I probably shouldn't even ask this question, but....

[Jimmy Helton 4]

Okay, so yesterday I spent most of the day cleaning up my ever bugged FSX installation.  What I've found from experience is the more add-ons you cumulatively use, the more sluggish and error-prone FSX becomes every month (honestly, that's my experience with windows as well).  I'm using a four year old system, albeit a very high end one for it's time, and it runs FSX pretty well.  From time to time, I've found it to my benefit to wipe the hard drive and reinstall Windows from scratch.  Similarly, from time to time, I uninstall FSX and reinstall from scratch to debug any errors that have crept into my simulation experience.  Typically, this works pretty well.  I'm using boxed FSX from 2006 plus boxed Acceleration. 

 

As I was flying around on my better but still less than entirely stable simulated world, it did dawn on me that the inevitable is going to have to happen if I want a truly stable simulation designed for THIS decade.....Prepar3d v 3.2.  It also occurred to me that most of my add-ons, like ASN, Rex Essential + Overdrive, and FSC already are compatible with P3d, leaving me to the conclusion that if I switch the only issue would be my payware airplanes.  Now, I wouldn't wipe FSX, because it works, and it has several of my PMDG planes.  But, at the same time, I wouldn't particularly miss my Concorde X accelerating into a BSOD or my NGX freezing at random points in the flight path.  I definitely wouldn't miss my gorgeous high def clouds turning into strange graphic artifacts.   Going forward, I would buy P3d payware, such as the eagerly anticipated 747-400 v.2 and hope that P3d gives me the stable, predictable simulation experience that I want and need. 

 

Now, all that being said, it occurred to me that if I want to go ahead and start using P3d and see how well it does on my system in terms of frame rates, there is one modestly decent airliner that was smartly coded to work on both FSX and P3d...an airliner as foreign to me as the French language...an airliner I swore I would never fly...an airliner that is an unintuitive to me as picking up that pretty blond girl at the bar (not that I would as the wife would be ######)...but an airliner that I can keep even if my system decides that P3d is just too much for it to handle....the A320X.  In the perfect world, the wife would agree that I should definitely sink $2500 into a new gaming computer as opposed to paving the driveway, and then rebuy all my payware in P3d.  But, in the world I live in, such as it is, this seems like a safe bet if P3d doesn't work out for my system.  As a Boeing forever driver, can any of you speak from experience as to how you found this airliner compared to the NGX?  The way I see it, at best, I might actually like something completely different on occasion, and, at worst, I get to see how the other side lives. However, even just watching some cold and dark tutorials on youtube, the FMC makes me sweat and the MCP is scary (what, no VNAV?).  By the time the engines are fired up, I've already convinced myself that the bus is just too different for a Boeing guy.

 

 What do you guys think?

[Guest]

I love the bus. More than any Boeing plane. But that's just my personal opinion. I like the Airbus way of getting things done. I also like the Aerosoft implementation (with the audio checklist etc. EDIT I don't use the copilot options btw). It's different in various ways (and not as detailed as PMDG planes) but the things an Airbus pilot usually does on an average working day can be done with this addon. But er... it feels a bit odd to post all this on the PMDG forum... I am sure a lot of people will see things different: in the end it's very subjective and personal...

 

Take note that I do own the MD11 and 737NGX so I kind of know what I am talking about: I am not an Airbus lover that never flew Boeing or PMDG addons, just so you know. From a pricing point of view the Aerosoft Airbus can't be beaten of course. But again, this is the PMDG forum... maybe you should have asked this in the Hangar forum.

[Jimmy Helton 4]

Honestly, I'm a PMDG kind of guy, and that's why I asked it here.  PMDG pilots like Boeings, but they also appreciate detail. That doesn't mean PMDG afficianados give biased opinions.  I'm looking for honest comments from folks who are intimately familiar with the way Boeing does things who have delved into the other side. 

[rickjake 243]

I'm a big fan of PMDG. Have all their planes and love flying them. But one of the bigest features of a flight simulater is you can fly many different planes. I also enjoy flying the airbus and I do like the airbus way of doing things. The bus has  a similar system as LNAV and VNAV, just named differently, and use push pull knobs instead of separate LNAV and VNAV buttons. Called "Managed" (from the FMC)  when pushed and "Selected" (from what you have dialed in on the MCP) when pulled. Yes, the bus is flyby wire, but so is the B777. 

Having variety and learning different planes is what makes Flight Simulation fun for me. 

I love Boeing and Airbus, (yes, its ok to like them both)  and best of all, my virtual airline I fly for, has both.

 

Now where is that PMDG B747 v2??? :smile:

[avgaskoolaid 292]

My first complex addon was the NGX, and although I also have used the 777 I found myself coming back to the 737 often and have become very acquainted with it. I bought the Airbus on a whim, and learned to fly it a few months ago. It was ridiculously confusing at first, but after a while I grew to really like it and flew it exclusively for a month or two (didn't even load up the Boeings once)

 

About a week ago, I came back to the NGX, and I got a different perspective than I ever have had of it: it really seemed to be right out of the 60s, like they took a 707, slapped the FE panel onto the overhead and put in some big screens. The A320 gets a lot of hate for being 'too' automated, but it's so advanced as to feel almost futuristic compared to the NG. Of course, the NG is still an advanced aircraft will all sorts of modern bells and whistles, but I can't shake the feeling that it's almost like a 707NG or 727NG. Of course, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Because it is more 'old school', I feel that I can use the same mindset as my real world C172 flying and can wrap my head around what's going on with the aircraft better. But still, I love flying the Airbus as it is much more forgiving because of its automation. Both are a whole lot of fun, well modeled, and deserve a place in your hangar. 

[Jimmy Helton 4]

Hamoody, that's not an entirely unfair analysis of the 737.  Boeing wanted to retain 60% cockpit commonality from the 727, and that retained commonality from the 707.  With only a few minor changes, the NGX upper panel is straight out of the 60s.  When I think of merging the best of Boeing with the best of fly by wire, I think 777 or 787.  How do you think the bus compares to the 777 in terms of automation?  If I do get the bus, do you recommend I use it in P3d over FSX?

[avgaskoolaid 292]

Hamoody, that's not an entirely unfair analysis of the 737.  Boeing wanted to retain 60% cockpit commonality from the 727, and that retained commonality from the 707.  With only a few minor changes, the NGX upper panel is straight out of the 60s.  When I think of merging the best of Boeing with the best of fly by wire, I think 777 or 787.  How do you think the bus compares to the 777 in terms of automation?  If I do get the bus, do you recommend I use it in P3d over FSX?

The 777 is less automated than the bus, but still has a considerable amount of automation. If you're used to the 777 it'll be easier to transition to the Airbus as you'd be used to having the computer do a lot of things for you. Also, I very highly recommend P3D instead of FSX. The memory management is better, visuals are better, and basically everything else is much better than FSX. But, you don't need to choose with the Airbus as a single purchase can install into FSX, FSXSE, P3D v2, and P3D v3 without the need to buy another copy like with PMDG. 

[GolfSierra 5]

 

 

How do you think the bus compares to the 777 in terms of automation?

 

I reckon you ought to compare every single detail for that matter in order to get a complete picture.

 

I'd also say that, in general, the Airbus has a higher level of automation than the 777. Just take a look at the flaps lever for example: In the Airbus you can choose between 0, 1, 2, 3 and FULL, whereas in the 777 you can choose between UP, 1, 5, 15, 20, 25, 30 (and even "worse" in the 737, having UP, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 25, 30, 40). You don't manually extract the flaps to a specific angle in the Airbus, but rather choose a level, based on which the computer will set the flaps and slats for you, depending on certain circumstances.

 

Not to mention the major difference, that you have a side-stick instead of a yoke in the Airbus and therefore a different logic of how to control the aircraft.

 

 

By the way, in my opinion you can't really compare any PMDG aircraft to the Aerosoft A320, since non-normal operation and failures are not modeled in the latter, as well as some other features in the cockpit that are rendered inoperative or simply unclickable. That being said, I personally prefer the PMDGs and spend much more time in Boeings. Nevertheless I still fly the Airbus on a regular basis.

[kevinh 409]

I reckon you ought to compare every single detail for that matter in order to get a complete picture.

 

I'd also say that, in general, the Airbus has a higher level of automation than the 777. Just take a look at the flaps lever for example: In the Airbus you can choose between 0, 1, 2, 3 and FULL, whereas in the 777 you can choose between UP, 1, 5, 15, 20, 25, 30 (and even "worse" in the 737, having UP, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 25, 30, 40). You don't manually extract the flaps to a specific angle in the Airbus, but rather choose a level, based on which the computer will set the flaps and slats for you, depending on certain circumstances.

 

Not to mention the major difference, that you have a side-stick instead of a yoke in the Airbus and therefore a different logic of how to control the aircraft.

 

 

By the way, in my opinion you can't really compare any PMDG aircraft to the Aerosoft A320, since non-normal operation and failures are not modeled in the latter, as well as some other features in the cockpit that are rendered inoperative or simply unclickable. That being said, I personally prefer the PMDGs and spend much more time in Boeings. Nevertheless I still fly the Airbus on a regular basis.

That's incorrect. Airbus flap settings correspond to fixed flap and slat angles. The flaps are not adjusted automatically. No different to Boeing's standardised nominal flap angles. The Airbus is no more automated than the 777. As for the side stick controller, that doesn't represent different control logic. If you pull the stick the houses get smaller, just like in a Boeing.

 

You're right that the Aerosoft bus is not comparable to PMDG products in terms of depth, but the simulation of normal procedures in the bus is very accurate and detailed.

 

Neither sim needs P3D. Both work very well in FSX. The same should be true for the FSL A320-X, and that will be comparable to PMDG products.

[avgaskoolaid 292]

That's incorrect. Airbus flap settings correspond to fixed flap and slat angles. 

Out of curiosity, would you happen to know why Airbus aircraft have so few flap angle options while Boeings have many more? 

[GolfSierra 5]

That's incorrect. Airbus flap settings correspond to fixed flap and slat angles. The flaps are not adjusted automatically.

 

I know, but that isn't exactly what I meant.

 

If you select Flaps 1 on the ground, prior to takeoff, the Airbus will set CONF 1+F, which is slats 18° and flaps 10°. However, if you select Flaps 1 airborne, resp. during approach, the flaps will not extend and solely the slats will deploy to 18°. Nevertheless, if you retract the flaps from position 2 to position 1, while airborne, the flaps will still stay out.

 

But I agree, Flaps 2, 3 and FULL indeed correspond to fixed angles.

[PeteEHAM 3]

To answer the OP his question:

 

I have both: PMDG 737 (and T7) as well as the Aerosoft Airbus. In terms of seeing how well P3D does it on your system in terms of frame rates I think the Airbus is a good solution. It doesn't costs much and it's for FSX and P3D, no need for a different license. The Airbus is indeed not that detailed as PMDG planes (and random failures are not simulated) but it's still a nice plane to fly with. I suggest you follow the tutorial flight which will be installed automaticly and you will see it flies itself (well, almost....)

 

As for P3D: I'm sure you'll be convinced that it's worth every penny you've paid for it. It runs much smoother on my system in terms of memory and frame rates. I'm completely done with FSX and now I have this complete new flightsim experience of flying the T7 for +8 hrs without any stutters or memory problems at all. Sure it means you'll have to invest in your new flightsim, but it's well worth the money. 

 

Greetings,

 

Peter Aertssen

EHAM

[Guest Mik75]

I can only second what the previous posts already stated.

The Aerosoft Airbus is a very nice (and beautiful to look at and highly immersive) addon to use.

Although, I personally like the Boeing approach a little better, I fly a lot of shorter routes in Europe on both online networks, so I spend a little more time in the A320 family.

I run FSX and P3D 3.1, and lately, I just find myself flying in P3D more often.

My older system (3570K at 4.3 GHz, GTX 670 2GB, all SSD) handles both sims quite nicely with reasonable settings. Although I get better framerates in FSX DX9, P3D feels a little more fluid and stutter free, especially on and over dense scenery.

FPS wise, the Aerosoft Airbus is in both sims comparable with what I get in the NGX.

I think, as a lover of modern tube liners, one should have both addons in the virtual hangar.

And personally, I really love the shadowing in P3D, I haven't regret the money and time I spent on and with it.

[Jimmy Helton 4]

Alright so to report back: yesterday I made two very big leaps of faith: P3d v3 and the A320X.

 

P3d is running a consistent 20 fps on my system without messing with any settings.  It simply looks so much better than FSX tweaked to the max.  Let's hope it's stable, because I did have a few CTD on it yesterday.  However, today, I haven't had any issues.  I wouldn't say it's running faster than FSX, but it's running prettier and more consistently (never any huge FPS slow downs).

 

I've taken up the A320 on both FSX and P3d and no comparison that it looks better in P3d.  In terms of the A320, I'm actually quite surprised how easy it was for me to pick it up.  There just isn't that much to do in terms of setting up and managing the flight, compared to the NGX.  I feel a huge difference in the way it flies and in the way it handles everything.  In the Boeing, I'm the pilot.  In the Airbus, I'm a voting member of a system designed to fly like an airliner, and if I do anything that it considers inappropriate, it has the power of veto.  That being said, it flies very well, and I've taken it up and done a few laps in it.  It's actually kind of fun just how smart it really is.  I was going in fast and above glideslope on a visual approach and it decided hey dude we are going around.  Fiddling with the autopilot it is a bit of a guessing game (do I want dots, do I not want dots, are dots with my manual selections good or bad), but it's really good at keeping me out of trouble.  I'm still a bit confused about the flaps (1234 huh?) and I miss my Vspeeds on the PFD.  Otherwise, so far so good. I'm really blown away at how automated and intelligent the Airbus is and they both have a place in my hanger.

 

My recommendation for anyone looking to compare the two would be to learn the Boeing first so you can without a doubt learn to be the PIC.  There is no replacement for being in charge for right or for wrong.  The experience will make you a much more educated voting member of the Airbus flight management system.  The other thing I would venture to say out of pure speculation is that when the ###### hits the fan, and all the automation goes to crap in the Airbus, would you rather have a Boeing pilot or a bus driver behind the stick (or yoke)? 

 

Now, where is that 747 v.2!!

[joolsd 10]

Alright so to report back: yesterday I made two very big leaps of faith: P3d v3 and the A320X.

 

P3d is running a consistent 20 fps on my system without messing with any settings.  It simply looks so much better than FSX tweaked to the max.  Let's hope it's stable, because I did have a few CTD on it yesterday.  However, today, I haven't had any issues.  I wouldn't say it's running faster than FSX, but it's running prettier and more consistently (never any huge FPS slow downs).

 

I've taken up the A320 on both FSX and P3d and no comparison that it looks better in P3d.  In terms of the A320, I'm actually quite surprised how easy it was for me to pick it up.  There just isn't that much to do in terms of setting up and managing the flight, compared to the NGX.  I feel a huge difference in the way it flies and in the way it handles everything.  In the Boeing, I'm the pilot.  In the Airbus, I'm a voting member of a system designed to fly like an airliner, and if I do anything that it considers inappropriate, it has the power of veto.  That being said, it flies very well, and I've taken it up and done a few laps in it.  It's actually kind of fun just how smart it really is.  I was going in fast and above glideslope on a visual approach and it decided hey dude we are going around.  Fiddling with the autopilot it is a bit of a guessing game (do I want dots, do I not want dots, are dots with my manual selections good or bad), but it's really good at keeping me out of trouble.  I'm still a bit confused about the flaps (1234 huh?) and I miss my Vspeeds on the PFD.  Otherwise, so far so good. I'm really blown away at how automated and intelligent the Airbus is and they both have a place in my hanger.

 

My recommendation for anyone looking to compare the two would be to learn the Boeing first so you can without a doubt learn to be the PIC.  There is no replacement for being in charge for right or for wrong.  The experience will make you a much more educated voting member of the Airbus flight management system.  The other thing I would venture to say out of pure speculation is that when the ###### hits the fan, and all the automation goes to crap in the Airbus, would you rather have a Boeing pilot or a bus driver behind the stick (or yoke)? 

 

Now, where is that 747 v.2!!

 

 

I have to admit the examples of airbus automation failing haven't been too impressive. Or I have just heard of the the worst outcomes. The few occations were FBW hasn't worked. Maybe it fails a lot and you don't always hear about it.the good outcomes.

 

With Normal law, the pilot is not able to fly out of the envelope. ...Theoretically...but it can still go wrong it so it would seem. You must of seen the airbus demo film of the pilot flying at alpha floor..flying in front of a mountain at low speed then powering up to simulate a go around.

 

I feel quite safe on both those plane..I think it is just down to the pilot attitudes with there aircraft.