FSLabs A320 or upcoming AS A320 for v4?

[odourboy 1,288]

I want a nice Airbus but the FSLabs is a lot of dough for me, esp. with some of the performance concerns that have been expressed. Any thoughts or insight into what we can expect from Aerosoft A320/321 with their updated bus line for V4?

[Alan_A 1,650]

Pretty decent amount of detail in this thread on the Aerosoft preview forum.

If you want even more, there's this earlier thread (now locked) that also covers the upcoming AS A330.  But some of the information in it is now out of date.

It seems that the AS will have pretty much the same focus (left-seat day-to-day operations) and system fidelity as the current ones.  But there will also be lots of new code and a new soundset.

I'm leaning toward the Aerosoft version - I liked the earlier one and I think it's probably the right amount of airplane for the way I like to use the sim.  I appreciate the (lite) crew simulation and the fact that it's designed to have a smaller footprint in order to play well with add-ons.  That said, I'm sure it's not going to be the equal of the FSL for absolute system depth or the level of immersion that comes from deep simulation of the aircraft itself.  That, to me, is the difference - AS if you want to use the aircraft in the sim ecosystem and are willing to accept some tradeoffs in systems fidelity, FSL if you're so fascinated by the aircraft itself (as you might be) that you're willing to tune down some of your sim settings to get the most out of it.

Hope I haven't touched off a religious war via this post - not my goal.

EDIT: Worth noting also that if experience is any guide, the AS offering won't simulate the differences among the various models (flight modeling, systems) or between engine types that FSL will when it produces its A319 and A321.  The differences in the AS package are apt to be more generic and/or cosmetic.  Of course, the additional FSL models will be additional purchases (probably at a discount for A320 owners) and there's no ETA for them.  So another set of tradeoffs, but related to the ones I outlined above.  At the end of the day, a matter of which approach floats your boat, or aircraft in this case...

 

 

[Chock 17,769]

I suspect the Aerosoft one will float most people's boat if they just want to do realistic normal operations and aren't bothered about simulating what the thing flies like after half the wing has fallen off and it's in abnormal law and the hydraulic fluid is draining away and would get annoyed if their simulated A320 doesn't show the exact voltages the real thing would have on its fault pages in such a circumstance. That's the kind of stuff you'd want the FSL one for.

[Epikk 62]

15 minutes ago, Alan_A said:

It seems that the AS will have pretty much the same focus (left-seat day-to-day operations) and system fidelity as the current ones. 

Come on. No way... 

[Alan_A 1,650]

Just now, Epikk said:

Come on... 

Glad you're entertained.  But read closely.  I didn't say how much system fidelity there would be - only that, from what Aerosoft has said, the level of fidelity, and the focus of the project, isn't going to change from the current version.  So if the OP is familiar with the current one, he should have a pretty good idea what to expect from the upcoming one.

Put another way - it seems you don't think the current version has much by way of systems fidelity.  So you're likely to think the same about the new one.

I stand by my statement. 

 

[signmanbob 592]

53 minutes ago, odourboy said:

I want a nice Airbus but the FSLabs is a lot of dough for me, esp. with some of the performance concerns that have been expressed. Any thoughts or insight into what we can expect from Aerosoft A320/321 with their updated bus line for V4?

i'm getting almost 30FPS with the FSL A320 in P3Dv4.1, at FSDT's beautiful KDFW with full AI traffic from LiveTraffic.  I wouldn't call that poor performance at all.

I had a little tick with the engine sound studdering, but I installed Blue Star Sky sounds on both the CFM and IAE engines.  Now they sound fantastic and it cured the studders. Not everybody is getting those studders though.  It must just depend on your setup.

The systems and sounds work amazing in the FSL A320 and I can fly it for hours in P3Dv4.1, going from one airport to the next without ever restarting the sim.  It don't get any better than that.  Myself, I won't be looking for any other A320 in P3Dv4.1.

 

Bob

[Julkensen 47]

FSLabs is teh way to go. Igot bored pretty quick with the aerosoft one because you can't do anything than go from A to B. the sounds are very poor and I didn't like the look of the cockpit.

When they resort to  FO coughing and a coffee cup to entertain you during your flight is says a lot on the level of excitement this plane brings.

they claim you get 2 planes for the price of one but really its just the same plane with a different exterior model. fslabs model every little difference in system andhandling.

the fslabs will surpise you every flight, any mistake you will pay and the immersion brought from the texturing and sound environement in unmatched in flightsim today, even by pmdg.

As said above performance are good. I only had 5 fps less in the fslabs compared to aerosoft. those 5 fps are not worth what you loose in system depth and imersion with aerosoft.

Yes it is a bit pricey but you get what you pay for. Since its release last year i've flown th fslabs so many hours that it basically paid for itself.

[stephenbgs 169]

Just finished up my Sunday evening flight in the FSLabs A320 and due to time constraints i only had time for a 1hr flight between EGBB and EIDW and i have to be honest i had the same satisfaction i would have with the Aerosoft version,

This was only my second flight in the FSLabs since i flew the tutorial so i really haven't dug deep into the systems, its a fantasic aircraft and one ill keep going back to, But to be honest ill buy aerosofts version as well because my sim time is getting extreamly limited and i also " appreciate the (lite) crew simulation" as Alan stated above, which is great when you haven't time to learn study level aircraft.

[garrett_frank 150]

1 hour ago, signmanbob said:

I installed Blue Star Sky sounds on both the CFM and IAE engines.

An addon sound pack is required to get proper sound for a $140 aircraft addon?

[sultanofswing 57]

10 minutes ago, garrett_frank said:

An addon sound pack is required to get proper sound for a $140 aircraft addon?

Most definitely not.

[Lenny777 299]

$190 Canadian? No thanks for FSlabs. I'll stick with  Aerosoft. I don't play  with system failures anyway. It's a decent enough Airbus simulation. I've flown XP10-11  JARDesign A320, and 330,  A350 by FF. Aerosoft is a capable simulation. Lots of liveries and repaints and interior in fact looks  better on Aerosoft's. I love the FS2Crew integration which hopefully will be ported over to v4.

[ShawnG 1,823]

I'm waiting on the aerosoft buses for my fix.  I was going to try the fslabs model, and i still probably would have, if the price had remained at the previous level, but I have bought 2 too many 140 dollar aircraft already.  I love my pmdg stuff, but I have never actually used them beyond aerosoft level anyway, so the money spent, and the cpu cycles taken up by features I have zero interest in mean that I will happily watch this release sail on by, unless and until they have some sort of fire sale on it.

[Chock 17,769]

30 minutes ago, garrett_frank said:

An addon sound pack is required to get proper sound for a $140 aircraft addon?

Nah, the sounds in the FSL 'Bus are one of its strongest features, the engine noise in particular is amazingly good.

[Nighthwk 566]

All I'm going to say is that all the stuff said about the AS A320 applies to the iFly 747/737 and the Captain Sim 777. 

[Alan_A 1,650]

A broad point in favor of ultra-high fidelity study sims like the FSL is that, even if you don't go near the failures, the depth of the systems simulation is such that they're often more polished even in routine operation - in, say, the ability of the FMC to nail a complex approach with a series of constraints.  So that might be points in favor of FSL.

The question is, does that matter to you?

A couple of things that are lurking in the background of this conversation and should probably be brought out in the open - it's possible that there's a difference between the best simulation, and the best simulation for you.  To know whether that's true or not, you have to think about how you use the sim - how much time you have, how you want to use that time, what aspects of the sim you find most rewarding.

Related: when some of us lean toward lighter sims, it's not because we don't know the difference.  We do - we're just making a choice.  There are lots of choices to be made.  I fly a lot of piston aircraft, including a lot of A2A.  But there are times - say when I have only 15 minutes to spare, or when I want to look at a piece of scenery - that I don't want to bother with an A2A walkaround, and instead I fire up a Carenado.  I know what a Carenado is, and I know it's not an A2A.  But the Carenado is right for what I want to do at that particular moment.

Sometimes the choice is more subtle.  I fly both the A2A Constellation and the PMDG DC-6.  The A2A offers deeper system simulation.  One of their hardcore specialties is modeling radial engines, and when you start the Connie, you're working with an organic model of the engine components, down to things like fuel in the primer lines, that's interacting with temperature and other environmental factors, to make each engine start its own weird, unique, highly rewarding experience.  The PMDG doesn't do that - they didn't want to model the plumbing, so their engine start is scripted, and not even scripted with as much randomness as, say, the Manfred Jahn freeware C-47.  So I could write it off for insufficient system depth.  But there are other things it does well, maybe even better than the Connie - it has a great Alexander Metzger flight model; it's a more modern, more capable airplane with a more useful autopilot, and because it's based on a contemporary working aircraft, it fits better into modern airspace with fewer compromises.  So sometimes I choose the DC-6, and when I do, I accept that the engine start isn't going to be as much fun but there are other rewards.  Choices.

Given what I've just said about myself, one of my questions is how to fit an airliner into my (limited) sim time.  The pilots' aids in the AS Airbus are helpful.  The FSL is aobjectively much deeper, but am I going to get enough out of that depth to make it worthwhile for me?  Not sure.  I don't think I've ever come across a better aircraft simulation than the Majestic Q400.  The problem is, the workload is too much for me, I find the FMC really balky, and my bottom line is that it's a fantastic simulation of an aircraft I don't like very much.

All that said, I'll probably try the FSL at some point.  And I'm sure I'll be blown away by it.

But if I don't settle on it, it doesn't mean that I didn't understand what it has to offer.