Jorge can you give me your full name and email address. I may need to get in contact with you about this in the near future... :-)

The SSW A320 looks great, but they better not be full of bugs ;)

Is there a freighter version for the A310 available for the SSW model?

Jorge, anyway I can contact you please?

If your talking about a FedEx livery Alex, yes...

I have the PSS A320 and would love to see a more up to date version - I'm not keen on the panel - it does look very dated. I also bought their Concorde and would love to see an A320 with the same level of detail in that panel - it is fantastic IMO, probably the best panel I have ever used. I can't wait until the release their 777/757 (and will definitely buy them), but I'd have preferred it if they had concentrated on Airbuses and left the Boeings to PMDG or someone like that.

>"Airbus apparently doesn't want to share its data with>outfits like PMDG which are USA based.">>Why is that?>>JeffMaybe this puts things into perspective!?!? :http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml}(http://web.mit.edu/invent/www/ima/images/i...dy/ma_intro.jpg

"but I'd have preferred it if they had concentrated on Airbuses and left the Boeings to PMDG or someone like that"That's funny... :-beerchug You can bet many of PSS's customers feel the same way.

Same here!http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/Dar...humbsupblag.gif

IMHO, you aren't going to get a PMDG-Quality Airbus. The system intergration of the Airbus simply blows a Boeing out of the water, fact! I work on the both Airbus's and Boeings. The Airbus doesn't like working with computers offline, so you would really need to model all those computers - and there are lots of them.That doesn't stop me hoping that a true Airbus Simulation will come to light.

To build a high quality sim you really need good access to the data you are trying to simulate!AirBus, for reasons best known to themselves, keeps their information close to their vest, whether it comes to PMDG or PSS or it seems everyone else. Of course that is their corporate perogative.The PSS AirBus series are nice, lots of features, but I have heard from an ATP pilot that knows, that the flight, systems and air models are not very accurate. That may not be important to you as a simmer, but that appears to be the case.Boeing actively participated in PMDG's recent 747 release, even lending engineers and the lead 747 test pilot, and it shows big time. An absolutely superb and very accurate sim -- according to 747 pilots.That sort of information availability would certainly encourage developers.* Orest-~~~~~~~~~Orest Skrypuchwww.united-virtual.comUAL1445 Staff ORDFO

We may be out of luck with both Airbus and Gulfstream. Both is these manufactures are very anal about their Aircraft. It's like they think an FS model is going to compromise their technology (when in actuality it gives people a better understanding and appreciation of their product and technology plus it's good PR)...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------Boeing actively participated in PMDG's recent 747 release, even lending engineers and the lead 747 test pilot, and it shows big time. An absolutely superb and very accurate sim -- according to 747 pilots.-----------------------------------------------------------------------Really? Cool!!!!! :)Thats awesome and might just motivate me to save money to get it hee hee.Thats real cool of Boeing that they did that..

Well, I for one am glad PSS is doing the 777 because if they weren't, we would not see IMO, the best aircraft to grace the skies for a long time to come. However, I too would love to see the workhorse of the Airbus fleet, the A320 modeled on a scale of the PMDG or LDS planes. Oh to have a IAE engined Jetblue A320 to ply the skies with!!!! However, I can reasobably say that pending some surprise development team coming on the scene with a previously unannounced A320, I do not forsee a Airbus of top quality until after FS10 is released at the earliest.

>We may be out of luck with both Airbus and Gulfstream. Both>is these manufactures are very anal about their Aircraft. >It's like they think an FS model is going to compromise their>technology (when in actuality it gives people a better>understanding and appreciation of their product and technology>plus it's good PR)...There's more than enough data already available to build a good Scarebus or a good Gulfstream add-on. If said add-ons don't materialize, it's more likely because the add-on makers haven't seen sufficient demand for same to justify the work. FeelThere did a quite decent version of the ERJ-145, which sports a Honeywell glass cockpit not too far removed from the G-IV and G-V. No doubt in my mind that a Gulfstream would be within their reach...if the market pull was there. Instead, they're working on a classic 737 that's likely to sell a lot more copies than a Gulfstream.As for the Scarebus...Alex Bashkatov's work on the PSS panels was oh so promising, and then the team imploded and left us with a poorly supported and abandoned legacy product. Can't say what was running through the heads of the guys there, but I don't understand wanting to go head-to-head with the Level-D boys on a 757, given that it so closely resembles LDS' stunning post-grad 767 PIC product, or starting from scratch on a 777 when they were closer than anyone to a decent Scarebus panel.Anyway, GAC is far more interested in marketing plush back-ends and a fast ride to multi-kazillionaires and big corporations...no need for the sort of PA marketing that makes Boeing explore every possible avenue to build positive image with the general public. And Scarebus Industrie seems more interested in keeping its Euro-governmental sponsors happy so the subsidies can keep on flowing.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Santiago de Chile