Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SpeedBird219

Do I want Airbus X Extended?

Recommended Posts

Is there a good hardcore A330 or A340 around for FSX?

Blackbox do an A330. Some folk like it but it doesn't look too great to my eyes. Aerosoft will do one next year and if their A320 is anything to go by it will be a good un. I think FSL said they will be doing both an A330 and an A340. I think with the Bus as the systems are similar and the flight decks virtually identical (not so with the A380 and the A350) once you've done one it isn't a mammoth task to do the others as the biggest job is presumably the exterior model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest JustanotherPilot

I'm undecided about this, I have found that with my installation of the Airbus X Extended I am able to complete 1 in 4 flights (25%) of the time without my system crashing, there is always something different causing this each time. Having said that, the flight I complete is enjoyable. With the NGX I can complete the same flights about 3 in 4 (75%) of the time. What I really enjoy about the Airbus X extended is the interactive Captain - F/O check-list and autopilot function. What I don't like is the lack of a full auto decent and ILS approach. What I really enjoy about the NGX is the VC graphics and texturing and general realistic appearance. What I don't like is that most flights of the NGX don't load the engine shaft cones for some reason (another post).

 

In summary - I think they are both good products and equally enjoyable but have their problems and vices - just like real world aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...) The RAAS has a few bugs, IE thinking you are approaching RWY 30L when it really is 30C, which is just due to the fact that the RAAS system came out a bit ago, and I'm not sure you get updates on it since it's a freeware version of it. (...)

 

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.

(...) What I don't like is the lack of a full auto decent and ILS approach. (...)

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not be without the AXE now, get a lot of satisfaction out of it. Certainly reccomend it.

 

 


  Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we convincing him?

He can read the reviews, and heaps of user reviews on the net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

My apologies. I always thought it was a  "Lite Version" but in fact it is the fully operable one just locked to the AXE. Thanks for telling me how to update that, I'll definitely need to do that. Coming up to runways and being told it's the wrong one gets my heart pumping for a minute!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I'm actually not quite sure why people say the systems depth isn't as great as PMDG. I think it's pretty close, you can start it from C&D, or a ready to taxi-state, even a ready for take-off state! It's got the perfect complexity for anyone from a novice --> RW A320/A321 Pilot. 

 

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.


Rónán O Cadhain.

sig_FSLBetaTester.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 should re-phrase what I meant. No matter how you like to fly, you CAN configure it to be at that depth, anything up to but short of flying the real thing. You are a RW A320 pilot, so obviously you know MUCH better than I do or ever could. I really just said the wrong words, by throwing PMDG with an Airbus!  :P

 

Never making that mistake again. This does function as an A320 would, and me being not a  RW pilot, it gets the amount of complexity I require to enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Ró, could I offer you a soothing tea? ;)

 

In all seriousness, I wish this post would automatically appear when people suggest the AXE is at/almost at PMDG system depth. Just no, it isn't. If it was modelled accurately the APU would not start up in 3 seconds, you wouldn't need >40% N1 to move off, fuel flow wouldn't begin at 2% N2 etc etc. These are the things hardcore simmers look for. It has a nice looking model and could serve as an introduction to Airbus but you should not place any real confidence in its accuracy - exactly as the developers told us it would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how you like to fly, you CAN configure it to be at that depth, anything up to but short of flying the real thing.

And that's the rub, you cannot, it doesn't reach the levels of complexity that hard core simmers and RW pilots want/require. It wasn't intended to do so. It is a lite add-on. It was made as such to keep the cost lower and make it more affordable to people and make it more approachable for people new to the Airbus. That was its goal from the start and they've achieved that. But it is not, and never will be an in-depth simulation, it will never reach the depth that many want it to go to, it's not even close to the NGX in terms of system detail, but that was never the aim.

 

If you buy this bus under the impression that you'll get realistic systems then you're in for a very big disappointment. If you buy this bus looking for something that looks similar to an airbus, is easy enough to learn how to fly, doesn't require much study of the manuals and provides nice features to have such as ATC chatter etc, then you'll enjoy this bus, but do not get this bus if you want to learn about Airbus systems, or see what it's like to fly an Airbus on the line as a pilot because you will simply not get that, but you've been warned plenty of times at this stage. They've done a good job at hitting the aims they've expected to hit, but just because this is the most accurate bus out there at the minute doesn't mean it is accurate.

 

 

Hey Ró, could I offer you a soothing tea? ;)

Loads of milk and no sugar thanks...  :P

 

Regards,

Ró.


Rónán O Cadhain.

sig_FSLBetaTester.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't like it. Although the developers have said it isn't a complex simulation of the real aircraft, I was still interested in seeing what all the hype was about. 

 

I guess you can call me a hardcore simmer. If you're like me and don't like the automation of Airbus aircraft, then don't buy it. With the other Airbus just around the corner (can't remember the developer, I know its well known) be wise and save your money for the big boys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's the rub, you cannot, it doesn't reach the levels of complexity that hard core simmers and RW pilots want/require. It wasn't intended to do so. It is a lite add-on. It was made as such to keep the cost lower and make it more affordable to people and make it more approachable for people new to the Airbus. That was its goal from the start and they've achieved that. But it is not, and never will be an in-depth simulation, it will never reach the depth that many want it to go to, it's not even close to the NGX in terms of system detail, but that was never the aim.

 

If you buy this bus under the impression that you'll get realistic systems then you're in for a very big disappointment. If you buy this bus looking for something that looks similar to an airbus, is easy enough to learn how to fly, doesn't require much study of the manuals and provides nice features to have such as ATC chatter etc, then you'll enjoy this bus, but do not get this bus if you want to learn about Airbus systems, or see what it's like to fly an Airbus on the line as a pilot because you will simply not get that, but you've been warned plenty of times at this stage. They've done a good job at hitting the aims they've expected to hit, but just because this is the most accurate bus out there at the minute doesn't mean it is accurate.

 

 

Loads of milk and no sugar thanks...  :P

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

 

I'll just re-direct you to what I said: 

No matter how you like to fly, you CAN configure it to be at that depth, up to but short of flying the real thing.

 

You are 100% correct in that it doesn't give hardcore simmers/RW pilots what they want. I agree completely with that.

I said up to but short of flying the real thing. You can't fly it with the real systems, it just isn't possible yet. And I understand why this would matter so much to you and other RW pilots especially. This is just a supplement and hobby, and it will not, can not represent real life flying. This reminds me of the thread about how someone asked:

 

"If we can fly the NGX to every policy, would we be able to fly it in real life?"

 

And the answer is obviously no, unless someone is a RW pilot, because currently, we can't simulate every last part of a plane, even if it is PMDG complexity. Which when it comes to those terms, the AXE isn't quite close.

 

With the last parts of what you said though, I agree completely. If you are looking for all the little immersion +'s, the AXE is for you, with C/Ls and ATC Chatter.

If the OP wants a PMDG complexity, I hear the FSLabs is meant to meet that requirement, but I haven't looked into it.

 

Sorry if I caused any problems by my improper word choice in putting PMDG and AXE in the same sentence without a no/not/less in it. I will make sure to read over my posts and be more careful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's the rub, you cannot, it doesn't reach the levels of complexity that hard core simmers and RW pilots want/require.

No offense Ro, I will say RW A32X Pilots context is debatable....

 

And just to put it into context: I have RW A32X pilots on my team, and I was surprised to find out that the FCOM studier testers picked up some bugs that the RW A32X pilots missed.... Just saying.

 

(and Just a fun fact (in my team context) :RW A32X pilots picks out way more FMGS bugs than FCOM Studiers, but RW A32X pilots pick out way lesser bugs in the systems) 


Joshua C.

WSSS

 

coloraerosofta320extdev.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense Ro, I will say RW A32X Pilots context is debatable....

 

And just to put it into context: I have RW A32X pilots on my team, and I was surprised to find out that the FCOM studier testers picked up some bugs that the RW A32X pilots missed.... Just saying.

 

(and Just a fun fact (in my team context) :RW A32X pilots picks out way more FMGS bugs than FCOM Studiers, but RW A32X pilots pick out way lesser bugs in the systems) 

 

Two things I can think of that RW pilots would appreciate is Failures and CBs, but they're beyond the scope of your project. It's things like that we'd look for. As to whether they spot things as easy as your beta testers really depends on what the pilots do, what they place the emphasis on etc. We'll spot things that look out to us, things that stand out, but beta testers that don't know the aircraft have to read up on the FCOM, and then check to see if its right, meaning they're more likely to pick up bugs that way. We won't notice that as if some SD page has the wrong number we're not going to come across that unless we go looking.

 

IMO, pilots are great for advising the developer if they have questions on how something works and why, and then beta testers are better at picking up bugs. And obviously there's some cross over there. Just my €0.02.

 

 

If you want two thing that need looking at in the AXE, as Karl mentioned earlier, it'd have to be the Engines/APU starting up almost instantly and taking 48% N1 to break away. If I did that in real life I'd have killed people and done thousands of euros worth of damage... 

 

 

Regards,

Ró.


Rónán O Cadhain.

sig_FSLBetaTester.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...