FSLabs A320-X for P3D on final

[Nyxx 6,993]

I hope your right and am glad to hear you can, I take it your using 3.4?

[carlito777 712]

Might have a total rethink and go for PMDG 747v3 and stop thinking about FSL A320. If it means very low setting to even begin to think about useing it and low FPS to boot.

 

Sad.

 

At least you still have the chance not to buy the FSLabs bus. I (stupidly) bought the FSX version thinking that the P3D version would be released shortly after and so my money has already gone down the drain.

 

Honestly, I have strong doubts that LM will ever fix the VAS problems before going 64 bit. I never understood what is so hard to check what the differential VAS consumption between v3.2 and v3.4 is if you have access to the code. On the other hand, some people seem to have substantially more problems with v3.4 than others. I also don't have huge VAS problems with my v3.4 install but I also just went the client update route since v3.2. Seems as those who did a full install of v3.4 have bigger problems with VAS. Really strange all this. And very frustrating as v3.0 - v3.2 were really great in VAS handling. And now all this mess.

 

Another very disappointing thing about the FSL bus is that Lefteris stated that there might be an additional charge for providing LINDA access. This means if I want to use my VRInsight MCP then I might have to throw even more dollars at them. They really seem to be getting greedy. After all this mess I somewhat regret having purchased the FSX version. Would have been better to stay with the PMDG birds. I'm currently having so much fun enjoying the 777 together with the Airline2Sim Cadet training. What a great bird.

 

EDIT:

Response from Beau Hollis in one of the OOM threads:

http://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6312&t=120967&sid=0ea48aff5a22e22c0ee278447f228c1d&start=120

 

As I state above, this most likely means we won't see any significant VAS improvements until v4...

[guenseli 1,592]

Lefteris stated that there might be an additional charge for providing LINDA access.

 

I just want to make clear, that DOES NOT mean, that anyone will have to pay for using LINDA or a probably upcoming LINDA FSL Airbus module.

 

We are in contact with FSLabs if they will support the development of a LINDA module, but that was several weeks ago and there's no decision till now - we haven't heard anything else from them.

 

If the bus once comes out for P3D, then maybe we are lucky and FSLabs will support us. Or if not, I will buy it myself and try to make a LINDA module (donations welcome ). We will see then in both cases if a LINDA module is possible.

 

In any case it will be free as always.

 

 

I want just to make that clear before any speculations come up.

[MachTwo 386]

Dear Carlo,

 

Lefteris merely stated that we are currently exploring licensing options to support freeware vendors such as LINDA, and I'm sure both Lefteris and Guenter will continue those discussions once we have released the A320 for P3D. 

 

Given that you are already a customer of the A320 - you'll appreciate how complex our simulation is. It is not a simple port over to P3D - in fact, we've been working closely with Lockheed Martin on several issues that we felt needed addressing - and it has taken time to provide them with examples that they could use in their development environment, resolve in their code base and have these changes tested.

 

In addition to that, we've had to work with a moving target: P3D v3.3, then v3.4 with HF1 and HF2. For the majority of aircraft developers that use the default SDK and published interfaces - this isn't so much of a problem. However, to engineer the A320-X so that it correctly and faithfully simulates the aircraft - we needed to engineer our own mechanisms that integrate with the platform - and these require updating every time the P3D platform is changed. 

 

I can assure you, if we were 'greedy', as you so eloquently put it - we'd have pushed the A320 out for P3D months ago. Instead, we have spent a great effort to see that our customers will enjoy the A320 in P3D for years to come.  

[Nyxx 6,993]

I truly hope you get it right Andrew.

[dbw1 445]

I'm still using 3.3.5 and it is working great. I've been reluctant to more to whatever version of 3.4 is in use. I do like quality complex add-ons but will be holding off buying till I see how this all works out. $100 US = approx $135 CDN these days so before I buy I'd like to know all is well with both FSL and P3dV4 or 5 ???

 

Can anyone at FSL say whether it works with P3dV3.3.5?

Thanks.

Dave

[carlito777 712]

Dear Carlo,

 

Lefteris merely stated that we are currently exploring licensing options to support freeware vendors such as LINDA, and I'm sure both Lefteris and Guenter will continue those discussions once we have released the A320 for P3D. 

 

Given that you are already a customer of the A320 - you'll appreciate how complex our simulation is. It is not a simple port over to P3D - in fact, we've been working closely with Lockheed Martin on several issues that we felt needed addressing - and it has taken time to provide them with examples that they could use in their development environment, resolve in their code base and have these changes tested.

 

In addition to that, we've had to work with a moving target: P3D v3.3, then v3.4 with HF1 and HF2. For the majority of aircraft developers that use the default SDK and published interfaces - this isn't so much of a problem. However, to engineer the A320-X so that it correctly and faithfully simulates the aircraft - we needed to engineer our own mechanisms that integrate with the platform - and these require updating every time the P3D platform is changed. 

 

I can assure you, if we were 'greedy', as you so eloquently put it - we'd have pushed the A320 out for P3D months ago. Instead, we have spent a great effort to see that our customers will enjoy the A320 in P3D for years to come.  

 

Thanks for the clarification, Andrew. I also really hope that you get the P3D version out finally. As I have also stated in various other threads: This bird is absolutely amazing. The level of fidelity is second to none. But it is a real shame that it so far only works on an ancient platform. Flying in FSX is just so annoying after getting used to P3D. Just one example which is driving me totally crazy: The drop in fps when the mouse is active in the VC. It's just horrible using FSX. This is why everybody is so eager to get their hands on the P3D version. And also thanks for the info on LINDA from Guenter and yourself. Let's all keep fingers crossed that you get the problems sorted out...

[Samaritano 304]

Someone stated he found out that some of the FSL flightdeck polygons and textures (circuit breakers, for example) require a lot of VAS, the forum he posted in is in German only, unfortunately:

http://flightx.net/index.php?thread/90367-fs-labs-a320-ver%C3%B6ffentlicht/&postID=940604#post940604

 

Having said that:

There are a million ways to configure FSX for an enjoyable A320-X experience. I made the Steam edition my "photoscenery sim" and performance is fluid with an acceptable VAS footprint, even with high graphics settings, AI traffic, and AS16 weather.

Google translate from the post on the German forum for those who do not speak German like me.

 

"Hello,

 

I have had very little time for the Sim lately, but I had at that time with the technical details (among other things) busy. I have also found a very probable problem and it is very simple to explain. The model (the VC) is simply poorly modeled - that is, it has not been optimized. This is probably the cause that has the most influence on the performance and not "the oh so great systems", which are simulated in the background all so. Whereby the developer, or mainly "fans", gladly dismiss this unspeakable problem. The VAS story is just as incomprehensible for me, because you can have the most amazing PC on earth, it brings nothing as long as the simulator is 32-bit and the process can not use more than 4GB. This could have been taken into account in the development (or now at least later) simply times, because on it one comes actually itself.

 

Now something more detailed about the problem:

 

- It is natural, of course, that the great "systems in the background" can not be. If they were, the performance in the exterior would be bad or in the 2D panel mode. But if it is not, it is much better. The "background systems" (awesome realistic simulation !! 111) must of course work at any time, otherwise the aircraft would be different in every view, so this argument is quite fast

 

Because of this inspiration, I dug something:

 

- I've examined the VC-model and made a "startling" statement. The FSLabs A320 has 330146 polygons twice as many as the competitor's bus. The funny is that the optical does not necessarily stand out, since there are quite a lot of second-hand opinion, which corresponds to the optics of the VCs. For me it is acceptable, but it does not justify this exaggerated "detail" of the model. The Aerosoft has 169756 triangles , compared to the PMDG 737 215087 . This is, of course, more than the Aerosoft, but still significantly less than the FSLabs machine, which thereby tops everything so far on aircraft. You have to mention again and again that FSLabs before the release has declared yes, that the A320 plays in the same performance league as the PMDG, which clearly does not correspond to the truth.

 

- The irrwitzige is that the Circuitbreaker, which one as "normal flying" rarely gets to face with approximately 30000 polygons to be beat. Each one is beautifully cylindrically modeled with almost perfect circular surface .. Genial. PMDG has made it easy and a flat texture over an area. Would probably be enough for me and many others.

 

- Other funny things, in which the modeler has been artificial are then, for example, this great yellow raincoat and some more things that I have missed.

 

 

Long story, short meaning: After which I took the matter self (with the available resources) and removing related things from the VC, the performance rose as of "magic hand". Just breaking the circuit breaker is already noticeable.

 

 

But, of course, there is also a Krux: it is very costly to adapt as an outsider. The available tools are actually intended for other things and the Sisyphus work is unequaled without accessing the original model. Furthermore: It is probably not allowed to release a version of the VC version, which complicates the whole thing. But as mentioned, as outsiders, only compromise solutions are in it. With very much time is possibly even something acceptable in it, but not on the fast.

 

I also had contact with Lefteris, who seemed to be very interested and offered to stay and test, but at the same time it was "dismissed" (I am a developer, "can not be" is such a thing Standard set : P ). So far nothing came. I bet the modeler was probably purchased and is now not so easy to grasp or further changes are too costly for the Devs in hindsight.

 

The FSX or the ESP engine is simply at the border. What is likely to be easy to handle in other, more modern games or engines, is simply not. The fact that the development process was not respected, I find regrettable. I understand that you only optimized in the end, but that was simply simply omitted. The reasons I can not understand, probably one wanted after all the years then finally release.

 

All in all: Too bad, would like ne optimized version of the thing. Because if the performance history was not, this aircraft could really be at the top of the top, as far as the hobbies are concerned. What I will never understand, however, is the penetrating "defending" of certain shortcomings of the product, precisely by buyer. Seems to be normal in this scene. Have bought the thing itself for expensive money. And I am always the opinion that everyone (especially in the absence of a return option) should be able to apply his criticism objectively - whether this really actually changes something, is clear in the stars. With silence, logically, not.

 

Just my 2 cents."

[MarkW 1,493]

Isn't 3.4.9.18400 the original, pre-hotfix version 3.4 of P3D?

 

 

3.4.9.18400 is an old version. This is hotfix 1 or the original v3.4 release.

 

Thanks for the correction.

[qqwertz 784]

 

 

if I want to use my VRInsight MCP then I might have to throw even more dollars at them. They really seem to be getting greedy.

I avoided the A320 after FSL asked us to buy the Concorde again for P3D. If it had been a new development I would have understood, but it was a five year old plane with known issues and aging visuals. I appreciate the work they put into the P3D adaption and would have gladly paid an upgrade price for the P3D version, but I also felt they were too greedy by asking the full price.

 

Peter

[SKEWR 364]

FYI on https://www.twitch.tv/belynz I'm watching Matt fly the FSL A320 (P3D) on stream.

 

If you can't catch it live, the video should be on this page.

[mikea76 184]

I avoided the A320 after FSL asked us to buy the Concorde again for P3D. If it had been a new development I would have understood, but it was a five year old plane with known issues and aging visuals. I appreciate the work they put into the P3D adaption and would have gladly paid an upgrade price for the P3D version, but I also felt they were too greedy by asking the full price.

 

Peter

So, I assume you don't buy PMDG products either?

[qqwertz 784]

Hi Mike,

 

your assumption is correct. Although they would seriously test my resolve if they released the JS 4100 for P3D

 

Peter

[mikea76 184]

Hi Mike,

 

your assumption is correct. Although they would seriously test my resolve if they released the JS 4100 for P3D

 

Peter

I agree with your reasoning, I will still buy PMDG products but only for one platform. this is why I never bought the NGX for P3D,since I bought it for FSX I felt it was crazy to pay even more for a then 3 year old add-on with the 777 I pur chased only the P3D version.

[Mephic 129]

FYI on https://www.twitch.tv/belynz I'm watching Matt fly the FSL A320 (P3D) on stream.

 

If you can't catch it live, the video should be on this page.

Ahhh... impressive plane. Not yet there to forgive it 1 GB of VAS but almost, almost...