FSX-MS FS Labs A320X: THE Airbus in the virtual skies

[Guest Mik75]

It's probably because a lot of simmers like a more hands-on approach to simming, and the A320 has never really been chielfy about hands on flying when operated normally, so they do 'get it' in the sense that they are aware it is a very accurate simulation, but that being the case, may not like it simply because it is such an accurate simulation of the real thing, and that's not how they want to fly. To elaborate...

 

Most pilots would say you 'operate' the A320 as opposed to 'flying it' much of the time, whereas aircraft with a traditional yoke and less funky systems are more geared toward hand flying than the Airbus is, with its tiny sidestick controllers. The less prominent size and position of the Airbus sidesticks is part of the design approach in relation to how one is supposed to operate it, and that's okay so long as the systems are well understood, but the ethos becomes less sound when the systems are not well understood, or when they break down and you have to revert to some traditional stick and rudder work, which sadly, is a skill often not as well honed as it could be with many airline pilots. Generally speaking, there is the Airbus design ethos of 'taking the chance of a pilot cocking things up out of the pilot's hands and giving much of that responsibility to the systems', as opposed to the more traditional (dare we say, Boeing) ethos of 'providing info to the pilot, so he or she can make an informed choice to not cock up by flying the thing him/herself'. With simming, you pays your money and takes your choice, but bearing in mind the skills gap which can often result from taking the flying responsibility out of a pilot's hands and having them rely on systems, it's an ethos which has not always turned out as well as it might.

 

Probably the best example in recent times of where that really mattered, is US Airways 1549 (aka the A320 which landed in the Hudson River). When I learned of that incident, literally the first thought which occurred to me was: 'I bet the guy flying it is a glider pilot'. Sure enough, Chesley Sullenberger was indeed a glider pilot cadet at the US Air Force Academy in the late Sixties and ended up being made an instructor on them whilst there, later also getting a lot of stick time on an Aeronca 7 Champ. Although to be fair, we should also note that the first officer on US Airways 1549 - Jeffrey Skiles - had almost as much stick time as 'Sully' and played no small part in the safe landing of that A320, in fact he was right out of training on the A320 on that ill-fated flight, which probably contributed to him being really on the ball with emergency procedures. Unfortunately I guess the media wanted one hero as opposed to two, so Skiles never gets the credi t he deserves.

 

There are arguments for both approaches to cockpit and system design, but there are certainly things I think could be better on the real Airbus and which go some way to explaining why not everyone is thrilled with it either in real life or as a sim. For example, many pilots - including me, and indeed a certain Mr Sullenberger - are critical of the fact that the sidestick controllers on the A320 are not mechanically linked and indeed not well in sight. That they are not so, is something which undeniably contributed to the loss of Air France 447, in that Bonin (the guy in the right seat) was holding the stick fully back and (bizarrely) saying he didn't understand why they were dropping (where did that guy learn to fly?). Personally, I still find it unbelievable to comprehend that a pilot wouldn't know what a stall was and would keep the stick back fully and just hope for the best, I mean that's just basics, but that being the case, I can understand why it would not occur to Robert (the pilot in the left seat) that the guy next to him was doing something so utterly stupid whilst the aircraft dropped through literally thousands of feet. If those sidesticks were mechanically linked or even just more visible, Robert would have seen that Bonin had the stick back, something which would be even more obvious with a traditional mechanically-linked yoke, because the thing would have been right the way back in Robert's groin. This is not even getting into the fact that the sidestick doesn't give much tactile feedback on the real A320 and that, unlike with a traditional yoke or even a traditional joystick, you are forced to fly left handed or right handed by virtue of which seat you are in. It's been acknowledged that AF447 could have been safely flown by using known thrust and attitude settings without the need for an ASI (the pitots being iced up), but sadly they never got the chance because of the design choices of EADS and the poor skills/training of one of the pilots, who rode the thing all the way down to the deck with the stick pulled hard back.

 

The point of all this is that whilst the FSL A320 is a a marvel of simulation, and I personally think it is up to this point at least, the finest simulated aeroplane ever to have become available for MSFS, at least in terms of accuracy and technical achievement, there is no denying that in normal operations at least, it ain't no stick and rudder bird, although like the real thing, it does simulate the features of the real aeroplane well enough to test the mettle of those who can fly like that when they need to if they simulate such failures.

 

The FSL A320 is great, but just ain't gona be everyone's cup of tea.

Thanks a lot for your detailed answer and your very interesting opinion!

There seems to be a demand for a good Airbus simulation among simmers. If I see which airliners get flown the most on the online networks and with the virtual airlines I am part of, the A320 is on the top 3, if not nr. 1!

But it seems, as if most people who fly on online networks, are happy with what the AS Airbus has to offer. While I really like their work (the sounds and the visuals are quite immersive), and their approach of "every day flight operation" things to be modeled quite well and consistently, it just doesn't fit to all the "we want realism" that usually can be read in forums, that the FSL A320 doesn't get more "praise and honour"! ;-)

Seriously, I had countless hours of solid fun in the AS Airbus, but the FSL Airbus is a different league. I'd even say, it's a league of its own.

This thing is beyond everything that ever came to market, labelled as an "Airbus simulation"!

The sounds alone are out of this world. How the avionics come to life, or how their vents change pitch very slightly if you change from GPU to APU.

The way the electrical system reacts when you turn on things like anti ice, etc. The way the enigines spool up after setting t/o power, ...

I am not an expert or a real world pilot, but for me, it's the attention to detail and the simulation of a dynamic environment, that creates immersion.

I've been "flying" full flight A 320 sims a few times, and I can vividly remember, how exciting it's been to press the switches, look at the real instruments and "feel" the real deal for the first time. And the FSL A320X reassembles this amazing experience as close as nothing before.

If I could afford a new machine, along with a fully fledged VR setup, I am pretty sure it would blow me away! ;-)

It is that good, that "details" like the sim platform in use, or the tiniest graphical details of the outside world just don't matter anymore...

For me, this software is a pure work of art!

[Chock 17,769]

All good points.  My simpler explanation - I haven't bought it because, as fascinating as the aircraft is, I'm not so fascinated by it that I'm willing to turn off the entire outside world in order to run it.  My enjoyment comes from flying in a living world with at least some reasonable amount of scenery and traffic.  I can certainly see why others might disagree and might be entirely focused on the airplane and its systems.  If so, the FSL Bus must be a terrifically rewarding experience.  But that's not me right now.  I might come on board at some future point - maybe on my next system, when I've got a little more overhead, and maybe after FSL has put it through a little more performance optimization.

 

Have you considered giving this a try? It's not a bad solution for sluggish systems with fancy add-on planes and scenery.

 

http://www.thefsps.com/fsx/fsx-booster-live.html

 

It is nice in that what you can do with it, is drop the detail when at the airport and then kick it up a bit en route all on the fly, so you don't have to wait for a reload unlike if you do that with the menu settings. It does work to squeeze some extra FPS out of your system when using things like the PMDG NG and the FSL A320 if your system struggles a bit. Just be aware that if you do try it, there is a registration bug on the downloads you get from some online stores, which you can get past by downloading the installation file from the FSPS site and using that to install it instead of the installation download you get from wherever you buy it from. I had to do that when I bought it, because it wouldn't let me register it when I used the exe file I got from Simshack.

[klamal 282]

Thanks a lot for your detailed answer and your very interesting opinion!

There seems to be a demand for a good Airbus simulation among simmers. If I see which airliners get flown the most on the online networks and with the virtual airlines I am part of, the A320 is on the top 3, if not nr. 1!

But it seems, as if most people who fly on online networks, are happy with what the AS Airbus has to offer. While I really like their work (the sounds and the visuals are quite immersive), and their approach of "every day flight operation" things to be modeled quite well and consistently, it just doesn't fit to all the "we want realism" that usually can be read in forums, that the FSL A320 doesn't get more "praise and honour"! ;-)

Seriously, I had countless hours of solid fun in the AS Airbus, but the FSL Airbus is a different league. I'd even say, it's a league of its own.

This thing is beyond everything that ever came to market, labelled as an "Airbus simulation"!

The sounds alone are out of this world. How the avionics come to life, or how their vents change pitch very slightly if you change from GPU to APU.

The way the electrical system reacts when you turn on things like anti ice, etc. The way the enigines spool up after setting t/o power, ...

I am not an expert or a real world pilot, but for me, it's the attention to detail and the simulation of a dynamic environment, that creates immersion.

I've been "flying" full flight A 320 sims a few times, and I can vividly remember, how exciting it's been to press the switches, look at the real instruments and "feel" the real deal for the first time. And the FSL A320X reassembles this amazing experience as close as nothing before.

If I could afford a new machine, along with a fully fledged VR setup, I am pretty sure it would blow me away! ;-)

It is that good, that "details" like the sim platform in use, or the tiniest graphical details of the outside world just don't matter anymore...

For me, this software is a pure work of art!

This is exactly where I sit too!  Couldn't agree more.  That's why the pain of waiting for the P3D version is so agonizing!!! I'm tempted again to put FSX back on my newly re-installed system because I'm not sure that I can hold out the months or year+ that we're going to have to wait.  Sorry, off track.  Again, this is the best aircraft simulation for flight simulation!

[Alan_A 1,650]

Have you considered giving this a try? It's not a bad solution for sluggish systems with fancy add-on planes and scenery.

 

http://www.thefsps.c...oster-live.html

 

Thanks, sounds interesting - though my issues are more about VAS than framerate - should have made that clear.  Not sure if the booster would have an impact on VAS.  Should also have made clear that I've recently moved to P3D, so my FSL Airbus considerations are abstract for now, though my post does explain my current thinking.  If and when the P3D version turns up, I'll see what people have to say about it and depending on reports, might come on board.

[Guest Mik75]

This is exactly where I sit too!  Couldn't agree more.  That's why the pain of waiting for the P3D version is so agonizing!!! I'm tempted again to put FSX back on my newly re-installed system because I'm not sure that I can hold out the months or year+ that we're going to have to wait.  Sorry, off track.  Again, this is the best aircraft simulation for flight simulation!

I bought and installed FSX SE just for the FSL Airbus.

It's only $9,99, and I had all setup within 2 hours (FTX Global, the IVAO MTL, Ezdok, AS16,etc.)! ;-)

[klamal 282]

I bought and installed FSX SE just for the FSL Airbus.

It's only $9,99, and I had all setup within 2 hours (FTX Global, the IVAO MTL, Ezdok, AS16,etc.)! ;-)

Yeah, I know.  I have FSX boxed still and had it that way too before I re-built my system.  I just can't stand FSX any more after using P3D for so long now.

[Guest Mik75]

Yeah, I know. I have FSX boxed still and had it that way too before I re-built my system. I just can't stand FSX any more after using P3D for so long now.

I hear you! ;-)

I had FSX boxed installed as well. But I've uninstalled it, because I wanted to reinstall XPX instead, and with my SSDs, drive space is always critical.

However, I just missed the FSL Airbus so badly, and FSX SE was downloaded and installed in no time. And now, I just can't stop flying it.

I even "invested" in the cloud shadows add on for Steve's DX10 fixer, and for the time being, I really enjoy FSX with the Airbus, even without addon airport scenery. ;-)

[Samaritano 304]

I am with you! ;-)

This is clearly not a "if, then" kind of programming. This is the real deal, a dynamically reacting system that gets as close to the actual thing as nothing did before. The programming and logics behind it must be mind blowing...

To be honest, I don't understand why there is no total hype about this release. Half a year after it got launched, it is remarkably bug free, totally consistent and a pure joy to use and fly.

The fact that it is only an FSX release is probably the reason why "there is no total hype" for this addon. I for one am waiting for the P3D version and on performance reviews (VAS). I have FSX but no plans to install it.

[scottb613 1,188]

Hi Folks,

 

Since AF447 was brought up - one thing I read during that news cycle was that the sticks just cancel out each other if two inputs are received - ie - port side pulling back - starboard side pushing forward - - - is that really true ??? From an engineering perspective I just find that ludicrous - like when would that EVER be beneficial ??? Have one override the other and if you really feel nice - provide some indication that your inputs are overridden...

 

Regards,
Scott  

[honanhal 1,420]

All good points.  My simpler explanation - I haven't bought it because, as fascinating as the aircraft is, I'm not so fascinated by it that I'm willing to turn off the entire outside world in order to run it.  My enjoyment comes from flying in a living world with at least some reasonable amount of scenery and traffic.  I can certainly see why others might disagree and might be entirely focused on the airplane and its systems.  If so, the FSL Bus must be a terrifically rewarding experience.  But that's not me right now.  I might come on board at some future point - maybe on my next system, when I've got a little more overhead, and maybe after FSL has put it through a little more performance optimization.

 

Alan, I couldn't have said it better myself. My system is no slouch, but there's just too many people with powerful systems having to more or less "turn off the entire outside world" to make this works acceptably, from either an FPS or VAS standpoint (or both). FSL seemingly need to optimize the performance a little more aggressively. Until then, I'll stay on the fence.

 

James

[Guest Mik75]

Alan, I couldn't have said it better myself. My system is no slouch, but there's just too many people with powerful systems having to more or less "turn off the entire outside world" to make this works acceptably, from either an FPS or VAS standpoint (or both). FSL seemingly need to optimize the performance a little more aggressively. Until them, I'll stay on the fence.

 

James

You are clearly missing a milestone in FS history!

To be honest, FSX with FTX Global, AS16 & ASCA and somewhat reduced sliders doesn't look like "outside world turned off" to me...

Have you've ever seen the graphics in a full flight sim? ;-)

[Chock 17,769]

I bought and installed FSX SE just for the FSL Airbus.

It's only $9,99, and I had all setup within 2 hours (FTX Global, the IVAO MTL, Ezdok, AS16,etc.)! ;-)

 

Yup, FSX-SE is what I use too, even though I do have P3D. The Steam version is a real bargain,  vastly improved over either boxed or download FSX versions with SP2 and Acceleration when it comes to performance and memory usage in comparison to the old FSX versions (and I had both of those). The Steam version includes all that malarkey anyway, so is okay with anything which needs the tweeks Acceleration provided (i.e. for more complex add-ons with better engine simulation). Had no OOMs or crashes with the Steam version when using aircraft or sceneries which definitely had issues in the boxed and patched version of FSX, i.e. things like the FlySimware Lear 35, which used to make the boxed version of FSX on my system fall over with an OOM issue on a regular basis. As long as you know where to point anything you install to the FSX-SE config file, it'll run anything the boxed version would, and a lot better. It's a no brainer and well worth a tenner to run hungry add-ons such as the FSL 'Bus and those fancy PMDG Boeings.

[Guest Mik75]

Yup, FSX-SE is what I use too, even though I do have P3D. The Steam version is a real bargain,  vastly improved over either boxed or download FSX versions with SP2 and Acceleration when it comes to performance and memory usage in comparison to the old FSX versions (and I had both of those). The Steam version includes all that malarkey anyway, so is okay with anything which needs the tweeks Acceleration provided (i.e. for more complex add-ons with better engine simulation). Had no OOMs or crashes with the Steam version when using aircraft or sceneries which definitely had issues in the boxed and patched version of FSX, i.e. things like the FlySimware Lear 35, which used to make the boxed version of FSX on my system fall over with an OOM issue on a regular basis. As long as you know where to point anything you install to the FSX-SE config file, it'll run anything the boxed version would, and a lot better. It's a no brainer and well worth a tenner to run hungry add-ons such as the FSL 'Bus and those fancy PMDG Boeings.

Correct! ;-)

Maybe, I'll even install a few more "FSX only" aircraft in the near future.

[mikea76 184]

It's probably because a lot of simmers like a more hands-on approach to simming, and the A320 has never really been chielfy about hands on flying when operated normally, so they do 'get it' in the sense that they are aware it is a very accurate simulation, but that being the case, may not like it simply because it is such an accurate simulation of the real thing, and that's not how they want to fly. To elaborate...

 

Most pilots would say you 'operate' the A320 as opposed to 'flying it' much of the time, whereas aircraft with a traditional yoke and less funky systems are more geared toward hand flying than the Airbus is, with its tiny sidestick controllers. The less prominent size and position of the Airbus sidesticks is part of the design approach in relation to how one is supposed to operate it, and that's okay so long as the systems are well understood, but the ethos becomes less sound when the systems are not well understood, or when they break down and you have to revert to some traditional stick and rudder work, which sadly, is a skill often not as well honed as it could be with many airline pilots. Generally speaking, there is the Airbus design ethos of 'taking the chance of a pilot cocking things up out of the pilot's hands and giving much of that responsibility to the systems', as opposed to the more traditional (dare we say, Boeing) ethos of 'providing info to the pilot, so he or she can make an informed choice to not cock up by flying the thing him/herself'. With simming, you pays your money and takes your choice, but bearing in mind the skills gap which can often result from taking the flying responsibility out of a pilot's hands and having them rely on systems, it's an ethos which has not always turned out as well as it might.

 

Probably the best example in recent times of where that really mattered, is US Airways 1549 (aka the A320 which landed in the Hudson River). When I learned of that incident, literally the first thought which occurred to me was: 'I bet the guy flying it is a glider pilot'. Sure enough, Chesley Sullenberger was indeed a glider pilot cadet at the US Air Force Academy in the late Sixties and ended up being made an instructor on them whilst there, later also getting a lot of stick time on an Aeronca 7 Champ. Although to be fair, we should also note that the first officer on US Airways 1549 - Jeffrey Skiles - had almost as much stick time as 'Sully' and played no small part in the safe landing of that A320, in fact he was right out of training on the A320 on that ill-fated flight, which probably contributed to him being really on the ball with emergency procedures. Unfortunately I guess the media wanted one hero as opposed to two, so Skiles never gets the credi t he deserves.

 

There are arguments for both approaches to cockpit and system design, but there are certainly things I think could be better on the real Airbus and which go some way to explaining why not everyone is thrilled with it either in real life or as a sim. For example, many pilots - including me, and indeed a certain Mr Sullenberger - are critical of the fact that the sidestick controllers on the A320 are not mechanically linked and indeed not well in sight. That they are not so, is something which undeniably contributed to the loss of Air France 447, in that Bonin (the guy in the right seat) was holding the stick fully back and (bizarrely) saying he didn't understand why they were dropping (where did that guy learn to fly?). Personally, I still find it unbelievable to comprehend that a pilot wouldn't know what a stall was and would keep the stick back fully and just hope for the best, I mean that's just basics, but that being the case, I can understand why it would not occur to Robert (the pilot in the left seat) that the guy next to him was doing something so utterly stupid whilst the aircraft dropped through literally thousands of feet. If those sidesticks were mechanically linked or even just more visible, Robert would have seen that Bonin had the stick back, something which would be even more obvious with a traditional mechanically-linked yoke, because the thing would have been right the way back in Robert's groin. This is not even getting into the fact that the sidestick doesn't give much tactile feedback on the real A320 and that, unlike with a traditional yoke or even a traditional joystick, you are forced to fly left handed or right handed by virtue of which seat you are in. It's been acknowledged that AF447 could have been safely flown by using known thrust and attitude settings without the need for an ASI (the pitots being iced up), but sadly they never got the chance because of the design choices of EADS and the poor skills/training of one of the pilots, who rode the thing all the way down to the deck with the stick pulled hard back.

 

The point of all this is that whilst the FSL A320 is a a marvel of simulation, and I personally think it is up to this point at least, the finest simulated aeroplane ever to have become available for MSFS, at least in terms of accuracy and technical achievement, there is no denying that in normal operations at least, it ain't no stick and rudder bird, although like the real thing, it does simulate the features of the real aeroplane well enough to test the mettle of those who can fly like that when they need to if they simulate such failures.

 

The FSL A320 is great, but just ain't gona be everyone's cup of tea.

 

I just think many simmers don't understand the difference between a ok simulation like the AS a320 and this plane.. Some rather large differences such as accurate ground modeling in the FSL 320 (no tube liner in FSX is even close in ground behavior) higher level of accuracy in FBW behavior and systems, plus the FSL has much better lighting... a lot of that is lost to the average simmer

[anden145 2,285]

Purchased the FSX version and planning to upgrade to P3D as soon as it is available. However that may seem a bit into the distant future, if I am to believe the reports coming from the FSLabs forums... 

 

I thought, i always have the Aerosoft version to 'satisfy my needs' for Airbus ... Turns out, I have been spoiled by FSLabs Airbus, and can't be satisfied with the Aerosoft anymore - features are missing which I miss, so to speak... the STS page, Recall function, and ECAM Caution messages when starting up from Cold-and-Dark or in Turn-around-state... 

At first, I thought it must be an error, that when I'm on the stand with engines off, and only on ground-power, that the only ECAM message I had was a green one, saying I had FUEL X FEED or something... Oh, well... Apparently it's not modeled? Or is my install incorrect? I know, I know, the Aerosoft is quite good, and at a different price-range -- but I, quite frankly, was surprised that this was missing... at least in mine (I'm running Aerosoft Airbus X 1.31a)... 

 

Anyway - I have now re-installed Flight Simulator X Steam Edition and are installing FSLabs Airbus instead... Won't fly any other Airbus, apparently... 

 

On a side not... I'm not really sure what's holding FSLabs back of releasing the Airbus for P3D - but if the plane has a huge VAS consumption - and larger in P3D, it would be virtually impossible to use in P3D? Maybe the only solution for FSLabs, is simply to wait for LM to release P3D in 64-bit?

In that case, we're looking a bit further into the future, than I anticipated, unfortunately. Let's not forget, that the FSLabs Airbus, is an extremely sophisticated and advanced simulation - of one of the most complex airliners ever built... I can't see why the VAS footprint would/should be larger in P3D than in FSX - but maybe code changes or other things is conflicting/changing this somehow?