Do I want Airbus X Extended?

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

Fully agree to that, Florian:

 

ORBX tells us time and time again FTX Global will NOT be similar to FTX regions, still people mix those products up.

Same with Aerosoft: They state very clearly what's 'in' (included in the product) and what's 'out' (not modelled) - doesn't hurt, Florian, to remind people of that.

 

Now add the living, contributing community to the AAX equation - numerous high-end repaints, voice pack replacements, panel/window tweaks, flightplan converters and the like - then it's hard NOT to fly the AAX again on the very next day!

 

The 'ins' and 'outs' are very important (and accepted - at least by me) - now let's get a straight line drawn between them!

[BillCusick 75]

These threads make me chuckle.

 

I love this plane. It is fantastic. I also love the NGX....and the other aircraft in my sig.

 

With apologies to Ro, I reckon that after a few more flights with the AXE I can take over the controls in a RW flight if required....

I shall make myself available as a 'backup'. :Whistle:

 

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

 

Regards

Bill

[SpeedBird219 183]

Folks,
If you are following the 777 development, which, a lot of you Airbus fanatics probably aren't, you will know there was an update which says its practically finished and almost ready to be rolled out.....But  you may be pleased to hear I'm still considering this, thank you guys so so much for all your advice and help!

[ZKOKQ 984]

 

 

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...

Did you not read the product description before purchase, and not read the manual ? Is that why your angry ?

[sp85 6]

Folks,

If you are following the 777 development, which, a lot of you Airbus fanatics probably aren't, you will know there was an update which says its practically finished and almost ready to be rolled out.....But  you may be pleased to hear I'm still considering this, thank you guys so so much for all your advice and help!

Great that the thread serves you well. Variation sometimes help, get both ...

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

(...) IMO the AAX is much closer to the default A320 than the NGX...

 

 

The default Airbus is a A321 ...

 

And I've never seen the stock A321 fly a 'managed approach' close to RNAV precision - without a FMGS!

[Q_flyer 766]

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

 

Sir,  complete and utter tosh.

[RudiJG1 172]

Sir,  complete and utter tosh.

 

I have to agree with Dave; while it's nowhere near as complete a sim as the NGX, it's enough of an Airbus simulation for me, and it looks terrific too. And to compare it to the default....well, seriously?

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

Rather compare it to PSS and Wilco/Feelthere: Slightly(!) deeper systems with the older busses, but what about those managed flight characteristics, the fly-by-wire, the graphics, the sound environment, the integrated/interactive checklists, ...

[JoshuaC 61]

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).

 

Rather compare it to PSS and Wilco/Feelthere: Slightly(!) deeper systems with the older busses...

Oliver,

 

When the Airbus was done, four design goals were in my mind. The goals are in order of priority.

 

1. Feature Value vs Time Spent/Investment Required is satisfied.

2. Wide Audience and features. 

3. Left Seat only.

4. Most Day to Day Operations simulated.

 

The Airbus as it stands now offers great value (esp. considering its not cheap to develop managed descends, curved lines).

 

Now to your requests (in no particular order),

 

1. Wind Predictions. Feature value is low. The investment required in researching, implementation, and testing is not worth it.

2. Independent Radios. Feature Value is there, but the investment required in researching, implementation, and testing is high. Something on the plausible list (together with a kazillion other plausibles)

3. Auto-Vspeeds. Meets Design Goal 2. WILL be solved by A318/319, if not earlier.

4. Incorrect Fuel Calculations even when zero wind. Feature Value low, but still a bug, will be looked at, but no guarantee on fix date/period.

 

Airbusman330:

AFAIK, I remember the real thing is not capable in displaying in pounds either, but let me check.

 

[Don t moderate me this way 882]

Joshua,

 

goals 1. - 4. are understood. (And - by and large - user-complied with!)

 

No need to echo my statements on the AAX representing great value for money, including 'managed approaches'.

 

Wind/fuel pred - greatly support longer flights - if I fly NATs, I 'need the winds'. Tough on design goal 1. - but why should I care? :rolleyes: (It's a matter of consistency/harmonizing and balancing the feature list.)

 

Vspeeds - strictly speaking a 'cheat' and not a feature. Workaround is there, implemention with v1.20 isn't really a problem (earlier even less than no problem).

 

3rd NAV/ILS radio: Nobody's perfect - was implemented neither in the PSS nor in the W/FTh busses.

 

Thanks for bothering!

[Dirk98 354]

 

 

3rd NAV/ILS radio: Nobody's perfect - was implemented neither in the PSS nor in the W/FTh busses.

 

 

 

Still a very much wanted feature.

 

Cheers,

Dirk.

[bennyboy75 85]

Wind predictions - meh - for the length of even real life A320 flights it probably makes little difference. 

 

V Speeds - yep that'd be nice to have. I use TOPCAT with the data for the Airsimmer Airbus to give me Flex/V Speeds and they vary wildly from the speeds given to me by the FMGC, as well as some crazy configs - flaps 3 for takeoff? Is that right? 

 

Third ILS - yep I could see how that would be handy.

 

All I want is the target altitude indicator, better known as the 'hockey stick'. Helps with descents no end as you can see where you'll be levelling off. 

Even the crappy FS2004 Wilco Airbus managed it......

 

[jetsflier 87]

If the arrow thing is this hockey stick you're talking about.. I'm pretty sure I've seen it in the sim pointing at TOD or TOC at one point or another...

[bennyboy75 85]

Different arrow. You get a white one for TOC and for TOD. That's modelled. The hockey stick is blue and the same thing as the 'green banana' (why do pilots give them such daft names?) in a Boeing and isn't modelled. Would be very handy.