AirSimmer A320

[out 769]

Reading several of the above posts I initially thought 'Come on, so much has been written about it, especially lately. We are really starting to repeat ourselves'. Well, I still think so, lol.But on the other hand I have such an emotional relation with this addon that I owe simmers my thoughts on that even when repeated five times on end. :wink:But instead of copying and pasting my thoughts from other threads, this time I will wirte from a different perspective and in a bit different way, leaving some final conclusions to the readers.So, to begin with, let me say I've been simming longer than I could remember (almost all the MFS series). In the meantime I have used almost all quality addon aircraft, mostly payware.I've spent countless hours flying stuff like: PSS A32X/330/340/757/777, FeelThere A32X/330/340/ERJ145/E170/737, PMDG 737NG/744/MD-11, iFly 737NG, LVLD 763, RFP 747, PT Tu-154, DA F70/100, LH MD-8X and others.I have also collected some hardware stuff to build my mini home cockpit I am using all the time (stick, yoke, pedals, throttles, radios, autopilot, etc).Now back to the core matter. When I first bought AirSimmer A320, right after it was released, I soon returned it using the F1 refund system as the only time in my career (never before and never after).But the AirSimmer's bus did made a huuuge impression on me. I couldn't look at Wilco/FeelThere anymore. Really! I tried but it was impossible. It's like day and night for me. But there were bugs that ###### me off.However in the long term it turned out to be the love at first sight. I couldn't stop thinking about this addon and waiting until it is re-released in an improved version. When the 1.3 was out I repurchased it in no time.I experienced some initial glitches, mentioned above by some others. So I started callbrating, tweaking and learning. I decided not to give up although it was hard sometimes. Rob, Kirk, you know what I mean, mates? But my patience and determination plus excellent assistance from Rob and Kirk made me a winner. I admit that though I love all airliners in general (as every real simmer should), Airbuses have always been my favourites.So taming the AirSimmer bus was the matter of life and death for me (OK, almost like that).And finally the ultimate lesson has come. It appeared that even though I flew both PSS and Wilco/Feelthere buses, I... can't fly an Airbus properly. :blush:So in a few weeks I have studied more aviation materials than for the previous part of my life! I used the SmartCockpit and the A32X FCOM mainly, watched hundreds of cockpit videos, and got headaches from all that.To summarize: all other aircraft in my fleet are now hangared. Including my previously favourite iFly 737NG and my two all-time favs (DA F100 and LH MD-82). I, like Mark (and a few more fellows), fly n-o-t-h-i-n-g else!The reason I simple: I can't get enough of my A320! Each flight teaches me something. I am constantly improving my Airbus flight techniques. And all this is with the basic (what a totally misleading name it is!) version.I can't imagine what happens when I put my hands on the advanced and the A340 to come (my favourite long-hauler).So draw your own conclusions, gentlemen, and do what you want. With 30 days to test it all all you risk is your time and some sweat. What is there to be afraid of?Sure, I won't say it is an addon for everybody. It WILL require some tweaking (although the 1.4 update does a lot for you) and, first of all, it WILL require learning how to fly an Airbus (forget all your previuous MFS buses).Bugs to fix? Yes, a few. Stopovers? Absolutely n-o-n-e. Enjoyable? Well, if you still don't get it, I must be a worse writer than I thought... Retard!---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------EDIT: I decided to add some random resized screenshots. I guess visuals are an essential part of this addon, so let them speak for themselves. I hope you don't mind.

[Avantime 81]

Well said. Echoes my sentiments about the old product. I'll add that this FS9 aircraft has or had the most potential of any at it's release. My first 30 minutes in it were spent picking my jaw off of the floor because of the good performance, sounds, aesthetics, and FBW. The last hour flying it was spent cursing the product and rage quitting FS9.Truly almost an exquisite representation of a real aircraft. Could be to PMDG's NGX standards with some TLC.

I agree with you and I believe this aircraft had a lot of potential, yet I think the devs made some poor commercial and design choices which were irreversible and ultimately causing the project to become unstuck. Here's a few:-The extended team product. Very poorly conceived.-No FSUIPC support-No allowances for time compression-Focus on FS9 instead of FSX. FS9 is a dead horse for most payware developers.-Time and capital management issues. No set development milestones etc.-Too ambitious for their first project. The devs were promising the moon and couldn't deliver.Here's my opinion of what happened: They ran out of money mid-development and they decided to package what they have in a hurry into a Basic edition and use it as a simple cash grab. Obviously they never properly tested the product and it was poorly received by the community and many got a refund within 30 days. With the poor sales the dev team broke up and now only Vasilius is working on the product on a part time basis. Later he found found a few volunteers such as Flex1978 to help out on the forums.By the way IIRC the model and textures are done by Samdim on a contract basis, similar to what he's doing right now for Majestic's Q400 for FSX.

[ARCO 245]

Ian, all what you state may be correct (except for your FS9 views which I would respectfully disagree with... that's a different debate well beyond this topic) but the end result is there for us to enjoy finally (AS A320 basic vets 1.4 and a reliable and helpful support forum) and that is what counts!Instead of destroying flack, those developers need our help so that they may deliver what they ultimately were aiming for, i.e. the Advanced version and the whole Airbus family for our enjoyment... so why not give them a break if not some level of moral support? "Errare humanum est", there are many people making promises they don't deliver because they are ambitious - not necessarily in a negative or crooked way -, some become very successful after learning a few lessons here and there! Don't we all make critical mistakes (planning, budgeting, time estimate, manning, product choice, etc) when running a business, for those of us who had this opportunity?Whatever their fault of the past, AS did not run away but are still working on their project, so, through adverse publicity - which they had plenty of -, let's not kill the only hope we have to see a decent Airbus simulation in FS9, and if FSX is the only platform you want, then FSLab may deliver what you wish soon.Happy landings to all!

[ARCO 245]

Ian, all what you state may be correct (except for your FS9 views which I would respectfully disagree with... that's a different debate well beyond this topic) but the end result is there for us to enjoy finally (AS A320 basic vets 1.4 and a reliable and helpful support forum) and that is what counts!Instead of destroying flack, those developers need our help so that they may deliver what they ultimately were aiming for, i.e. the Advanced version and the whole Airbus family for our enjoyment... so why not give them a break if not some level of moral support? "Errare humanum est", there are many people making promises they don't deliver because they are ambitious - not necessarily in a negative or crooked way -, some become very successful after learning a few lessons here and there! Don't we all make critical mistakes (planning, budgeting, time estimate, manning, product choice, etc) when running a business, for those of us who had this opportunity?Happy landings to all!

[out 769]

Iain, in my eyes:-The extended team product. Very poorly conceived <-- no comments from me as unfortunately I have never been a member of the team; are you, by the way?-No FSUIPC support <-- true, an FSUIPC user here, but it is possible to configure and run this addon without it - that's what we all ASA320 pilots are doing everyday-No allowances for time compression <-- I respect the fact you may need it but at the same time I don't believe it is a must-have-feature as I, for instance, never ever even think of using it-Focus on FS9 instead of FSX. FS9 is a dead horse for most payware developers. <-- nonsense, especially in this (FS9) forum - what do you expect us here to write about it? Are you trying provoke anything with your comment?-Time and capital management issues. No set development milestones etc. <-- Not being an educated economist (and maybe as a non-native English speaker) I have no idea what you are talking about in this case-Too ambitious for their first project. The devs were promising the moon and couldn't deliver. <-- I for one am very happy about their choice; I don't care about another 737 and they did finally deliver something that I enjoy immensely

[FLEX1978 373]

I agree with you and I believe this aircraft had a lot of potential, yet I think the devs made some poor commercial and design choices which were irreversible and ultimately causing the project to become unstuck. Here's a few:-The extended team product. Very poorly conceived.-No FSUIPC support-No allowances for time compression-Focus on FS9 instead of FSX. FS9 is a dead horse for most payware developers.-Time and capital management issues. No set development milestones etc.-Too ambitious for their first project. The devs were promising the moon and couldn't deliver.Here's my opinion of what happened: They ran out of money mid-development and they decided to package what they have in a hurry into a Basic edition and use it as a simple cash grab. Obviously they never properly tested the product and it was poorly received by the community and many got a refund within 30 days. With the poor sales the dev team broke up and now only Vasilius is working on the product on a part time basis. Later he found found a few volunteers such as Flex1978 to help out on the forums.By the way IIRC the model and textures are done by Samdim on a contract basis, similar to what he's doing right now for Majestic's Q400 for FSX.

Apologies in advanced, I am typing on my iPhone! :)Some fair points from an outsiders perspective, although I do have to say you have got a fair few things wrong but are free to speculate as much as you want. Regarding the ET team, your correct, terrible management decision. One of the first things I asked when I joined the team was who thought it was a good idea to just let anybody join the beta team, it was doomed from the start.I spent a few weeks trawling through old beta testing forums, while I have now made friends with a fair few ET beta guys that have a good understanding of the aircraft I could clearly see that the bulk of beta testers were 14 year olds that had no idea how the A320 'truely' worked and many didn't even understand how there PC's and fs9 worked. I read through so many bug reports that weren't actually bugs, it truly seemed like some people joined the beta team just to get there hands on the product early. Anyway things had to change regarding that side of things and fortunately they have, the advanced is now my main fs9 aircraft, however unless you are using fs9 as a true study sim you would hardly be able to tell the difference between the advanced and basic until you start failing systems, running ECAM actions and referencing FCOM Vol 4 and the QRH.Fsuipc - Yes it is compatible, I have seperate configs for the AS A320, PMDG MD11,744,Flight1 ATR, this has been discussed to death on the forums. The Flight control computers take raw data from FS9 so you do have to calibrate your flight controls through the default assignments, this will not affect any of your other aircraft if you simply tick the aircraft specific box in FSUIPC. All other functions of that powerful tool function exactly the same with the A320 as any other addon out there.To give you a brief example, switch of the nose wheel steering or drain the accumulator while on the yellow hydraulic system, monitor how the steer by wire is affected as you accelerate down the runway, this is only possible by coding virtual flight control computers that read raw data from FS. Simmers say they want true FBW, SBW then some complain when a developer thinks outside the box and creates it for a crude platform like fs9.Regarding time compression and fs9 being dead, I guess it's not even worth me commenting on that. Over ambitious? Perhaps so, but everything I have seen in the basic and advanced so far has impressed me, I'm more of a systems guy so happy they spent a great deal of time coding the systems logic correctly.Regards

[Appliance 51]

FLEX1978 and Rafal I just want you both to know that your comments re the AirSimmer over several threads during the past several weeks have inspired me to again pull this bird out of desert storage and try again.I bought the A320 upon release as an 'Extended Team' member and remember the trials and tribulations that followed. To be truthful I had many CTD's and also was disappointed that my feedback (two REAL issues) seemed not to be acted upon in a timely manner.I subsequently put her out to pasture and like Rafal concentrated on the Fokker and Maddog, laterly the iFly. The absence of the long awaited feature pack for the iFly has given me the time opportunity to reacquaint myself with the A320 and I have last week installed the 'Basic."Frankly I am scared of the commitment to properly learn the AirSimmer but take heart that help is at hand through Flex1978 and moral support from Rafal.Salute to both gentlemen. :(

[Jordan1995 6]

When I first bought AirSimmer A320, right after it was released, I soon returned it using the F1 refund system as the only time in my career (never before and never after)

I Did The Same Thing Now Im Having Second Thoughts and thinking about buying it again Nice Shots To :)

[Avantime 81]

Just to expand on my previous points, and by the way English isn't my first language either.- FSUIPC - most of the problems would likely be from users of custom hardware. There were also problems with deleted/reassigned default joystick assignments with the Basic just after release, which AFAIK wasn't fixed before most people decided to get a refund. Airsimmer should have thought about that before starting development and also before the release of the Basic edition as it was a consideration that would affect a lot of sales.- Time Compression - IMO the FBW Airbuses are perhaps the most difficult aircraft to develop, especially with proper FBW logic, Autotrim and Authothrust. But if done correctly the A320 platform can be transferred to the A330 and A340 (And perhaps the A380) without too much fuss. (They're similar enough that airlines do CCQs under mixed fleet rules between A320s and A330s.) However if the autopilot/FBW on the A320 is incapable of handling time compression then It would have a major effect on the A330 and A340, which can fly 14 hour routes. This is a case of Airsimmer not thinking ahead but it doesn't matter now as we'll likely never see the Advanced Edition in the foreseeable future.- FS9 being a dead horse - This isn't a provocation but reality. Have a look at how many people are viewing this forum (about 5-10) and compare that to the FSX forums. (40-50) The truth is most people have left for FSX except us die-hards who have invested too much money into FS9 addons and are unwilling to give up. The sooner we can all admit that FS9 is obsolete the better it is for everyone. FS9 is still my current flight sim of choice but I know in my heart that one day, probably in the next year or 2 I'll give up FS9 altogether and switch to FSX, and I bet that once Lefteris releases his A320 the Airsimmer bus will likely fade into memory as an object lesson for future FS developers.When Airsimmer started their project I could say that FS9 was still alive, but I don't think they contemplated what FS9 will end up 6-7 years later. Why? Because I don't think they expected development to take that long, perhaps they were too ambitious? I think so, and the fact is by November 2009 when the Basic is released most of the big FS9 developers like PMDG, Aerosoft, Carenado, Level-D, Wilco, Captainsim etc had already left the house. With the mess that is the Basic edition I would guess it would take the devs another 12-18 months at the very least to complete the advanced edition, which brings us to around 2011 for the advanced edition release. Now who would buy a FS9 only addon for $40+ in 2011, 2012 and beyond? Judging by PMDG's experience with the MD-11, not many. Normally this doesn't matter to the one-man part-time hobbyist developer but it matters a lot if you're a new startup company with expenses but no product and no revenue for a significant period of time. Another question would be how will they fund the development from FS9 to FSX, If FS9 sales were poor? These are very important commercial questions to consider but they failed to ask them either before or during development. And now it's not relevant any more because the Basic edition is a commercial failure and there's no viable prospect for the advanced edition, which leads us the next point.- Time and Capital management, milestones and ambition. - Whoever is involved the Airsimmer project obviously didn't know much about budgeting or accountancy. Software development is extremely vulnerable to delays and budget blowouts, The British National Health Service blew US$20 Billion (12.7bn GBP) on software that was plagued by delays and utterly unfit for purpose. Just yesterday the US military's Joint Strike Fighter will likely be delayed even more with many more billions down the drain because of problems with complicated software. In Airsimmer's case they should have known better and create a business plan that is flexible and robust enough to take them to the release of their first product. The business plan should include a budget, a road map of how they will proceed with development, and fixed dates or milestones for completion of certain systems and bug testing. If there's a likelihood that some systems would not be finished in time then alternative options must be found. Perhaps the system can be simplified, and non-essential systems can be ditched altogether for post release updates. (e.g. Basic Edition) The team needs to be disciplined with regards to time management and budgets and deliver as precisely as possible of what's in the roadmap, nothing more and nothing less.Rafal you may be happy that they aimed for the moon, but right now we have no advanced edition and a broken, unfinished $40 basic edition. Do you prefer that they didn't reach the moon on the first try and blow themselves up when compared to the possibility that they may succeed on the 2nd or 3rd try? Ambition doesn't matter if you only have one shot and cannot deliver the results. Airsimmer should've been conservative in expectations for their first product and realise the need for a Basic Edition early on in order to build cashflow, instead of promising "no compromise" and end up running out of time and money and having to unleash the broken Basic Edition on the unsuspecting FS community, many of which got refunds soon after discovering how broken it is.- Extended team - Although I'm not a ET member, I do know enough about games and software that one should always pay someone else with the knowledge and skills of software testing to test their software in a closed environment. Open betas and Pay-to-Test gimmicks always invites people who don't know a thing about testing to complain about everything and everyone. In most other games open beta (In MMOs or via pre-order codes of multiplayer games) is mostly about stress testing the servers for multiplayer play, and most individual bug reports in the open beta are ignored on face value. The developers usually only take notice when individuals turn into big vocal crowds yelling about the same problem, usually in the forums. In the Airsimmer situation the ET programme began too early as well, while the Airbus is still in pre-alpha. So the devs had to fix problems in systems which may break again later on when a another system is introduced.One last point. To be honest for $40 I expect a reasonably bug free experience with my payware addons, or if there are any major bugs then they will be fixed in a timely manner. Is that too much to ask? Because I can think of a lot of ways the $40 could be better spent for a more enjoyable FS experience, including saving up for Aerosoft's Airbus X extended or FS Lab's A320. Finally if you're still reading this and are considering whether or not to buy the Airsimmer A320 then please give it a 30 day trial. However if at any time you decide that it's not for you then DO NOT HESITATE to get a refund.

[out 769]

Wow, that is one long post up there. I'm having a rather busy evening, so no way to answer all that.And I don't agree with some points, so anyway I am not planning to comment, as I see no need for a debate.But just quickly to get facts straight:

The sooner we can all admit that FS9 is obsolete the better it is for everyone.

How can I admit something I neither did nor believe? By force of something (what)? Obsolete in what? I completely don't get your point, sorry.

developers like PMDG, Aerosoft, Carenado, Level-D, Wilco, Captainsim etc had already left the house

FYI: Aerosoft is currently the world's largest developer of FS9 addons!Plus we could make a similarly long list of developers who 'had not left the house', but... what for?

To be honest for $40 I expect a reasonably bug free experience with my payware addons (...) please give it a 30 day trial.

You simply answered your own question. The 30 day trial IS the way to check if the $40 is worth it in your eyes.In my eyes it is worth much more. I do have a reasonably bug free experience and enjoy this addon as nothing else before.Finally, if you have some specific problems with using ASA320 which don't allow you to enjoy the product, please visit the AS tech forum, read and post.I am sure much can be done to make flying the airbus a great fun for you. Since I (and some more guys) have no critical problems, why should you? :smile:Have a great weekend everybody!

[FLEX1978 373]

Rafal, don't sweat it :) I read all of his post and while parts of what he says does make sence I think I would go insane if I had his frame of mind regarding something that should be educational, fun and a hobby :) It's friday, enjoy your weekend

[out 769]

True, true, Rob.We all spend too much time in the forum.Time to

[Avantime 81]

And I don't agree with some points, so anyway I am not planning to comment, as I see no need for a debate.

Well you just did. Sorry my post sounds like a lesson in "Business 101" but most business start-ups fail within the first 2-3 years.

How can I admit something I neither did nor believe? By force of something (what)? Obsolete in what? I completely don't get your point, sorry.

No offence, but are you planning on playing FS9 all they way to 2020? With current performance hardware FSX is now a much more viable alternative to FS9 and with MS going closed and casual with Flight most people here are now certain that there will be no succession issues and FSX will be the primary platform for nearly all FS addon development in the foreseeable future although there will be a few who will stick to FS9 no matter what, just like the kind of people who's still playing FS98 right now.

FYI: Aerosoft is currently the world's largest developer of FS9 addons!Plus we could make a similarly long list of developers who 'had not left the house', but... what for?

Aerosoft are only in FS9 because converting FSX scenery to FS9 is relatively straightforward and cheap. They ceased FS9 aircraft development long ago. Mathijs Kok stated back in 2008 that FS9 addons isn't selling and retailers are loathe to take on boxed FS9 addons. Airsimmer Basic was released close to 2010. Airsimmer Advanced, if they had decided to continue development would've been released around early-mid 2011. PMDG stated here back in January 2010 that sales of FS9 market is "shrinking at an astonishing rate" and a "dramatic decline" in FS9 sales, obviously referring to their MD-11. Therefore I would find it hard to fathom if Airsimmer wasn't able to predict the possibility that by 2009-2011 the FS9 "complex aircraft" payware market will likely be finished. Between 2010 and now I can think of only one complex aircraft that has been released for FS9 and that is the iFly 737NG, and that's a simultaneous FSX/FS9 release.I think there's only one other big payware developer that still has a project in the pipeline, and that is Qwings and their FSX/FS9 BAe-146. However they haven't said anything about their other project, the 787, Perhaps they're waiting on how well the FS9 BAe-146 will sell before making a decision on whether to make the 787 FSX only.

You simply answered your own question. The 30 day trial IS the way to check if the $40 is worth it in your eyes.In my eyes it is worth much more. I do have a reasonably bug free experience and enjoy this addon as nothing else before.

Good for you that you have a bug free experience. Do you ever play the IAE version because I do, it's an integral part of the package and it's broken.My primary concern here is for people who decides that the Airsimmer is not for them, but either forgets or chooses not to refund because of perceived hassles or in the false hope that everything will eventually be patched. It's a similar situation to mail-in rebates where people either forget, gets disqualified or decides not to bother with the rebate process. Most manufacturers and retailers take advantage of that and pocket the free money which is why I believe anyone who buy the Airsimmer should think hard about the refund and possible FSX alternatives every time they play the A320 within the 30 day trial. $40 is a lot of money to some people.

Finally, if you have some specific problems with using ASA320 which don't allow you to enjoy the product, please visit the AS tech forum, read and post.I am sure much can be done to make flying the airbus a great fun for you. Since I (and some more guys) have no critical problems, why should you? :(

I do, and It's only you and Flex1978 providing most of the work. If I wanted to talk to a dev like Vasilius I have a better chance finding him in the Russian Avsim forums.

Rafal, don't sweat it :) I read all of his post and while parts of what he says does make sence I think I would go insane if I had his frame of mind regarding something that should be educational, fun and a hobby :)It's friday, enjoy your weekend

Perhaps you're right, I'll quit the rant.I very much appreciate the help you and Rafal give on the Airsimmer forums, Have a good weekend.

[Gavin 99]

True, true, Rob.We all spend too much time in the forum.Time to

Actually Rafal, do you mind if I e-mail you a few questions about the ASA320? Mainly flying techniques and FS9 set up. I know I could read all the manuals, etc like you did, but I'm getting married in a few weeks, plus have a new afternoon job and it's all a bit hectic ;-)And for the record, I bought it and knew I could claim the refund. And chose not to. I see far more positives, for what I paid, than negatives. But that's just my opinion and I'm not going to get into any argument with anyone. It's all so pointless arguing over computer games.

[Keith S 14]

Does it have a fully functional MCDU?