(...)  feel there (...)

 

 

Semantic?!?

Well, I never said it was complex and yes, I do know the difference. I don't own the product but have considered getting it based on a very favorable review in Mutley's Hangar. they called the external and internal modeling of the aircraft superb. The only thing holding me back are some reported autothrottle issues and no SID/STAR support (although I think that has been rectified with the extended version). don't want to get off topic. Regards

 

The FBW Airbus is a very automated, software-driven aircraft which is very difficult to recreate due to limitations in FSX. For example the Airbus has extremely complex flight envelope protections, which are pretty much always on. 

 

Think of an autopilot and autothrust that is always 'on' and monitoring all pilot inputs at all times, and override his/her inputs with throttle and flight controls if a parameter is exceeded e.g. load factor limitation. And then think about "what if the pilot turns off some, or all of the systems, or if it defaults to a failure mode e.g. after a hydraulic failure". The airbus has 3 different control laws with differing protections. Now think about Autotrim, how can one create a automatic trim system that makes the aircraft in trim in all phases of flight, without departing from the flight envelope 'box'? And then think about times where it is designed not to be in trim e.g. landing flare. And then think about the 3 control laws and the varying amount of protection. Now think about the autopilot and autothrust, how can we create these systems without going beyond the flight envelope box? And what about FSX peculiarities like time compression (The A340-500 can fly 19 hour legs) or weather programs like Activesky and OPUS, which may do strange things? And then think about the 3 control laws and interactions with autotrim.

 

Now think about the complexities within the FMGC. Have a look at the link below describing the "Groundspeed mini" function. See if you can understand.

http://www.pprune.org/questions/408276-what-ground-speed-mini.html#post5559794

 

Aerosoft got around those by using the default (and very simplistic) FSX A321 FBW system instead of creating their own systems, like FS Labs is doing. FMGC functions are also very simplistic as well, with no fuel predictions and AFAIK no lateral revision options. IAE-engined versions has no EPR indications, as FSX's depiction of EPR is completely broken and Aerosoft simply removed it instead of fixing it.

The FBW Airbus is a very automated, software-driven aircraft which is very difficult to recreate due to limitations in FSX. For example the Airbus has extremely complex flight envelope protections, which are pretty much always on. 

 

Think of an autopilot and autothrust that is always 'on' and monitoring all pilot inputs at all times, and override his/her inputs with throttle and flight controls if a parameter is exceeded e.g. load factor limitation. And then think about "what if the pilot turns off some, or all of the systems, or if it defaults to a failure mode e.g. after a hydraulic failure". The airbus has 3 different control laws with differing protections. Now think about Autotrim, how can one create a automatic trim system that makes the aircraft in trim in all phases of flight, without departing from the flight envelope 'box'? And then think about times where it is designed not to be in trim e.g. landing flare. And then think about the 3 control laws and the varying amount of protection. Now think about the autopilot and autothrust, how can we create these systems without going beyond the flight envelope box? And what about FSX peculiarities like time compression (The A340-500 can fly 19 hour legs) or weather programs like Activesky and OPUS, which may do strange things? And then think about the 3 control laws and interactions with autotrim.

 

Now think about the complexities within the FMGC. Have a look at the link below describing the "Groundspeed mini" function. See if you can understand.

http://www.pprune.org/questions/408276-what-ground-speed-mini.html#post5559794

 

Aerosoft got around those by using the default (and very simplistic) FSX A321 FBW system instead of creating their own systems, like FS Labs is doing. FMGC functions are also very simplistic as well, with no fuel predictions and AFAIK no lateral revision options. IAE-engined versions has no EPR indications, as FSX's depiction of EPR is completely broken and Aerosoft simply removed it instead of fixing it.

Thanks for the detailed insight. Regards

From what I heard Black Box Simulations has an A380 in their future. There A320 series and A330 series have so far been good so I think there is a chance one will come out in the future.

Personally I have always though PMDG were developing an Airbus or at least exploring the possibilities of doing on Airbus but were keeping it quite in case they decided it was too much work or just too complex to develop to the extent that they like.

Rich

Thanks for the detailed insight. Regards

 

Hi,

what I'd like to add to the quote you quoted in your post:

On the Airbus X Extended they programmed a new fully custom Fly-By-Wire which, in my opinion, covers the normal flight envelope of the A320 quite good and realistic. I've heared from some real world Airbus captains that they think it behaves almost completly as the real one would do.

Regarding the FMGS the Extended also is a LOT better than the Airbus X and I think it features most of the normally used functions on a normal flight, unlike the "normal" Airbus X including SIDs and STARs and airways now.

The only think which I really miss at the moment is the VNAV, but they say it's going to come in the SP1 which will hopefully come soon and the screenshots they show also look quite good.

I think until the FSL Airbus comes out the Aerosoft Airbus will be a good one (yeah, even for us PMDG freaks ) as it certainly is the best one currently on the market.

 

But anyway I don't think that the PMDG forum is the right place to discuss this. Just look at some of the reviews of the Airbus X Extended and build up your own mind.

And at PMDG: I hope I'm allowed to write this as you'll never produce an Airbus for FS anyway so this does hopefully not count as any advertisement or anything

I'd be ecstatic to hear about a PMDG A380 but I'll still hold out for the FSL, the AXE was a bit of a disappointment even though they advertised it as a simplified model.  

@@Adam T Lutley

 

airbus x and airbus x extended are not even airplanes! So theyre around 2500 miles away from buses,maybe they will be able to make a full fmgs in next 217 years,

p.s. Im not joking,but aerosofts products are jokes

 

@avantim

+1

(...)

But anyway I don't think that the PMDG forum is the right place to discuss this.

(...)

 

 

Emanuel!!!   ^_^

 

 

Well, I never said it was complex and yes, I do know the difference. I don't own the product but have considered getting it based on a very favorable review in Mutley's Hangar. they called the external and internal modeling of the aircraft superb. The only thing holding me back are some reported autothrottle issues and no SID/STAR support (although I think that has been rectified with the extended version). don't want to get off topic. Regards

 

 

 

The FBW Airbus is a very automated, software-driven aircraft which is very difficult to recreate due to limitations in FSX. For example the Airbus has extremely complex flight envelope protections, which are pretty much always on. 

 

Think of an autopilot and autothrust that is always 'on' and monitoring all pilot inputs at all times, and override his/her inputs with throttle and flight controls if a parameter is exceeded e.g. load factor limitation. And then think about "what if the pilot turns off some, or all of the systems, or if it defaults to a failure mode e.g. after a hydraulic failure". The airbus has 3 different control laws with differing protections. Now think about Autotrim, how can one create a automatic trim system that makes the aircraft in trim in all phases of flight, without departing from the flight envelope 'box'? And then think about times where it is designed not to be in trim e.g. landing flare. And then think about the 3 control laws and the varying amount of protection. Now think about the autopilot and autothrust, how can we create these systems without going beyond the flight envelope box? And what about FSX peculiarities like time compression (The A340-500 can fly 19 hour legs) or weather programs like Activesky and OPUS, which may do strange things? And then think about the 3 control laws and interactions with autotrim.

 

Now think about the complexities within the FMGC. Have a look at the link below describing the "Groundspeed mini" function. See if you can understand.

http://www.pprune.org/questions/408276-what-ground-speed-mini.html#post5559794

 

Aerosoft got around those by using the default (and very simplistic) FSX A321 FBW system instead of creating their own systems, like FS Labs is doing. FMGC functions are also very simplistic as well, with no fuel predictions and AFAIK no lateral revision options. IAE-engined versions has no EPR indications, as FSX's depiction of EPR is completely broken and Aerosoft simply removed it instead of fixing it.

The 777 is just as complex and just as automated. It too has complex envelope protections and multiple control laws and automatic reconfigurations. It too has full time fly by wire constantly adjusting pilot inputs. It too has autotrim. It too can fly very long non-stop legs. Why do people accept the 777 as being possible yet the Airbus is too complex to simulate properly.

Because unfortunately everything on these forums is the same old recycled stuff, no reason why it can't be simulated in FSX because it has been done before. The majority of people that come up with theories about why it can't be simulated don't even understand the philosophy in the first place.

Because unfortunately everything on these forums is the same old recycled stuff, no reason why it can't be simulated in FSX because it has been done before. The majority of people that come up with theories about why it can't be simulated don't even understand the philosophy in the first place.

Amen to that. Am working on an interview with Capt Richard De Crespigny, the pilot in Command of the Qantas A380 that blew an engine and nearly crashed off Singapore. Amazing to hear him say that before he switched from the B744 to the A330 he heard all his colleagues (non Airbus) tell him about blue screen of death in the screens, that it could be hacked by a mobile phone, that the computers did not allow the aeroplane to fly, etc. etc.

 

He is actually an Electronics Engineer and did a thorough study of the A330 and the more he read the more he loved it. He switched over to it and found that all the stigma and rumours are from pilots who have not flown it, not flown it properly got caught out and blame it, or pilots who will never be eligible to fly it.

 

He finds it as safe as any other and loves the systems redundancy which he says are second to none, specially in the A380, and QF32 was the clear proof of this. Hopefully the interview can be finalised soon, should make for great reading, right here in Avsim.

One word, NO!

I'm not so sure anymore myself.

 

From a brief discussion concerning an Airbus addon:

 

 

Is Alex Bashkatov the Alex that now works for PMDG?

 

 

Yep.

Alex has worked here for many years now and is responsible for all the visual stuff on our displays in the NGX (and 777) (among many other things) - his presence here doesn't mean we're secretly making an Airbus lol.

 

Because unfortunately everything on these forums is the same old recycled stuff, no reason why it can't be simulated in FSX because it has been done before. The majority of people that come up with theories about why it can't be simulated don't even understand the philosophy in the first place.

 

Completely correct by the way. We already essentially do "fly by wire" (Vangelis terms it "fly by software") - every addon we've ever made for MSFS save for the turboprops intercepts and reprocesses joystick commands. We've been doing it since CWS in the original FS2002/FS9 NG 10 years ago. The MD-11's LSAS, the entire NGX control system, the entire 777 etc uses that method.