A320 Anchorage to Juneau

[MarioDonick 752]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CaptKornDog 281]

Looking good.

[A320FAN 370]

Nice shots!

[Pugilist2 878]

Great shots.

[MarioDonick 752]

Thanks, all

 

Today I made the flight again, this time in the A320neo by JARDesign:

 

http://fly-xplane.blogspot.de/2015/05/jardesign-a320neo-panc-to-pajn.html

[Lukasvez 0]

Very nice! Is it the Peter Hager model?

[bernd1151 5,820]

Very nice screenies, Mario

[Anxu00 176]

Thanks, all

 

Today I made the flight again, this time in the A320neo by JARDesign:

 

http://fly-xplane.blogspot.de/2015/05/jardesign-a320neo-panc-to-pajn.html

So the shots were made with Peter Hager's model?

[africanbriton 0]

Dude :Applause:  :Applause:  :Applause:

[MarioDonick 752]

Very nice! Is it the Peter Hager model?

 

So the shots were made with Peter Hager's model?

The screenshots in my post were made with the QPAC A320-232 v2 (basic).

• The QPAC A320 v2 has the most simple graphics of the three A320 models I'm currently playing with, but IMO the best FBW and systems modelling (except the MCDU, which in the basic version is missing procedures and all the performance stuff).
• The Hager A320neo is partly very similar to the QPAC, esp. as it also uses the QPAC's FBW plugin (as does the Flight Factor A350, too, by the way). In general it also has good systems modelling, but the MCDU has even less functions than the QPAC one. It also has a simplified NAV display.
• The JARDesign A320neo has the best 3D model (inside and outside), but I find its flight behavior (FBW) and autopilot very inconsistent. The MCDU is more complete than on the QPAC and Hager A320, but it is quite buggy and sometimes does not work as expected (for example, I could not select any SID for PANC, although the NAV data were correctly installed and up-to-date).

Of course these are just my subjective experiences. I know many people like the JARDesign Airbus very much.