Alan_A

The Aerosoft Airbus doesn't get along well with FSUIPC. I had a similar issue a few years ago. This post in Pete Dowson's FSUIPC support forum might help. For background, read the entire thread. This dates back to the Airbus X Extended, and I'm not sure if the problem and solution apply to the current Airbus, but they might. If that fix doesn't work, search on "Aerosoft Airbus throttle FSUIPC" for a variety of issues and workarounds. Hope this helps. EDIT: There's also an Aerosoft subforum devoted to Airbus throttle issues with FSUIPC.

Before you give up on the A2A aircraft, head over to the support forum on the A2A website and search on "Saitek Multi Panel." Several people there have had to figure out autopilot issues related to the multi panel and there are some suggested workarounds. Good luck with it!

Or perhaps Fantasy Island. I like to think of it, not as a period aircraft, but rather as a restored one operating in modern aircraft. So in this case, it might be something Delta is doing as a promotion. Now, it they wanted to be authentic about their heritage, they'd fly the Northwest paint that comes with the aircraft. But Paul's Delta version is just too pretty to pass up. A2A has said that they'll treat their upcoming Connie the same way, as a modern restoration, with room for a GPS in the panel. So maybe that'll fly with the 750, too.

Will give it a test drive... with luck this weekend, if I can get clients and colleagues to shut down for Labor Day...

I'm embarrassed to say I only just realized that I could use the 750 in the Stratocruiser. I mean, I knew it was possible, but never thought of doing it. Have always struggled with the top-of-descent and rate-of-descent calculations for that particular aircraft, and the idea of using the vcalc function feels like getting out of Stratocruiser jail. The 750 ought to fit beautifully with that wonderful retro Delta livery you painted for it.

I used to be a bazillionaire in the sim... and ran pretty high costs in real life, too. Later in real life I made myself happier by cutting my costs way down and getting off the spend-and-carry-debt carnival ride. So in the sim I also like to live less expensively. I see that GTN in the panel of my Cherokee and have bad flashbacks... so then I downgrade it to a handheld and I feel liberated. That's my version of fun - seeing how few sim dollars I can spend, or at least making them count. Your mileage, of course, may vary - mine used to, and, who knows, it might again! Never say never... B)

Agree. The co-pilot option is nice for an intro, but it adds a whole new layer to "what's it doing now?!" Checklist by itself is helpful, though.

Ah! Dave had said he wasn't a member, so I thought it might be more generally accessible. But it makes sense that that wouldn't be the case. Will stick with what I've got.

Dave - Sounds promising. Can you provide a link? I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but it's not turning up in my searches. Thanks in advance!

Seems perfect. Thanks much for the guidance. I'll get started with it.

Question for the gallery - is there currently a preferred program for swapping pre-set fsx.cfgs and other settings on startup? I seem to recall ORBX once had one (FSX Go?) that worked pretty well, but don't know if something else has come along to supplant it. Reason for the question - I'm still on the fence about the FSL A320 - looks like a masterpiece and I'm definitely interested, but I'd rather not go through the extra labor of toning down my settings just for the bus, then bumping them back up again for everything else. Having a one-click "configure for FSL Airbus" option would be a nice convenience. Let me know if that's a realistic hope. Thanks in advance!

I think you're right. Nobody has said anything about it beyond what Markus posted in their forums about 3440 x 1440 being probably OK... So the system requirement feels like more of a disclaimer. But I also agree about sitting it out and waiting for reports. It would have been nice to claim the small discount but I'd rather spent an extra $10 later than gamble $90 sight unseen and lose. So back to the sidelines for me. Hope the early adopters have fun.

Andrew, can you shed any light on the monitor resolution question? The product description is quite clear that anything beyond 1920 x 1080 is not recommended. But Markus Burkhard suggested in your forums that 3440 x1440 (which is where I sit) should be OK with reasonable settings. Would like to get an opinion on that from FSL before I commit. Would love to come on board, but given the premium (and nonrefundable) price, I'm a bit hesitant to experiment. Thanks in advance for any insight you can share.

IIRC, there was a similar issue earlier this year when they updated their Concorde. Was interested but had to pass, since in that case, I was given to understand that it absolutely wouldn't run on anything higher than 1920 x 1080. On this one, they're sounding a little more equivocal, in the forums at least. But that statement about system requirements seems pretty stark. I hope they'll clarify between now and tomorrow, otherwise, given the price and the fact that it's not refundable, I'll hang back. As to why - I'd love to hear their explanation. Obviously it's a very demanding airplane to simulate, and for that reason it's likely to be a big resource consumer. But the screen resolution requirement seems to disqualify a lot of real-world systems. I guess, worst case, I can scratch my heavy iron itch with the PMDG 747... or just stick to the A2A Constellation, which is more where my heart is, anyway. Too bad, though, if so... I do like Airbuses and it would have been nice to try one that's so deeply modeled.

Well, that's concerning. Markus Burkhard, who's part of the beta test team, posted in this thread that 3440 x 1440 should be OK with reasonable settings. But since I'm running that resolution on a Dell U3415W, I'm suddenly wondering if it might be best to let others rush ahead and be guinea pigs on this one. I've raised the question in the linked thread - let's see what FSL comes back with.

Either that, or - and this makes more sense to me - there are people who want to dig into every last thing the airplane can do. That's not me. I get more than enough friction in real life - I'd rather have my flight simming go smoothly.

I'm going to guess it was KIAD. If you have the Flightbeam version, and don't disable the MyTraffic 6 KIAD bgls, you'll get default airport buildings bleeding through the Flightbeam ones.

I'm in the same camp. I'm not likely to get much use out of the failures and non-normal procedures, but there's a degree of polish in top-end add-ons that comes across even in normal operations - the ability to hit a complex set of constraints, for example. I'm torn, because I really like the idea of midrange products like those from Aerosoft and Quality Wings, but in practice, the high-end stuff feels more satisfying and gives me less weirdness. I'm sure others will disagree... B)

Covered years ago, in this thread for example. Been a pleasure talking with you. And thanks for the reminder of what a charming place Avsim is. Outta here...

No, actually it's a sequitur. You said that developers hadn't explained what their costs were and why the prices were different for different simulators. I gave you an explanation (higher prices in P3D to cover liability risk). You may not like the answer. But it was an answer. Could a scenery or utility developer be held to the same standard? Possibly, but the risk is much lower. It's the airplane guys that are really exposed. Aerosoft explained: their Airbus doesn't claim to be a professional-grade study sim (no abnormal procedures, for example). As they've explained themselves, it's to simulate the work of a captain in normal line flying, which is fine, and you can use it in the non-entertainment sim to, say, learn about education or learn about the experience of being a captain. But it's not modeling every system or every last thing that can happen on the flight deck. A sim that does is more likely to be used in line training, which means there's more chance of consequences in real-world flying, which means the litigation risk goes up. No slight against Aerosoft - their Airbus is great and does exactly what it sets out to do. But a full-systems sim is at more risk. You'd have to ask the families, or the airline. Insurance doesn't cover things that happen, it covers things that might happen. If you have homeowner's insurance, and your house doesn't burn down, you could feel ripped off. But if you're smart, you carry the insurance just in case. Same deal here. A developer might decide not to carry insurance. Or a developer might decide to carry insurance and not pass the cost along to consumers. They make their choices. Then we make ours.

If someone learns a dangerous procedure in a training simulator, then uses it in a real airplane and causes an injury, he or she could then sue the developer, saying the training simulator was at fault. The suit might not stand up in court, but it'd be expensive to defend. If someone learns the same procedure in an entertainment simulator, there's much less chance you could proceed with a lawsuit ("you did something dangerous you learned from a game? Well, that was stupid of you!") It's all a result of the labeling - when you call something a training simulator as opposed to a game, you expose yourself to more legal risk. So you have to be prepared to defend yourself. Higher risk = higher cost. Some aircraft developers choose not to cover the cost in advance - they're either more willing to take the risk, or they've decided it's less likely that their aircraft will be used for training. Scenery and utility developers don't have the same risk - it's aircraft sims (because you're learning aircraft procedures and controls) that are most likely to open you up to litigation. Not saying any of this is the way things should be, but unfortunately it's the world we live in. A general note about cost - the cost of all add-ons has escalated over time. It's easy to say - but probably true - that the price has to represent value. If you're going to get $100 or more worth of enjoyment from your $100 sim, then the price was worth it. If not, then it wasn't. Everybody gets to make that choice. If the price is too high, then the developer loses sales, and maybe they lower the price at some point. Just the marketplace in action. But what that also means is that the product is priced out of reach for some people, simply because they don't have the $100 on hand, or have other things to spend it on. My personal solution is to buy less crap. I used to spend more than $100 at those holiday sales for aircraft I flew once, then deleted. Now I pick my spots - which are usually more expensive spots - but I spend less overall, and I'm happier. In this as in other things... your mileage may vary. Except that you then have to spread that across a development team... and it has to cover six years' worth of development. At which point you're probably doing better in the fast food industry... :wink:

Thanks for the heads-up! Actually not a problem for me in this particular case - I'm very happy with my MFG Crosswind pedals and not looking to change them, so I'd probably just have sold the Thrustmasters if I'd qualified. But I'll need to keep a better eye on deadlines in the future. As far as the survey is concerned, I'm just interested in getting my opinion heard... assuming that actually happens... B)

Finally managed to get through it. Have to say the instruction that you have to order all the items in the boxes is odd - and a bit of a barrier - since you actually don't. You can just pick the ones that apply. Wish that had been made clear. Still, good on Dovetail for trying to find out what's on our minds. Hope they act on it.

I'd love to provide feedback to Dovetail but had to give up during the first drag-and-drop question. This is one of the worst survey designs/interfaces I've ever seen. I say that as someone who has to deal professionally with surveys - guiding the development, and working with and interpreting the results. If Dovetail wants to redesign this so that, for example, it includes a "not applicable" category that gets me out from under having to reorder drag-and-drop items that I don't use or have any opinions about... and reprograms the tiles so you don't have to keep re-ordering them in the right-hand box... I'd be very happy to participate. I'll watch this space for a revised version.

Servers are overwhelmed. Best to be patient.