Airbus A320 - Who now provides the.....

[Guest franksalot]

Which developer, in your opinion, now provides the best example of the popular A320 Airbus? I have the PSS A320, it was my 'stock' aircraft, but it could do with a revamp for Fs9. So I'm looking for a replacement.KenSomerset, England

[MarkRey 16]

If you're talking panel/systems and looking to replace PSS then obviously you're in the 'level d' bracket (plus I see you're an NG driver). The only one I know of is SSW(Simsoft Workshop) that did the A310, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.It seems the leading developers think there's no market and/or it's just not doable given fs9's limits (or if it is doable it's just too much effort). Somr say there is not sufficient access to Airbus specs, some say all the info needed is available. I have not a clue but a truly high level modern A3xx eludes us.Sad but true as far as I know.regards,Markhttp://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/markrey/lds1.jpgXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1GIG/X700pro256p.s. - unless of course you mean the model - that would of course be IFDG

[Guest franksalot]

Hello Mark, Yes, I was just 'testing the water' really, didn't think there was a better Airbus then the PSS one; not at the moment anyway. It's the realism of the panel/ststems that I'm looking for. The 'NG' is a great aircraft so I'm happy enough to wait for a good Airbus :)Thanks for your reply.Ken

[aerdt 0]

I am still flying the PSS Airbus, simply because there is no alternative. Aerosoft offers one or two Airbus packages, but merely in a simplified version and I have read that the flight dynamics are supposed to be not the best. Wilco made an A320 as well, but I rarely fly it, because it is a huge resource hog and still riddled with some bugs that noone bothers to finish after the developer (Anticyclone) ceased to support the product.Airbus has surpassed Boeing this month in real-life sales and yet we don't have an updated Airbus. It's a shame - all the rivalries between Boeing and Airbus aside.For Boeing we have various high-qualtity planes out there (PMDG, Level-D, Ariane, FeelThere, Dreamfleet, etc), not so with the Airbus.

[Guest JeanLuc_]

Either there is no vendor doing an Airbus, or maybe, there are some Airbus under development and not announced yet.As far as systems/display goes, the PIC A320 seems to be the most accurate to me. Could you elaborate a little more and let us know about the "bugs" of the PIC A320?

[aerdt 0]

The problem with the PIC A320 is the aircraft dynamics. The users have been complaining about extremely slow climb rates above FL310 (i believe), which can also cause the plane to stall and, obviously, burns a lot more fuel that planned/expected.This problem has not been fixed, because the developer ceased the support and does not provide any updates. While "Active Camera" from the same company is a great product, i think it is a shame for a company to not fix any open (obvious) issues, but I think this involves more differences between the developer and the publisher. However, it should not be the customers that pay the price for it.

[Guest ThrottleUp]

How good are the flight dynamics of the iFDG A320? :)

[MarkRey 16]

Hi Nevin,If I remember correctly the IFDG A320 uses Pedro Olivera's dynamics, which quite honestly I had difficulty with. Massive inertia on the ground even at speeds below 10kt is one issue for me, even with the latest fde package. I figured it was just me but I have seen a comment from a rw A320 driver that this is not realistic. On the other hand it simulates ground effect nicely - you'll easily float away if you don't land that fde correctly :)I use only the model now, along with PSS panel/dynamics.regards,Markhttp://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a319/markrey/lds1.jpgXPHomeSP2/FS9.1/3.2HT/1GIG/X700pro256

[aerdt 0]

Bottom line is that we need an updated Airbus at the level of PMDG, Level-D. The PSS version, albeit a great product, is showing sign of age and is per PSS also not supported anymore. Frankly, I don't understand why delevopers like PMDG do not step up to the plate. There is a tremendous market for an Airbus.The most realistic Airbus so far, from what I heard, is an IFDG/PSS merge, but you'll obviously lose your VC, which is not an option for me.Just take a look around: The Boeing 777 is done professionally by PSS and Wilco, 737 from Ariane, PMDG, Dreamfleet, Wilco, 767 from Level-D, 727, 707 - you name it.What about an excellent A320, A310, A300, A330? It is after the 737 the best-sold commercial aircraft nowadays. The argument that the Airbus does not release sufficient technical data is not valid in my eyes, because we probably have a lot of real-life Airbus pilots who can help to re-design and fine-tune the flight dynamics. Other packages, like the PSS have done a great job - let's keep the ball rolling.

[Guest JeanLuc_]

I guess this holds true: maybe there are some Airbus under development and not announced yet...

[Guest Darren Howie]

Due to its far more complex interaction with the aircraft i dont think we will get a true representation of Airbus for a long time.Things like a good working ground speed mini,true implementation of ECAM etc are all difficult to do.They make life on the flight deck far easier when things go wrong compared to a checklist driven aircraft(Boeing) and thatmakes them difficult to simulate.It also means that even on the PSS Airbus you miss out on all the good Airbus stuff and what makes it the advanced aircraft it is.It is really only with full failure implementation that you will see the true character of an Airbus and i dont see anyone doing that soon.The A320 PIC gives you a little look but there decision to go 3D rather than 2 will haunt that project until noone remembers it anymore.Apart from its 3 d cockpit it wasnt bad but still ECAM was not accurate in its use or its accuracy.Darren

[Guest ap9dm1]

PSS A318, A319, and A321 with stock FDEs coupled with PSS' panel - just can't be beaten for Airbus. I never did manage to get their A320 working properly ... dynamics just don't feel right - but that's a personal feeling.I have the EWPro airbus ... nice graphics but amatuer compared to PSS/iFDG (although their BAe 146 is something to behold). And I also tampered with PIC's A320 which (IMHO) was very poor, but then I'm still a strong 2D panel flyer.I agree though, we need an up-to-date Level-D/PMDG comparable solution. I understand SSW are working on a release which LOOKS superb, but I also tampered with their A310 and was grossly dissapoited.A lot of money spent and I still go back to the old reliable PSS and freeware iFDG. D.

[Donstim 109]

For me and what I look for in an airplane sim, the best example of an A320 was the Wilco (Anticyclone) A320PIC. The A320PIC came the closest to modeling the fly-by-wire control laws of the real A320, including the full envelope protection features. Without that, I think that you're really missing the heart of what makes an A320 (or an A330/340/380) an A320. Unfortunately, as has already been mentioned, due to a falling out between the developer and the publisher, the best A320 never reached a fully mature state. (Also, the lack of a 2D panel really hurt its acceptance in the community.)I don't know what it takes to incorporate fly-by-wire features within FS2004, but if it is truly difficult, then I am concerned that simulations of future airplanes will suffer. Fly-by-wire, at least in the regional to large transports is where things are going (or rather, where they already are). Except for the A300 and A310, all the Airbus airplanes are fly-by-wire, as are the Boeing 777 and Embraer 170/190. Even the new business jet, the Dassault Falcon 7X is fly-by-wire. Each manufacturer has their own unique implementation as far as control laws and envelope protection features. And, unfortunately, except for the A320PIC, these features are not modeled in FS2004.Hopefully, the next version of FS will make it easier to model fly-by-wire control systems (if that is a primary reason that these systems are not adequately modeled today).Don S.

[Tabs 2,790]

It isn't the complexity, it's that Airbus won't provide help or information to anyone (especially American companies) in making sim versions of their planes... PMDG could easily do it with the right information - the 737's CWS system programming is quite similar to the FBW stuff on the modern Airbuses.A320 PIC was way ahead of its time and some very unfortunate things developed between Anticyclone and Wilco that caused Anticyclone to leave the aircraft market and focus soley on Active Camera... It could have been really great had it been upgraded to today's VC standards ala the PMDG 747...

[aerdt 0]

Well, PSS and Wilco are close to completing their 777s. They are fly-by-wire as well, so it should be possible to apply this to an Airbus as well.Just a thought... ;-)