Yes, it is not known for its optics. But the look is good enough for me. A little the contrary of Carenado, where the look is nice but the rest sucks. But I definitely prefer it that way.

I was not much of an airbus fan while I was using the Aerosoft Buses. Mostly because the NGX was so much more fun. Nowadays I almost fly the FSL bus exclusively although the NGX is still a great plane. But you get accustomed to certain things and i don't want to miss them anymore.

The GSX integration is such a nice thing! And I haven't even used de-icing yet. I just hope, they bring the new features (esp. the winshield effects) to the A320 rather sooner than later.

1 hour ago, Jude Bradley said:

Consider the textures for the knobs/switches in both FFA320 and FSLA230 and you can see the difference. 

FlightFactor https://imgur.com/3Ah0Spd
FSLabs https://imgur.com/PCeDupT

But one of them flies, the other one tries to. I rather use the one i can trust.

Don't know what you mean by that. They both get me from A to B.

 

53 minutes ago, Jude Bradley said:

Don't know what you mean by that. They both get me from A to B.

 

I don't know anything about the FFA320 so I cannot comment on that. But "gets me from A to B" is not a statement of quality. Every default plane gets you from A to B

Isn't that the reason for a real aircraft? If not, why not.

I don't get your question. Why did you bother paying hundreds of Dollars, if your main criteria is "gets me from A to B". The Aerosoft Airbus does it, the default Cessna does it, even the BBS A320 I suppose. And I am pretty sure there is a freeware A320 somewhere that does the job as well.

17 minutes ago, officercrockey said:

I don't know anything about the FFA320 so I cannot comment on that. But "gets me from A to B" is not a statement of quality. Every default plane gets you from A to B

Yeah this is it, and the FFA320 just doesn't deliver in performance/reliability. Climbing restrictions, climb power, route following, descent profile... Most of this is not implemented correctly, it feels wrong. I tend to be very careful when talking about X-Plane because people are often sensitive to that, but it's the truth, so here it is.

12 minutes ago, Jude Bradley said:

Isn't that the reason for a real aircraft? If not, why not.

No it isn't! At least not the sole part - for me, anyway. 

I want to feel, that I'm the cockpit. I want the immersion of feeling the sound environment, from turning on the battery, to hearing the engine roar to life. The look and visual candy of the exterior design and looking at the engine and fuselage. Performing the walk-around and actually admiring the airplane (FSLabs and PMDG is the only planes, I've ever stopped up, and actually admired the design and level of detail). Listening to the fans clicking, when windmilling. Knowing that the airplane reacts to the weather conditions and acts appropriately to the outside environment. Wether it's -30 C or +50 C. When it's pouring down or you're if caught in a blizzard.

That's what I want from an addon airplane and that's what FSLabs and PMDG is providing. And that is the reason, I'm willing to spends hundreds of dollars for them. It's an experience. And honestly, I don't mind paying that kind of price for it. It's more than deserved! Because of the detail level and work, which went into it. 

Quote

Consider the textures for the knobs/switches in both FFA320 and FSLA230 and you can see the difference. 

FlightFactor https://imgur.com/3Ah0Spd
FSLabs https://imgur.com/PCeDupT

If you have those links correct, then I much prefer the clarity and quality of the FS Labs textures.

3 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

If you have those links correct, then I much prefer the clarity and quality of the FS Labs textures.

I was just thinking the same thing. The fonts and texturing look much more accurate on the FSL Bus to me. And I do have both....

Sorry but the links on those picture are just wrong linked! 

Long story short if we could get the same grafic and terrain rendering in P3D as in X-Plane 11 then there would be no question about witch airbus would be better. 

But after trying out xp11 with otho4xp then my long be loved fsx to P3D looks just right to me any more. This was a bad idea, now I have tons of great airplanes in P3D but the immersion is somthing like gone after flying over the alps in XP11 and knowing how a sim also can look like! 

Silly world 

Bruno

What really matters is that everyone enjoys their simulators with their addons. I'm way past "P3D, FS9, FSX, X-Plane, whatever" is the best simulator.

But you're right, we all would want that terrain detail... Maybe someday with the new engine 😃

Quote

Sorry but the links on those picture are just wrong linked!

I am not convinced that is the case. I watched Ben's original "first look" video of the FS Labs A320X after looking at those pictures, and the VC graphics look just as crisp and clear in that.

Edited July 11, 20187 yr by Christopher Low

5 hours ago, Nuno Pinto said:

Yeah this is it, and the FFA320 just doesn't deliver in performance/reliability. Climbing restrictions, climb power, route following, descent profile... Most of this is not implemented correctly, it feels wrong. 

I thought the FF Airbus was supposed to be the next best thing to a Level D sim.  

OK, let's steer this back to the topic, please.