A350

[Aamir 2,907]

18 minutes ago, peloto said:

We could make a easy and fast crowdfunding to buy an A350, take all the docs, and rent the A350 to pay the Airbus revenue fees for the MSFS A350 addon.

See point 3. They won't sell it to you.

[peloto 213]

1 hour ago, Aamir said:

See point 3. They won't sell it to you.

Sure?, if you show the money like some petroleum bosses that bought some A380 for themselves, I think maybe they change the opinion.

Or Airbus could share it for aviation love, flight technologies enthusiasts and fans, like Boeing does. Even for their 350 crews that could train and be safer.

Edited May 17, 2023 by peloto

[Aamir 2,907]

Just now, peloto said:

like Boeing does

They don't. The data packages for newer Boeing stuff is actually locked down even more. 

[peloto 213]

3 minutes ago, Aamir said:

They don't. The data packages for newer Boeing stuff is actually locked down even more. 

Haha, oh no....

[sonny147 582]

2 hours ago, Aamir said:

That's... not the problem.

Everything has just moved to a highly digitised platform. While it can still be gotten, it's just harder to do. It makes things easier and better for MROs and maintenance folks, and tougher for people that want to try and "build" the aircraft - because you can't just get the AMM as a PDF or something like that anymore. Wiring diagrams, etc, all the same. 

The other problem is that nowadays, there are certain documents that aren't even on these digital platforms anymore that are important to building something like an Airbus aircraft. Certain backend ECAM logic etc isn't really necessary to be distributed any longer, so they simply.. don't. Whereas for the A320, you can find this stuff on Google. This usually means you need to build things backward, and that turns it from a 3 year project, to a 6-7 year project (to do right), which just kinda makes it a little bit of a commercially poor decision - you could release two full products for the time it takes to build an A350, and with significantly less trouble/unknowns. 

Even if you had all that stuff - it's still quite a few years of effort due to the complexity of the airplane. 

Ultimately, I'm sure there'll be an A350 from somewhere eventually, but for a full-fat maximum fidelity module, I reckon you'd be waiting a little while. I'm the biggest A350 fan on the planet, and I'd love to build one at Fenix, but with what I can see in front of me, the business is just better served building other stuff. 

your bluffing Amir, bet your doing it now!! lol 😉

[sonny147 582]

3 hours ago, peloto said:

We could make a easy and fast crowdfunding to buy an A350, take all the docs, and rent the A350 to pay the Airbus revenue fees for the MSFS A350 addon.

oh i like that idea !

[B777ER 2,492]

2 hours ago, Aamir said:

They don't. The data packages for newer Boeing stuff is actually locked down even more. 

Off topic but you’re not the same Aamir that owns and his head of Flightbeam scenery are you?

[abrams_tank 7,457]

6 minutes ago, B777ER said:

Off topic but you’re not the same Aamir that owns and his head of Flightbeam scenery are you?

No. It's the Aamir that is the CEO of Fenix, that is the company that made the Fenix A320.

Edited May 17, 2023 by abrams_tank

[Floaty Potato 22]

Sounds to me like we only have one option: create our own airliner! Put hundreds of millions of dollars into developing and building a working prototype, THEN use the documents and tech specs we've created/accumulated to create the ultimate third-party add-on for flight sim. It's a no-brainer. 

[fluffyflops 1,860]

7 hours ago, flyingpauls said:

The only half baken simulation I know is the FlightFactor A350 for X-Plane 11. It was a lot of fun to fly this. But it never was completed.

like the 320 🙂 

[mrueedi 702]

14 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

Lack of published data, not gonna happen within the next 5 — 10 years.

Why do you think this is the case? I am not sure whether still a lot of data would be missing after reading the following 6404 pages:

A350-1000 Fcom | PDF | Aircraft | Transport (scribd.com)

[Fiorentoni 4,335]

8 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

Why do you think this is the case? I am not sure whether still a lot of data would be missing after reading the following 6404 pages:

A350-1000 Fcom | PDF | Aircraft | Transport (scribd.com)

Aamir explained it pretty well in this thread, you cannot build any sort of realistic simulation only based on the FCOM. After all it's an "operating manual", i.e. how a pilot has to operate the aircraft, and not a manual to recreate/build the A350. E.g. FCOM would be missing all the backend systems and performance stuff since pilots only do frontend work. As Aamir said, those informations are hidden behind a huge paywall and a load of legal traps and issues.
Anyway that's also what I heard from Aerosoft, which would probably be the first to seize the opportunity to build an Aerosoft-level A350 if there was any realistic chance.

[mrueedi 702]

22 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Aamir explained it pretty well in this thread, you cannot build any sort of realistic simulation only based on the FCOM.

The FCOM describes what the pilot sees and experiences. A sim addon, that recreates just that will certainly be a very good and realistic simulation.

If you consider the FCOM as requirement specification (in software development, a comprehensive user manual basically contains the information you would find in an excellent requirement specification), you can develop against it and cover basically the entire functionality a pilot would notice.

[Fiorentoni 4,335]

6 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

The FCOM describes what the pilot sees and experiences. A sim addon, that recreates just that will certainly be a very good and realistic simulation.

If you consider the FCOM as requirement specification (in software development, a comprehensive user manual basically contains the information you would find in an excellent requirement specification), you can develop against it and cover basically the entire functionality a pilot would notice.

Again, that's not how it works. E.g. the FCOM doesn't tell you the system conditions for an ECAM message to appear, it only tells you what it means and what you should do. Not sure why you don't believe what the devs themselves tell you...?

[blueshark747 1,845]

Wow this whole time I thought folks were absolutely enjoying that FF A350 in Xplane.

Edited May 17, 2023 by blueshark747