757 as nostalgia-ware: we all know that the LDS767 was of such a high caliber that it even elevated the standards and aspirations of the only A-level player left: PMDG. When glass isn't involved, I suppose I'll throw in and slip CaptainSim in at A- level. Don't get me wrong though, there's so much voodoo involved in getting to the A level and I'm sure the incentives just aren't there for most folks. It's not like the dev environment for a high-level FS addon is particularly sane relative to others. Yes, there is an SDK, but that does NOT take you the full distance to an A-level product (hence the limitations of the AbusX we're speaking of).I hope that MS brings some sanity to the SDK as they move forward with flight.Of course, the other obvious idea is to have some of these B-level shops partner up to hit an A-level outing. I think the QualitySim guys came close with this idea and, assuming they haven't burnt out or lost interest, there is a chance that they can mature into players. They don't have a cult-of-personality like Robert R, but Ernie ain't a bad start really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading about A and B levels, my first question would be "who cares?" and the second one would concern the release date of a possible high potential FSLabs Airbus, surely placed in the upper price spheres and therefor somehow "A".As everybody saw on the other Airbus release, big names in business don't automatically produce valuable and working stuff but usually are very professional in marketing aspects. Is everybody happy with the "final" 1.20 update of that other Airbus? I still doubt that. But you still can read on their site that this "is what Aerosoft believes an airliner in FSX should be". Well, I hope you still can smile on such statements.I also found it to be a very vague guessing, that the Airbus X was meant for a commercial customer and then "matured" to a hobbyist product. Which commercial customer would have wanted optics first together with wrong systems?No, they intended to hit the easy fly market with this (as stated from the beginning) but even this market deserves some attention to the details and of course a rather error free experience when priced at that level (which is the same as e. g. the very detailed Simcheck A300).I don't know where this "curse" thing comes from. Wilco released their Airbus years ago and besides the errors and glitches with them, they are flyable, detailed in the MCDU and still don't offend anyone who's up to just jump in and pull the throttle. They also offer all A320 variants.A smaller and now a big company failed in releasing some current titles after the 2007 or so Wilco start. That's what you call a curse? I'd take the phrase "bad concept" here, because looking at these two newer products and their details just gives me this impression. So no need to worry about curses in any way, just a reminder to plan ahead and develop a product concept and then go for realization..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is everybody happy with the "final" 1.20 update of that other Airbus?
Are you so sure this 'is' the final version?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of frustration with the Airbus X I bought Wilco's Bus and am very happy with it. I didn't need to read the manual since I had experience with the Phoenix bus and it flew exactly the way I wanted it to fly. If you merge it with Project Airbus you've got a great looking plane inside and outside. I also don't like the fact that you can't merge the Airbus X. I think Aerosoft should have at least made some of the basic autoflight functions the way it should work. Like PAOB's Fokker 50. You can set climb power and select IAS, use the default GPS and still select approaches. So that as a light product has succeeded. Simple and does what it's supposed to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know where this "curse" thing comes from.
Don't take it too seriously. It's just that for many years we've lacked an Airbus to rival the top-of-the range Boeings, not to mention various high-quality regional airliners and biz-jets. We still don't even have a decent 'lite' one. The aircraft seems to defy developers. The Wilco A320 is the best of a bad and failed bunch, and is having to continue its lonely role representing Airbus Industrie in our little flightsim world long after it should have been put out to grass..It'll be a very welcome development, and not before time, if FSLabs or PMDG finally produce an aircraft that can stand alongside the forthcoming 737NG, which presumably is going to raise the bar even further. Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you so sure this 'is' the final version?
1.20 was stated as the box release, sorry to have called it "final". I must have missed that I'm talking about the Aerosoft Airbus X were updates come as odd date numbers.So looking forward to which version then to call it final and being able to fly it appropriately? And which version will be the one that somehow acts and feels like an Airbus, even with light systems, I wonder.Ok, rhetoric phrases here. I hope everybody enjoys his investment and maybe learns something out of the surely good marketing with words like "this is what Aerosoft believes an airliner in FSX should be". I surely did and have to admit that I stopped looking for any update numbers from now on.So drop me a line when it's final then. Thanks.In my eyes, that plane lacks of a concept, not of an update.If I want to go Airbus, I'll use the planes I bought 3 years ago, at the Aerosoft shop. Good shop by the way, when going for other devs products.Anyone noticed that small "update" news at AVSIM concerning the Wilcos? I had a thread about it, but couldn't get any more information on that topic, so I'm wondering like oldbear too about that maybe significant update.oldbear you're absolutely understood. I just wanted to get past such a mystical phrase like "curse" when describing that only one product is available to represent an Airbus in FSX. Looking forward to any future releases too, updates to the most current products don't fit here it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought the AirbusX the night it was released. I very quickly felt a little duped by the advertising comments. Realistic flight dynamics and so on.Aerosoft implemented no custom fly by wire module here, they stuck with the default FBW for the default A321, hence the odd behaviour like no rudder at all above 100ft RA, nose diving on short final below 100ft RA, and so on and so forth. The FADECs do not control the engines even vaguely accurately and the autothrust system does not resemble Airbus' concept much at all. For example, you can push into TO/GA and the autothrust system is fully activated... Do a FLEX takeoff, and the engines deliver over 10% less thrust than is indicated on the upper ECAM, push into TO/GA and you do not get the 100-104% thrust that should be available... I even noticed that MCT delivers greater thrust often than TO/GA, particularly if you are near the managed speed value, as is listed on the MCDU of the FMGS.So, in short summary, a great looking model, with a poorly functioning flight model (that has got worse in V1.20) and some very questionable systems simulation...In my opinion, Aerosoft made a mistake in doing the A320/1 as a simplified plane for the so-called afterwork pilot...I await their systems upgrade to see if there is any improvement that makes the model that looks like an Airbus actually fly like one...It was uninstalled after about 1 hour after I tried out V1.20 in comparison with V1.11...Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was uninstalled after about 1 hour after I tried out V1.20 in comparison with V1.11...
And if there was any justice, you'd get your money back... Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if there was any justice, you'd get your money back... Ian
It's a shame that all developers don't offer a money back guarantee like Flight 1. I haven't returned many things, but it's nice having that option if a product doesn't perform well or it is not up to standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...