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.

 

 

Oh well, never mind  

And I do fly the QW757...occasionally.... :lol:

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.

Typical overreaction...

(...)

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.

 

 

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

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

Thought the same thing exactly. Funny...

Epikk, on 24 Jun 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

 

Thought the same thing exactly. Funny...

 

Sounds almost like Tim quoting Johnny ...

 

 

 

EDIT: Johnny767 has actually been banned from this forum.

Edited June 24, 201312 yr by olli4740

A clone?

At least he didn't call himself Helen :lol:

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 ,  FSL would have already finished their A320 (instead of taking waaaay toooo long)...

 

Good job contradicting yourself there buddy...

At least he didn't call himself Helen :lol:

 

 

Albert?

 

Foster?

 

:rolleyes:

I am not sure why every time we have a post about Airbus FSX, either it AXE, BBS or FSL then we almost always have something "interesting" LOL. Real life is stressful I guess...

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... 

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

 

I am waiting for the FSL bus

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

 

Why are we convincing him?

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

 

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.

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.

 

I am not a developer so I am not going to speculate on how much harder it is to accurately simulate  a  A320 over a 737 but I thunk it's a little insulting to refer to the NGX as a EASY simulation to build. It took years to develop that plane and the system accuracy and FMC is still the best available  at this time.  The is a major difference between flicking some switches and having them actually do what  they are supposed  to do.  

 

I had a fight about this over a certain highly regarded 777 for X-plane.   The engine control is so broken that when you enter a assumed temp  the N1 increases, and to make maters worse once you did get the N1 to finally decrease  by doing things that would get you escorted out of a real 777 you were stuck with that derate no matter what, could NEVER override it. 

 

I am not a real world pilot but I would argue that a sim like that actually HURTS you when it comes to learning about that plane.   I am not saying the AXE is like that, since I do not own the AXE. 

 

Some simmers notice the small things Tim,  For example I LOVE the majestic q400 but I started studying the RW manuals for the UNS-1 and I found that the define waypoint pages are missing in the pilot version.   :(   That explains why I had no way to make a pilot defined waypoint.   As good as the plane is I think the PRO version may be a better fit for me.  

 

 

 

 

BTW RO    If I am ever on a plane you are flying and you want to try 48 percent N1 breakaway please make sure I am belted in first.  That might be a fun ride to the runway. 

JoshuaC, on 24 Jun 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

 

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.

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.

 

timbrooks, on 24 Jun 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

 

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.

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.

 

timbrooks, on 24 Jun 2013 - 05:59 AM, said: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!

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

 

 

 

timbrooks, on 24 Jun 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

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.

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

 

 

 

timbrooks, on 24 Jun 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

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."

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.

 

 

timbrooks, on 24 Jun 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

Do you honestly think non-real pilots are looking up to the last simulation of an a/c? For what?

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.

 

 

 

 

timbrooks, on 24 Jun 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

Even a real Airbus pilot will not enjoy much a simulation of a failure of the a/c on a PC! No!

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.

 

 

 

timbrooks, on 24 Jun 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

This is a simulation on a PC- Not a 10 million dollar simulator!

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

 

 

 

timbrooks, on 24 Jun 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

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;

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

mikea76, on 24 Jun 2013 - 2:34 PM, said:

 

BTW Ró If I am ever on a plane you are flying and you want to try 48 percent N1 breakaway please make sure I am belted in first. That might be a fun ride to the runway.

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.

Just as a point, 
You're helping me because i'm a nice person who can make nice cups of tea ^_^ 
In all seriousness, however, I didn't see one with the same..."criteria" as my problems, the same points that have to be considered....
E.G

Aspiring Pilot, NGX Flyer, 777Full time flyer when it comes out, Would like to have a depthy knowledge of systems and procedures, etc etc