Failures and CBs

I don't think that's what RW pilots want after coming home jetlagged to find out what "crappy" situation they could have been while in the aircraft lol.  

 

But fair enough, point taken.

I see the breakaway thrust has been mentioned a few times here, and I can honestly say I have never needed to touch the thrust levers to breakaway. It will move slowly up to 10 knots after break release.

Is it to do with incorrect calibration, or Fsuipc lua sim.dll tweak ?

I don't use FSUIPC or anyhting like that for throttle assignments, just the default FSX controls, it's not to do with the controls though, it's 48% indicated on the E/WD. Thing is though, in the A320 in most cases, unless you're heavily loaded or pointed up hill, you'll start rolling on your own with no need for breakaway thrust. With single engine taxi even most times you'll never go over about 37-38% N1, so to have to apply 48% is ridiculous, if you did that in real life you'd be rocketing off the ramp.

 

Regards,

Ró.

You have to update the runway database in FSX via makerwys.exe as per the included RAAS manual. Use the latest makerwys version from schiratti.com.

 

The AAX RAAS is NOT freeware. It's the payware RAAS by Bryan York's FS2Crew, it's a high-fidelity RAAS. The version included with the AAX is the full version locked to this aircraft.

 

 

Managed descent and full ILS approach including autoland capability are all there in current AAX version 1.10. You should really update your version to 1.1 to find out for yourself.

 

Your CTDs are worth troubleshooting as they are neither related to the NGX nor to the AAX.

 

I have version 1.10 installed, the Auto Vnav does not initiate descent, follow a STAR accurately and intercept the localiser and setup for autoland without you inputting cockpit sequences.

I'm a RW airline pilot and absolutely love this bird. What they've done with the virtual FO is very nice. I don't care how realistic the NGX or any other airliner there is for FSX, if it doesn't have a working FO there's no way to fly it realistically! Thank God for FS2Crew. I have both the NGX and AAX and fly them both on short hops. You're not going to get failures or anything like that, what you will get is a typical airline flight from pushback to block in. And that fits my style of simming very well.

I don't use FSUIPC or anyhting like that for throttle assignments, just the default FSX controls, it's not to do with the controls though, it's 48% indicated on the E/WD. Thing is though, in the A320 in most cases, unless you're heavily loaded or pointed up hill, you'll start rolling on your own with no need for breakaway thrust. With single engine taxi even most times you'll never go over about 37-38% N1, so to have to apply 48% is ridiculous, if you did that in real life you'd be rocketing off the ramp.

 

Regards,

Ró.

I don't use fsuipc for my hardware either. Just assigned through FSX. I must check N1  level on my next flight, and see what percentage it is at idle thrust.

It was worth the money.

For casual simming and get a taste of A320, I think AXE is doing good job there. What I like about AXE is: 1) good looking, 2) FBW is good (though some scenario I think it is not that right, but for normal "flying from A to B" then it is more than enough ), 3) extra goodies. If you want things more hardcore, it is not the one you looking for though (and the dev team is clear about that at the beginning). I have fun with AXE, though to be honest I want more hardcore systems ...

It's true that for most cases the A320 start rolling on idle. HOWEVER, that most of the time you are not even close to MTOW. The AXE default load is full fuel and payload.

 

I always use 40% N1 to start rolling and 32% for slow acceleration at near MTOW. Its also worth noting that FSX has Ground friction is off. My N1 values are not as high as what some said here.

I'm a RW airline pilot and absolutely love this bird. What they've done with the virtual FO is very nice. I don't care how realistic the NGX or any other airliner there is for FSX, if it doesn't have a working FO there's no way to fly it realistically! Thank God for FS2Crew. I have both the NGX and AAX and fly them both on short hops. You're not going to get failures or anything like that, what you will get is a typical airline flight from pushback to block in. And that fits my style of simming very well.

 

Erik has a great point....  rather than worry about exactly how realistic it is or isn't (remember, you are sitting in a room looking at at PC monitor, as am I- just for perspective), why not concern ourselves more with the "enjoyment factor" than how realistic it is....  I wrote something before in another thread here about this:

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/411549-questions-about-airbus-extended/page-3

 

What is the obsession about the AAX being as realistic as the NGX?  

 

Thanks,  Bruce.

Okay, let's set a few things straight right here and now.

 

Firstly: The complexity is no where close to the NGX. It isn not the perfect complexity for a RW A230/A321 pilot, not even close.

 

Secondly: It was never meant to be as in depth on the systems front as the NGX, they set out with this in mind from the start to reduce the development time and reduce the cost for the end user. It is a mid-point product when it comes to system depth, it is halfway between the NGX and Default Aircraft. It is no where close to the NGX in terms of system depth, but it was never meant to be. Can people please get this notion out of their heads that the AXE is accurately programmed from a system point of view, it's not.

 

Of course they're more advanced than the default systems, but they're not close enough to the real aircraft to say that they're accurate. They were never meant to be. This aircraft is for beginners and casual simmers who aren't looking to learn how to fly an A320 accurately, they just want something that roughly behaves like one and that looks like one, so that they get the general gist of an A320. 

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

I am Surprised-, and the question begs to be asked-, as to why a developer (or a beta-tester for a competitor), will step in a use this kind of explanation of another developer's product in such a minimizing way. Sorry, but you are wrong. We know that AXE is not intensively simulated as a real Airbus. Nor it is not like a 737 NGX...This is an Airbus- not a Boeing! The AXE is a magnificent a/c and the enjoyment we get out of it is outstanding and unique.  I personally fly today the AXE more than any other a/c. In fact, last week I almost uninstalled the 737NGX as I am frankly bored by it.

 

For you to come to this forum and say: "This aircraft is for beginners and casual simmers who aren't looking to learn how to fly an A320 accurately, they just want something that roughly behaves like one and that looks like one, so that they get the general gist of an A320," is totally unacceptable.

         How can you say that the  tremendous job Aerosoft has done with this a/c as being " for beginners" or "something casual and a bit better that the default."  Do you honestly think non-real pilots are looking up to the last simulation of an a/c? For what? Even a real Airbus pilot will not enjoy much a simulation of a failure of the a/c on a PC! No!  People feel that calling themselves "hardcore simmers" are the ones that if there's no ice on the wing or if the APU doesn't start as close as the real thing, then : "I'll shoot myself." This is a simulation on a PC- Not a 10 million dollar simulator!

 

FSL  A-320: I hope FSL is able to bring to the table an Airbus capable of simulating the so called "hardcore simmer's stuff." I personally got the Concorde and was not impressed one bit by it. It may have some nice systems, but with such poor (pale) graphics, I had no interest in it. In fact if you look around  few people will ever mention anything about the Concorde in these forums- Total lack of interest!

 

Therefore, folks let's stop comparing every a/c to a 737- Stop! And stop comparing such a complex a/c as an Airbus to a Boeing. Developing an Airbus is way more complex than a Boeing. If it were as easy as a Boeing , PMDG would have taken the challenge many years ago; FSL would have already finished their A320 (instead of taking waaaay toooo long)...And every other Airbus simulation would have been as easy as a 737NGX... Keeep in mind-- An Airbus  IS NOT a Boeing.

@Tim: calm down, I think Ro did not imply in anyway that AXE is a bad product, why the over-reaction?

The truth is that AXE aims at medium-system simulation and it is as clear as day. And it is a great product for what it aims to be. That is it.

As you like the eye candy and fun factor part of an aircraft add-on, then AXE serves you well. Relax and enjoy your AXE . Geezz

 

 

In fact if you look around  few people will ever mention anything about the Concorde in these forums- Total lack of interest!

 

Its also a complicated and nich aircraft, only reason I don't fly it much is because I haven't had much time to learn how to fly it (that will change, I love complicated airplanes and that is one reason why I fell in love with the Project Tupolev series)

 

One of my biggest gripes are the fact that they REFUSE to put in a 2d FMC and 2d pop up displays, features that I extensively use in the NGX and other addons and also the 3 second APU and hyper engine starts does kill the experience a little. Overall its not a bad plane for the casual simmer (it came a long way from the initial release which was practically unflyable) and even though I've been spoiled by the NGX I now find the AXE to be a halfway decent plane to fly in. However once FSL comes out the AXE will be permanently parked.

Thank you all for this feedback!! I will be having a think  about it until the end of next weekend, so I can hold off just in case a 777 announcement is ready (I don't want to get it, hear an announcement, and think it's near). I don't want to get it then retire it so soon.... However, thanks to you folks, you have made me decide to go for it, over than leave it! Thanks again

Thank you all for this feedback!! I will be having a think  about it until the end of next weekend, so I can hold off just in case a 777 announcement is ready (I don't want to get it, hear an announcement, and think it's near). I don't want to get it then retire it so soon.... However, thanks to you folks, you have made me decide to go for it, over than leave it! Thanks again

 

 

The discussion in the second half of your topic could have been avoided (    ) if you hadn't told us in your OP

 

- that you fly solely the PMDG NGX currently

- that you'll fly nothing else but the PMDG 777 when it's out

- that you're aiming at becoming a RW pilot.

 

As I said early in this thread: It's all your (own) fault ...   :lol:

 

Apart from that:

 

- The Aerosoft AAX gives you a taste of flightdeck and crew coordination experience

- It's NOT the best Airbus available today system-wise (Wilco/Feelthere STILL has slightly deeper systems - compare status page S/D and several pages on the MCDU, the EXPED modes, VOR auto-tuning etc.)

- AAX is the most pleasant in graphics and sound, furthermore it's innovative - the most immersive and addictive Airbus around these days

 

But don't mix it up with hardcore simming ...