Sign in to follow this  
Rhinozherous

POLL - FSLabs A320 "finished enough"

Is the FSLabs A320 "finished enough"?  

134 members have voted

  1. 1. Is the FSLabs A320 "finished enough" for having Fun and a realistic experience?

    • Yes
      104
    • No
      30


Recommended Posts

Hey guys, just a short and simple question about the FSL A320. As this is an expensive one I want to find out if I should wait or if the Bus is ready!

 

In the FSLabs forum are tough a few bugs in discussion.

 

Thank you very much!

Share this post


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

The bus is ready as long as you're OK with DX10 mode (and an additional $30 for Steve's DX10 Fixer) because performance wise the FSL A320 will hit your PC like a ton of bricks. This addon is easily the most complex addon ever developed for FSX.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, yes, yes!!!

This thing is THE long awaited Airbus addon for desktop simulation!

Even if they wouldn't change or add anything anymore, it would be worth every penny!

The attention to detail, its completeness, its graphical appearance, and the fantastic sounds make this piece of software an incredibly immersive experience!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bus is ready as long as you're OK with DX10 mode (and an additional $30 for Steve's DX10 Fixer) because performance wise the FSL A320 will hit your PC like a ton of bricks. This addon is easily the most complex addon ever developed for FSX.

Not true. Running the FSL in DX9 without any problems. Nobody needs DX10 for it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true. Running the FSL in DX9 without any problems. Nobody needs DX10 for it.

 

Depends on how low you set the sliders and how many other addons you have. FSL and Youtubers like Matt Davies all recommend DX10.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on how low you set the sliders and how many other addons you have. FSL and Youtubers like Matt Davies all recommend DX10.

Maybe they recommend it, but it is certainly not needed. And I only fly between add-on airports in 5910x1080 resolution. There is certainly no need whatsoever to purchase the fixer if one buys the FSX version only for the wait until the P3D version is released. That's what I'm doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they recommend it, but it is certainly not needed. And I only fly between add-on airports in 5910x1080 resolution. There is certainly no need whatsoever to purchase the fixer if one buys the FSX version only for the wait until the P3D version is released. That's what I'm doing.

 

Everyone have different setups, addons and PC specs, so I try to be conservative in estimating performance in other people's setups. I definitely found the A320 to be more performance hungry than any of the PMDG products, and the developers recommended going to DX10 in their documentation. In fact they give you a prompt when you load the aircraft in DX9.

 

Quote from one of the developers:

 

 

 

Using DX10 mode gives you better VAS management and better FPS. On my system the FPS difference is around 25%. So there's good reason to move to DX10. But if you have good frames and no OOM errors under DX9. you'd not be in any hurry to change that. 

 

Moving to DX10 is something that all prospective buyers should consider, especially if they're already running close to the margins of acceptable framerates/VAS with other addon aircraft e.g. PMDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone have different setups, addons and PC specs, so I try to be conservative in estimating performance in other people's setups. I definitely found the A320 to be more performance hungry than any of the PMDG products, and the developers recommended going to DX10 in their documentation. In fact they give you a prompt when you load the aircraft in DX9.

 

I'm not stopping anyone from buying this $30 fixer. However, in my personal opinion buying the fixer is just a waste of money if you go for the FSX version just to hold you over until the P3D version is released. For this short period of time, FSX in DX9 with lower sliders will be just fine. I get 20+ fps and no VAS problems even at heavy airports like Aerosoft's EDDF v2 (but without AI). And yes, the FSL is heavy on the system. But if you can't run it in DX9, I wouldn't expect vastly improved performance in DX10. Then you should buy a new rig if you want to run it...

 

And to answer the OP's question: Yes, it is ready. And yes, it is awesome...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll vote once it comes out for P3D. FSX just doesn't run or look as well as it should. I know the aircraft has a lot more potential, it's just the performance of FSX that makes it hard to fly for me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets see I love what they have done.  But I get continual auto pilot disconnects.  Zigzag on autoland and just had a crash to desktop.  Yet to complete a flight without some sort of issue.  I have a high end computer and graphics card and  I run Q400 PMDG 777 with no problems.  Hopefully they will iron out the little issues cause I really want to love this aircraft.  I spent a lot of money on it.  So will not give up to easily.  

 

Darcy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't sure if others have buyed this aircraft but I can say it is best Airbus in market by far. 

Maybe the most complete and bug free release ever. still systems need implementation like en route winds but fun to fly as long as you are okay lowering sliders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's finished enough but not totally worth the money. Yes it is the only bus on the market that deserves the "complex" adjective. Pmdg 777 was more finished when it came out , cheaper and the only 777 around.

No failure generator.

No features list on the fslab forum, no features list with the product and no features list of the pro versuon, big problems with the reading capability of lcd screens if you do not use at least x4 sparse grid super sample and you know how hard this hit the performance. There are a few problems with the external model and repaints, the graphics of the VC is not top quality and the guys from fslab are not that kind (my experience). By the way it was ready for release but a little more transparency would have been appreciated and also a few bucks to pay...

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting The 74 failures I just counted which can be set to activate based on speed or altitude must be hidden on your installation. I dont use SGSS at all and the instruments are perfectly readable.

 

There are always bugs with new releases require hotfixes and services packs and the 777 was no exception. its fantasy to think that any complex software is going to be released without them,

 

There are  number of issues with Saved Flights and the FMGS in particular which they they say they are working on. I won't pass final judgement until i've seen all of the bugs identified in their forum addressed together with updates to the FMGS but in the meantime its perfectly flyable and by far the most accurate A320 built for FS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, some of you lot are a really tough crowd.

 

The question was "is it finished enough?"

 

Is there another A320 that is more finished?

 

Has there ever been another A320 that was more finished?

 

Are there any showstopping issues?

 

  • SEC F-PLN isn't implemented yet. OK, this exists in the Aerosoft. Yes, it's a useful feature. But with over 300hrs in the Aerosoft over the last year, whilst I generally copy the active over etc, the number of times I've actually activated the secondary flight plan is.... 0. It's coming in the first service pack. I can't envisage that I'll suddenly start needing it on numerous more occasions between now and then (or even after).
  • The LAT REV page isn't fully implemented. However, the main thing it is used for (the 'next waypoint' feature)... well, you can do it directly in the F-PLN page anyway. Again, it's coming in the service pack. Again, not exactly show-stopping or immersion-killing
  • A couple of minor FMGS functions like RTA aren't implemented. It's coming in the service pack. Does even the PMDG 777 do RTAs at the moment? Plus, I can't remember the last time I was asked to cross a waypoint at a specific time doing typical A320 routes. Likewise for offsets.
  • The FIX page isn't implemented, because the real FMGC version they are modelling doesn't have it either. Hardly an error/omission/bug.

Are all the systems that you would use during 99% of normal flights simulated accurately? Yes, as far as I've been able to determine. Are they simulated to a higher/more accurate level than anything else available on the market, from any developer? I would say so. For a start, you'll still use fuel if you don't turn the fuel pumps on, you won't have any flight controls if you turn off all the hydraulics, and you don't start using twice as much fuel if you open the crossfeed (thinking of the 'other' Airbus here).

 

A small number of people have complained about the brakes and steering being too sharp. As far as I can establish, a lot of this appears to be down to axis configuration issues (which may be connected in some cases to the way the A320 reads the control inputs, but I don't really know), combined with the fact that everybody is used to flying and steering aircraft in FSX that have no lateral grip on the ground. The A320-X is the first addon to have a proper ground friction model -- in effect, you're going from driving on ice, with no lateral 'bite' at all from the tyres, to driving on a nice fresh tarmac road. You will need to recalibrate your size tens -- I know I did. Again, the only fault with the model in this case is that it is, in effect, too realistic!

 

The FBW handling is excellent and a delight to fly, which is more than I can say for a lot of other models.

 

Are there imperfections? Sure -- it's a $99 piece of software that runs within a decade-old platform on a home desktop PC, not a multi-million dollar level-D simulator. If you try hard enough and dig deep enough in to the books, I have no doubt it's possible to come up with a million and one 'edge cases' where the simulation doesn't perform precisely as the real aeroplane should. But then again, you could say the same of a 'real' A320 level-D simulator.

 

The VC is hard on frames, there's no getting away from that fact. However, on a 2011 vintage i5 with a GTX570, I can still get 10-20fps in the VC at Heathrow with UK2000 scenery & Orbx FTX England active, using the graphics settings FSLabs recommend (in fact, with scenery and autogen set a notch higher) and Matt Davies' Nvidia Inspector/DX10 Fixer profiles. In the 2D cockpit, I get over 60fps. Apart from one OOM after landing off the second approach to Heathrow, having already done a leg out and back without restarting the sim, I haven't had any problems in that regard either (I was in DX9 mode at that time and I had a number of settings much higher than recommended by FSLabs). The rumour is that the P3D version is much better performance-wise, but it's difficult to set too much stall by that on the basis that everybody's mileage always varies.

 

I guess FSLabs could have waited to release it until the MCDU functions mentioned above were working 100% reliably and to their satisfaction, but then I guess instead of this thread we would have had a bunch of threads complaining about how long it was taking and how it was just another load of vapourware instead.

 

I can't think of many FSX aircraft that were what you might term completely, 100% comprehensive and bug-free on the day of their first release. The PMDG 777 is being cited a lot in this thread... let's not forget that they got the FBW implementation completely (not just a little bit) wrong in the first release, and have added a number of new features since then. Was, therefore, the PMDG 777 "finished enough" at release? Is it "finished enough" now? There are certainly still things that either aren't simulated at all or aren't simulated accurately. What does "finished enough" even mean. for that matter?

 

It is a fine piece of work. Are there things that it doesn't do at the moment I would like to see? Sure -- I'd love to see shared cockpit, I'd love to see service-based failures, I'd have liked it if there was a proper SDK (again, on the way) so that guys like Bryan at FS2Crew (for instance) could get their teeth in to it. But as a simulation it is far more in depth than the alternative for 99.9% of my normal flying, and when it comes to practicing failures etc it is 100% more complete than the Aerosoft, even if there are some things that could/will be added in future.

 

Is it expensive? Well, in the sense that $99 is a lot of money, perhaps, but then again -- how much time in a level-D A320 sim would $99 get you? How much flight time in the real aircraft would $99 get you? It is by far the closest thing to either of those things that is available on the FSX platform. I've spent $99 on a night out before -- between that and the A320-X, I know which I'm getting more long-term enjoyment out of.

  • Upvote 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The VC is hard on frames, there's no getting away from that fact. However, on a 2011 vintage i5 with a GTX570, I can still get 10-20fps in the VC at Heathrow with UK2000 scenery & Orbx FTX England active, using the graphics settings FSLabs recommend (in fact, with scenery and autogen set a notch higher) and Matt Davies' Nvidia Inspector/DX10 Fixer profiles. In the 2D cockpit, I get over 60fps. Apart from one OOM after landing off the second approach to Heathrow, having already done a leg out and back without restarting the sim, I haven't had any problems in that regard either (I was in DX9 mode at that time and I had a number of settings much higher than recommended by FSLabs). The rumour is that the P3D version is much better performance-wise, but it's difficult to set too much stall by that on the basis that everybody's mileage always varies.

 

I wonder how much the VC frame rates are due to the actual aircraft or due to the scenery. For instance, I'm flying out over Tibet at the moment, and the VC frame rates and frame rate stability are stellar (defined as 99% of frames being rendered faster than 25 FPS).

 

Over London into Heathrow, I struggle to maintain > 15 FPS. So I'm not so sure what is responsible for the frame rates when in VC mode. The scenery? The VC? Or a combination of the two? IDK. Excellent simulation by the way. And you're right. It's certainly a more faithful to the A320 than the Aerosoft product, but then you're certainly paying for that privilege.

 

My favorite part of the aircraft so far: the FBW. I've never flown a better implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's finished enough but not totally worth the money. Yes it is the only bus on the market that deserves the "complex" adjective. Pmdg 777 was more finished when it came out , cheaper and the only 777 around.

No failure generator.

No features list on the fslab forum, no features list with the product and no features list of the pro versuon, big problems with the reading capability of lcd screens if you do not use at least x4 sparse grid super sample and you know how hard this hit the performance. There are a few problems with the external model and repaints, the graphics of the VC is not top quality and the guys from fslab are not that kind (my experience). By the way it was ready for release but a little more transparency would have been appreciated and also a few bucks to pay...

I am not going back and forth with this but the 777 was PMDG's most bug filled release. There is still a memory leak when loading approach procedures with specific paths such as interceptions. They got the FBW systems all wrong also and that took months to release an update.

 

You can't read the LCD screens? What resolution are you using?  The forums have all the information needed for features and listed what systems would be added at later dates. And the Bus has a license upgrade path to P3D that makes the PMDG team look greedy.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gents,

 

always take these types of polls with a grain of salt - unfortunately, in our imperfect world there are those who prefer to stand by the sidelines and focus on the negatives, rather than find good in life and enjoy it.

 

I'd like to thank all our customers (and future customers) who have elected to participate in this poll (even though I am not too sure it provides any sort of scientific result as it's wide open to anyone - even those who have other reasons to provide negative votes).

 

As I've repeatedly mentioned in our updates before the release, we're continuously working to improve our products - this is true for the Concorde-X (for which we came out with two updates in the past six months) but is also true for the A320-X which received two updates within days and will be receiving more updates soon (minor ones, to solve smaller issues as we go along and larger ones to add secondary functionality we've acknowledged in advance was not included in the first release).

We feel that continuously supporting our product is the best way to provide service to everyone - the A320-X is a product of hard work and attention throughout these past six years and will continue to be so for the years to come, along with additional products, such as the A319-X, the A321-X etc.

 

Thank you once again for your kind words and support - without that, we'd not have been able to provide "the best A320 simulation in the world bar none" (your words - not ours).

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely, all I've flown since release,until yesterday, when I went back to X-Plane IXEG for a time.

I recommend you have an i7 4790K or better for this though, as you will have to make compromises as it is quite performance-hungry.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, some of you lot are a really tough crowd.

...

 

Excellent comment, Simon! I fully agree. And I have been very skeptical before release (and I'm still convinced it has the wrong pricing). But it is just an excellent product. Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll now comment this topic from my little knowledge. My points will maybe give some point of view to those still considering the purchase:

 

- I bought FSL Airbus and installation was flawless, fluidity in the airports was hmmm moderate, but flying part in my FSX SP2 environemt full of payware- and freeware airports,  ORBx FTX, Vector, Open LC , AS2016 etc was a bit slaggish and especially the T/O and landing were not nice. And remaining VAS was on the very low side.

- I read about and tried Steve's DX10 Fixer - installed it and gained many fps' and VAS that were of big joy. The thing disturbing me was the graphic quality with my settings. Then I applied some Nvidia Inspector changes, loaded them from FSL forum FAQ or sth like that, and the quality of my scenery view was fantastic - much better than ever before. Now I was in the start position again in FSL A320 contexture. Sluggish in T/O and landing..

- After a fortnight of concentrating to FSL Airbus I did remember I have PMDG's 777 and NGX: Now let's try them with DX10's improved VAS handling and fluidity (+ better graphics): Wow! Both fps and fluidity were for me amazing.

- Yesterday I flew with Aerosoft's A320X first time with DX10. Well the graphical quality of scenery and sky, the fluidity of the add-on plane etc. was very pleasing. So from cold and dark FSL brings a couple of more dings and texts in FMGC, but all the normal procedures were there.

 

So my conclusion: DX10 is biggest improvement for FSX in VAS, quality and fps/fluidity, FSL A320 is a tad heavier than PMDG's favourites, AS A320 is quite a good add-on too.

 

 

Petteri

EFNU

AMD FX-6350, 8GB, GTX-750Ti

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this