But what do you compare, then? If not the systems (which it seems we agree that comparing wouldn't be fair in the case AXE vs NGX), there's not too much left. I mean the modelling is great on both (I don't have the NGX, but it's a PMDG, and all the screenshots of the NGX show how fantastic it looks), though the Airbus has a more"sterile" look due to its simplistic design.

The FDE? I doubt that, because except for some RW pilots there won't be too many people who know what flying the real thing feels, unless the such a large bird behaves like an ultralight.

 

 

I think you have to read the manual for both of them, unless you have flown the thing before (in this case you have read the manual at some point before). I was able to use the AXE without that, because I had the previous AS Airbus (which was by far worse than the AXE), and I also had experience with the Wilco Bus, but I wasn't able before I loaded an addon Airbus into FSX for the first time. Same applies for the first serious Boeing simulations I had (iFly 737 and PMDG MD-11), because learning to handle an FMC is complicated, and it will always involve some reading!

 

 

There are still a lot simple of examples/comparisons possible - They're both aircraft with engines, elec, hyd, etc... :

- One exhibits correct parameters (ie. EGT) at idle the other doesn't

- One actually needs hyd pressure to move control surfaces, flaps, ... the other has those working on BAT

- One needs IRS to compute deceleration rate for the autobrake the other doesn't

- One has APU burning fuel the other doesn't not

- ...

 

That kinda stuff/details that still can tell us how far one dev has gone...

You still can take your time, read an Airbus manual and see how the AXE compares you know... Just takes a little reading.

There are still a lot simple of examples/comparisons possible - They're both aircraft with engines, elec, hyd, etc...

All valid points, but I can only remember that AS promised that hyd press is necessary for moving control surfaces, all the other things I don't think, and since the AXE isn't a "hardcore sim", nor was it intended to be one, I don't care, and I don't find it fair to compare those things, but that might just be my opinion. However, I would have been willing to wait another 6 months in order to have all the issues (nad obviously there are some major ones regarding navigation) fixed before the initial release.

I'd really be interested in some original FCOMs(not only Airbus's, though), but I'm still nowhere near the end of my project of reading the final report on AF447, and I got a lot to do for university at the moment, so I really won't have the time to do that, too.

 

Regards,

Flo

If you are having fun with it that's great. For me airplanes like this lose their suspension of disbelief in something similar to the following scenario:

 

On VATSIM you are asked to be level at 12,000 at a waypoint (XXXXX) while being at or above 20,000 at a waypoint prior to it (VVVVV). Meanwhile you also are told to expect a different STAR(maybe winds have changed since your departure).

 

In the NGX i load those constraints in the FMC, throw on VNAV and reprogram my FMC, radio's etc. I'm only a 1 person crew so i cant monitor the decent and update all the information at the same time. In the AXE this cant be done. there is no managed decent. While if you don't fly online this might never happen however for me in order to win my purchase i need the plane to act like the real one in situations like this.

That the Aerosoft A320 doesn't do TOD and STARs correctly doesn't make it unrealistic. Since the last software upgrade in the A320 I fly, it ALWAYS gets the speed wrong doing the Denver RNAV descents. We normally leave the speed in managed during an RNAV arrival but since the new software package we have to revert to selected speed to make the speed restrictions. In managed speed the speed bug goes to 210 KTS when the next restriction is 250. I'm not saying Aerosoft made the simulation buggy on purpose, I'm saying in the real A320 it does the unexpected so you have to watch it all the time.

That the Aerosoft A320 doesn't do TOD and STARs correctly doesn't make it unrealistic. Since the last software upgrade in the A320 I fly, it ALWAYS gets the speed wrong doing the Denver RNAV descents. We normally leave the speed in managed during an RNAV arrival but since the new software package we have to revert to selected speed to make the speed restrictions. In managed speed the speed bug goes to 210 KTS when the next restriction is 250. I'm not saying Aerosoft made the simulation buggy on purpose, I'm saying in the real A320 it does the unexpected so you have to watch it all the time.

 

Sure bugs exist in everything and I'm sure airbus will find a way to fix theirs. My problem isn't that Aerosoft's managed decent is buggy for certain arrivals. Its that they didn't even bother to put it in at all.

I'm amazed at the lack of objective discussion that has taken place here...

 

As someone who does not yet own the airbus, this is what I may have understood or misunderstood.

 

I own the NGX and purchased it because it was as full a representation of a 737 as was possible.

 

This would not be why I would want a bus however. Maybe id want it just to be able to fly it easily a sort of relaxing jaunt from a to b without having to learn all their is to know. I would want it to look good and feel at least a little immersed in the Airbus experience.

 

I understand that their are bigger and better versions on the way so if I was an airbus aficionado why would I even consider getting something that was never advertised as being the crowning glory in airbus systems?

 

So what have i learned from these discussions? Personally, I've learned that a lot of people have spent money knowing that it is more of an intermediate plane and then complaining about it. I'm still confused though as to its good points? It must have some?

 

I've learned that it is not an NGX but then that's perfectly obvious from the sales pitch. I guess the only way to know is to buy it as the price seems to reflect what it does do and what it doesn't. I certainly haven't gleaned anything useful here.

 

Personally, I FSX for fun, enjoyment, escapism and pleasure. Most of the latter appears to be missing in some recent discussions. I do worry when some enthusiastic newcomer stumbles across certain discussions to try and 'learn' something useful! Learn to run away me thinks.

Just to clarify. I have not bought the AXE. I only commented because some fans have made the claim that it is a hardcore simulation. I want to make sure that people that have not purchased it but are reading the thread understand that it is a MEDIUM level of simulation.

 

If you like that GREAT!! The more FS'ers that enjoy their time flying the better it is for all of us, and the more products simmers will continue to buy. This plane isn't for me, but i understand it offers an enjoyable experience for some. I just don't want people to purchase it and have a bad experience expecting it to be something its not.

 

Sure bugs exist in everything and I'm sure airbus will find a way to fix theirs. My problem isn't that Aerosoft's managed decent is buggy for certain arrivals. Its that they didn't even bother to put it in at all.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "...even bother to put it in". If you load an alt restriction in the MCDU you should see the descend white arrow and IF you press the ALT button the plane will start down and make the crossing. If fly DEN to SFO all the time and I just recreated the flight with the Aerosoft 320. I flew the standard Modesto Four arrival with CEDES at 250/110 (250kts at one-one-thousand) and it worked like the real plane.

Are you telling me that if a real world A320 pilot who likes to sim and purchases the AXE like all the rest of us, Cant say anything negative about it? only positive things?

That's exactly it, I've the AXE, there's a number of things I like, and a number I don't. I won't however comment on it in public because that wouldn't be fair, as I'm clearly going to be bias towards FSL. I do think some people over hype the AXE's system depth, in fact some really over hype it, but it's a fine middle market product, better than default and less than PMDG/FSL. That's what they set out to do, but I think over time the lines have become blurred, and people have started doing what humans seem to be great at and that's getting stubborn and insisting on their opinion being correct, regardless of the evidence presented to them. A dangerous trait for any one who wants to be a pilot.

 

 

That is totally understandable. But Is an A320 pilot who is a consumer (not a beta tester or someone involved in a commercial addon project.) able to express his opinion on a flightsim product under the same rules as the rest of us?

I think you'll find that most pilots who fly commercially and are simmers get snapped up pretty fast by the devs to act as technical consultants on their project, so there aren't many of us left out there that are totally unbias. There's god knows how many of us crowding around over at FSL now, it's next to ridiculous... And I'm sure it's the same at Aerosoft and BBS.

 

Regards,

Ró.

What I have noticed is when you start down late the the AXE will miss the target ALT. In the real Airbus there is an airspeed bracket that let's the plane fly faster to make a crossing restriction which doesn't seem to be in the AXE.

There was a time where Avsim was so light hearted and there was playful banter and comradeship Now, this place has become a graveyard of insults and wars over absolutely nothing. There was a time when if a moderator had to jump into a conversation to reprimand someone it was big news. Now its just common place.

 

Sign of the times I guess - but I do miss the old Avsim and the people, who left long ago, who made this place what it was.

 

Hi Mike,

 

I agree that I miss the "good old days" when we all talked about flying and not about the relative merits or otherwise of add-ons. Heck, there was a time when both you and I were here years ago when there was no such thing as an "add-on", we had 4 planes and 6 airports for the entire world.... not that I have any wish to go back to those days, but we did what we could with a limited rudimentary fleet of a/c and taught each other the art of flight... I can recall talking to you when you were with your former career.....

 

What commercial add ons have done is create value for money paid, and that understandably creates issues. What excellent add-ons have done is create expectations.....

 

I have always thought of the folks here as a sort of "extended family". Over time the composition and demographics of that family have changed. But we are still basically all interested in flight, and use FSX because we can fly in countries that we don;t live in, fly aircraft for which we are not licensed, or not even have a license to fly. We are all using a virtual world to do something we can't in RL. I'm like you- I want to have fun... if I want realism, I will go to the airport and fly...

 

For some reason, the AXE product has many people excited- .. I like it as I am having fun with it.... and I will also buy the competition's product when available... just to have more fun.

 

Thanks, Bruce.

I think this is pretty useless fighting. It`s not fair to compare AXE and NGX. Aerosoft had never said that Axe would be a deep simulation like PMDG`s products. PMDG is the best you can get to FS if you want every little detail to be simulated.

But when you don´t need all that little things, what most simmers doesn´t even realize to be there, the AXE is one fine piece of addon.

And right now, if you want to fly Airbus, we dont have better option. FSLabs bus might be that some day. But now all of you who want to fly with Airbus, enjoy that AXE and dont bother to fight is it as good as NGX (It´s not but it is on par with that Aerosoft has promised)

That's exactly it, I've the AXE, there's a number of things I like, and a number I don't. I won't however comment on it in public because that wouldn't be fair, as I'm clearly going to be bias towards FSL. I do think some people over hype the AXE's system depth, in fact some really over hype it, but it's a fine middle market product, better than default and less than PMDG/FSL. That's what they set out to do, but I think over time the lines have become blurred, and people have started doing what humans seem to be great at and that's getting stubborn and insisting on their opinion being correct, regardless of the evidence presented to them. A dangerous trait for any one who wants to be a pilot.

Regards,

Ró.

The word of an real word A330 Captain, A320 TRI/TRE (type rating instructor/examiner) & fellow flightsimmer should be enough for this discussion....it's an middle market product...end of story :Big Grin:

 

And right now, if you want to fly Airbus, we dont have better option. FSLabs bus might be that some day. But now all of you who want to fly with Airbus, enjoy that AXE and dont bother to fight is it as good as NGX (It´s not but it is on par with that Aerosoft has promised)

Well...we do have the BlackBox A320, if you didn't know!

WARNING: This post was opened in order to motivate and promote peace amongst us simmers. However, I have noticed a few non-peaceful posts from the same folks who try to ruin every product possible (and poison everyone possible). I strongly suggest if that's the only thing you know how to do, this is not the topic for it...Please leave the rest of us in peace, and you can leave in piece!

 

Thank you! :p0504:

That's exactly it, I've the AXE, there's a number of things I like, and a number I don't. I won't however comment on it in public because that wouldn't be fair, as I'm clearly going to be bias towards FSL. I do think some people over hype the AXE's system depth, in fact some really over hype it, but it's a fine middle market product, better than default and less than PMDG/FSL. That's what they set out to do, but I think over time the lines have become blurred, and people have started doing what humans seem to be great at and that's getting stubborn and insisting on their opinion being correct, regardless of the evidence presented to them. A dangerous trait for any one who wants to be a pilot.

 

 

 

I think you'll find that most pilots who fly commercially and are simmers get snapped up pretty fast by the devs to act as technical consultants on their project, so there aren't many of us left out there that are totally unbias. There's god knows how many of us crowding around over at FSL now, it's next to ridiculous... And I'm sure it's the same at Aerosoft and BBS.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

Thank you very much for the concise and clear explanation's.

 

Aerosoft's $45 rendintion, is the first (hopefully, fairly realistic) Airbus that I have ever flown in the sim. I found the difference compared to a Boeing aircraft quite ashtonishing to the point of that if for some reason a Boeing pilot had to land an Airbus on the spot with no guidence, I wouldnt feel very confident that he would survive the experiance.

 

All in good fun guys (some of us forget that)

 

Looking forward to the FSL Airbus as well.

 

Floyd