Found this video on youtube that compares the differences between the two makes of the Airbus A320 for FSX.

 

http://youtu.be/rW0VMQNHfZU

 

One of the major differences is actually the ILS that the both plane uses. The Aerosoft Airbus X is capable of landing without disengaging the AP before touchdown. The Wilco Airbus A320 requires you to disengage the AP few hundred feet above sea level and do your final descend on your own.

 

I'm curious to know though, for real life flying of the A320. Which one is more realistic? I would think it doesn't really matter as in real life you would have a lot of other factors affecting the plane when landing like the crosswind and other wind directions or how hot or cold the day is. Thus pilots would usually disengage the autopilot just a few hundred feet on the altitude indicator and manually fly the plane to touchdown like the Wilco.

 

Also, which one do you guys prefer? Aerosoft or Wilco?

 

Cheers!

 

Jay

 

P.S: Sorry if this is in the wrong section but I can't seem to find another suitable place to post this.

Currently none of them, because the Wilco bird is ugly, and the Aerosoft one is a bit too buggy for me, but I'm sure that the Extended will be great.

And there also is the FSL one on (long) final, which seems to be promising, too.

So my opinion is speculation only, but I'm sure, at least one of them will not disappoint me.

 

Regards,

Flo

Which one is more realistic?

 

Since the real Airbus is capable of doing an autoland the Airbus X is more realistic. The WIlco version can't autoland so it's missing a big feature. Imho. Don't own the Wilco version though...

I see both Airbus planes being somehow worth waiting for others. ^_^

 

The Wilco is really old, but e.g. gives you a pretty detailed look into the MCDU stuff. It also allows to fly SID and STAR by design, you can update its nav database and it comes with all variants. The fact that it's old mainly causes the, now, bad looks. I once liked those. :mellow: The managed modes always came in a bit wonky. Especially the vertical part.

 

Now the current Aerosoft plane keeps things basic but looks good. It lacks some vital features like SID and STAR and, in my eyes, overly simplifies others, spoiling the actual Airbus philosophy. But it has its fans just due to the simple nature.

 

However, since they have its successor (Extended) in the works and since that one will feature more things while looking even better, it could be worth the wait as it comes in at the same price. Well, 2 Euros difference. No, don't ask me when it's done. It already should be.

 

Another upcoming release is the Flightsimlabs Airbus. And a current one is the Blackbox Simulation being in some stage between beta and final. There are some more collections of Airbus planes, but it seems like they all aim for even lighter systems and details. Nothing wrong with that, but it should be noted.

 

There also is a bunch of really nice freeware models.

The Aerosoft Airbus X is capable of landing without disengaging the AP before touchdown. The Wilco Airbus A320 requires you to disengage the AP few hundred feet above sea level and do your final descend on your own.

 

Not my experience. With the Wilco I have been able to autoland, or disengage AP at low levels, with no problem.

 

Additionally, if one disengages the Wilco Airbus X AP on finals, the nose makes a determined effort to plough into the approach lights.

 

I'm happily flying the full range of Wilco airbuses, from A318 to A340, at the moment. The VC is not the greatest and the systems are a bit simplistic but the automated flying, SID's and STAR's etc., and FBW, are reasonably good. I have no doubt that the Airbus X Extended will be better, as and when it arrives, but that is still some unknown point in the future.

Same as you, I don't recall big trouble with the Wilco in the autoland scenario. But my guess would be that it's somehow system dependant. Same as the problems on the Aerosoft plane with the throttles or the AP's mind.

 

If I had to pick, I think I still would use the Wilco, just because it's more detailed. Yes, even more Airbus for me. But, as a recommendation, I'd say waiting for better releases is a smart move.

Not my experience. With the Wilco I have been able to autoland, or disengage AP at low levels, with no problem.

 

I have no problem with Autoland as well with the Wilco A320. Here's a video of my first one I did on my previous system. (My current system is smoother) Note : I didn't even use AP2 on this approach/

 

I do agree the external model on the Wilco is bad. I replaced mine with the Project Airbus models. The VC isn't too bad, and there is a 3rd party replacement for the cockpit night textures that look pretty good, but certainly not better then the Aerosoft VC.

 

 

 

Here's the external views!

 

I would agree that you should wait for either the Aerosoft Airbus X Extended Version or, preferably, the FSL A320. The Aerosoft project is overdue by about five months, so I am starting to lose interest. The FSL A320 will probably be more realistic. Hopefully PMDG will be able to create an A330, my favorite Airbus.

 

Either way, yokes are more flexible for FSX. Good yokes by PFC are less costly than the only ultra-realistic side stick, which is made by Flight Deck Solutions. You can use desktop yokes to fly both jetliners and small propeller aircraft, but the Airbus side stick feels very different compared to the stick of a small aircraft.

 

I have no problem with Autoland as well with the Wilco A320. Here's a video of my first one I did on my previous system. (My current system is smoother) Note : I didn't even use AP2 on this approach/

This video illustrates why I do not like performing autolands in FSX—they are simply too hard to be realistic!

This video illustrates why I do not like performing autolands in FSX—they are simply too hard to be realistic!

 

I have to disagree with this statement. A real autoland is not as smooth as people seem to think. Here's an example. This is a video of a real autoland with the focus on the PFD. You wll notice (If you can zoom in close enough to see, my Projector has that capability. At touchdown according to the VSI the plane was at a 200-300fpm descent rate, pretty much the same as my landing. You can also tell it it felt a little hard (Not too bad though) Not the skimmers people try to attain in the sim.

 

I have to disagree with this statement. I real autoland is not as smooth as people seem to think. Here's an example. This is a video of a real autoland with the focus on the PFD. You wll notice (If you can zoom in close enough to see, my Projector has that capability. At touchdown according to the VSI the plane was at a 200-300fpm descent rate, pretty much the same as my landing. You can also tell it it felt a little hard (Not too bad though) Not the skimmers people try to attain in the sim.

I have actually seen and commented on that particular video. The pilot said that the A320 autoland was quite inconsistent in its smoothness. While that particular autoland would have felt hard, I think the landing depicted in your video was even harder than what is tolerable in real life. Autolands should be at least as consistent in smoothness as the human pilot is, or there would be no incentive for using automated systems in the first place (other than eliminating stress and work load).

 

There are also these two videos of Boeing autolands, which are quite indisputably smooth. I would find it hard to imagine that any pilot can land as smoothly consistently.

Same as you, I don't recall big trouble with the Wilco in the autoland scenario. But my guess would be that it's somehow system dependant. Same as the problems on the Aerosoft plane with the throttles or the AP's mind.

 

If I had to pick, I think I still would use the Wilco, just because it's more detailed. Yes, even more Airbus for me. But, as a recommendation, I'd say waiting for better releases is a smart move.

What kind of details is the Wilco more detailed in? Do you mind stating a few if there are just too many minor specifics? State the more major ones, or the ones that you feel matter!

One of the major differences is actually the ILS that the both plane uses. The Aerosoft Airbus X is capable of landing without disengaging the AP before touchdown. The Wilco Airbus A320 requires you to disengage the AP few hundred feet above sea level and do your final descend on your own.

 

 

This is completely untrue!

 

Since the real Airbus is capable of doing an autoland the Airbus X is more realistic. The WIlco version can't autoland so it's missing a big feature. Imho. Don't own the Wilco version though...

 

Where are people getting this completely wrong info from, about the Wilco feelThere Airbus not doing autolands??

 

I do full CATIII autolands all the time in the Wilco (feelThere) Airbus 1 Series (A319/320/321).

 

The 2nd AP can be engaged just fine (under correct circs) and the aircraft lands and flares, and retards almost perfectly.

 

For me: The Aerosoft Airbus X looks beautiful, inside and out, but flies like a pig. A real pig. It doesn't even control climb using pitch (as any real airliner does), it simply uses VS and 'fudges' the autothrottle to hold 250kts. Disconnect the AP on approach and the thing flies liek an unresponsive monster. Terrible rendition of FBW hand flying in the Airbus X.

 

The Wilco feelThere Airbus is ugly as sin but systems and performance wise is pretty good. OP CLB, MANAGED CLB, etc all work pretty well (especially in climb, less so in descent).

 

I personally have not flown the Aerosoft since the first flight I did with it. It was unistalled and never used again.

 

I regularly fly the feelThere Airbus. It is very old (2007) and imperfect - but still the best around, functionality wise IMHO.

What kind of details is the Wilco more detailed in?

The Wilco one sure is more detailed when it comes to the systems. The Aerosoft Airbus has only very basic systems, and can't even fly SIDs/STARs, only one example, but one of the most important ones for me.

On the other hand, the qualitiy of the modelling is not great at all on the Wilco bus, as I already stated above.

What kind of details is the Wilco more detailed in?

The ones that mattered for me pretty much got summed up by the other folks. I did not understand the move from Aerosoft to limit their current Airbus X that much on e.g. the navigation details and the modes the autopilot should offer and perform. One can work around some limits though.

 

An Airbus is a highly automated and highly 'managed' plane in my eyes. I wouldn't vouch for the Wilco to perform all task according to rw manuals, but, at least, it had some menu points and modes and all of those mattered.

 

But, to be honest, I gave my Wilco/Feelthere Airbus away some time ago. And the new user wasn't impressed, mainly due to the aged optics I guess. He later got the mentioned Blackbox Simulations release and seems to be happy with that one. Seems like the only current and somehow detailed rendition.

 

Well, I'd still recommend waiting for the new Aerosoft one, the FSL (which may be far out) or checking the Blackbox Sim if you can stand the price and the 0.x status. It received mixed reviews, so check those first. Must not mean that it's a bad plane.

I think very few people seriously fly (i.e., for realism, not for pure entertainment) the Airbus X regularly because of its shallow systems and terrible flight dynamics. I believe it currently has the same flight dynamics as the default A321, so if you're satisfied with those, maybe you will find the Airbus X tolerable. It is mainly for video-making, where its superb external model and virtual cockpit graphics really shine.

 

Again, I would wait for the FSL A320, as it seems to be just around the corner.