AXE v 1.1 out

[ajpongress 467]

Is the VC of this plane considered a "light" version where half of the switches don't do anything?

I'm considering getting this but if its light like the quality wings 757, I'll hold off.

[Vim Fuego 1]

Its an excellent simulation of an A320/A321.  From cold and dark etc its all there is you want it.  The only option they've held off on is simulated failures, fires etc.  Otherwise, it's pretty much all there.

[ZKOKQ 986]

Is the VC of this plane considered a "light" version where half of the switches don't do anything?

I'm considering getting this but if its light like the quality wings 757, I'll hold off.

It's nothing like the Airbus X AJ, it has very excellent system fidelity IMO

[ajpongress 467]

 

 

Is the VC of this plane considered a "light" version where half of the switches don't do anything?

 

I'm considering getting this but if its light like the quality wings 757, I'll hold off.

 

 

It's nothing like the Airbus X AJ, it has very excellent system fidelity IMO

*sigh of relief* great because I own the airbus X and it left a sour taste.

I was going to wait until FSL but if this is on par with level-d and majestic then I might cave.

[ZKOKQ 986]

One thing I had to overcome, was to try and stop thinking Boeing...that was and is hard :lol:

[RudiJG1 172]

I bought the Airbus X upon release and shelved it quickly. When the Extended came out, I upgraded immediately but shelved it quickly due to the bugs.

 

Now...wow! I just finished KDEN-KJAC and flew the VOR/DME RWY 1 approach with the A320 XTD in non-precision managed approach mode. Incredible and great fun. The aircraft handled multiple speed and altitude constraints very well, and the managed approach was just as described in the guide Joshua released a week or so ago. There were some minor route drawing issues on the ND, given the DME arc and the transition to it, but regardless, the aircraft flew the route flawlessly.

 

I'll be flying this one often now.

 

AJ - not all systems are modeled (and not to Level-D standards), but enough are to make this a very satisfying ride. And she's easy on the eyes.

[SetSpeed 22]

I have also been waiting for the FSL airbus.  I am  considering this a320 but hate to spend the money on it if FSL will be out sometime this year.  With all the positive posts I think I'll just go ahead and spend the money!

[vhqpa88 14]

I did a test flight last night KPHX-KLAX. VDEV works very well complying with every speed and altitude constraint on the SEAVU2 arrival SMO transition to Rwy 6L. That annoying accubrake pressure checklist item now works instantaneously without the need to turn on the hydualic pump. The only thing I noticed was during cruise the engines would occasionally spool down for a second before spooling back up. I never experienced this before SP1.1. But overall im very impressed by the update. The AAX will probably see a lot more airtime from me

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk 2

[honanhal 1,427]

So don't fly the routes that take 6 hours. It's not that difficult.

As I said, "it's not the end of the world" to not fly those routes, but in your original post you asked "why would you need time compression"? The answer is "if you're flying longer routes that the real aircraft fly." And you don't have to do that! But you would be able to, IFyou could use time compression with this aircraft (as most add-ons--including a particular "small single-aisle" plane--let you do).

 

If you meant to write "I don't care because I only fly short routes," that's fine. But that's not what you wrote. The fact is that lack of time compression is a drawback for at least some people flying this plane. Is that really that difficult to accept?

[ajpongress 467]

 

 

not all systems are modeled (and not to Level-D standards), but enough are to make this a very satisfying ride.

 

Which systems didn't they model?

If it's just the failures and maintenance, I can live with that.

 

What's important to me are the little things, like being able to independently control the cockpit lighting knobs, or all the switches for the air conditioning panel working.

Is there any part of the overhead systems they didn't model?

[FLEX1978 373]

Which systems didn't they model?

If it's just the failures and maintenance, I can live with that.

 

What's important to me are the little things, like being able to independently control the cockpit lighting knobs, or all the switches for the air conditioning panel working.

Is there any part of the overhead systems they didn't model?

There's still a huge amount missing system wise, that doesn't mean it's not worth getting. Lighting and bleed system have been done correctly.

 

From memory, the overhead is missing the ADIRS, flight control computers and resulting laws (except normal law) fire suppression and a few other things.

 

I guess the good thing is even if they want to keep this simulation fairly simple at the moment they have a good platform to build on in the future.

 

Putting aside everything else, my only real gripe with this aircraft is the roll in normal law doesn't feel correct at all, and when the aircraft enters flare mode below 50ft you can feel the roll rate drastically change, it should be smooth.

 

Should add I haven't had a chance to test the new update so it could all be fixed.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

(..) Well worth the last wait, now bring on the A318s

 

 

Will they have wing-flex - at last???   :LMAO:

 

There's still a huge amount missing system wise, that doesn't mean it's not worth getting. Lighting and bleed system have been done correctly.

 

From memory, the overhead is missing the ADIRS, flight control computers and resulting laws (except normal law) fire suppression and a few other things.

 

I guess the good thing is even if they want to keep this simulation fairly simple at the moment they have a good platform to build on in the future.

 

 

It was never meant to model failures like fire, reversions from normal law and the like, but ...

 

- an independent ILS receiver would be nice, :rolleyes:

- wind forecast entries ... :rolleyes:

- some more filling the PROG pages ... :rolleyes:

- TBC ...

[FLEX1978 373]

Yeah true, they said from the start it is more geared to the average flight simmer and not someone looking for indepth realistic procedures etc.

 

Are you sure it doesn't have an independent ILS receiver?

[Tabs 2,790]

Absolutely love this plane, the sterling efforts of the devs and support staff etc, but I still find it annoying to hand fly.  Its definitely smoother in the pitch with the new update but the roll rate is still frustratingly slow.  I've no idea how a real Airbus handles of course, but it still feels off to me.  A certain competitor may have got it more right, perhaps?

 

All the same, one of my top five aircraft to fly, at the moment or ever.  

 

Cheers

 

I flew an A320 full flight sim for a few hours last winter and I actually think the AXE is pretty good in terms of the roll and pitch rates when hand flying. The real Airbus sidestick isn't like a PC joystick at all - it takes a lot of force to move it to the stops to command a high roll or pitch rate. I suspect most simmers would be shocked at how different it feels vs. the average PC sticks we use.

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

(...)

Are you sure it doesn't have an independent ILS receiver?

 

Damn ... Darn  ... Very sure: An ILS frequency blocks the AAX VOR1 freq and leaves you with just the VOR2 freq  - exactly like default or strictly-SDK planes ...

 

I flew an A320 full flight sim for a few hours last winter and I actually think the AXE is pretty good in terms of the roll and pitch rates when hand flying. The real Airbus sidestick isn't like a PC joystick at all - it takes a lot of force to move it to the stops to command a high roll or pitch rate. I suspect most simmers would be shocked at how different it feels vs. the average PC sticks we use.

 

 

Plus, in an Airbus (normal law) you don't command control surface deflections, but roll rates - feels completely different from direct-law-aircraft ...