6 minutes ago, ahmede19 said:

plus the supersize A320 skin, HW A330

It’s more than that. They modified the systems and flight model to be closer to the A330.

Edited November 20, 20232 yr by Tuskin38

1 hour ago, ahmede19 said:

i made 3 points

2) airbus FBW logic, covers up the MSFS flight model.. this is objectively correct.. you don't have to factor in the nuances of how a MD80 / boeing behave in pitch and roll during various flight regime, because you can just slap Airbus FBW logic over it (hold pitch, command roll/pitch rates instead of commanding flight control deflection)

3) A320 and its variants are boring, the amount of manhours spent on making 5+ iterations of this aircraft, just so some people can simulate obscure circuit breaker failures or customize their IAE engine variant and whether the sign says No smoking vs No Portable devices... this is a FLIGHT simulator so the flying should feel authentic. not a Aircraft interior/exterior customizability simulator.. the fact that there are 5+ variants of A320 since release, all doing the same short-medium hauls, with little other diversity in the airliners (default 787 doesnt count since you need a specific MSFS for it, PMDG 777 doesnt count since its not out, A310 is a historic airliner and only arguably longhaul but definitely not ultralonghaul)... so, all of this, makes this point objectively correct

Ya sorry, your "fly-by-wire covering up a sim's deficiencies in the FDE" reasoning is still making no sense, but whatever.. So FSL and previous high fidelity airbus developers could've just slapped on the FBW logic and not worry about the flight model?? lol

And whatever do you mean by "default 787 doesnt count since you need a specific MSFS for it"? Again nonsensical, it is a default aircraft, available in the current version of the sim out of the box. Just because it is only available in the deluxe edition of the sim does not therefore discount it. Going by that logic then all payware aircraft "don't count" either since they cost extra money lol.

Since you keep harping about A320 and airbuses and fly-by-wire, what about all these non-airbus aircraft that use the sim's core FDE?:  PMDG 737, default 787, default CJ4, default Longitude, Leonardo MD80, and various GA birds like the FSR500, BlackSquare TBM 850, FSW C414, Milviz C310, etc etc.
 

Edited November 20, 20232 yr by lwt1971

17 minutes ago, ahmede19 said:

• Asobo default a320
• fenix a320
• fbw a320
• INI a320
• i think even Latin VFR has an a320??

• Objectively referred to as a flying like a toy.
• Objectively unavailable to simmers on Xbox and a different variant to the default Asobo.
• Objectively also unavailable to Xbox simmers and a different variant to the Fenix version.
• Objectively the most detailed version of the A320neo to Xbox simmers and those PC simmers who don't want to download or buy outside the MSFS Marketplace.
• Objectively only a lite upgrade of the default Asobo A320neo.

The Airbus logic doesn’t "cover up the flight model", it relies on it. How else does it fly?

"Boring" – is that objective too? There's plenty else to fly, both vastly upgraded default and payware additional aircraft.

Looking forward to your next "objective" statements.

 

Edited November 20, 20232 yr by F737MAX
clarified iniBuilds A320 Marketplace point

4 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

and Marketplace-only purchasers.

The ini A320neo is free, as part of the upcoming SU14

Edited November 20, 20232 yr by Tuskin38

of course the airbus FBW laws obfuscate the MSFS flight model.. the MSFS flight model will not accurately replicate the pitch and roll tendencies of a modern swept wing underwing turbojet airliner... it take a LOT of hand coding and tweaking to implement these behaviors.. if you dont, you will have a lot of real world airliner pilots commenting it doesnt feel like the real plane

 

but if you just make an airbus, all you have to do is program it to hold pitch 24/7, and joystick input only commands RATES (degrees per second of an axis), rather than calculating control surface deflection and the resulting moment (all while accounting other moments from the underwing engines, landing gear drag, flaps, spoilers). now, your airliner pilots in the real world will comment "Its so realistic!" because their airliners behave like a train on rails, and your airbus addon does too... easy! see what i mean

16 minutes ago, ahmede19 said:

3) A320 and its variants are boring.  this is objectively correct

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

Nothing is objectively boring.   Nothing.    In the universe.

Boredom (noun) or something being boring (adjective) is entirely an abstract perception.  What is boring to one person may be fascinating to someone else.   Who do you think decides what is boring and what isn't? To me, Golf is decidedly boring.   But as millions of people worldwide find it fascinating and engaging, I'm not going to go on Golf forum and claim that "Golf is objectively boring". 😆

How on Earth can't you see that?   The fact that you can't leads me to believe you're either (a) staggeringly obstinate, or (b) just having fun, trolling.

Just now, JYW said:

I'm not going to go on Golf forum and claim that "Golf is objectively boring". 😆

 

first of all, this isnt a Airbus 320 forum, so your analogy doesnt make sense, and therefore not worth replying to your incorrect logic

1 hour ago, JYW said:

How on Earth can't you see that?   The fact that you can't leads me to believe you're either (a) staggeringly obstinate, or (b) just having fun, trolling.

I'm gonna go with a strong case of (a) and pitiful attempt at (b) 🙂 , along with (c) staggeringly clueless
 

Edited November 20, 20232 yr by lwt1971

10 minutes ago, ahmede19 said:

but if you just make an airbus, all you have to do is program it to hold pitch 24/7, and joystick input only commands RATES (degrees per second of an axis), rather than calculating control surface deflection and the resulting moment (all while accounting other moments from the underwing engines, landing gear drag, flaps, spoilers). now, your airliner pilots in the real world will comment "Its so realistic!" because their airliners behave like a train on rails, and your airbus addon does too... easy!

Can you explain how an Airbus manages to defy a flight model.   It's still a set of simulated flight surfaces moving through simulated airflow.  The fact that computers are managing the movement of those flight controls to sustain a given pitch or roll has no effect on the movement of the aircraft through the air.

What you are referring to is not the flight model at all.   You're referring to FBW making flight extremely easy to manipulate and control in Airbus FBW aircraft    - which is exactly what it is supposed to be doing, and exactly what the real aircraft achieves.

I think you could have just said "I find Airbus FBW aircraft boring" and left it at that. That's the only intrinsic fact in your argument.

Edited November 20, 20232 yr by JYW

1 minute ago, JYW said:

Can you explain how an Airbus managed to defy a flight model.   It's still a set of simulated flight surfaces moving through simulated airflow.  The fact that computers are managing the movement of those flight controls to sustain a given pitch or roll has no effect on the movement of the aircraft through the air.

What you are referring to is not the flight model at all.   You're referring to FBW making flight extremely easy to manipulate and control in Airbus FBW aircraft    - which is exactly what it is supposed to be doing, and exactly what the real aircraft achieves.

I think you could have just said "I find Airbus FBW aircraft boring" and left it at that. That's the only intrinsic fact in your argument.

no, its not a set of simulated flight surfaces moving through simulated airflow. the airbus 320s (FBW, Fenix, Asobo, latin vfr, headwinds, and INI) might move the 3d model's control surfaces, but this is just cosmetic. 

ultimately what happens when you command a "nose up" input for example, is the aircraft pitches up at a calculated rate given the speed and AOA on lookup tables. unlike a 737 where the aforementioned calculations actually take place 

6 minutes ago, ahmede19 said:

first of all, this isnt a Airbus 320 forum, so your analogy doesnt make sense, and therefore not worth replying to your incorrect logic

Ahh, the classic "I don't understand you and cannot respond so I'll just close down our debate" 😆

As if the golf analogy was anything to do with the crux of our discussion.

I love debate and (analytical) argument.    But you're a poor opponent.

You're not capable of grasping basic empirical facts.

 

2 minutes ago, JYW said:

Ahh, the classic "I don't understand you and cannot respond so I'll just close down our debate" 😆

As if the golf analogy was anything to do with the crux of our discussion.

I love debate and (analytical) argument.    But you're a poor opponent.

You're not capable of grasping basic empirical facts.

 

nice adhominem

16 minutes ago, ahmede19 said:

the MSFS flight model will not accurately replicate the pitch and roll tendencies of a modern swept wing underwing turbojet airliner

That’s not true at all

58 minutes ago, ahmede19 said:

airbus FBW logic, covers up the MSFS flight model.. this is objectively correct

No, it isn't.

It's actually the opposite. If the FDE is garbage, the output is garbage. word not allowed in, word not allowed out. It's easier to develop an FM for a non-fbw aircraft. There is less tuning to do to make it acceptable. 

Can't wait for FS Labs to bring their first A320 in to MSFS and that will really tick off a lot of folks. May take another 2 years but this thread is funny.  Don't like A320's don't respond to it.

Edited November 20, 20232 yr by JBDB-MD80