Sign in to follow this  
JLuis

FlightSimLabs A320 - Release Very Soon!

Recommended Posts

Hi! Folks,

 

I think that FlightSimLabs A320 will be release in July, 2016. The prove is Navigraph already released Airac cycle 1607 as below:

 

b8rbc2.jpg

 

 

Bad news no P3D version yet, only FSX  and FSX:SE.

 

:smile:

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I  believe  it  when i  actually released,  no news  on the  actual fslab  forum as of  yet

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be curious about how it compares to the Aerosoft one.  I'm sure it will be better but in what ways?  Looking forward to reviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea  be  interesting  when it  comes  out,  suppose it be  like  comparing  the  ifly737  to  pmdg 737 ngx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope so!

 

But to be fair, Navigraph having that format listed could just be one entry on FSL's project plan, that may still have another 3 months of milestones to achieve before release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be curious about how it compares to the Aerosoft one. I'm sure it will be better but in what ways?

The FSL version will be more of a "study sim" featuring failures, abnormal operations, etc., just like what PMDG do. We're as the Aerosoft Bus is set up for "normal" operations with no failures and perhaps not 100% system functionality. Not to say that the FSL will have 100% system functionality either due to the confines of it being a desk top sim, but it will be more in depth than the Aerosoft version.

 

I don't own the Aerosoft Bus and don't have any interest in either since I'm not an Airbus fan, but from what I've read, those are the main differences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


We're as the Aerosoft Bus is set up for "normal" operations with no failures and perhaps not 100% system functionality.

 

Yeah, Aerosoft calls it 'lite'.  I fly it and think "this is lite?"  There are no GA aircraft that I'm aware of with that much system depth.  Navigraph, functional FMS, fully functional autopilot, great framerates...no crashes, no ugly graphics, fully LINDA/FSUIPC compatible.  The closest you could get is the 70 year old A2A PA24 or the RealAir offerings.  Would it be misguided to ask them to package all that code into a rock-solid modern GA aircraft?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Aerosoft calls it 'lite'. I fly it and think "this is lite?" There are no GA aircraft that I'm aware of with that much system depth. Navigraph, functional FMS, fully functional autopilot, great framerates...no crashes, no ugly graphics, fully LINDA/FSUIPC compatible. The closest you could get is the 70 year old A2A PA24 or the RealAir offerings. Would it be misguided to ask them to package all that code into a rock-solid modern GA aircraft?

The aerosoft bus does not fly like a real bus, FSL claims theirs flies like a real bus not only In normal law but alt and abnormal alt as well. This would be why the FSL bus took 6 years to develop.

 

It also appears that FSL created their own ground modeling outside the sim for realistic taxi, single engine taxi,T/O run and rollout behavior.

 

The FSL bus comes with a much better lighting system and ASN WXR.

 

That is just a couple of differences, long story short if accuracy matters then you want the FSL bus

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Aerosoft calls it 'lite'. I fly it and think "this is lite?" There are no GA aircraft that I'm aware of with that much system depth. Navigraph, functional FMS, fully functional autopilot, great framerates...no crashes, no ugly graphics, fully LINDA/FSUIPC compatible. The closest you could get is the 70 year old A2A PA24 or the RealAir offerings. Would it be misguided to ask them to package all that code into a rock-solid modern GA aircraft?

2 things...

 

First, you have never seen that amount of coding and systems work in a GA airplane because the amount of systems in a GA airplane is far less than what's in an airbus.

 

Secondly, to answer you last question....just read my first paragraph. Two vastly different types of airplanes. If you flew the pmdg 737 or 777, you would go to the airbus and immediately know it is a "lite" product.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


If you flew the pmdg 737 or 777, you would go to the airbus and immediately know it is a "lite" product.

 

It's the stark difference with what's offered in GA that I was referring to.  It's almost a desert.  Nothing even comes close to what we have in the 737s, 777, 747s, Q400, A3xx, DC10, and even more.  If you do get a Nav system in a GA it'll likely cause a CTD, horrible framerates or both.  If you got a Nav system with the functionality of the Aerosoft A320 in a GA you'd think 'holy crap!...Navigraph too?!...working FLC?!...VNAV?!...great framerates?!...no crashing?!'  It'd be a whole new world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be curious about how it compares to the Aerosoft one.  I'm sure it will be better but in what ways?  Looking forward to reviews.

 

Proper engine/aircraft performance at last!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the stark difference with what's offered in GA that I was referring to.  It's almost a desert.  Nothing even comes close to what we have in the 737s, 777, 747s, Q400, A3xx, DC10, and even more.  If you do get a Nav system in a GA it'll likely cause a CTD, horrible framerates or both.  If you got a Nav system with the functionality of the Aerosoft A320 in a GA you'd think 'holy crap!...Navigraph too?!...working FLC?!...VNAV?!...great framerates?!...no crashing?!'  It'd be a whole new world.

I agree with you! It's startling to see the issues which you just mentioned plague GA airplanes. My biggest gripe is that the developers seem to only concentrate on the exterior and interior visual models the most while sorely sacrificing the systems and fee modelling.

 

I woukd love to have some solid biz jets to the pmdg standard. I'm tired of Caren adds offerings. I gave up on them awhile ago because of seeing all the negative reviews.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great.... I realistically will not expect to see the P3D version until 2017 at the earliest.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you! It's startling to see the issues which you just mentioned plague GA airplanes. My biggest gripe is that the developers seem to only concentrate on the exterior and interior visual models the most while sorely sacrificing the systems and fee modelling.

 

I woukd love to have some solid biz jets to the pmdg standard. I'm tired of Caren adds offerings. I gave up on them awhile ago because of seeing all the negative reviews.

I stick with GA and biz jet developers that produce high quality realism. A2A. RealAir. Eaglesoft. I have heard good things about FlySimWare. Other developers are eye candy only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, I will not be able to fly this bird: they state that it needs Windows 64bit.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They RECOMMEND 64-bit windows because 64-bit can make full use of your memory, if over 4GB. Like this, FSX can maximize the amount of memory it uses as opposed to a 32-bit OS.

 

A 32-bit OS can only address a maximum of 4GB, as well as FSX. If the OS can't handle more than 4, that doesn't leave much room for FSX to work with. This is why a 64-bit OS is recommended and something like 8GB. Anything over 8GB is a complete waste unless you do other jobs with your PC that require more memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They RECOMMEND 64-bit windows because 64-bit can make full use of your memory, if over 4GB. Like this, FSX can maximize the amount of memory it uses as opposed to a 32-bit OS.

 

A 32-bit OS can only address a maximum of 4GB, as well as FSX. If the OS can't handle more than 4, that doesn't leave much room for FSX to work with. This is why a 64-bit OS is recommended and something like 8GB. Anything over 8GB is a complete waste unless you do other jobs with your PC that require more memory.

 

 

Fsx is a 32bit app. How can an airplane addon use more ram than the application supports?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fsx is a 32bit app. How can an airplane addon use more ram than the application supports?

 

It won't. FSX, as a 32 bit app, can only use up to 4GB. But - think of this - what if you only have 4GB of usable ram overall? You still need to allocate some of it for your operating system. So in the end, you only have 1GB or 2GB ram for FSX.

 

By having a 64 bit system, you can have (for example) 8GB of ram. Now, you can have 4GB fully for FSX, and the rest of the free ram for your system, making both your computer and FSX run smoother.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, I think someone is holding their roadmap upside down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 things...

 

First, you have never seen that amount of coding and systems work in a GA airplane because the amount of systems in a GA airplane is far less than what's in an airbus.

 

Secondly, to answer you last question....just read my first paragraph. Two vastly different types of airplanes. If you flew the pmdg 737 or 777, you would go to the airbus and immediately know it is a "lite" product.

 

I disagree. IMO there are more levels of system complexity then just lite and "PMDG".

Super lite: aircraft such as the CLS planes

Lite: aircraft such as Quality Wings 757

Intermediate: Aerosoft and etc

Advanced: PMDG and likely FSLabs.A320.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't. FSX, as a 32 bit app, can only use up to 4GB. But - think of this - what if you only have 4GB of usable ram overall? You still need to allocate some of it for your operating system. So in the end, you only have 1GB or 2GB ram for FSX.

 

By having a 64 bit system, you can have (for example) 8GB of ram. Now, you can have 4GB fully for FSX, and the rest of the free ram for your system, making both your computer and FSX run smoother.

 

Are you telling me that if you have a 32bit os and more than 4gb of ram, it only uses 4? I don't think that's true. It means that only a single application, like the os, uses 4, and fsx can use 4.

 

so you should only tell users they need more than 6 or 8gb ram, but a 32bit os doesn't make much difference. Correct me if I'm wrong here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's exactly it. The 32-bit version of windows cannot address more than 4GB. If you try to use more than that at any given time (trying to open two applications that use 3GB each, as an example), an out of memory error will occur.

 

That's the main reason behind the move to 64-bit operating systems (Windows 10 PRO for example can use up to 2TB of memory, OS limited).

 

This might help you understand:

 

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx#physical_memory_limits_windows_10

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite interesting!

 

It's not really RAM, but memory or memory-addresses!

 

Or said in an other word, the total amount of memory-addresses that the OS can assign - which in a 32-bit OS is equivalent to roughly the amount of 4GB RAM total. That is the TOTAL! 4GB including RAM from system, graphics card etc.

 

As said above, a 64-bit OS, can address 2TB of memory - BUT a 32-bit process within the 64-bit OS, can only consume/utilize memory addresses equivalent of 4GB! 

 

Hope that made some sense... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rats... Was hoping the P3D version would follow quickly behind. It would be nice to see how this Bus compares to Aerosoft and then the real thing I fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this