I was interested in buying one of these. But which? How different are they? I believe both have had some problems, especially frame rate issues. Any help would be great. Jonno.

I own the PSS A320, and I have tried the PIC on a friends PC.First the PIC, It has no 2D panel, only a VC, which is very framerate hungry, other than that its OKPSS.The panel I like very much, the models are know showing there age, and as such do not look as good as they once did.This is not a problem for me, as they work 100% with the iFDG, which in my eyes is the best external model.There have been people with problems, but these problems don't seem to extend across the range of users, I myself have no problems with it.If you were to ask me for an A320 recommendation, I would suggest to buy the PSS A320, and use the iFDG models.Dan.

Thanks for that. I aint a VC fan anyway so maybe I'll try the PSS product. You don't have the A340/330 Pro product as well, Dan? Perhaps that might be money better spent. Always tough chosing payware add-ons!

Yes, I do have the 330/340, and I like it, the only little issue is the FDE did not feel that good, but there is some excellent freeware FDE's available for it.I do actually prefer the 320 series, as its more my type of flying, shorter routes.Dan.

Didn't PSS have a patch to fix some issues with it?

Yes, but in my opinion the "other" dynamics are still better.Dan.

I bought the PSS A320 during the current sale and am very pleased with it - NB there is both a VC and a 2D panel.One drawback is that you have to pay separately for official repaints and a number of these are out-of-date, especially charter airlines, which change their liveries and names as often as I change my socks.I agree that the PSS visual model shows its age. However, I have a 2ghz P4 with 1mb of RDRAM with a motherboard of similar vintage, 7,200 rpm disk and NVidia FX5900 with 128mb - so certainly short of processing & motherboard speed, but I get pretty steady lock at a 25 FPS limit using the PSS model and panel, unless I have a sky full of clouds or airport full of scenery and AI planes.I get about 5 FPS less with the better looking IFDG equivalent.In summary, if you short of processing power and want a complex panel and adequate visual model, I'd recommend PSS.

Just to give a different perspective. I purchased the PSS when it first came out and learnt a great deal about the 'buses from it. In its favour is good documentation, 2d cockpit and gauges.The A320PIC has no 2D panel and certainly has a heavy processor demand. In its favour are an excellent 3D cockpit, a fair attempt at proper fly by wire, very comprehensive systems modelling and failures (including ecam messages, working fire buttons etc). Some good visual updates have been provided by others. It has several bugs in the systems. Support from the forum seems to be well hidden.After reading and digesting the real Airbus documenation, in my opinion the PSS gives about 50% of a real bus and PIC is maybe 65%. The Boeings available from various developers seem to be much closer to the real thing. SSW are/were developing an A320 - not sure where that has progressed to.RegardsHoward

I agree with Howard, I was on the A32PIC Beta team and I can tell you that the PIC developers really wanted to make the product even better. I still have the spreadsheet with all the features and fixes they wanted to implement.... It is a shame the publisher pushed them to release the product too early. Take careJohn

>The Boeings available from various developers seem>to be much closer to the real thing. I agree. The reason for this is, that the MSFS engine is more suitable for the Boeing philosophy of flying, autopilot etc. I, as many others, think, that a proper Airbus simulation is not possible within FS9.Just my 2 cents,Wolfgang

Have them both. PSS A320 VC is dead weight as it is entirely unclickable (compared to their A330-340 which has a completely clickable VC). PIC is more complex in the fault modeling (25 built in faults I believe). PIC has some bugs which have never been fixed because of the fall-out between the developers and Wilco. Nevertheless if you know what some of the bugs are you can work around them (such as the necessity to activate the approach phase before TOD - otherwise you'll get a freeze-up at some point on descent). It has the best ILS capture I've seen yet - rock solid. A site was created which has some additional liveries and some texture changes which are nice. As well, PIC has a virtual cabin which PSS product does not. I do not like how the PIC handles the gates on the throttle compared to the "+" "-" methodology of PSS. If I HAD to choose between the two though it would PIC's A320 by a whisper.