Do I want Airbus X Extended?

[timbrooks 4]

 

Nice to have you back ... Johnny767!!!

 

 

What? Who? johnny ? Who is that? Why would you compare me with someone I don't even know. Is that person also as intelligent as you, or me ?

[timbrooks 4]

 

On the flight in question about 2 weeks ago IIRC there was about 6T fuel, and a 75% load factor, not close to MTOW. Perhaps this is something you could look at when creating your A318/A319 model and then port back to the A320? It one of the things that really get's me about the AXE when in reality applying 40% isn't safe and is almost never done unless at MTOW and on a sharp up-hill slope. But again, just my €0.02.

 

 

Indeed I am a technical consulting pilot with FSL. I am unpaid, whether they sell 5,000 copies or 5 doesn't effect me. To make a suggestion that I am trying to influence others, or am acting on a biased basis is insulting. The fact you question my character like that so openly is highly insulting. I am not trying to win customers for FSL or take them from Aerosoft. I'm simply pointing out to potential customers not to expect complex systems. If you want to question my motives like that you're free to read back over all my posts on this forums and you'll see I always provide a balanced and neutral view point.

 

I won't have you insulting my character or my motives like that.

 

 

Are you trying to imply that Airbus systems are any less complex than an 737NG or that they're less intensive?

 

 

 

 

Well good for you, you're clearly the market the AXE is aimed at.

 

 

 

 

I think they've done a fine job, I've always said that. But their product is not an accurate representation of an A320 from a systems point of view, it is one that was done in a more simplified way to save time on development and make it more open to users new to the Airbus or who don't want to spend €70 on a more in depth model of A320 systems. That doesn't make it bad, that's just the aim they had when designing this.

 

 

 

Yesm I think they do, and this has clearly been shown time and time again over the years, there are many simmers out there who are looking for as close as it can get system wise. That's what draws them to the hobby. For them, it's not if an aircraft is cheaper than the rest, or if is easy to learn, for them it's being able to pull a CB and see what happens, it's flying an aircraft that isn't sterile, where things break and need to be fixed or to follow the procedures for flying with out that particular piece of equipment. That's what they want in a simulation. That's not everyone, but there's certainly a lot of them out there. But again, that's not the user the AXE is aimed at.

 

 

 

 

 

Wrong! I take plenty of enjoyment out of dealing with failures in FSX. I find it very interesting, but only when the system is simulated accurately so that when I take the appropriate action, the response it that which the real aircraft would give. So don't present your opinions as fact thanks.

 

 

 

 

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by what that PC is capable of doing...

 

 

 

 

Please don't insult PMDG like that, they don't decide what aircraft they're going to model next by how "easy" is is.

 

LOL, usually I'm quite the nipper in the A320, but I'm pretty slow and cautious when it comes to taxiing the A330 now, so you've nothing to worry about there... ^_^

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

 

 

Ronan, please forgive me if you felt insulted when I questioned why you would classify the AXE as a "Casual little airplane, or a casual little toy that's very close to the default but a bit better." Aha, sure! It means nothing, huh? Well, I can assure you this is not what the thousands of happy buyers of the AXE feels. I understand you're saying that the 737NGX is "ufffff, the best the world has seen." Sure that's the way YOU feel? Fine ! We all have different opinions. But, when we are representing an entity, it is very important to avoid engaging in "mine is better than your's" analogy..It could even be true...But guess what it is not professional, and you could very possible be hurting the developer you represent by being unprofessional. If, you really feel that way, say it in more decent way, giving the "other guy" full credit for the huge amount of great stuff they have done.

 

Any way...just a small advice. And again, if I hurt you in any way, please forgive...please forgive me. (ok I won't say anymore; it's going to sound like a song)

[Airbus Commander 563]

Rónán, please forgive me if you felt insulted when I questioned why you would classify the AXE as a "Casual little airplane, or a casual little toy that's very close to the default but a bit better." Aha, sure! It means nothing, huh? Well, I can assure you this is not what the thousands of happy buyers of the AXE feels. I understand you're saying that the 737NGX is "ufffff, the best the world has seen." Sure that's the way YOU feel? Fine ! We all have different opinions. But, when we are representing an entity, it is very important to avoid engaging in "mine is better than your's" analogy..It could even be true...But guess what it is not professional, and you could very possible be hurting the developer you represent by being unprofessional. If, you really feel that way, say it in more decent way, giving the "other guy" full credit for the huge amount of great stuff they have done.

 

Any way...just a small advice. And again, if I hurt you in any way, please forgive...please forgive me. (ok I won't say anymore; it's going to sound like a song)

I'm sure there are many happy buyers out there, I'm positive of it, I see them all the time on here, and that's great if they're enjoying it, they're clearly the market that Aerosoft was going after, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a more 'casual', as you put it, rendition of it. The systems depth is not great. It has many inovative features sure, the FO, the checklist, the ATC chatter and more I'm sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it is aimed at a more casual simmer. There's nothing wrong with that, it's not a failure on Aerosoft's part, but that's the way it is.

 

I'm not saying that the 737NGX is the best the world has seen, what I am saying is that the NGX has a much higher quality and depth of systems simulated, and that if you buy the AXE you should not expect similar to it. The NGX is used as a benchmark by me, and many other simmers as it is an add-on many of us have, so it makes comparisons easy. I could just as easily compare the AXE to the Majestic Q400 or to the Leonardo MD-80, but that's not going to be as easily understood as by comparing it to the NGX.

 

I have never said the FSL bus is better, I haven't mentioned it once. It's not released, no one but the developers and their team of consulting Pilots, Engineers and their beta testers has access to it. For that reason I'm not using it as a comparison as no one would know what I'm talking about, and also I'm under NDA. I don't think at any point my conduct would be considered unprofessional. I hold myself to very high standards of public conduct and would not compromise those standards to push a product I'm consulting on for free.

 

I have given Aerosoft plenty of credit. If you want me to say it again I will, they created a decent product, they created it fast and at a simpler level to make it more accessible to beginners and people not familiar with Airbus aircraft, this had the added effect of making it more affordable for many people. They added nice features such as ATC chatter, the FO, the FDR, the checklists and more. This clearly has an appeal to a wide range of people. What I will not credit them with is creating in depth, realistic systems, this is because they haven't, and it would misleading to give the impression they have. They have created a simplified version of an A320, more advanced than a default aircraft by a long means that's for sure, but not accurate enough to say it's like the real thing.

 

Apology accepted.

 

Regards,

Ró.

[squerble 300]

  

 

 

Ronan, please forgive me if you felt insulted when I questioned why you would classify the AXE as a "Casual little airplane, or a casual little toy that's very close to the default but a bit better." Aha, sure! It means nothing, huh? Well, I can assure you this is not what the thousands of happy buyers of the AXE feels. I understand you're saying that the 737NGX is "ufffff, the best the world has seen." Sure that's the way YOU feel? Fine ! We all have different opinions. But, when we are representing an entity, it is very important to avoid engaging in "mine is better than your's" analogy..It could even be true...But guess what it is not professional, and you could very possible be hurting the developer you represent by being unprofessional. If, you really feel that way, say it in more decent way, giving the "other guy" full credit for the huge amount of great stuff they have done.

 

Any way...just a small advice. And again, if I hurt you in any way, please forgive...please forgive me. (ok I won't say anymore; it's going to sound like a song)

I'm actually now convinced you are actually Johnny767. I hope the mods will take a good look at this possibility.

 

 

As for your comment to Ró, you seem to be missing the point somewhat. You may feel that the AXE is better than the NGX, but all of Ró's, my own and other comments have centred around the accuracy of the plane. These are indisputable facts. The AXE is not an accurate representation of how an Airbus truly works. You may LIKE it, which is fine; the FACT is that it isn't accurate.

 

I don't understand why people are suggesting that this is somehow insulting to the developers. They didn't set out to make a by-the-numbers accurate aircraft, that isn't their model - it can't be for the price point. This is why it is unfair for people to compare the AXE to the NGX. They are not at competing price points, they are not at competing functionality levels, they are not at competing levels of accuracy - you cannot compare them!

 

You and many others rightly love the aircraft. It's functionality level suits you to the ground. Myself and others...we want more. We want accurate engines, accurate FBW, accurate APU simulation - the in-development FSL will give the community just that.

[SpiritFlyer 987]

tumtiddle, on 24 Jun 2013 - 7:03 PM, said:

 

I'm actually now convinced you are actually Johnny767. I hope the mods will take a good look at this possibility.

timbrooks, on 24 Jun 2013 - 6:20 PM, said:

   

 

What? Who? johnny ? Who is that? Why would you compare me with someone I don't even know. Is that person also as intelligent as you, or me ?

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/406244-airbus-x-extended/?p=2654516

From Johhny767:

(And, please if you're going to compare this a/c to another a/c, please don't compare it to a Boeing- This is not a Boeing, and is by far the best quality add-on out there)

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/412040-do-i-want-airbus-x-extended/?p=2699890

From timbrooks

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.

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/412040-do-i-want-airbus-x-extended/page-2#entry2699890

From Johnny767:

Now, all pilots need to constantly be watching through the window to see if there's ice on the tyres (sorry, wings)

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/412040-do-i-want-airbus-x-extended/?p=2699890

From Tim:

...People feel that calling themselves "hardcore simmers" are the ones that if there's no ice on the wing...

 

-------------------------------------------------

We don't know if they are same person, arguing the same points the same way, or just a coincidence. We are looking into it.

 

Kind regards,

[squerble 300]

Hi Stephen,

 

The reason I made the comment was that the writing style/tone (as much a tone as you can have through black and white text) of 'timbrooks' seems remarkably similar to that of the banned 'johnny767'.

 

If Tim is actually a different person who coincidentally has a very similar writing style, please accept my apologies for any offence taken, but in my mind I feel it is the same person under a new pseudonym to bypass a ban.

 

 

Regards,

Karl

[Hirdy2013 104]

 

Wow, another one of these threads! :smile: ... they're literally cropping up daily, and are all almost identical.

 

 

Yep!

 

But nevertheless, I'll copy and paste my last response to an identical thread :-

 

• It's an awesome add-on, well worth getting if you like airliners in FSX/P3D.
• It flies, looks and sounds fantastic, and comes with some cool extras, that add to the immersion.
• On my system it is marginally better on FPS than the NGX. Not by a great deal, but maybe 10% better.
• Personally, for me, it's the best airliner I've ever bought for FSX, and I include the NGX, Level D, etc, etc in all of that.  But that's a subjective view, as it's mainly because I love the A320, and this is by far the best so far.
• Just buy it........ (or don't) ..... If you don't, only you lose out.

 

+1 It's great. I bought it back in Dec 2012. Waiting for V1.10 and since that hit the deck I have loved every minute. It is more immersive than a lot of people are making out. Whilst not PMDG it's not too far away.

[Skysurfer7 34]

It's a mid-level (at best) product, It wasn't realistic even on "day2day ops) so I've uninstalled it.

Also the deleting of unfavorable posts & the rude responses to some posters on  Aerosoft's A320 forums was just scandalous!

 Whilst not PMDG it's not too far away.

Just another greatly exaggerated  & misleading post, didn't you read the whole thread? :Doh: IMO the AAX is much closer to the default A320 than the NGX...

[Hirdy2013 104]

It's a mid-level (at best) product, It wasn't realistic even on "day2day ops) so I've uninstalled it.

Also the deleting of unfavorable posts & the rude responses to some posters on  Aerosoft's A320 forums was just scandalous!

Just another greatly exaggerated  & misleading post, didn't you read the whole thread? :Doh: IMO the AAX is much closer to the default A320 than the NGX...

Just my opinion.

 

I like it and have done since the update.

 

I respect your opinion as well though.

[sp85 6]

I understand while we like something we tend to bias it. AXE is very enjoyable plane for casual or above casual simming (their FBW is very nice overall), and I agree with that. But calling AXE system simulation is close to the NGX is a huge misleading that I think even aerosoft doesnt want to claim that (and they made sure you understand that even before the official release). So enjoy the plane as it is very good for what it is aimed to be, just do not exaggerate its "close to the real thing", just get the fact straight and let people choose for themselves.

[bennyboy75 100]

To be fair (or not, you decide) to Aerosoft it was a stinker when it was first released. No SIDS/STARS, you couldn't even display the runway or the extended centreline on the the navigation display! This actually made this 'lite' product incredibly difficult to fly as your track simply led you to the airport rather than to any defined waypoints around it. Inevitably you would end up circling around trying to fly the ILS in raw data - not an easy task! The flight model was wobbly and landing it required a steadier hand than a bomb disposal expert. It also baffled me that the 'lite' audience wasn't deemed smart enough to want SIDS or STARS yet they happily modelled stuff like Flex?

 

It's a very different beast now, however. The APU start time is still amusing, as are the Grand Prix engine starts but all in all you can happily fly full line flights with enough eye candy and immersion to keep all but the most hardened simmer satisfied. The checklists are a very nifty feature and the virtual FO does the donkey work while you fly - just as in the real world. Until Ro's colleagues bring forth their A320 which is a day 1 buy for me then the AXE will do fine.

[JoshuaC 61]

Also deleting of unfavorable posts & the rude responses to some posters on Aerosoft' forums was just scandalous!

......

AAX is much closer to the default A320 than NGX...

Now now that is quite an accusation. Let me make it clear. Forums are for direct user/me support . Should you feel unsatisfied with such (free) forum support, contact aerosoft support email or the ticket system because that IS the support, not the forums.

 

Second to say that it's close to the default is to put it mildly, offensive. No doubt the AAX does not ALWAYS have on the book numbers, it is miles away from default (think curved lines, think managed descends just to name a few).

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

The AAX gets a large number of performance specs right (T/O thrust, T/O run) - and others just stay 'plane' wrong from one to another version (Vspeeds, for example).

The AAX models some advanced RW features very precisely (managed lateral and vertical modes, approaches are a 'shear' joy to fly) - but still has a number of surprising omissions for its class/price of development (wind predictions, fuel calculation).

 

It's tough for anyone to perceive the AAX development efforts correctly - and to be understood correctly when posting one's perceptions on a forum:

 

- Talk about the good things, people will tell you it's not PMDG level.

- Talk about persisting bugs and the restricted development concept ('development envelope'), people will tell you you're bashing Aerosoft.

 

I think consistency could be the key:

 

- If the T/O is o.k., by and large, correct those Vspeeds.

- If the approaches are flown nicely, give us an independent ILS receiver.

- If the FMGS is capable, add the wind entries and rework the fuel predictions.

- (t.b.c. ...)

 

The AAX has been enjoyable throughout and has given us 'descent' value for our money since version 1.10 was released, but the level of development is not consistent ... not yet, anyway.

   

What? Who? johnny ? Who is that? Why would you compare me with someone I don't even know. Is that person also as intelligent as you, or me ?

 

 

I'd consider Johnny as intelligent as you - for two obvious reasons ...

 

BTW, Johnny Tim, no need to send me PMs like this one here: We can talk about everything that's on your mind in the public of this forum.

 

 

Hahahahaha- Bad boy aren't you?

[Airbusman330 300]

Now now that is quite an accusation. Let me make it clear. Forums are for direct user/me support . Should you feel unsatisfied with such (free) forum support, contact aerosoft support email or the ticket system because that IS the support, not the forums.

 

Second to say that it's close to the default is to put it mildly, offensive. No doubt the AAX does not ALWAYS have on the book numbers, it is miles away from default (think curved lines, think managed descends just to name a few).

 

Off topic but can we PLEASE get fuel loads to show up in pounds in the airplane? 

[FloG 148]

 

 

- Talk about the good things, people will tell you it's not PMDG level.

I do that, but only because I have the feeling that people tend to consider this product to be PMDG level, and in many initial posts the question "How is it compared to the NGX?" is asked.  So I think it's only fair to tell them not to expect PMDG level - as it was said a million times: The AAX was never intended to be that.

I don't mind whether it reflects all the systems in detail, but I think it flies nicely, and it is definitely the best (at least the best full version) Airbus product at the moment - and even though I'll most likely buy the FSL Airbus, this one will stay in service for a long time, because it's so simple to use, and I'll know that in the AAX I'll not encounter "bad surprises" during my flights.