I'm so glade no one has mentioned the SSW A320 project (I shouldn't myself but there's no other options out there)... :-roll These guys haven't even finished their A310 package that's been around for almost two years. I was shocked to here they were taking on another project without first addressing the issues in their current offering.If you go to SSW's site, the screenshot's look promising but I wouldn't bet on seeing this bird released until we're way into FS2k6. Even then the bugs that this package may offer may never get address after it's release (just like the A310)...It's sad that the SSW offering is the only real A320 offering on the horizon as of now... :-hang All those that feel an A320 wouldn't sell as much as a Boeing aircraft in FS must be smoking something. People would bend over backwards to get their hands on an A320 that rivals the detail of PMDG's 737NG series...

Thank you John,"A nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse". There might still be some hope for a great Airbus.

I would guess lack of originality. My Uncle is an A320/340 captain with about 8000hrs in type, and he prefers the Bus to Boeing, even though he grew up through the 727-767 then the Bus. He likes the computerisation. And I think we are all trying to get away from the computerisation. FMC is present in both, so are we trying to get away from 1 cockpit style? It is not like anybody 'flies' a Boeing739, or an Airbus 346. But at least some Boeing panels are different...Tony

Markus,I'm neither a Boeing nor an Airbus shareholder, so I'm no advocate of both, and have no interest to do so.I write things in a more narrative style. Sorry if I didn't use the proper terminology, but I thought it should be clear that the autopilot is on on autolands only. I didn't write to switch it on for landing, but to keep it on.And to make your doubts disappear, yes, the manuals describe procedures where in e.g the 737NG, it is recommended to kick the automatics off and take over manually, whereas the Airbus POH (320 Sieries, 330 and 340) suggests to keep the automatics fully enabled even in much adverse situations for an automatic landing. That's a clear indication of how tightly automatics and and the aircraft are inter-linked and what a rather periperal role the pilot plays (though a very important one). Of course there are situations where a manual take over would be better even in an Airbus, but that's not the topic here.I'm not going into discussions about what autopilot is better. That's absolutely not the point here. I'm neither biased towards either side, I like to sim good products, whatever brand they may be. But given the fact that the Airbus is a much more 'computerized' beast than a Boeing, I for my part am pretty sure the Airbus autopilot has much more potential. And of course, like in all situation in life, I can be wrong here again.One last item: it is not so important which words I use to say something, but rather what I like to express with them. If you get the whole picture, you see that I wanted to point out the huge difference between the concepts modern Airbus planes use and 'the rest' of all the other planes around. It's quite difficult to explain, agreed, that would be a lengthy article. But in my opinion, that's one of the main reasons why writing a simulation for the 'buses is not a task somebody likes to grab easily. The work involved to build one is a big factor here.Andreas

I guess you didn't read my post above Mikkel... Although it's not a valid option, you could take a look just the same. SSW has the potential to produce a PMDG quality add-on if they would just finish what they start. The A310 is actually awesome, the problem is it's still broke. I almost hated to hear they had an A320 in the works because the likelihood I'll see it finished and on my hard drive is slim to none.

Ah, sorry didn't see that. I didn't know they were working on an A320. I went to the gallery but couldn't see any 2D panel shots even though I went to the 2D panel sub-gallery. What's the status on this plane?edit...okay I now see some 2D panel shots, they were just hard to make out. Looks very nice.

I hope so John - though I have not bought any PMDG products to date I am VERY impressed with the 737 series and even more so PMDG's customer interactions/support. Looking forward to the 744 and hope a comparable Airbus can be undertaken some time in the future.regards,Mark

Michael:Actually it IS one of the differenciating factors as in the fact that the Airbus is made to fly more than 90% of its line operations in full autoflight mode. This is from just after takeoff to landing which is almost always done in full autoland on the Airbus A320 and higher.Secondly, there is no real "benefit" from hand-flying any of the new(er) Airbus models because even if you disconnect the AP, the computers are still flying the aircraft via FBW, read: interpreting your stick and rudder movements and affecting the airfoils for you.Airbus AFDS are made to be extremely precise as to totally replace the pilot for most line operational scenarios to the point that the pilot is only there to set the throttle gate, arm the spoilers and point the plane where ATC tells it to go if it deviates from the programmed route. (Oh, and they get to turn off the seatbelt sign and play with the landing lights too.)The fact is, Airbus could easily have made the throttle so that the computer controlled the throttle gates, seatbelt signs and landing lights too. Much like the Space Shuttle or any manned rocket, the systems could have been 100% automated, but it boils down to the pride of the pilot / astronaut being just a monitor of instruments along for the ride rather than BEING a pilot / astronaut. Boeings on the other hand are designed with the PILOTS as an integral part of the aircraft. At the end of the day, the PILOT is the brain that controls the computer which is a 180 degree turn from Airbus' paradigm.If you ask any Boeing pilot, you will find only a precious few who consistantly let the AP fly the entire flight from takeoff to touchdown. As a matter of fact, even though all newer Boeings are able to do full autolands, I don't know one pilot who will use it consistantly unless required to land in zero / zero or unless FORCED to use it by airline SOP.Furthermore, the vast majority of virtual pilots here take great pride on hand-flying their aircraft either for practice or for the pride and satisfaction they receive when they grease that perfect landing. Likewise, most of the line pilots I know still don't have a 100% comfort level in the autothrottles much less autolandings when taken in the context of approaches and low altitude operations.So, the bottom line in this long winded post is that the operational procedures for Airbus vs Boeings are diametically opposed at this point. Airbuses require the pilot to respond to the aircraft's demands while Boeings require the aircraft to respond to the pilot's commands. Even though the 737-NG, 777 and 767-400 are resembling the Airbus flight deck more and more and many have CWS flight modes available to the pilot which closely mimics the Airbuses cold feel of the computer translating your control inputs to the flight surfaces, Boeing has not gone over the edge as Airbus has by practially taking the pilot's interaction out of the equation. This maybe because the senior pilots who give input to Boeing have a different mindset than those who give their inputs to Airbus.From a flight sim point of view, the majority here want to fly the aircraft rather than be flown by the aircraft. The joy of having busy overhead, main and lower panels with lots of buttons to flip in addition to throttles and yoke inputs required for the safe operation of the aircraft simply cannot be overstated in the flight sim community. On the other hand, the space-age "along for the ride" technology of the Airbus and the lack of interaction there-of tends to stear many away from the Airbus.Just my two cents. (actually $1.76 with inflation taken into account) :-lol.Regards,Mike T.

Brent,With good engineering and programming skills I am sure you could model a good fly-by-wire system for FS. Look at what PMDG did to the Control Wheel Steering on the NG. (CWS basically means that you as PF use the yoke to input roll and pitch inputs to the autopilot, which in turn will feed signals to the control surfaces.) Even if CWS is not as complex as the Airbus FBW control laws.Cheers,

Mike,Your post is spot on. That's the reason why I will never express interest in purchasing a simulated Airbus - however perfect product it might be. I like to fly rather than being flown - like you said. I want to have something that has minimal commonality with my Skyhawk, Archer or Skylane.Michael J.WinXP-Home SP2,AMD64 3500+,Abit AV8,Radeon X800Pro,36GB Raptor,1GB PC3200,Audigy 2

First off, this is a Boeing a really excited user post if I ever saw one...even though I said please don't let it degenerate into one. :-roll >Actually it IS one of the differenciating factors as in the>fact that the Airbus is made to fly more than 90% of its line>operations in full autoflight mode. This is from just after>takeoff to landing which is almost always done in full>autoland on the Airbus A320 and higher.Please..what's your basis for saying this. Unless you know the airlines that operate the Airbus and have seen their procedures how would you know. Maybe you have spoken to a few pilots and that's how they do it, it doesn't mean everyone does this.>Airbus AFDS are made to be extremely precise as to totally>replace the pilot for most line operational scenarios to the>point that the pilot is only there to set the throttle gate,>arm the spoilers and point the plane where ATC tells it to go>if it deviates from the programmed route. (Oh, and they get>to turn off the seatbelt sign and play with the landing lights>too.)This is just plain dumb and ignorant, no need to comment.>If you ask any Boeing pilot, you will find only a precious few>who consistantly let the AP fly the entire flight from takeoff>to touchdown. As a matter of fact, even though all newer>Boeings are able to do full autolands, I don't know one pilot>who will use it consistantly unless required to land in zero />zero or unless FORCED to use it by airline SOP.Well I can tell you that I have a friend which flies the 737 and he says that they do plenty of autolands, plus they are just as much observers as an Airbus pilot.>Furthermore, the vast majority of virtual pilots here take>great pride on hand-flying their aircraft either for practice>or for the pride and satisfaction they receive when they>grease that perfect landing.Well I guess that I don't fit in there. What I'm more interested in is that the systems are modeled correctly and I don't know how you all of a sudden can speak for the entire sim community?>as Airbus has by practially taking the pilot's interaction out of>the equation. This maybe because the senior pilots who give>input to Boeing have a different mindset than those who give>their inputs to Airbus.Again, typical a really excited user comment...>From a flight sim point of view, the majority here want to fly>the aircraft rather than be flown by the aircraft. The joy of>having busy overhead, main and lower panels with lots of>buttons to flip in addition to throttles and yoke inputs>required for the safe operation of the aircraft simply cannot>be overstated in the flight sim community. Again you seem to be the spokesperson for the entire sim community, well I guess you forgot to ask me....again I urge people to not turn this into an A vs B thread, it's not the intention of the thread. If that is what you want start your own thread.

Hi,Now that ATR has given a lot of info and that Airbus and ATR are from the same company, EADS, then, maybe if the ATR flight sim version is successful, then maybe Airbus will look at it and follow the same route!!But, yes, I would love to see a more complex rendition of the A340Regards,Francois

actually, autolands seem to be as rare in Airbuses as they are in Boeings, check out airbusdriver.net for the reams of techniques bus drivers employ in managing the bus's throttle gates just right - NO pilot likes being flown when he can and wants to fly, and think about it - Airbus autotrim with a/p off is obviously designed for handflying. Airbusses are a plain joy to handfly pilots attest - easy and obedient within the (imho) generous hard limits.I'm no expert, but I've read enough to know that the main diff between a 777 and an Airbus is the 777's fbw limits can be overidden - both employ computers to interpret pilot input - or do you 'despise' :) 777s too?regards,Mark

Just to give an alternative perspective regarding the differences between the two families this makes interesting reading regarding the benefits of protection:http://nathangb.com/wingfiles/files/author...tprotection.pdfI dont think it is correct to assume that Airbus pilots do one thing and Boeing another. As far as I know they are all governed by SOPS and the need to mainatin competency both with manual and autoland. Generally the use of autopilot is encouraged because it reduces pilot workload and hence increases safety.Any real world commercial avaitors please correct this.

So often people in these forums bash PSS products while comparing them to PMDG products - funny they never mention the vast price differences and the therefore obvious fact that PSS simply have not chosen to set the complexity bar that high - simple.Apples and oranges - take your pick or both, but criticizing the orange vendor for not making his orange look smell and tase like an apple is just plain silly. regards,Mark