Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
oldbear

The Airbus Curse

Recommended Posts

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.

Jeff Bea

I am an avid globetrotter with my trusty Lufthansa B777F, Polar Air Cargo B744F, and Atlas Air B748F.

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.

NAX669.png

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.
from a read of your statements above, you seem to care about A vs. B (no pun...)
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?
What makes you think that the commercial customer cared a lick about about the accuracy of the systems? Perhaps they wanted a pretty external model?

Jeff Bea

I am an avid globetrotter with my trusty Lufthansa B777F, Polar Air Cargo B744F, and Atlas Air B748F.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, to stay fair, I must say that I have a very, very good impression of the Aerosoft support. Not especially pointing towards the forum moderation and the bias there (which sometimes looks very biased in my eyes), but talking about the guys on the phone and email accounts. I know, these will sometimes be the same ones giving "funny" answers in the official forums but I'm really convinced about saying that "money back" is an option if you explain your problems to them constructive and politely and bought more than one product.At least, that's what I've found the support workers there to be. Forums are a different thing and I don't like the Aerosoft ones very much.T Airbus from them will stay in the hangar, maybe the advanced update would be an option, if ever build. But, to be honest, I don't think about continuing the Aerosoft Airbus drama and mark the money spent there as "for learning purpose".ahuimanu, feel free to read whatever you want in my sentences. Short statement is that A, B or whatever comes with the price of that thing, not with the dev. For me, for example these PMDG 747 addons are down to C or less (in your language), in price, detail and placement. Nice outside work on the 8i, but no changes to the outdated VC and none to the techs too. They've stated this cleary of course, but in my opinion, those addons scratched some cover from the company. NGX will surely fix this image, at a very high price I think.For example Feelthere delivers very nice things at a mid price level: highest class in my eyes.Way to many hype and "superb systems" stuff in flight sim forums around, so no further need to implement pseudo judge classes in any way. Just my opinion. Some companies deserve more attention than the always hyped ones, because their products are good and offer a good value. The named ones here were just examples and of course represent my opinion only.

What makes you think that the commercial customer cared a lick about about the accuracy of the systems? Perhaps they wanted a pretty external model?
Funniest statement around. Sure, every airline company wants just a pretty exterior model. Which purpose is it supposed to have then?You name it, pure guesswork here and therefor no need to discuss further as facts are missing on both sides. The only official statement towards the product can still be read in the forums: planned and made to fit some after work simmers market, whatever that means. Seems like I'm outside of it, like many others too. I usually fly before work :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...