Jump to content

A319/320/321 WTF Satdome


Marlon Carter

Recommended Posts

Marlon Carter

I've been searching for an answer to this question but I can't seem to find a definitive answer. While I understand that adding the EFB to the WTF models may not be a simple task, I was wondering if the satdomes will make their way over to the WTF models before the EFBs? (This is assuming the satdome addition may not be as complicated)

Link to comment
Marlon Carter
1 hour ago, Koen Meier said:

Satdome is not just a visual thing.

Yes, I know there is more to it, but I'm only assuming that adding the EFB would be a bit more work.

Link to comment
John Tavendale
6 hours ago, Koen Meier said:

Satdome is not just a visual thing.

Then why is it on the A320 WTF?

Link to comment
Stu Antonio

Yeah, I don’t understand the general approach here either.

So they added the legit satdomes to the SLs but had added a „cosmetical“ to the 320WTF almost a year ago (I didn‘t notice any difference btw).

I mean I admire FSLs sense for accuracy and all, but why did they execute „project satdome“ so randomly? Why did the just stop after the preliminary one on the A320 and then implement them correctly on the SLs? Why not, when adding it to one product with the idea of having it on all of the variants, go through with it and apply them to all? The maths/principles should be the same only adapted for different measurements, right?… 

Anyway, that’s just me but I honestly rather have some „preliminary satdomes“ on the other WTFs and finally get all variants/regs to look correctly until FSL has time to also implement the physics.

Link to comment
Norman Blackburn

The ability for the model to show in the wtf models back then was purely accidental.  Rather than block their use it was decided to leave them visually in place.  The placement on the SL models with the drag etc is whats know as a USP - unique selling point - ie a commercial decision.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Stu Antonio
2 hours ago, Norman Blackburn said:

Rather than block their use it was decided to leave them visually in place.

So why not decide the same for 319/321 then? The milk is already spilt... :)

 

Link to comment
Norman Blackburn
11 minutes ago, Stu Antonio said:

So why not decide the same for 319/321 then? The milk is already spilt... :)

 

That milk is still firmly in the jar.

Link to comment
Marlon Carter

Hopefully there will be some news on this topic at some point. I'm especially curious about whether there may be different satdome models and position options to closely match the real-world options for airlines like JetBlue, Spirit, Delta, Alaska etc. 

Link to comment
  • 1 month later...
NAFSIR KHANDAKER
On 6/8/2021 at 6:27 AM, Marlon Carter said:

Hopefully there will be some news on this topic at some point. I'm especially curious about whether there may be different satdome models and position options to closely match the real-world options for airlines like JetBlue, Spirit, Delta, Alaska etc. 

I too second this option, it would be nice for this option as I feel it make the add on pop out just more.

Link to comment
Roger Repasky

+2. It would be a nice feature if we could move the current satdome from the back to mid and front.

Link to comment
António Abreu

If I wanted to be bluntly direct, I couldn't care less if they hang a sat dome, a train or a ship on the top of the Airbus. I use to fly it from within the cockpit and don't use to put my head outside the window because I like my hair the way it is. But ... the sat dome looks nice on the screen shots and makes us dream about the day we will all have internet onboard without having to pay the salary of an entire year! The other me, however, tells me that there are so many other (more) interesting things were to log the development effort ... ;) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...