FS Labs A320 Dev Update

[Beardyman 604]

Something said but in fact nothing said.

Main body of FSLabs "update" is that they still exist and do something.

Nobody knows where they are with their project.

Fingers crossed that they will not became LevelD....

[Markitoes 8]

Release date contest?  

 

13th of July, 2015

[Wynthorpe 51]

Release date contest?  

 

Probably never.

[CoolP 283]

Every time Andrew or Lefteris post there's no doubt on my side that they really want to deliver something outstanding. That means on the system depth and accuracy and most likely some more factors.

 

As to why I'm concerned at times is how our small flight sim market is able to appreciate that detail, pay for it and also allows for a flawless operation when it comes to the old-ish basis called FSX.

 

While we can smile about any users asking for how to start the engines (while later being able to still explore the depth of simulation of course), concerns would arise if the immense system details not only serve as a factor of attraction but also as one for doubts. Normal folks wondering about how this addon would fit their normal needs. Or if the price is justified when having those in mind. And taking care of the normal pilots means taking care for numbers of sold products over delivering specialised addons for a niche within a niche without too much leeway on the pricing.

 

Same goes for operating such detailed planes which are, mostly, close to running the risk of eating up the precious FSX resources or at least forcing you to turn down other details for the sake of flying without a CTD.

 

I'm not saying that FSL or any other addon dev will automatically run into those problems, although the latest product starts of even the most skilled developers deliver a warning at times. No, all I'm saying is that there is such a thing as a 'dev bubble', where you think that the world awaits cabin temperature zones while it actually just wants to fly managed, somehow properly and without paying 100 bucks. :mellow:

 

Closing with a repeat of my interest in the whole FSL Airbus project and a short applause regarding previous projects which still entertain me a lot. :smile:

[Beardyman 604]

Yes, that was a question i was asking myself.

Is there a reason to make all systems so deeply, build them from thousands of small virtual components tied by some grid ...

Finally majority of simmers will not notice even how deeply some systems are done, and how many hours or months devs spent on them.

FSX planes are not done for any training purpose, it is still for fun - sometimes less, sometimes more serious, but fun.

So maybe devs like PMDG or FSLabs are doing too much detailed models ?

[Wynthorpe 51]

Im beginning to think they are marketing it towards a professional marketplace rather than sim.

[Alan_A 1,650]

Normal folks wondering about how this addon would fit their normal needs.

 

A fair and important question.

 

Something that I've experienced with other "professional grade" simulations like the NGX is that, while I don't come close to experiencing the depths of all the systems, the result is a product that performs better even for casual users - for example, in a flight model that feels right, and in an FMC (or in the case of the FSX A320, MCDU) that handles difficult flightpaths with a high degree of polish.  No points off less-complex products like those from Aerosoft or Quality Wings, which I use often and enjoy a lot.  But the performance of their automated systems sometimes seems to be a little quirkier, maybe because their economics don't allow them to tune them to such an extreme degree.

 

So I'll be very interested in FSL's final product, even if I'm not 100 percent the target audience.  Extreme quality produces many different kinds of reward.

[MachTwo 386]

In hope to clarify a couple of points here - we aren't developing a simulation of the A320 solely for the FSX Entertainment market. It makes up a portion of our customer base, and so we've put a requirement upon ourselves to develop an accurate simulation of the aircraft. But to emphasise Alan's point above - sometimes you do need to simulate things to a very fine level of detail to complete the overall rendition of a successful simulation. It's something we've concentrated on, because we found it almost impossible to cut corners and at the same time, simulate the systems found on this aircraft properly. They are so intricately interlinked - it's very difficult to render a true simulation without building the entire electric network, proper simulation of ARINC data flows, the discrete, digital and analogue interconnections found between systems. 

 

In taking this approach, the whole simulation just feels different; like it's alive - but there's no point in you taking our word for it. I don't consider our team as a group who like to boast or over promise and under-deliver; we'd much rather carry on with the development and get it done. As Lefteris said, we're doing great - and our aim is to get the A320 out and into the virtual skies as soon as it's ready.

[Wynthorpe 51]

In hope to clarify a couple of points here - we aren't developing a simulation of the A320 solely for the FSX Entertainment market. It makes up a portion of our customer base, and so we've put a requirement upon ourselves to develop an accurate simulation of the aircraft. But to emphasise Alan's point above - sometimes you do need to simulate things to a very fine level of detail to complete the overall rendition of a successful simulation. It's something we've concentrated on, because we found it almost impossible to cut corners and at the same time, simulate the systems found on this aircraft properly. They are so intricately interlinked - it's very difficult to render a true simulation without building the entire electric network, proper simulation of ARINC data flows, the discrete, digital and analogue interconnections found between systems. 

 

In taking this approach, the whole simulation just feels different; like it's alive - but there's no point in you taking our word for it. I don't consider our team as a group who like to boast or over promise and under-deliver; we'd much rather carry on with the development and get it done. As Lefteris said, we're doing great - and our aim is to get the A320 out and into the virtual skies as soon as it's ready.

 

My prediction was correct!

[jgoggi 65]

 I have been flying an airbus addon within FS9 with fully functional FBW and all related control laws and SECS, ELACS & FACS for nearly four years now.

 

Yes, a very good less-than-half-finished bus, I recommend it... 

[Q_flyer 766]

I am not sure that, personally, i have a compelling reason to upgrade from the Airbus X.

 +1

 

This is my 'issue'.  

 

As much of an Airbus fan and follower I am, I am also a simmer who has his own specific definition of realism, and the Aerosoft jobbie is ticking those boxes at the moment.   Of course as and when the FSL is ever released I will be as excited as the next man to see what it offers *in the flesh* and will abandon all loyalty, and 'jump ship' if it gives more of the things that I value.

 

Obscure failures modelling has never been something that I've valued though.     I like the every day things, done really well.   :smile:

[FLEX1978 373]

Yes, a very good less-than-half-finished bus, I recommend it...

 

I wasn't recommending anyone purchase it. Would be pretty hard anyway since the addon I use is not for sale to the general public.....

 

Going back to Arturs post and something that has been brought up many times in the past, I feel many Avsim users seem to be under the impression they are the bulk of simmers out there. Whilst it is a great community, from personal experience I have found the huge amount of customers looking for a study sim for type ratings don't visit sites like these and definitely don't post here.

[Q_flyer 766]

Going back to Arturs post and something that has been brought up many times in the past, I feel many Avsim users seem to be under the impression they are the bulk of simmers out there. Whilst it is a great community, from personal experience I have found the huge amount of customers looking for a study sim for type ratings don't visit sites like these and definitely don't post here.

 

Mmm, I understand your general point, but I don't believe that those who are using flight simulation for type rating purposes are the majority  

 

(in contrast to the 'bulk' of users you referred to at the beginning of your para).

 

Yes I agree that there are many flight sim users not represented by the AVSIM community - perhaps even the majority of flight simmers are not part of this community - but I don't see many of those 'non-AVSIM' users being professional pilots, in pursuit of a type rating.

 

Aren't they more likely to be just more entertainment-based flight simmers, who just happen to not be into the forum community thing?

[Howell 7]

I would appreciate if you can switch over from the A320 and build the A340 serious......please!

[FLEX1978 373]

Disclaimer - I do not speak on behalf of FS labs

 

I was not saying guys looking for a CBT for type ratings made up the bulk of flight simmers, the bulk of flight simmers use the default aircraft and have never heard of ORBX.

 

My point was on sites like these you normally have a large group of vocal individuals that always post, from what I have seen over the years this group seems to be under the impression that they are the primary target audiance.

 

From real world experience and from the large number of emails I have received over the past few years the guys looking for a study sim don't post on sites like avsim or Flightsim.com, they have searched online and found the developers directly.

 

To give you an example, last year I was asked to put together a team of engineers, and guys/girls either with an A3xx rating or in the process of getting a rating, each person had to provide scanned documents. The responce I received was surprisingly huge, hardly any even knew or bothered with scenery addons etc, all they wanted was a base platform and a high fidelity sim to assist with studying the FCOM.

 

Same deal with all the real world pilots I know personally, those that use FS don't fly from A-B pretending to be an airline pilot, they use it as a tool to brush up on certain things before the 6 monthly sim check or a chance to investigate more because time is limited in the sim. And I won't even bother getting into the potential for selling a CBT to airline, the market is potentially huge for high grade study sims.

 

Regards