(...), I am still pretty sure that managed NPA's are in there (now called FMS Landing System I believe).

 

(...)

 

 

I confirmed that already in my post above. For those interested in Airbus NPAs - here's a link to a short guide specifically for the AAX (update your installation to latest AAX version first):

 

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/67499-non-precision-approach-brief-tutorial-version-110/

I confirmed that already in my post above. For those interested in Airbus NPAs - here's a link to a short guide specifically for the AAX (update your installation to latest AAX version first):

 

http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/67499-non-precision-approach-brief-tutorial-version-110/

When I said NPA's, I meant all NPA's, including RNAV.

 

Sorry if I sound like im coming across condescending or angry, just making sure that the product in which I am beta tester for is working as it should for everyone B)

When I said NPA's, I meant all NPA's, including RNAV.

 

(...)

 

 

Including IAN?  

 

Seriously, those NAV and managed descent thingummies position my AAX very precisely for a manual landing. Just a little speed and drag management now and then ...

Including IAN?  

 

Seriously, those NAV and managed descent thingummies position my AAX very precisely for a manual landing. Just a little speed and drag management now and then ...

IAN? In Airbus? Didn't know it existed :He He:

 

IAN is a Boeing thing and a Boeing terminology (Although not sure if they call it that in the MD aircraft (MD80, MD11 etc.)

 

If you're talking about in the Airbus pressing the APPR button and then getting the FMA callouts like I said before (FINAL APP, APP NAV etc.), this is simply just managed non-precision approach - Although some new revisions of FCOM's are calling it FMS Landing System (I think in the A388 FCOM from memory).

 

All this should be modelled in your Airbus from Aerosoft :yahoo:

 

 

No disrespect to you whatsoever but I think my advice, given your comments, would be not to buy the Airbus X Extended. For me, it is my joint favourite ever aircraft for any version of FS, but from your post you seem to have found something that you like, and seem content and quite focussed on that. (eg.. 737). If I were to fly nothing but 737s I would have died from boredom by now!... I like variation.. but we are all different and I genuinely respect that. In fact I admire people who can focus on just 1 aircraft and really go the whole hog with it.

 

You pretty much nailed that right on in your assessment.  I love the 737.  It's by far my favorite aircraft!  I still don't know all that I can know about it yet.  I'm still learning new things with it every week practically.  I think it's both a good thing that I can stay with one aircraft for so long and a bad thing.    Part of me really wants to try the AAX.  I believe I've seen other posts from you(and other fans) and you seem very passionate about this aircraft.  That makes me want to try it more.  Plus, I like the fact that it's something new.  Something different.  Not Boeing.  I like the idea of the challenge of getting to know another aircraft and seeing what the differences are between Boeing and Airbus.  But the other part of me is afraid that it would be something I'd fly just long enough to get the hang of it and then I'd be right back to my 737 for those same reasons - it's different, it's not Boeing.

 

Having said all that too, the other thing that has me wondering if I should buy this is the FSLabs version that will be coming out some day.  Do I just wait for that?  Flying the NGX so much, I've grown accustom to the level of quality and detail that PMDG has placed in this aircraft.  So, I wonder too, how close to "PMDG quality" is the AAX?

Systems will be more deeply modelled in the FSL version, I reckon.

 

The Aerosoft Airbus is medium-depth/normal procedures only without any failures modelled (you'll get some ECAM warnings and alerts, though). But the AAX DOES have some very strong points, too: The a.m. managed (approach) modes are some of those.

 

You may want to check the AAX FAQ section, this thread in particular: http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/56475-what-is-not-included-simulated/

 

If you can't forget about PMDG (for a couple of flights at least), wait for FSL.

 

But the NGX ./. AAX comparison of flightdeck arrangements, pilot-aircraft-interface, automation, flight-envelope-protection is very ... tempting ...

Does anyone that uses the AXE use TOPCAT?  If so, what profile do you use?

Love this addon. In my mind it's the first well done airbus (of any type) for FS.

So, I wonder too, how close to "PMDG quality" is the AAX?

 

 

I'd say pretty close.

 

Not quite there, but IMO both are really excellent aircraft. I've not even bothered with the failures side of the NGX - I'm really not that interested. In fact I'd consider that that would be too much like WORK.

 

I really enjoy flying both, and although I like the tubes I do climb aboard the occasional GA aircraft - keeps me 'current'....

 

I'd really recommend the AAX.

 

I'm also interested in the FSL, and cannot wait. But I will not be touching the failures side of the aircraft.

 

...and with reference to another thread, these three will keep my FSX going for years.... :yahoo:

 

Regards

Bill

Does anyone that uses the AXE use TOPCAT?  If so, what profile do you use?

If you want takeoff performance, just use TPC.exe (search it on google).

 

I believe Aerosoft contacted Christian @ TOPCAT but they have been fairly busy with PFPX. I would expect to see some TOPCAT updates after PFPX has been released and is running smoothly.

I fly AXE 320 since V1, I never ever encountered any problem. I'm a huge Airbus lover, I bought all airbuses on the market for FSX and FS2004, none of them compare with AXE, I can barely wait for their A330 it will be the most flown aircraft in my fleet. 

 

With the latest updates and hotfix provided by Aerosoft this aircraft fly's like a dream, their fly by wire is the best on the market and was tested by real pilots,at takeoff and on the approach it's so easy to handle.

 

I recommend this Airbus to every Airbus lover, you will fall in love from the first flight! 5*****

I fly AXE 320 since V1, I never ever encountered any problem. I'm a huge Airbus lover, I bought all airbuses on the market for FSX and FS2004, none of them compare with AXE, I can barely wait for their A330 it will be the most flown aircraft in my fleet. 

 

With the latest updates and hotfix provided by Aerosoft this aircraft fly's like a dream, their fly by wire is the best on the market and was tested by real pilots,at takeoff and on the approach it's so easy to handle.

 

I recommend this Airbus to every Airbus lover, you will fall in love from the first flight! 5*****

 

Yep... I'll go with that.... word for word!

 

Regarding the "Is it PMDG quality?" question, well there are a lot of areas to consider for that;    Systems-wise it is not quite up at PMDG level, but in my opinion, VC visuals slightly exceed the NGX levels (remember, I said in my opinion :smile:), and sounds are at least as good as the NGX; maybe better.    You don't get the custom failures or the advanced systems but you do get things that the NGX does not have, like the Checklist / F/O simulation; which is awesome.        As an 'overall' I certainly rate it as highly as the PMDG NGX. 

 

 

Regarding the "Is it PMDG quality?" question, well there are a lot of areas to consider for that; Systems-wise it is not quite up at PMDG level, but in my opinion, VC visuals slightly exceed the NGX levels (remember, I said in my opinion :smile:), and sounds are at least as good as the NGX; maybe better. You don't get the custom failures or the advanced systems but you do get things that the NGX does not have, like the Checklist / F/O simulation; which is awesome. As an 'overall' I certainly rate it as highly as the PMDG NGX.

 

Yeah, I think I needed to be a little more clear on my "PMDG quality" statement too.  I don't care too much for the failure side of things either as someone said earlier.  So, the fact that the AXE does not simulate those to death like the NGX does is totally fine with me.  What I want from the AXE though is that it represents the real A32x as close as what PMDG represents the real 737.  I mean, does it match real world performance and as far as flying in normal procedures, are all those normal procedures modeled or functioning.

 

Also, I use FS2Crew with the NGX.  Does the F/O capability that comes with the AXE make FS2Crew not that important?  Will the F/O perform F/O functions at all like in FS2Crew or does she just read the checklist and not interact with the plane at all?

You see the problem with the axe is it doesn't actually simulate the real aircraft when it comes to indepth systems logic, and that statement is in no way meant to bash the product, I bought it when it first came out. I am not talking about failure modelling, the core of the aircraft is the ELACS & SECS.. FADEC logic.

 

I just cant suspend my belief enough using the product because I know so much is wrong, it really is a lite to medium product, again I'm not trying to bash it, I actually enjoyed testing the product.

Yeah, I think I needed to be a little more clear on my "PMDG quality" statement too.  I don't care too much for the failure side of things either as someone said earlier.  So, the fact that the AXE does not simulate those to death like the NGX does is totally fine with me.  What I want from the AXE though is that it represents the real A32x as close as what PMDG represents the real 737.  I mean, does it match real world performance and as far as flying in normal procedures, are all those normal procedures modeled or functioning.

 

Also, I use FS2Crew with the NGX.  Does the F/O capability that comes with the AXE make FS2Crew not that important?  Will the F/O perform F/O functions at all like in FS2Crew or does she just read the checklist and not interact with the plane at all?

 

 

You see the problem with the axe is it doesn't actually simulate the real aircraft when it comes to indepth systems logic, and that statement is in no way meant to bash the product, I bought it when it first came out. I am not talking about failure modelling, the core of the aircraft is the ELACS & SECS.. FADEC logic.

 

I just cant suspend my belief enough using the product because I know so much is wrong, it really is a lite to medium product, again I'm not trying to bash it, I actually enjoyed testing the product.

 

 

I'd like to combine your two posts for my statement:

 

The AAX is fun, immersive, good value for money and it does a lot of things correctly. Not bashing it; just saying it could be better, a more consistent level of development (it's improving, BTW, the next upgrades v1.15 and v1.20 will be free for existing owners).

FS2Crew is actually the proof that things can be done better, as FS2Crew not only adds what you'd expect - voice control (you can voice-/remote-control the FCU, the overhead panel, the radios etc.) -, it also refines and corrects flows and procedures like the RW-like task sharing between Captain and F/O, barometer cross-checks and a couple of other things.

 

It's medium-depth (it's actually hard to nail it exactly), it was never meant to be PMDG level, and it's easy to find details that could be improved - FS2Crew has shown exactly that.