You proved your point, let's drop this topic. Everytime Airbus is thrown into the conversation is just gets slappped around for whatever reason.

 

 

Have you ever considered the fact they may be using "ficticious" or "estimated" data to simulate such environment?

Far from using fictitious or estimated data, FSLabs appear to be using aircraft wiring diagrams to simulate system logic, so they have access to accurate information.  However with the flight model they have no more help from Airbus than PMDG get from Boeing.  Boeing and Airbus don't provide flight models that would work in FSX. 

 

What makes PMDG different to most developers is not their flight model (which is limited by the restrictions of FSX anyway) but the insane level of detail they go to.  FSLabs are going to similar levels of detail, if not more so.  As you might expect as they are led by an ex-PMDG developer.  So I would expect the FSLabs A320 to be at least PMDG quality.

Far from using fictitious or estimated data, FSLabs appear to be using aircraft wiring diagrams to simulate system logic, so they have access to accurate information.  However with the flight model they have no more help from Airbus than PMDG get from Boeing.  Boeing and Airbus don't provide flight models that would work in FSX. 

 

What makes PMDG different to most developers is not their flight model (which is limited by the restrictions of FSX anyway) but the insane level of detail they go to.  FSLabs are going to similar levels of detail, if not more so.  As you might expect as they are led by an ex-PMDG developer.  So I would expect the FSLabs A320 to be at least PMDG quality.

If that's the case, why is everyone slamming on PMDG to create an Airbus if another company is already making them at more or less of the same level of quality?

 

 

If that's the case, why is everyone slamming on PMDG to create an Airbus if another company is already making them at more or less of the same level of quality?

 

Because:

 

a) People don't know about FS Labs (at all)

 

b) People don't know about FS Labs (as in quality of their products, and people behind the scenes)

 

c) trolls.

 

FWIW.

While FSL does not have any direct connection to EADS Airbus, as far as we know, that was true also for PMDG at some point. I recall RSR got a letter from their lawyers at a point... at least WSJ says so.

They DO have access to airplanes, materials, etc. Yes, wiring diagrams etc.

Also I have seen the people behind the tech, I have talked to betatesters and I am fully confident this airplane will be no slouch.

 

I also think that having a couple of TOP companies with their own areas of expertise is a good thing. Now, if LDS became a thing again, and finished the 757, we would have 75/67 family experts, current Boeing line experts, and Airbus A320/330/340 Interfamily experts, plus DHC-8 experts. Why not?

I love Airbus and Boeing but we have way too many in FSX.  We need change :Peace:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eric V. Russell

Because:

 

a) People don't know about FS Labs (at all)

 

b) People don't know about FS Labs (as in quality of their products, and people behind the scenes)

 

c) trolls.

 

FWIW.

While FSL does not have any direct connection to EADS Airbus, as far as we know, that was true also for PMDG at some point. I recall RSR got a letter from their lawyers at a point... at least WSJ says so.

They DO have access to airplanes, materials, etc. Yes, wiring diagrams etc.

Also I have seen the people behind the tech, I have talked to betatesters and I am fully confident this airplane will be no slouch.

 

I also think that having a couple of TOP companies with their own areas of expertise is a good thing. Now, if LDS became a thing again, and finished the 757, we would have 75/67 family experts, current Boeing line experts, and Airbus A320/330/340 Interfamily experts, plus DHC-8 experts. Why not?

I can agree to that.

Oh dear, so the 77L has hydraulic systems then? Oh no, here I was thinking that the 77L has FBW systems, much like the ones you find on the Airbus, apart from the A/P logic though

 

Airbus and Boeing flight controls both use FBW and hydraulics (electrics in the case of the 787 and parts of the A380).  It's not one or the other.  FBW still needs power to move the control surfaces.  Even the AP logic isn't that different.  Once the AP is engaged there really isn't much difference except in a Boeing you have a yoke in front of you and in an Airbus you have a folding table that you can use for charts or your dinner tray.

 

Although the flight decks are quite different, Airbus and Boeing are very much the same under the hood.  The idea some people seem to have that one is easier to simulate than the other is not based on reality, more on a suspicion that Airbus is something alien and therefore harder to understand.  The 777 is a very complex aircraft, just as complex and automated as any Airbus.

I love Airbus and Boeing but we have way too many in FSX.  We need change :Peace:

 

Eric V. Russell

Are you suggesting ATR's and such?

Are you suggesting ATR's and such?

yes, something different.  I own a lot of Boeing and Airbus payware and can't stand them anymore.  I won't be buying the FSLabs 320 ( :blink: another A320, no thanks!)  Props, Helis, Military(ex: VRS Superbug) older planes like more DC-9/MD80's, etc.

yes, something different.  I own a lot of Boeing and Airbus payware and can't stand them anymore.  I won't be buying the FSLabs 320 ( :blink: another A320, no thanks!)  Props, Helis, Military(ex: VRS Superbug) older planes like more DC-9/MD80's, etc.

You do realize there are companies out there already producing such products?

You do realize there are companies out there already producing such products?

This is part of the problem.  Also, some simmers will never be satisfied unless PMDG does their version of an airliner, no matter how good the rival product is.  Hence all the various requests that appear here.

 

There's really only room in the market for one payware addon for each aircraft type if developers want to stay in business.  The frustration with Airbus sims is there are several developers making  A320s.  If only all that effort was spread around simulating different Airbus aircraft types.  The very last thing we would need would be for PMDG to announce yet another A320.

As long as it's certified by Boeing, and RSR has stated so it's good enough for me

 

+1 

 

Doesn't matter what type of aircraft comes out of the PMDG production line, I will be there to purchase it.

 

Cheers,

Well as far as know for FSX only one study sim A320 is being developed, same goes for other types, only one Indepth 777,767,MD11,ATR, Dash 8, 747-400, Tupolev,F18, 737 classic. In fact the only aircraft that I can think of that has been duplicated to a high level in FSX is the PMDG NG & Ifly NG.

 

Aerosoft Airbus x,PSS,Wilco and even black box are entry level sims. I don't think black box are even trying to compete with FSlabs.

I think you will find on both modern types the pilot controls the computers & the computers control the aircraft, the only differance is the hard limits designed into those computers in Normal law. As far as neing reduced to a systems monitor, I take it you have no experience with either Boeing or Airbus, that exactly what they are trained to do on both types, along with a multitude of other requirement.

 

So as usual this is heading to 5yr old territory.... definitely time to leave you guys to it.

Not sure if you were referring to me when asking about experience with the A or B team's equipment, but if you are, let me put it this way.   The problem with assumption is that it is usually incorrect.   On the newer aircraft of the Boeing series, that is the 747-400 and later models, I have tons of experience.

 

On the 747-400 alone I have in excess of 7 000 flying hours, I know the systems inside and out, I know what makes it tick.   I have put in quite a few hours with the NGX and are currently laughing all the way to the VA bank with my 777 hours being logged.   Yes, many of the other simmers here have got way more experience than that, but point is I know the systems.

 

Let us look at the A320 accident at the airshow demonstration.   The aircraft had decided it was landing, and that was that.   When the pilot tried to pull up, the elevators would have none of it and pitch the nose down instead of up.

 

Now, had this been a Boeing, even the 777, the pilot would easily have climbed away from those trees because with the flip of one switch, the pilot is back in control and the aircraft won't decide for him that he does not have the authority to do something like that.   That is what Boeing's philosophy has always been, and that is what I mean when referring to the differences between the two.

 

I fully agree with one post here that says that under the hood, they are very much the same, that is exactly my point about PMDG not spending extra time on more complex aircraft - the 777 and the NGX are incredibly complex simulations!   That is also why I say that the Airbus makes many critical decisions FOR the pilot, whereas in the Boeing, if the pilot doesn't like what he says, he flips the A/P off, and says bye-bye to what it is that he doesn't like.

 

That's it, my last word on it, I'm out of here now! :Peace:

 

Kind regards

Let us look at the A320 accident at the airshow demonstration.   The aircraft had decided it was landing, and that was that.   When the pilot tried to pull up, the elevators would have none of it and pitch the nose down instead of up.

Actually that's incorrect, the reason why the aircraft did not respond to nose up inputs was because doing so would have resulted in a stall as the pilot flying tried to pull up from way too slow speed when engines hadn't even spooled up properly yet, not because the plane was in landing mode. Had this plane been a Boeing 737 they would have most likely stalled and probably more people would have died.

 

I'm rather sure no Airbus will prevent you from pulling the nose up on low altitude just because it thinks you are trying to land, if that was the case how would you do a low altitude go around?

 

Anyway I believe it's clear that in the end Airbus way would have prevented way more accidents than it has contributed, just think about all the huge amounts of crashes caused by simple things like pilots getting disorientated and stalling the plane... Many of those could have been prevented by Airbus flight protection systems though of course it's also true that most of them wouldn't have happened with modern Boeing either thanks to more advanced warning systems and overall cockpit design.