There's also, pretty much in the "mood" of BlackBox777, this other author on youtube, himself a RW airline pilot too.

Lot's if X-plane-based tutorials, including for the FF A320
 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbCEFhavbOTLvNZkhEWoCaw/videos

6 hours ago, jcomm said:

There's also, pretty much in the "mood" of BlackBox777, this other author on youtube, himself a RW airline pilot too.

Lot's if X-plane-based tutorials, including for the FF A320
 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbCEFhavbOTLvNZkhEWoCaw/videos

Whoa!  That's great!  Thanks.

 

Bob

Just got an eMail from Navigraph that they added support for the FF A320, good news indeed.

Cheers, Rob.

On 11.3.2018 at 2:48 PM, pegruder said:

Have you had him give the FF version a go and see his thoughts?  Curious how he'd compare the two as well :)

Well, got him in the meantime to become curious enough to try the FF as well :).

After several flights and spending time with the systems, he was also really impressed by the systems implementation and their dependencies.

He was aware it is still Version 0.8, so not to focus on missing MCDU features like the ALTN fuel or the missing report page and so on.

What he was not impressed with was the sound and the flights itself, especially how the FMGS in connection with  airplane performance deals with the plane. He said, after hundreds of hours in the real plane you have a certain 'picture' in your head regarding what you see, what you hear, how the FMGS reacts, which numbers you see the entire flight and so on. Especially in the descent and approach phase, I saw him raising eyebrows a lot. Additionally when trying to manipulate the route, e.g. by inserting altitude constraints, he quickly managed to screw up the vertical profile in the FF twice. Also he put the FMGS into an maybe unrealistic test, by initiating the descend phase couple of miles after the TOD to check how the FMGS handles it. Again the FSL closer to real than the FF.

The final flight was, well, a bit unfair, using real weather. The real weather representation and how the FMGS deals with weather, in his opinion far more convincing in the FSL again. He did not want to spend 70$ for XEnviro or similar, so that is of course no surprise. Comparing XPlane default weather and Active Sky on the other end is sort of comparing apples with oranges.

The conclusion at this stage : If you want to replicate an A320 routine flight and get as close as possible to the audiovisual sensations a real pilot has, you have to go with FSL.  FF320 is not even close or not close yet. He mentioned FSL must have had A LOT of real pilots in the testing team focusing on fine details, while FF probably didn't.

There was no time to test and compare failures.

Well, so the FSL is a year or more ahead, interesting how the FF catches up during the year :)

Mike

Edited March 18, 20188 yr by mikealpha
Typo correction

The textures in the FFA320 VC are much better than the FSLabs one. Performance in FSLabs has increased with the latest update. I still prefer FF version for the immersion. After going back to P3D, the overall ground textures seem very cartoonish compared to X-Plane and it takes away from the immersion factor.

 

6 hours ago, Jude Bradley said:

The textures in the FFA320 VC are much better than the FSLabs one. Performance in FSLabs has increased with the latest update. I still prefer FF version for the immersion. After going back to P3D, the overall ground textures seem very cartoonish compared to X-Plane and it takes away from the immersion factor.

 

And the feel of inertia we get in the FF, as well as in the Toliss for that matter, and it's totally absent in the FSLabs which stops rolling and pitching instantly, and is abrupt in pretty much every aspect ...

Edited March 26, 20188 yr by jcomm

Since the beta of FFA320 came out last October, I've been flying literally nothing else - until yesterday when I took the IXEG out for a spin again. It's a testament to how good the FFA320 is.

 

@Jude, for me it's even more "airbusic" since I alternate between equal v-flight times in the Toliss and the FF...

I'm bused !

The Toliss is probably closer to the real thing in terms for instance of the speeds for takeoff. I find the speeds in the FF A320 strangely low ( ? ). Toliss also has already Holds, which are not implemented in the FF, and I really need that feature when on the last segment of my flight wife calls from the kitchen :)

But the the FF A320 is so "believable" inflight, and specially when landing under stronger shifting winds...

They're both a charm - both!

Edited March 28, 20188 yr by jcomm

Funny you should say that, my wife always says "That's enough now" when I'm on finals. Great timing! 

On ‎26‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 7:13 PM, jcomm said:

And the feel of inertia we get in the FF, as well as in the Toliss for that matter, and it's totally absent in the FSLabs which stops rolling and pitching instantly, and is abrupt in pretty much every aspect ...

Well,

actually just tried it again ( another monthly dev license of p3dv4 required ... ) and the latest ( March ) patch of the FSLabs is delivering an even smoother and overall better experience.

I'm now a two platform simmer again :-)

And, don't forget it guys! An A319 / 20 captain!

After a break from simming, I just updated to P3Dv4.2, and the new updated FSL A320;  On my system performance is much improved, and the FSL is a super smooth joy to fly now!

15 minutes ago, JYW said:

After a break from simming, I just updated to P3Dv4.2, and the new updated FSL A320;  On my system performance is much improved, and the FSL is a super smooth joy to fly now!

same here :-) - actually smoother than either the Toliss or the FF in XP11, and in both sims I set autogen and trees to NILL, no shadows...

I'm Bused in two plaftorms now....

Edited March 30, 20188 yr by jcomm

The take off Speed calculator of the AA 320 is broken. Use this instead:

 http://www.avsimrus.com/f/for-pilots-19/popular-calculator-to-calculate-takeoff-parameters-in-from-airbus-type-36340.html

Edited March 31, 20188 yr by Ralf Maylin

Thx Ralf!

I used to use that one with the Aerosoft buses in FSX - this is a newer version though.

I also use the : http://wabpro.cz/A320/

Ralf are you referring to the FF or the Toliss ? Because I believe the Toliss has it's speeds very plausibly calculated, even considering rw and weather data for v1 calculations... The above online performance calculator even allows for takeoffs from intersections.

The FF A320 has it's speeds calculated correctly, for it's flight model, and that's the problem for me - they're too optimistic / rarther low compared to real data and other models, but the aircraft responds ok to them, so, you always end up taking off too soon and accelerate too fast...  Hope they will address it in the future.

Anyway, yesterday I upgraded Madeira to Aerosoft Madeira X Evo in P3Dv4, and operating the FSLabs from there into LPPT or the way around gives me a great alternative to the buses in XP11 :-)

Edited April 1, 20188 yr by jcomm

Hi,

Above posts make me wonder if you really fly the FFA320 correctly or maybe not setting up the flights correctly. Real pilots are used as beta-testers. Holds are present etc.etc.

I recommend watching the signature "Reflected Reality Simulations" flights in FFA320 on YouTube. He is a real pilot in a A320. And an excellent instructor. He shows every step he takes in an easy to follow way.

FWIW, FF A320 is still in beta.