UPDATE: AEROSOFT AIRBUS X EXTENDED ver 1.02 released

[Petraeus 147]

Could you do a VAS usage measurement, in particular in comparison with the NGX. The only thing you need to do is read out the virtual memory usage in process explorer, airport of your choice, but the same situation in both cases: load clean FSX with NGX, read the VAS, then close and reload with the AS airbus. I wish to know if the usage is higher, same or lower.

 

To answer your question, and taking the readings from the FSUIPC offset in identical circumstances:

 

Free VAS (Airbus Extended) = 2,150,984

 

Free VAS (NGX) = 1,602,252

 

On the matter of direct entry of the FP, I prefer doing that rather than sucking it in from the FSX FP, because then I can see the airways in the F-PLN pages. I know, a bit anal, but aren't we all if we're here in this forum?

[Manny 1,293]

What I like about this Airbus

 

1) The FBW is fantastic. I don't have to deal with the crappy Saitek Trimwheel. or even the rudder. LOL

2) The Auto Thrust is so good. I have figured how to use it.. I think. AT + FBW makes this aircraft so nice to hand fly

3) VC looks good and the eye candy in general is nice

4) The Co Pilot and checklist with the option for the Co Pilot to do lots of things is brilliant

5) The Flight plan. The only thing really lacking was Way point to way point (to be saved in the coplan).

6) Small bugs here and there that folks have mentioned don't bother me cause Aerosoft would eventually fix those

7) Throttle is now working fine. (Initially I didn't know how to use the FSUIPC to set the throttle properly)

 

Overall, its one hellava an addon. In fact, This is the only addon I have been using since the release.

 

To answer your question, and taking the readings from the FSUIPC offset in identical circumstances:

 

Free VAS (Airbus Extended) = 2,150,984

 

Free VAS (NGX) = 1,602,252

 

On the matter of direct entry of the FP, I prefer doing that rather than sucking it in from the FSX FP, because then I can see the airways in the F-PLN pages. I know, a bit anal, but aren't we all if we're here in this forum?

 

That makes sense... The A320 does hit OOM a tad sooner than most aircrafts in places where I have too many add on sceneries.

[Petraeus 147]

That makes sense... The A320 does hit OOM a tad sooner than most aircrafts in places where I have too many add on sceneries.

 

But it's the reverse - the figures quoted are free (unused) virtual address space. So in identical circumstances, the NGX will hit OOM first.

[Manny 1,293]

But it's the reverse - the figures quoted are free (unused) virtual address space. So in identical circumstances, the NGX will hit OOM first.

 

OH!

 

But I run into OOM with a320 sooner though.. Let me check my system

[Manny 1,293]

OK I checked.

 

I loaded a saved flight with the NGX and VM consumed = 2,643,200

 

While in slew mode I replaced the NGX with the A321 and saved it and exited FSX.

I reloaded the saved flight... and the VM consumed = 2,430,280

 

So the A321 consumes a tad lower VM. Hmmmm interesting.

 

Manny

[garydpoole 183]

I think the original Aerosoft Airbus had the ability to import flight plans. I could be mistaken....

 

Yes, it can import default FSX flightplans which of course, can be generated by a 3rd party planner such as FSCommander. All very simple, convenient and quick - perfect for folks like me that only have limited time available to fly...

 

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk 2