Can I ask you guys something? Why do folks insist on A318 and A319? It hardly makes any difference between the A320. So what gives? Just imagine you are flying a A319.

 

I can imagine a something like the A380 with its VC and size and what not..but I don't get the other request.

 

am I missing something?

 

LOL :)

Can I ask you guys something? Why do folks insist on A318 and A319? It hardly makes any difference between the A320. So what gives? Just imagine you are flying a A319.

 

I can imagine a something like the A380 with its VC and size and what not..but I don't get the other request.

 

am I missing something?

 

LOL :)

Well some people wish to simulate real airlines or find A318/A319 more attractive if they have flown on one in real world too. You can't simulate A319 and A318 with A320, there are differences in performance and such things too... Personally I don't care so much, from that series I have flown only on A320 and A321.

Here is a direct quote from the head of the Aerosoft design team about the A318.:

 

Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft), on 08 June 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

 

'You got no idea how much difference there is between a A318 and a A320/321. There are serious differences in the FADEC and the FBW systems. It would just be a very different project and it's one that we do not intend to do now. I am sorry you think that that is a shame.'

 

 

Some poster seems to ask for the A318/A319 just about every day or so on the Airbus forum. The answer has been the same all along - no plans for these planes.

 

Ray

If they keep that attractive price this is going to be my first aircraft add-on for over more than five years and that is because I've been absent from simming for that long. Looks promising and the price is right. Looking forward to the release.

Can I ask you guys something? Why do folks insist on A318 and A319? It hardly makes any difference between the A320. So what gives? Just imagine you are flying a A319.

 

I can imagine a something like the A380 with its VC and size and what not..but I don't get the other request.

 

am I missing something?

 

LOL :)

 

Think about it this way: If people didn't care about model variation within a single family of aircraft would PMDG have released the 737-600/700 extension? Do you think they sold a few of those at $30 a pop? I reckon they sold a lot! Which is why they will do the same with the 777 (200/ER vs 300/ER), and are considering future updates to the 737 series (BBJ and military versions).

 

I care and am happy to pay for an extension like that, as I have done with the PMDG 737.

Hope they can get it working this time, the previous one was unflyable

Hope they can get it working this time, the previous one was unflyable

 

It works fine and is still a work in progress.

Realistic wing-flex, ie none for an Airbus A320...

 

Ró.

 

Ahh, ok. Thanks, Ronan.

Newbie with these types of aircraft but excited about getting the Airbus X Extended. One question if you don't mind, because I have yet to find an answer for it reading through this topic.

 

Question: Will this new version be able to select different levels of difficulty for flight as I have read about Airbuse X which was for the not so serious simmmer who does not want to spend hours reading manuals?

 

I would like to get flying rather quickly at first and then see if I can master the more involved levels later, but if it is only for the serious simmer then maybe I should look at the first version. ( not what I would want to do for sure)

Thanks for a response and sorry if this is covered already elsewhere.

 

PS. From reading the responses it sounds like the project has many more pro's with just a few picky con's. Sounds like a great product worth waiting for.

Question: Will this new version be able to select different levels of difficulty for flight as I have read about Airbuse X which was for the not so serious simmmer who does not want to spend hours reading manuals?

 

PS. From reading the responses it sounds like the project has many more pro's with just a few picky con's. Sounds like a great product worth waiting for.

 

As of right now, there is not a setting to differentiate between say a beginner or advanced. In my opinion, the only learning curve that will come with the AIRBUS X EXTENDED is with the MCDU, and being able to properly program it. This addon is still keeping beginner to intermediate simmers in mind, while still giving something to the more advanced. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this addon might be an excellent bridge for beginners to move into more advanced simulations, like the NGX, but that is just a matter of my opinion.

 

Don't hesitate though, there will of course be a tutorial flight, which will be a great starting point to learning how to operate the aircraft properly. Also, if you do run into problems, the forums over at Aerosoft are a great resource for support and help regarding any issues or questions that may arise when you start using the product. Give the manuals a look through, and do the tutorial a few times until you get comfortable with it, and can do the flight completely while only minimally looking to the tutorial documentation for guidance. Once that's done, try a few flights on your own. Still run into trouble with something? Hit the forums and I'm sure you'll find some answers.

 

As for the PS, there are a few picky con's that have arisen with some, but as far as has been understood, it is not meant to be a 100% complete simulation, and it was never played out to be that way. It is much more comprehensive than the Airbus X, and has a plethora of pro's to it. A few things amongst many that you will notice right from the start are the new ambient sounds, the even more improved visuals of the VC, obviously the more advanced FMGS, and finally the new FBW. Manually, it flies like a dream, and if I didn't have to test the A/P so often I would hand fly it a **** ton more, and I plan to after release.

 

All of this is my opinion and observations, keep in mind the project is still in beta and a work in progress.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. So I should not be too worried about just going for the the newer extended version which is very good to know.

 

Much appreciated

 

j35

One key item with the Aerosoft approach to writing a tutorial flight for the AirbusX was to include all the individual steps necessary for full immersion but to color code the steps to show the ones that are only needed to fly the tutorial as written.

 

So, one way to looks at it is you can only do the steps shown in 'green' as the necessary ones and complete the flight or you do perform all the written steps to simulate a real world flight or somewhere in between the two as time permits.

 

I fully expect the Airbus X Extended tutorial flight from EDDF - LOWW to be presented in the much same manner. Be ready to witness a special sale at Aerosoft to purchase the EDDF and LOWW airport scenery packages at a discount soon after release or maybe on release date of the AB X Extended.

 

Ray

While it won´t be as detailed regarding failures, wear and tear like the PMDG 737 NGX, it will be a far cry from V1 (please see the link below).

 

Great to hear about it from one of Aerosoft's developers.

I think the problem with the Airbus X is that the flight sim community expects so much more from Aerosoft than many other developers. There is very little desire for a dumb down version of an Airbus, and definitely not one from a company that normally demands such a high standard from all of their products, and this high standard has come to be expected.

 

From what you are saying then, we can assume a very accurate Airbus A320 simulation with the Extended version, just without all the failures, is this correct?

I got so excited about the new AirbusX Extended after reading the 2nd interview with Mathijs that I dug out my AirbusX binder and read it cover to cover yesterday. One of the neat little things that I picked up somewhere along the way was a short flight in the A320 from Prestwick - EGPK - for a quick check of the flight systems. This was written and posted by Paul Golding and serves as a fantastic mini tutorial to highlight the differences in cockpit management between the Boeings and the AirbusX.

 

Later today I am going to fly the step by step tutorial from EDDF to LOWW.

 

After reading the Aerosoft AirbusX documentation, I reallly do appreciate how well written and organized the manuals and tutorial are presented. So very different and so very superior to the PMDG approach of 3,000+ pages of nearly incomprehensible details and very little to do with flying it in the flight simulator. This simply illustrates the differences between two companies and their approaches to the market. I know, I know, it is the way the real guys do it, but, I am not one those airline pilots that fly FSX on my laptop during layovers. I am much closer to the flight simmer criteria for building the AirbusX in the first place.

 

Come on September 3rd, 2 PM somewhere in the world.

 

Ray

I believe the PMDG approach is extreme details. The NGX tutorials provided by them are pretty good compared to previous releases. If you are a details minutia nuts, you would love the PMDG exhausting information. It looks like for the category of simmer between casual and fanatics like me, the Airbus X Extended will fit nicely. I also don't know why a good Airbus sim is so difficult to make.

I believe the PMDG approach is extreme details. The NGX tutorials provided by them are pretty good compared to previous releases. If you are a details minutia nuts, you would love the PMDG exhausting information. It looks like for the category of simmer between casual and fanatics like me, the Airbus X Extended will fit nicely. I also don't know why a good Airbus sim is so difficult to make.

 

I have most of the PMDG offering and had the NGX from day of release and a warmup with the iFly for a couple of months prior. One of the things that bugged me was the tutorial flight was the first leg of the tutorial and the destination flight was a year or more in the making.

 

Aerosoft has officially stated they had rather produce 2 or 3 Boeings rather than one Airbus for simulation. What I hear the most is the systems integration is what is so time consuming and specialized for the flight sims. Maybe something like 7 major highly automated simulations all talking properly to each other and then wrapping those into FSX to work as one.

 

Ray