Is it worth buy FSLabs a320

[Chock 17,769]

2 hours ago, Raging Bull said:

Interesting how it’s perfectly acceptable to mention and praise the superior  FSL A320 as opposed to the Aerosoft version. 

But it’s suddenly offensive to do the same ithe certain payware 737 add-ons. Either way it’s always good to have competition. 

That's not quite an equivalent comparison. The Aerosoft Pro A318/A319/A320/321 is a very good value package in that - when I bought it - I paid £74. For that I got four different Airbus models, which works out at £18.50 for each variant. When I bought the FSL P3D Airbus, I paid £135 for it, which is getting on for twice the price of the Aerosoft bundle of four, to get just one aeroplane, or if you prefer, that FSL 'Bus works out at seven times the price of one Aerosoft Airbus variant.

On the face of it, this seems to make the FSL appear very expensive in comparison, and whilst I don't think anyone is going to deny that £135 is quite a lot of money, the price difference becomes somewhat meaningless because there really is no comparison between the two, nor even really any competition, since they are products with two very different aims. This is in fact why I bought both products. They suit different types of usage. Well, that and the fact that there is no FSL A318, or A321.

The FSL product's price reflects the amount of time and money FSL spent on developing absolutely the best replication they can make of the real aeroplane, covering almost every facet of it, for both normal and non-normal operations. That and the fact that there is no equivalent product to it as an alternative also means that they can to some extent charge what the hell they like for it, because it's either that, or nothing if you want a full-on simulation of an Airbus, which I did, so I was prepared to pay that price (twice in fact, since I have it for FSX too).

Aerosoft on the other hand, make no bones about the fact that their Airbus simulation does not attempt to create a complete simulation of the aeroplane, rather it is a good representation of it for normal operations, and it is to some extent an update of a previous product, so the development time and costs are not comparable either. It's two different approaches to creating two different products with, very obviously, two different target markets.

You can of course compare the two products, but to do so is a bit like comparing a Ford Mondeo to a Lamborghini Countach; they both have their uses, but the fact that the Lamborghini is faster and looks better doesn't alter the fact that the Ford Mondeo can fit five people plus a week's shopping in it, costs considerably less and uses a lot less petrol. But aside from the cost, there is nothing really stopping someone from choosing a big performance car over a practical runabout if that is what they want. I have a big stupid American car myself, with a big stupid engine which is in no way practical, but I like it and so that's why I drive it lol.

The original thread question asked if the FSL A320 was worth it, so obviously you're going to get a lot of replies praising the FSL A320, since it is the product the original poster was asking about and it is indeed worthy of praise. but this does not mean the Aerosoft one is not worthy of praise too, it's just that this was not the question that was posed.

So it is not the same situation as a comparison between the iFly and PMDG 737 NGs if, as has often been the case, someone asked which is the best between them, because these are comparable products, in that their objective as a product was essentially the same; i.e. both of them are realistic and detailed attempts at simulating a Boeing 737 NG. That being the case, obviously there is very little to separate them in terms of what they simulate, and as it turns out, both of them can claim to do one thing better in different areas. But despite this, there is a very large price discrepancy between the two products in terms of the number of variants one gets for the price, and that is indeed why one of them comes in for some criticism.

And yes, I've got both of those products too and I think they're both great too, but they're not above criticism, no product is. 🙂

Edited October 15, 2018 by Chock

[Peter Webber 339]

On 10/15/2018 at 9:18 AM, Chock said:

That's not quite an equivalent comparison. The Aerosoft Pro A318/A319/A320/321 is a very good value package in that - when I bought it - I paid £74. For that I got four different Airbus models, which works out at £18.50 for each variant. When I bought the FSL P3D Airbus, I paid £135 for it, which is getting on for twice the price of the Aerosoft bundle of four, to get just one aeroplane, or if you prefer, that FSL 'Bus works out at seven times the price of one Aerosoft Airbus variant.

On the face of it, this seems to make the FSL appear very expensive in comparison, and whilst I don't think anyone is going to deny that £135 is quite a lot of money, the price difference becomes somewhat meaningless because there really is no comparison between the two, nor even really any competition, since they are products with two very different aims. This is in fact why I bought both products. They suit different types of usage. Well, that and the fact that there is no FSL A318, or A321.

The FSL product's price reflects the amount of time and money FSL spent on developing absolutely the best replication they can make of the real aeroplane, covering almost every facet of it, for both normal and non-normal operations. That and the fact that there is no equivalent product to it as an alternative also means that they can to some extent charge what the hell they like for it, because it's either that, or nothing if you want a full-on simulation of an Airbus, which I did, so I was prepared to pay that price (twice in fact, since I have it for FSX too).

Aerosoft on the other hand, make no bones about the fact that their Airbus simulation does not attempt to create a complete simulation of the aeroplane, rather it is a good representation of it for normal operations, and it is to some extent an update of a previous product, so the development time and costs are not comparable either. It's two different approaches to creating two different products with, very obviously, two different target markets.

You can of course compare the two products, but to do so is a bit like comparing a Ford Mondeo to a Lamborghini Countach; they both have their uses, but the fact that the Lamborghini is faster and looks better doesn't alter the fact that the Ford Mondeo can fit five people plus a week's shopping in it, costs considerably less and uses a lot less petrol. But aside from the cost, there is nothing really stopping someone from choosing a big performance car over a practical runabout if that is what they want. I have a big stupid American car myself, with a big stupid engine which is in no way practical, but I like it and so that's why I drive it lol.

The original thread question asked if the FSL A320 was worth it, so obviously you're going to get a lot of replies praising the FSL A320, since it is the product the original poster was asking about and it is indeed worthy of praise. but this does not mean the Aerosoft one is not worthy of praise too, it's just that this was not the question that was posed.

So it is not the same situation as a comparison between the iFly and PMDG 737 NGs if, as has often been the case, someone asked which is the best between them, because these are comparable products, in that their objective as a product was essentially the same; i.e. both of them are realistic and detailed attempts at simulating a Boeing 737 NG. That being the case, obviously there is very little to separate them in terms of what they simulate, and as it turns out, both of them can claim to do one thing better in different areas. But despite this, there is a very large price discrepancy between the two products in terms of the number of variants one gets for the price, and that is indeed why one of them comes in for some criticism.

And yes, I've got both of those products too and I think they're both great too, but they're not above criticism, no product is. 🙂

Bought the "FSL bird" yesterday. Beautiful to hand fly.....but I remain a "Boeing" guy!😁

[Chock 17,769]

16 minutes ago, Peter Webber said:

Bought the "FSL bird" yesterday. Beautiful to hand fly.....but I remain a "Boeing" guy!😁

I know what you mean, the Boeing ethos is a bit more pilot-oriented and the linked yokes are a better and more transparent control system in terms of CRM and crew awareness than a sidestick in my opinion, but the A320 and its sisters, is still an amazing aeroplane all the same and the FSL 'Bus is a great rendition of it. If you can get hold of a genuine A320 SOP manual and have a very good look at it, you'll find that the FSL's accuracy compared to the real thing will constantly amaze you.

Edited October 17, 2018 by Chock

[out 769]

1 hour ago, Peter Webber said:

 I remain a "Boeing" guy!

Honestly, I often wonder what people mean by that. Are you just the particular company (Boeing) fan?
Or maybe you mean you prefer yokes than sticks for controlling the aircraft.
In the first (and recently also the latter) case there are other non-boeing airliners which are yoke (stick) flown.
Just asking, as I would never think of myself as any particular A or B guy. I love aircraft almost equally. 😊

[scottb613 1,188]

Hi Folks,

I'm sure this could be a gross conceptual error on my part - big tin in not my niche - but after reading the "crash" report on AF447 - what I found mind boggling was the fact that when inputs are placed on both sticks simultaneously they actually cancel each other out ? For the life of me I couldn't figure out why anyone would engineer such a - umm - feature ? Maybe that was just a condition that arose from being in Alternate Law ?  When would such a feature actually be useful ? Just seems absurd from a layman's perspective and probably contributed to that crash...

Regards,
Scott

Edited October 17, 2018 by scottb613

[Holdit 551]

1 hour ago, Rafal said:

Honestly, I often wonder what people mean by that. Are you just the particular company (Boeing) fan?
Or maybe you mean you prefer yokes than sticks for controlling the aircraft.
In the first (and recently also the latter) case there are other non-boeing airliners which are yoke (stick) flown.
Just asking, as I would never think of myself as any particular A or B guy. I love aircraft almost equally. 😊

I like the more busy-looking cockpit of the Boeing. And I like the more elegant almost futuristic cockpit of the Airbus. S'all good, man. 

[Holdit 551]

15 minutes ago, scottb613 said:

Hi Folks,

I'm sure this could be a gross conceptual error on my part - big tin in not my niche - but after reading the "crash" report on AF447 - what I found mind boggling was the fact that when inputs are placed on both sticks simultaneously they actually cancel each other out ? For the life of me I couldn't figure out why anyone would engineer such a - umm - feature ? Maybe that was just a condition that arose from being in Alternate Law ?  When would such a feature actually be useful ? Just seems absurd from a layman's perspective and probably contributed to that crash...

Regards,
Scott

I never understood the logic behind that either.

[FDEdev 955]

36 minutes ago, scottb613 said:

but after reading the "crash" report on AF447 - what I found mind boggling was the fact that when inputs are placed on both sticks simultaneously they actually cancel each other out ? For the life of me I couldn't figure out why anyone would engineer such a - umm - feature ?

How else should this work? Works the same way with a conventional yoke!

The advantage of the sidestick is that if you don't want what the other guy does, you simply press the takeover button on your sidestick, and voila you are the only one who's in control.

You also get an visual alert and a voice warning who's in control.  With a conventional yoke the stronger guy wins, if an incapacitation occurs he can block the yoke etc. 

That's one of the most basic things you learn when flying an FBW Airbus. IF you want to take control and you don't get a confirmation after calling 'I have control', you immediately push the takeover button.

Yoke or sidestick, never ever should both pilots try to control the plane at the same time 😉

Edited October 17, 2018 by J35OE

[Wolf0 31]

Plus it makes sense to add the inputs. In a yoke aircraft when a pilot is training (even in a 737) the instructor will follow the movements on it's own yoke and add it's own inputs if the situation is urgent (adding force to the linked controls). Naturally if the situation allows time there will be a takeover via the "I have controls" drill.

In a sidestick aircraft the controls need to be added algebraically to resolve this same kind of urgent situations. If you read reports of tailstrikes/hard landings (especially) on A321s you'll see that in many cases the instructor/captain added it's own inputs on the very last seconds (sometimes with success, others without). You'll also see that no one uses the takeover pushbutton. It's planned to be used in the disabled scenario. The urgent cases need that control addition because that's what humans expect it to do! Add your "force" to the controls.

[Peter Webber 339]

1 hour ago, scottb613 said:

Hi Folks,

I'm sure this could be a gross conceptual error on my part - big tin in not my niche - but after reading the "crash" report on AF447 - what I found mind boggling was the fact that when inputs are placed on both sticks simultaneously they actually cancel each other out ? For the life of me I couldn't figure out why anyone would engineer such a - umm - feature ? Maybe that was just a condition that arose from being in Alternate Law ?  When would such a feature actually be useful ? Just seems absurd from a layman's perspective and probably contributed to that crash...

Regards,
Scott

FlyDubai 981, Rostov-on-Don. B738. It appears there was a conflict in CRM. One pilot on yoke, other on trim....so it all revolves around CRM training and maybe not design only?

[FDEdev 955]

10 minutes ago, Wolf0 said:

You'll also see that no one uses the takeover pushbutton. It's planned to be used in the disabled scenario. The urgent cases need that control addition because that's what humans expect it to do! Add your "force" to the controls.

What? Of course you use the takeover button! Not only in a 'disabled scenario!  There are zero, nil, none 'urgent cases' where you would need control addition. 

IF it's urgent, you call 'I have control' and push the takeover button at the same time. Under no circumstances a dual input is desirable.

In the Airbus you even get an aural warning if both pilots are trying to fly the Airbus at the same time.

[Mitch24 194]

SO: In a nutshell, Is it worth it buying the FSL A320? 1000X NO. 

[Holdit 551]

7 minutes ago, Mitch24 said:

SO: In a nutshell, Is it worth it buying the FSL A320? 1000X NO. 

I'm sure the OP will find that very helpful, including the reasoning behind it.

Oh...

[spitzer45 99]

As an licensed aircraft mechanic at airbus 320 series, i think FSLabs has done very good job at simulation of a/c systems. But fps is really hard, just my 2 cents..

[Murmur 3,941]

4 hours ago, scottb613 said:

What I found mind boggling was the fact that when inputs are placed on both sticks simultaneously they actually cancel each other out ? For the life of me I couldn't figure out why anyone would engineer such a - umm - feature ?

Boeings work in a similar way:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990#Flight_recorders