1 minute ago, ahmede19 said:

sad case when you can tell another vatsim user is from a different sim just because they are in something other than A320/B738/B787. 

I don't know. Vatsim is its own weird metric for what folks use. For long range airliners in MSFS currently we have the Headwinds A330 (which shows its FBW A320N roots), the 747-800 (recently reworked), the Ini A310, and the 787 from the Premium Default version.  Let's exlcude the captain sim product since they are word not allowed. 

At some point next year PMDG will release the 777. And Ini has said a "long range airline" will be announced this year.

As to why there are a lot of A320s on Vatsim, there are a few reasons: the Fenix A320 is widely regarded as one of the best airliners in the game. The A320N (FlybyWire) is a good option for folks who can't afford, or don't want to pay for the Fenix, or the PMDG products. It's why you'll see JetBlue A320Ns, or a Southwest Neo on vatsim.

Why another Neo now? Because Jorg wants to improve all the default airplanes in MSFS so they are at a level they can be used for things like VATSIM. In a perfect world, this would just replace the default Neo but that will break all the landing challenges in game. I think it's safe to assume the current default Neo will not be in MSFS2024. Jorg is getting his ducks in a row now for that release next year.

I am in the thrilled camp for this Neo. I do not like a lot of things in the FBW A320 that this fixes.

I've concluded that we won't reach equilibrium until the number of MSFS A320 add-ons equals the number of MSFS Montreal add-ons...

Anyway, market forces do work, but they don't work instantaneously.  When A320 saturation has been achieved, the devs and marketers will get that message in unequivocal terms, and move to other things.  Moaning and groaning about it won't move the needle any faster.

1 hour ago, ahmede19 said:

how is this the case, after 4 years since release???

Because the devs have had to start from scratch to take full advantage of the MSFS engine. They had years and years to get to grips with the older sims.

Edited November 21, 20232 yr by Krakin

Well this is interesting. Threads that shine a positive light on MSFS often get locked quickly but this dumpster fire of a thread gets to live on..... interesting 

1 hour ago, Bob Scott said:

I've concluded that we won't reach equilibrium until the number of MSFS A320 add-ons equals the number of MSFS Montreal add-ons...

Anyway, market forces do work, but they don't work instantaneously.  When A320 saturation has been achieved, the devs and marketers will get that message in unequivocal terms, and move to other things.  Moaning and groaning about it won't move the needle any faster.

thank you for your reply and i wholehardedly agree. seeing as you are typed in a modern swept wing turbojet, can you provide any insight into the ground and flight feel of MSFS for these aircraft?

On 11/19/2023 at 8:16 PM, Aamir said:

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. 

Thanks Aamir, always great to hear from *actual* experts. Now hurry up and release that Fenix V2 Block2 goodness so we can amp up the A320 news and discussion even more! 😆

Edited November 21, 20232 yr by lwt1971

On 11/19/2023 at 6:45 PM, ahmede19 said:

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.

This is completely factually incorrect.

Having recently finished developing a fly-by-wire system for a MSFS aircraft, the fly-by-wire laws and control loops are very difficult to develop, precisely because the control surfaces _are_ in the airflow and the root locus of the transfer function is affected by the sim flight model. Therefore you have to use both feed-forward and feedback in the control loop, correctly stage your gains, all the stuff you'd have to normally do for a real aircraft control loop.

In fact, it's pretty trivial to go take a look at the FBW A32NX source to completely disprove this theory that somehow this is all faked. There's a ton of control loop theory in there, with zero table/pitch lookups or direct manipulation of the aircraft overriding the sim flight model.

On 11/19/2023 at 4:45 PM, ahmede19 said:

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 

"We actually don't use effective airfoils anywhere on the 320, they are there to reassure passengers" - Alphonse "Hawker" Siddeley, chief designer, 320 family.

I agree with the OP in that there are way too many A320s. 

9 minutes ago, sanh said:

I agree with the OP in that there are way too many A320s. 

How many are there for XBox?

I love Airbuses, so, the more the better....

The variants could be the focus in these new versions... Developers could concentrate on specific airline options: engine type, seating, instruments... 

There's always room for one more Airbus in my heart 🙂

( this being said by a totally re-converted FSLabs flyer, who, nonetheless, did fully enjoy the FBW and Fenix creations in MFS 2020 ! )

50 minutes ago, sanh said:

I agree with the OP in that there are way too many A320s. 

I cant wait for Fenix to release their Block2 V2 and 319/321;

FBW to rebuild the 3D model of their 320 or even use and enhance the Inibuild A320

so we can have one more….

10 hours ago, Krakin said:

So the A320 isn't an actual plane?

Actual for other people to fly besides A320... 

Other than the astonishingly good work by Aamir and his crew, aren't all the airbuses just variations of what Asobo gave us?

This has always concerned me, as it seems that developing an advanced airliner for MSFS from scratch is perhaps more difficult than XP and P3D, as evidenced by the general lack of choice and the fact so many devs have had to rely on hacking at the Asobo default

Edited November 21, 20232 yr by EGLD
sometimes i don't english very good

Looking back at this topic I hope FS Labs, Toliss and Flight Factor to announce new products of the A320 family for MSFS just to snipe at folks that who complain (they are the best in the business at making airbuses for desktop)  and I bet many would fly them. You wan't new aircraft then bark at you favorite developers to develop them.