Wilco did another Airbus (A320) claiming to be the most realistic Airbus for FS ever. I am not Airbus fan/expert so I leave it to others to comment on that claim. The problem with buses is that they are all alike so whether it is A320 or A330 - few probably care.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

Yea I've seen it but I think it looks terrible, plus as far as I can tell it's Virtual Cockpit only.

I realise your view of PSS is a personal one, and you're entitled to it. I will argue that while the visual model of their A320 series is not as good as IFDG's, it's worth getting for the panel alone. As far as I can tell, to have well modelled systems, including FMC, is good to have. Ditto their A330/340. You can buy the base (with panel, sounds etc) and then download Posky's freeware offerings, pair up the panel - and it's all good news. I would like to see a 737 Classic package done by PMDG - but will wait for Dreamfleet's new product, when it is released.Rob

Well it's not so much the visual model itself, although it does have something to say. I really like their panel and all, but the gauge refresh rates is terrible plus they are not vector graphics, correct me if I'm wrong. I lay a lot of weight on systems detail, as in being as real as they can be.My original question was also more in the way of, why no new Aibus planes are on the drawing board. All I see are Boings and I really like them, I fly the PMDG all the time, I'm just curious why no one will pick up this "hole" in the plane lineup?

>My original question was also more in the way of, why no new>Aibus planes are on the drawing board. Consider posibility that there is better market for (simulated) Boeing airliners. Airbuses are very unique in how they fly - not like any other airplane including a Cessna, Boeings have much more commonality with the rest of aviation - if I practice on a Boeing I have a chance of translating those skills to my own small airplane world - with Airbus I fear I might be actually loosing some skills. At least this is how I look at it.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

Hi Michael J.,I too am concerned why there are no new Airbus designs out there and I too fly the PMDG 737NG a lot now.Curious though - why do you think practicing on an Airbus feels so different than a Boeing, at least in a PC desktop simulator like FS2004? What kind of small planes do you fly? Is it the fly-by-wire of the Airbus which feels different when compared to the 737NG? I actually read a posting that had a simmer introduce his friend, a real-world Boeing/Airbus pilot (I cannot recall which type of commercial jet he flew) and found that he still found the FS2004 version very difficult to fly and said that the planes felt like they were out of control on greasy roads or something like that. The poster's point was that FS has a long way to go to simulate the handling (the FDE or flight dynamics) of the real commercial jets. Having said that, though, and being someone who doesn't fly the Airbus very much due to its "questionable" flight dynamics (the A320 feels sluggish after the latest FDE update from Pedro Oliveira which I use for the IFDG model), I'm curious to know what you dislike about the Airbus as opposed to the Boeing, especially since you are a real-world pilot.Thanks,John

John,There is actually a sort of paradox here. If Airbuses were really well done in FS9 (apparently they are not) they would have been markedly different in handling from Boeings. On the other hand if they are poorly done (in FDE) why even bother flying something that looks like Airbus but flies like a Boeing? Neither situation is very appealing to me. No, don't count me among fans of flying "heavies" in FS9. My favorite FS9 airplane is Piper Meridian. Much closer to my real world of flying. I am anxiously waiting for Flight's PC-12 or Socata TBM-700. I *may* make exception and actually buy PMDG's 747 - only if it breaks new grounds in cockpit eye-candy ;-)Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

>Consider posibility that there is better market for>(simulated) Boeing airliners. Airbuses are very unique in how>they fly - not like any other airplane including a Cessna,>Boeings have much more commonality with the rest of aviation ->if I practice on a Boeing I have a chance of translating those>skills to my own small airplane world - with Airbus I fear I>might be actually loosing some skills. At least this is how I>look at it.>Very imaginative explanation. But I don't think most people buy PMDG or 767PIC to learn skills that they are later trying to port to simpler planes. Now, I suppose there is a better market for Boeings, as they seem to have more fans, especially in the US which is home to a large proportion of flight simmers (and real pilots), aviation enthusiasts of all ages have some kind of an emotional connection to Boeing's product. Airbuses on the other hand not something you feel any connection to. Great aircraft, and I won't stand for the ignorant garbage that we hear from some of the Boeing a really excited user, but lets face it, the Airbus has no charm, and most developers, being aviation geeks realize this. The Wilco A320 is said to have been made by computer geeks.I suppose reason number two for not making a decent Airbus is that programming a realistic FBW system within fs is quite a task. And without FBW simulated, what's the point? -

Hey !I would love to see a new airbus payware quality aswell !! PSS just doesnt do it for me. Iam really sad that the fs community havent got any good airbus aircrafts yet atleast no fde, system, and cockpit wise at all. I really hope this will change soon becuse i think airbus makes great aircrafts !! i just don

I recall reading on PMDG's forum that they considered doing one but that Airbus isn't nearly as generous with giving system specs, operations, and behavior as Boeing is. Thus, it would be quite difficult to get the aircraft systems to work as they do in real life. Dunno how true that is though...

Its true. :)But you never know what may happen down the track ;)

Meh, we all know an Airbus just wouldn't sell like a Boeing, thats why noone has made a really great one.(HAH, just joking)

Apprantly the fly-by-wire cannot be modelled very good in fs. Ie with the steep turns and stuff. Pss is still the best. Ifdg a320 is the nicest model :D

As a long-time Beta tester, I can recommend Aviofrasf's A340 here.While I'm a fan of the PSS birds (I have replaced many of them with Aerodesigns's and IFDG's birds and kept the panel), I dislike the Wilco A320PIC (I beta tested here as well when development came suddenly to an end) and other half-breed products.The only Airbus worth taking a look at currently in ongoing development is the one from Aviograsf.Agreed, they have immense patch cycles (the product was launched arount Dec 24 last year, and the 2nd patch is still in beta), but their Airbus features some unique features and is technically way ahead of the rest (I can dare to say this after my times behind the POH and all of the endless Beta testings).And, I cannot see an end of development yet, it would certainly extend into the next year as well. The Aviograsf team thankfully puts much effort into simulating the 'bus as complete as possible.The simulation of the fly-by-wire is almost impossible in FS, that's a shortcoming we have to live with. But in the other areas, the Aviograsf bird is getting closer and closer to the real one.I guess the reason for developers shying away from Airbuses is the completely different nature of the plane. No other plane has such a tight integration of automatics, the bird relies on its autopilot and autothrottle to be flown correctly, it's not the typical hand-flying box and so it differenciates heavily from all other aircraft.To make a simulation of such advanced systems (look at the few switches at the overhead!) one would need a radical different approach, and it certainly would mean to spend much more time developing than normal.The Airbus is a real 'bird of the 21st Century'. Though I'm no a real world pilot, I dare to say that I can clearly see a big gap between Airbus technology an the rest of the world. The entire automatics are laid out to provide complete management of airliner procedures with minimal user intervention.That's why one paragraph in the POH says that in adverse weather, it's recommended to leave the autopilot ON for landing. All other's I read say to switch it OFF and take over manually...My 2 centsAndreas

>That's why one paragraph in the POH says that in adverse>weather, it's recommended to leave the autopilot ON for>landing. All other's I read say to switch it OFF and take over>manually...I doubt manual says that. Even terminology is not right. What is autopilot-On for landing? You mean auto-land or something else like approach?. And lets not kid ourselves, both Airbus and Boeing can do auto-land in "adverse" weather equally well - this is not a differentiating factor.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2