>>> Or maybe FFX, Ariane or any one who developed or have>in>>the pipeline a 738>>>>If they partner with Ariane the price of flight sim will>>double and we will have to wait 3 days to activate it :(>>But they certainly would get a good 737 NG. ;-)>But a politically incorrect one, which would cost them a few hundred customers who are still convinced Ariane is run by PT ;)

>>>If they partner with Ariane the price of flight sim will>>>double and we will have to wait 3 days to activate it>:([/i]>>>>But they certainly would get a good 737 NG. ;-)>>>But a politically incorrect one, which would cost them a few>hundred customers who are still convinced Ariane is run by PT>;)Yes, I know that some still thinks PT runs Ariane. ;-)http://www.scandicair.com/images/sa_banner.gif"Real men fly with round gauges"[/color]

>>>>If they partner with Ariane the price of flight sim will>>>>double and we will have to wait 3 days to activate it>>:([/i]>>>>>>But they certainly would get a good 737 NG. ;-)>>>>>But a politically incorrect one, which would cost them a few>>hundred customers who are still convinced Ariane is run by>PT>>;)>>Yes, I know that some still thinks PT runs Ariane. ;-)>>>http://www.scandicair.com/images/sa_banner.gif>>"Real men>fly with round gauges"[/color]>Even when we all know Avsim1 a PT :)

Right, so... will there be an Airbus, and if so, can we look forward to a decent FBW system simulation?

Anything not explicitly confirmed is neither confirmed nor denied ;)

Pure speculation, but I don't see any reason why it will be any more complex or accurate than the current default Boeing aircraft. I'm one of those pessimistic types though.

That's why I say 'implicitly' denied.Lack of denial doesn't mean confirmation and without confirmation you can't assume it'll be there, thus you might as well assume it won't have changed from what's there now ;)

>Pure speculation, but I don't see any reason why it will be>any more complex or accurate than the current default Boeing>aircraft. I'm one of those pessimistic types though.Even less complex than the default Boeing, due to the difficulties to get information from Airbus. ;-)I wild guess is that it even will use the same tweaked dynamics as the 734, only with an Airbus model. :-hahhttp://www.scandicair.com/images/sa_banner.gif"Real men fly with round gauges"[/color]

Well, I'm not looking for a PMDG level of fidelity here, but if there is SOME kind of coded framework in place powering a simplified FBW simulation, it raises hopes that more accurate offerings could be developed from that by a third party developer. If it's just a 737 base with Airbus clothing, why bother? You can some FANTASTIC 'Buses from POSky and iFDG for free, and mate them with a default two or four engine jet panel. I don't mean to belabor the point, but could anyone from ACES shed some light on this? Thanks!

Hmmmm...interesting thought, having a default Airbus in Flight Simulator, but frankly I very much doubt it. I state this only because I am privey to the fact that the good folks over at Boeing are quite friendly with the good folks on the MSFS team, not to mention that their offices are almost within walking distance of each other. I also know there was a time where the Boeing folks were over at their neighbors at Microsoft and spending an inordinate amount of time playing with the MS flight simulator, that was until the corporate lawyers (both from Boeing and from Microsoft) stepped in and spoiled their fun.You might see a new default 757, 767, or maybe even a 7e7, but an Airbus(?), in my opinion that is highly unlikely!Bear!

Steve,Good friends or not, MS knows that Airbus is outselling Boeing around the world. Even loyal Boeing airlines are now using Airbus for a portion of their fleet. Since users want to fly what they see at their local airport, I'd have to say that close relationship or not, it's an important selling point to have an Airbus in the product.So I would be surprised NOT to see an Airbus in FSX.Bruce

>>Good friends or not, MS knows that Airbus is outselling Boeing>around the world. Sorry but not true for 2005. It's true that Airbus did sell more A320's than Boeing did 737's. But total orders were higher for Boeing last year.None the less, I would like to see an Airbus included as a default aircraft. I just hope the systems are more detailed in the default planes this time around.Brian

And so the pissing contest begins. I'm surprised it didn't start sooner. Ah well.

what pissing contest? Boeing did indeed outsell Airbus last year.Airbus outsold Boeing in 2004, in 2003 they were about equal.Both make nice aircraft, though not as nice as Lockheed :)

>And so the pissing contest begins. I'm surprised it didn't>start sooner. Ah well.>ROFLMFAO x100!!!..I had the best laugh I've had in years over that post.I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Boeing guy myself. My uncle used to be a Boeing machinist working at the main assembly plant in Everett, Washington and when he worked there, I had an opportunity to take a tour of the factory that normal factory tours don't offer.In addition, my other uncle works as a mechanic - and has been for nearly two decades - for United Airlines in Portland, Oregon, and works on all of their Boeing aircraft.As a result of both my uncles working for and on Boeing aircraft, I have a TON of Boeing souvenirs and collectables.Not only that, Boeing has been in the business quite considerably longer than Airbus has, and you'll also notice that Air Force One is, and always has been, a Boeing jet.As for the validity of Airbus being one of the defaults? I doubt it, and with good merit. Microsoft partnered with Boeing in Flight Simulator 2004 and in previous versions and I seriously doubt that the partnership - if it remains as such today, would allow the devs at Microsoft to include an aircraft that competes with Boeing as a default. It would make perfect sense in that regard.