Its not a bug

 

No I meant in terms of getting everything worked out not what I quoted. Was just laughing at the characterization.

I did a quick flight last night, ended up doing a Go Around as the chap ahead of me slowed his 747 to 160knots at 15nm and then didn't clear the runway. I pulled on the stick to climb and just as I was about to slam the throttles forward I noticed thrust being increased on its own, the Bus was compensating for my move, fantastic!

I understand the different opinions, I have no issue with the VC but then again I never had any problems with the DC 9 either, they are all extremely clear in my old system.

This A320 does not simulate failures or systems degradation... for the price offered, the research and coding of something like that would simply not make it viable, and fair enough, but I find the representation of the Airbus fly by wire system in normal law is the best so far in the market.

I have engaged Mathijs to tell us about what is and isn't programmed, what is coming up, etc in an interview, hope to have it published by the weekend.

Thanks guys,.. found the T.O.Button. Now I can make my selection for the Tea or Coffee question.

 

See how we are conditioned eh? Because it was a female voice..we assumed Tea or Coffee.. Ha Ha Ha!

 

Manny

See how we are conditioned eh? Because it was a female voice..we assumed Tea or Coffee.. Ha Ha Ha!

:lol: Not a good sign though.

 

I have engaged Mathijs to tell us about what is and isn't programmed, what is coming up, etc in an interview, hope to have it published by the weekend.

Great idea for an interview, Will. Makes sense. Looking forward to it!

 

For the folks with the sub-standard VC optics. Can one of you offer a screenshot? Just asking because I'm wondering if it's a technical problem or 'just' something arising from the different preferences. The latter can't be questioned, but the first one can be cured. Maybe. :mellow:

"T.O. Config" !

 

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

And I thought she was trying to increase my caffeine intake...:-)

My knowledge in the A320 is very limited so I'll trust you on that.

Sorry—after looking at my previous post, I realized that it wasn't very clear. I meant to say that the Airbus X autopilot seems to land at a descent rate of 400+ ft/min. I believe the real A320 autoland touchdown descent rate ranges between 100 and 300 ft/min.

And I thought she was trying to increase my caffeine intake...:-)

A part of me wishes that the myth was still alive. Imagine some future airline training questionnaires.

What does it take to get an Airbus into the air?

o Tea

o Coffee

o all of the above

^_^

I really don't know why anyone is complaining, it's the best Airbus simulation we've ever seen so far and as someone who's trained on the 320 it's a lot of fun, particularly in the circuit with some weather! I think it's a great product.

A part of me wishes that the myth was still alive. Imagine some future airline training questionnaires.

What does it take to get an Airbus into the air?

o Tea

o Coffee

o all of the above

^_^

I can safely confirm the answer here is Tea... ^_^

You are obviously type-rated. :lol: Or you've looked it up in the FCOM. :Raised Eyebrow:

 

I can safely confirm the answer here is Tea... ^_^

 

I can't even stand the smell of coffee. And in my line of work that's almost worthy of a beating!!

So did aerosoft end up putting the whole a319 a320 a330 a340 ?

Thats why it took them so long right, to add all the planes ?

A picture speaks a 1000 words. What a silly argument..its like arguing if color Blue is better than color Red.

 

Here is the VC. if you like it get it... if you don't like it...don't get it!

 

 

 

I think I just put my finger on what is wrong with the VC! It's a squared edges on the displays! The real A320 cockpits have rounded edges. Also on the real A320 series the EICAS display is slightly smaller!!! I don't have the rights to a real photo, so I can't post an example but there are plenty on the net!!!

 

Edit: Did a little more research, and it appears newer A320's do have this layout, So it actually is an accurate representation in that respect. I guess it's not as common yet as the original layout, which made it appear incorrect, unless you were aware of it.

The later A320 come with LCD screens, Tom. Those are 'sharp' edged. The older CRT screens have the soft edges. Perhaps you only recall those, but the flight deck pictures on the Net may show the differences.

 

Here's a new one. http://www.flickr.co...ote/6278714951/

And that's a CRT model. http://www.flickr.co...N06/4281369947/

 

There also is a difference on the standby instruments, analogue vs integrated digital. I think we could find some more, but Aerosoft just picked a current setup I think. Would be nice to have a CRT option though. Maybe they add it later or another dev offers it.

So did aerosoft end up putting the whole a319 a320 a330 a340 ?

Thats why it took them so long right, to add all the planes ?

 

No just the A320 and A321. They did add the A320-NEO with the Shark winglets but it's more a representation of the demonstrator Airbus developed to show the concept, then what will be in the actual product.

 

The later A320 come with LCD screens, Tom. Those are 'sharp' edged. The older CRT screens have the soft edges. Perhaps you only recall those, but the flight deck pictures on the Net may show the differences.

 

Here's a new one. http://www.flickr.co...ote/6278714951/

And that's a CRT model. http://www.flickr.co...N06/4281369947/

 

There also is a difference on the standby instruments, analogue vs integrated digital. I think we could find some more, but Aerosoft just picked a current setup I think. Would be nice to have a CRT option though. Maybe they add it later or another dev offers it.

 

Yup! I learn something new everyday!! :lol: