>> Guys be careful on this issue because it can get heatedIt wasn't meant offensive, I only wanted to put it in the right perspective, if someone talks about 737NG/767 and then might expect the same fidelity in the current Airbus products on the market. I bet the developers themselves are aware what I was talking about. Now if that is a matter of FS limitations or has other reasons, I am not qualified to judge.>> However, the group who did the Wilco model could revamp that design as well and we'd have something there that would be great and work properly in FS2k4/6.That won't happen unfortunately. The developers have definitely given up on that and Wilco already pulled the support plug after the first patch. Probably with that VC only concept it was a bit ahead of it's time. It's really a pity, because for my taste it was the closest to the Airbus flight experience. And I thought it couldn't be that much effort to at least repair the approach phase and the vastly underpowered FDE. But now we have to live with it.Regarding FBW, IMO the developers have concentrated too much on the protections. I think first one should get the FBW correct in the "normal envelope" (let's forget about that Airbus normal and direct law terms for a moment).No one flies his Boeing that often close to stall speed or overspeed, who should want to do that in an Airbus ? So what shall we do with the protections, if the most simple FBW test in the normal envelope already fails ?Michael

Michael don't get me wrong, I wasn't insinuating you were being offensive... I've went around this issue many times on these forums, actually just recently here on Avsim. Even though many people have complained about lack of a true Airbus simulation in Flight Simulator and how they've hated the fact PSS won't develop their A320 series any further, support to ask PSS to continue the A320 series is not there. Neither is there any real support for an A320 or FBW period. It's almost like people are content to feel the Wilco A320 and PSS Airbus series is satisfactory and/or 'As Good as it Gets'... Not trying to push PSS but I feel if the support was really there, PSS would eventually develop their design even further. It makes no since to me to have no true Airbuses and FBW technology in FS2k4... Where are the Europeans in this community??? Is everyone that content to have only American made airliners modeled to the great detail PMDG has provided... I'm surprise to hear people argue the point that the current A320 is fully updated to FS2k4 standards and nothing more is needed. I've never gotten the aircraft's autopilot to shut off so I can do a manual landing in FS2k4 after long flights. I remember the many threads of people pleading with PSS to continue to develop the A320 series because no other developer as doing an Airbus (at least not on the level and quality of theirs). I guess everyone has either given up or don

Indeed Dillon, Michael - PSS is (unfortunately?) the only game in town re Airbus panels/systems at present, perhaps some day we will see true normal flight Airbus fbw, more in depth systems implemented by somebody.....anybody...somehow...someday....please... :)edit - hey I just remembered that a member of the PMDG team intimated that the possibility exists that they MAY give it a whack at some point! - man that would be something!regards,Mark

I am in a similar situation as the original poster. Long time Boeing and MD fan looking at taking a whack at an A320. I finally flew in one a little while ago on Jet Blue. Aside from my ears popping more than usual (could have been the descent, who knows) I thought it was a nice little plane. Is the PSS model flyable (reliable) enough in a Vatsim environment or am I going to be frusterated by things like not being able to turn the autopilot off during landing? They are still charging $28 (15 pounds) for a native fs2002 plane with no liveries. Worth it?_Josh

The story I have heard repeatedly through the back-channels is that Alex Bashkatov, the FS genius who was the real brains behind the PSS Airbus panels, had a major falling out with PSS management and hasn't been doing work for PSS for a long time now. I haven't seen a peep from him in years. That would explain to me the tack PSS have taken on any future continuations of their previous glass panels...I suspect they're in a position where they'd have to all but start over.Bottom line, though, the originally-for-FS2000/2002 PSS implementations of the Scarebus panels are probably as close as we're going to get for a while. The Wilco A320PIC is a performance pig, and the VC-only concept was a bad one IMHO. The Aviograsf A340 was a partially functional and bug-ridden mess last time I saw it...not a player, either.I have flown the PSS A330/340 in VATSIM without issue...I don't use the A320 and it's siblings much anymore.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, DC

Dillon,last year at the Aerosoft conference in Germany, Bruce Williams of Microsoft was there and had a talk about FS. After the talk, the attendants could ask questions. One stood up and asked : "Mr. Williams, do you know Airbus". It was funny and Bruce took it with humour, but I bet it was not so enjoyable for him.So maybe he remembers and there is a some hope the next FS200X version might be at least a bit better "prepared" regarding FBW.Michael

Bob,I see that Alex Bashtakov is credited in the Concorde manuals. Re Aviograsf, they have put a lot of work into vector gauges which may appear soon. Not that that guarantees accurate FBW and dynamics. The A320PIC runs well and for me the a cickable VC is always the best way to fly but not to everyones taste. It is in need of developement and never fulfilled its potential. For me it is probably the best of the bunch.Still, SSW may do something special and then there may be PMDG....

>Bob,>>I see that Alex Bashtakov is credited in the Concorde manuals.>>>Re Aviograsf, they have put a lot of work into vector gauges>which may appear soon. Not that that guarantees accurate FBW>and dynamics. >>The A320PIC runs well and for me the a cickable VC is always>the best way to fly but not to everyones taste. It is in need>of developement and never fulfilled its potential. For me it>is probably the best of the bunch.>>Still, SSW may do something special and then there may be>PMDG....Howard; I've also seen Pete Dowson credited in the manuals as a PSS team member, and he's, AFAIK, *never* been a member of the PSS team, any more than he's been a member of anyone else's team that uses FSUIPC for their panels. Let me put it this way...if Alex Bashkatov is in fact still active in PSS panel programming, it's not readily apparent to me. If I'm wrong, maybe Alex (Bashkatov, that is) can remove any lingering doubt for us. I think he's been MIA for a really long time. Aviograsf has a whole lot of work to do on a whole lot of things before they're a credible factor with their A340. That's a huge "if" and not a "when." The SSW team is buried so deep in the bad karma they've created with the awful support for their A-310 I just can't see them ever being a player again. As for PMDG...well, if those gents ever decide to do it, we may have a ball game after all. But I've seen no indication whatsoever that they have any inclinations in that direction. All the commentary to date has been quite negative. But we can always hope...CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, DC

>The most simple FBW test : Establish certain vertical speed in>320/330/340. Then increase or decrease thrust. The Airbus>shall only accelerate ot decelerate, but not change the VS.Michael,I hope you don't mind my asking where you got this information. I haven't heard this before.Thanks,Don S.

Mike,Since most of the most recent jetliners, including Boeing's are fly-by-wire, maybe this will lead to changes in FS to make it more adaptable to the different fly-by-wire implementations. So far, the different manufacturers are using different control laws and different styles of envelope protection, which means the FS model should be flexible enough to handle them all.I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though. I haven't seen an implementation of a stick pusher yet in FS and that's old stuff.Don S.

Don,don't really remember where I got the information first. Airbus pilots mentioned it in fora or reviews, some sources on the Internet (e.g. www.airbusdriver.net), some hours myself in the Full Flight Sim.In normal law, with sidestick neutral and wings level, system maintains a 1 g load in pitch, regardless of airspeed or configuration changes. Michael

Hello everyone,Over the past 5 months or so I have purchased the PSS A320, Legendary 727 and most recently, the PSS Concorde. Most of my experience with the airliners has been with Boeing aircraft. I love the fact that with the Lenendary 727 you have to fly using VORs and ADFs. It really allows you to go back to the basics of air navigation, all the while crusing along at .8 Mach, with no vertical navigation or auto throttle. It is hard enough doing these things in a Cessna 182.When it comes to the Airbuses, I have both the A320 PIC and PSS A320. Honestly, I wish I would have read the reviews first, because I personally do not like the fact that the A320 PIC aircraft does not have a 2-D panel. Perhaps I am a little old fashioned, but I rarely use VCs for any aircraft I fly. Because of this, I have used the A320 PIC aircaft maybe once. If you really like VCs then this would be the aircraft to get. Some reviewers of the PSS A320 stated that they really liked the aircraft, but it had "FS98" like hand-drawn panels that were not photo-realistic. Well..OK, but when I boil it down to the nitty grity, this does not change my opinion of the overall package. I have taken some college classes on aircraft systems, and these were primarily focued on Boeing and MD aircraft. Airbus was not really dicussed, other then the fact that "hard limits" where put into place that the pilot could not exceed, unlike the Boeing design of "soft limits" in which the aircraft warns the pilot if it is exceeding certain values (like pitch, roll, etc.) but can still go beyond.To get to my point, I have a lot of respect for the Airbus A320 after using the PSS model. The small technical discrepencies aside, it is amazing what this aircraft can do. As long as you program it properly, it will take you from point A to point B, set all of the speeds and climbs, and decent rates, and land you safely. Now, in order to make it do these things, you have to learn how the aircraft works. It definatly is not something that you have jump in, and kick the "tyres and light the fires." The tutorial flight that takes you from England to Tenerife is long, but it is written by an actual Airbus A320 pilot. I really like tutorial flights written by pilots, because they give you a really accurate insight in how the real aircraft is flown. There is a learning curve involved with this aircraft, but after doing the tutorial flight a few times and figuring out how the aircraft works, and why you do something at a certain time, it is really a rewarding aircraft to fly. I personally recommend the PSS A320 over the PIC A320. Its a great package, and the more liveries you buy from PSS the more discounts you get. The aircraft operates real well on both FS8 and FS9, and it is not too expensive.Take care,-CJ Starr

Just be careful for what you wish for. While some may clamor for a PMDG A320, I for one still think they need to optimize a couple things. One is the gauges....in VC, they are not smooth at all (in 2D, they are very good however) and the VC model creates a ton of workload on your computer (resource-wise). I just hope they can find a way to limit their aircraft impact on users computers before releasing anything else.EDIT: Before anyone says to get a faster comuter, I have a P4 3.2Ghz with 1GB of RAM.

I don't know what it is with some of you and PMDG. PMDG has stated many times that they don't have an interest in creating an Airbus. That and Airbus aren't real friendly about giving their "blueprints" to U.S. developers. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that was my impression last time it was discussed in the PMDG forum. I just don't see it happening. Not to mention, they are working hard on the 747-400 and then will be workng on an MD-11. We might even see another express package between these two releases.Personally, I think a quality Airbus for FS9 is a pipe dream at this point. Maybe we'll get a good one for the next sim, whenever that'll be.

>> Airbus aren't real friendly about giving their "blueprints" to U.S. developersHow do you know or are you sure the right people got asked ? Besides that, sure it could be, but I don't think it has anything to do with US or non US developers, maybe just general policy. As much helpful it is to have direct support of a manufacturer, is it really needed ?I bet a lot of Airbus pilots would be willing to assist, access to A320 Full Flight Sim is possible here and probably elsewhere, I have around 10 KG of Airbus FCOMs here, there are a lot of resources on the Web like www.airbusdriver.net I mentioned above, info about the FBW logic is also available. So, besides maybe a financial issue regarding costly A320 FFS visits, no excuse NOT to create a state-of-the-art A320. Just kidding :DMichael