fsx-se Why should I buy the FSL A320?

[honanhal 1,420]

First, some background on where this question is coming from. After my having anticipated this thing for YEARS, it comes out, and...well, silence, basically. There's one relatively short thread here on Avsim that quite honestly doesn't have a whole lot of information of interest to potential buyers. Months later, I haven't seen a single review that wasn't a "first day impressions" thing on a YouTube channel. And what have I seen? Significant complaints about framerates, VAS, and graphics anomalies on the FSL forum. And, last but not least, the thing costs $100. That is some very confident pricing. (I'm wondering how many people are willing to take that particular leap of faith without any reviews to go on, but I digress.)

 

Let me go ahead and complicate this question a little. I already have the Aerosoft Airbus, a mature product. Sure, it's not PMDG-level fidelity, but for day-to-day operations, it's 90% of the way there. The systems work mostly as expected, even if a lot of it is smoke and mirrors under the hood. I have my FS2Crew, which I've grown to expect with my simming. I can fly all the models, not just the A320. I can find almost any livery I care to look for, so I'm not limited on routes I can fly with an appropriate aircraft. While not exactly VAS-light, I can fly it pretty much anywhere and expect to get where I'm going without an OOM, even with FS2Crew, FTX Vector, etc. In other words, it's a known quantity and a sunk cost.

 

So: why should I buy the FSL A320? What makes it worth $100 to someone who already has the Aerosoft one?

 

(Note that I've deliberately left out the factors pushing me toward a purchase. I'm curious to hear from people who own it and love it without biasing them in any particular direction.  :smile: )

[carlito777 712]

The same reason why someone purchases PMDG planes also applies to the FSL bus. The higher systems fidelity, the better sounds, the lighting, ... This thing is ten times more immersive than the Aerosoft bus. And it really behaves like the real deal. Look for the videos of Blackbox711 on Youtube. He is a real world A320 pilot and shows off all kinds of fancy stuff with the FSL bus. And the FSL bus actually does (in almost all cases) exactly what he has experienced on the real one. This thing is just a totally different beast than the Aerosoft version...

 

PS: Yes, I own it myself (and yes, I also own the Aerosoft bus). And I've done a couple of flights but I currently put it back in the hangar as I can't stand using FSX anymore... Just waiting for the P3D version to be released...

[DavidP 1,408]

I have no issues at all with OOM's, VAS or frame rates, and I bought it on day 1.

I guess to buy or not is your decision - it isn't anyone else's to convince you.

[Boeing or not going 578]

I also had many issues in FSX having to turn down many sliders and run it in window mode only otherwise I got crashes even after the supposed Spotlights fix.

 

They claim in posts that an upcoming patch will help with performance problems, some changes to the programming or something I did not read it all before I got locked out of their forums by this unnamed person that really does not like it when you post bug reports and suggestions they take it as you are insulting their "perfect" work.

 

If you run with lower sliders and really want to fly a realistic Airbus then it is worth it. It is much better than the Aerosoft Airbus and a very good simulation. There are a lot of small bugs that they say will be fixed in a service pack coming sometime. Some annoying bugs are on descent the aircraft goes into approach speed even at high altitude if your approach has speed constraints. If you fill up the fuel tanks too full the fuel system logic freaks out and gives you warnings making you have to manually only enable the center fuel tank. The fmgs approach page altimeter setting is wrong, you can only enter inches or hpa depending on what option setting you have, and inches is wrong you have to enter a decimal point but that is not correct. At night you have to turn off the taxi light otherwise with the landing lights on it creates a bright white circle and you cant see the taxi or runway in front of you. The fmgs is not putting in all approach fixes for instrument approaches only the last 2. Other small issues that should not keep you from flying though.

 

But these are minor bugs that will be fixed eventually. If you have the money and want a realistic simulation then it is worth the high cost. The sound and system logic are much better than the AS airplane that adds to the atmosphere.

[garrett_frank 150]

The problem with comparing the FSL to PMDG is, with regard to the latter, there is no Aerosoft equivalent of the NG or 777. What I mean is, there aren't any NG or 777 models that, while not as complex, are at least well-developed, look good and certainly had some skill and care put into the development.

 

In my opinion, that renders null a lot of the arguments about complexity. The fact is that there is indeed a quality substitute for the FSL Airbus that is cheaper, well-supported, includes all of the variants, albeit not as complex. For PMDG's mainstays, there are some freeware 737s and 777s and, of course, there is the CaptainSim 777... hardly a substitue even if it is cheaper...

 

So essentially, if you want an NG or 777, there's really only one choice. For a narrow-body Airbus, there are two. And one is significantly cheaper and has some things going for it. Thus there are at least two points on the continuum of value/complexity scale.

[Boeing or not going 578]

The problem with comparing the FSL to PMDG is, with regard to the latter, there is no Aerosoft equivalent of the NG or 777. What I mean is, there aren't any NG or 777 models that, while not as complex, are at least well-developed, look good and certainly had some skill and care put into the development.

 

In my opinion, that renders null a lot of the arguments about complexity. The fact is that there is indeed a quality substitute for the FSL Airbus that is cheaper, well-supported, includes all of the variants, albeit not as complex. For PMDG's mainstays, there are some freeware 737s and 777s and, of course, there is the CaptainSim 777... hardly a substitue even if it is cheaper...

 

So essentially, if you want an NG or 777, there's really only one choice. For a narrow-body Airbus, there are two. And one is significantly cheaper and has some things going for it. Thus there are at least two points on the continuum of value/complexity scale.

If all you are doing is comparing value for money and care less about system modelling then yes the AS Airbus is hands down the best value.

[garrett_frank 150]

 

 

If all you are doing is comparing value for money and care less about system modelling then yes the AS Airbus is hands down the best value.

 

That wasn't quite my point. Yes, the Airbus is a good value but, more importantly, the market for a narrow-body Airbus in the FS world is different by the mere existence of a reasonable substitute. I sort of wonder if PMDG's NG and 777 are so popular not because of their complexity or anything else, but because they're really the only serious choices for an NG or 777. I guess that was my point. Apologies for not being clear, I haven't been with it all day.

[Boeing or not going 578]

That wasn't quite my point. Yes, the Airbus is a good value but, more importantly, the market for a narrow-body Airbus in the FS world is different by the mere existence of a reasonable substitute. I sort of wonder if PMDG's NG and 777 are so popular not because of their complexity or anything else, but because they're really the only serious choices for an NG or 777. I guess that was my point. Apologies for not being clear, I haven't been with it all day.

PMDG had competition in the iFly for the 737 and while the PMDG was more expensive it was still a more complete aircraft. I do not like the PMDG pricing for P3D that disappointed me and the attitude of the FSL team turned me off after enjoying their aircraft. I guess every addon these days is give or take.

[YukonPete 586]

Simple. It's awesome! It's like comparing the Ifly737 to PMDG737! One is much better then the other

[klamal 282]

 

 

I sort of wonder if PMDG's NG and 777 are so popular not because of their complexity or anything else

I think this is precisely why they are so popular.  Because they are so complex and as close to the real thing as we can get in a sim.  For those of us that prefer that, for whatever reason, that is the deciding factor.

 

The Aerosoft bus is good, especially for the money, no doubts about that.  But, for me, I want a plane that will behave as close to the real thing as is possible in every aspect that is possible.  I like knowing, or at least believing, that everything the plane is doing is what the real thing would be doing.

[Boeing or not going 578]

I think this is precisely why they are so popular.  Because they are so complex and as close to the real thing as we can get in a sim.  For those of us that prefer that, for whatever reason, that is the deciding factor.

 

The Aerosoft bus is good, especially for the money, no doubts about that.  But, for me, I want a plane that will behave as close to the real thing as is possible in every aspect that is possible.  I like knowing, or at least believing, that everything the plane is doing is what the real thing would be doing.

Besides realistic system implementation one of the biggest selling points for me is the sound set. The PMDG 777 and FSLabs in my opinion are top for sound realism. That adds a lot to the atmosphere. The 777 even gives me an option of a 5.1 surround sound at a cost of VAS.

[klamal 282]

Besides realistic system implementation one of the biggest selling points for me is the sound set. The PMDG 777 and FSLabs in my opinion are top for sound realism. That adds a lot to the atmosphere. The 777 even gives me an option of a 5.1 surround sound at a cost of VAS.

Right.  I agree and sound is included when I said that for me, I want the plane to behave as close to the real thing as is possible in every aspect possible.  That includes the sound.  FSLabs sounds are fantastic!  So immersive!

[garrett_frank 150]

Wait, why did I forget about iFly even though I own it? Man, rough day.

 

Maybe the fact that I forgot it should indicate something... oh well...

[odourboy 1,288]

Following this topic with interest... I own and enjoy the Aerosoft X Extended. It brought a lot to the table. What is it that'a lacking compared to the FSL offering? Also, I don'the follow the FSL development closely - idea of when I the P3D version will come out?

[Boeing or not going 578]

Following this topic with interest... I own and enjoy the Aerosoft X Extended. It brought a lot to the table. What is it that'a lacking compared to the FSL offering? Also, I don'the follow the FSL development closely - idea of when I the P3D version will come out?

I do not fly the FSL any more and never made a list, but the important differences are you notice the real fly by wire and smooth flight in the FSL compared to Aerosoft. Also the sounds are much better and more immersive. I used to get once every few flights a crash when using direct-to in the AS even with the posted fix in their forums. The separate right and left side navigation displays is a big plus for me, I like setting one side to weather and the other to terrain and have different ranges set. I have rudder pedals and could use my joystick twist for the tiller which was pretty cool as well in the FSL.

 

FSL are still working on a patch for FSX, I do not think you will see the P3D version until at the earliest next month some time.