Jump to content

First Impressions...


Andrew Wilson

Recommended Posts

Doug Miannay

My first post here, and I must say, I'm impressed with the A320X.  Been a flight simmer for probably 3 decades and never flew an Airbus product.  Although still a loyal Boeing fan, I decided to see what all the fuss was about, and purchased the A320X last week... and am very glad I did.  I was (and still am) clueless about how to fly this amazing bird, but thanks to YouTube and the many well done videos, I finally made my first full flight yesterday.  The developers have done a magnificent job modeling the flight dynamics, and it is silky smooth in managed flight.  It is truly a work of art, and I salute the developers for what they've accomplished.  Turns out I can enjoy the Airbus now, in addition to my stable full of Boeings.  Much learning and enjoyment ahead.  Thanks again, FSL.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
  • 4 months later...
  • Replies 235
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Harry

    9

  • Ju_li_en Ke_ml_er

    7

  • Norman Blackburn

    6

  • Essono Fritz

    6

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am an Airline Pilot and I purchased the A320X and P3D in June of 2018 to help with my transition training from a MD80 to an A320.  I could not believe how close it was to the real airplane.  I was a

Hi all -  One thing the teams at FSLabs will never get to experience is a 'first impression' of our A320-X - that's something only you guys will be able to experience first hand. I was thinking t

Just downloaded this aircraft last week, after having just completed 8 weeks in Singapore doing an A330 transition course. I've been on the Boeing for the last 15 years, so it was quite a lot to take

Posted Images

Eric Fisher

Amazing aircraft. Just did my first ever flight of a Airbus. The tutorial was strictly followed. Hats off, what a great plane. Used the Jetblue A320. Zero performance impact on my machine out of FT Boston to T2G Orlando. And that's on a 4k 55in TV (1080Ti running it). The sounds are truly immersive. Man, when I clicked off the AP at 2000ft at MCO the wind effect on the airplane was just ear to ear grinning. I actually said, "whoa, what do we have here". I was using Activesky for P3Dv4 (settings applied per intro guide) and it was a blast hand flying. Took a few hours to get my hardware, fsuipc and the plane to all sync up but I got it working. Well worth it. Still some learning to wrap my head around the Airbus way but it's reinvigorated my flight sim passion. The only thing that sucks is I have to wait until August 4th to fly again. Looking forward to the big brother A321. Well done FSL! 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Daniele Pistollato

Had yesterday my first flight with the beast. After a first simulator crash (my FGMS got stuck in the DOORS page, and all panels become unresponsive, but i'm still thinking that was a previous issue had with the sim) and after a clean restart i made my first flight LDDU-LIPZ.

What to say... Flawless. The bird flied perfectly, even when i did the wrong thing during descent, completely missing the DES profile... after a manual 360° to reach 3000 ft at 8nm from the airport the bird was still at 280kts, clean... i decided to try to land and to put it under stress... set for AUTOLAND, dual AP enabled, full speed brakes, slats... gear... i entered the final path completely not established, crossing the path from left side to right side at 5nm... the autopilot did a great thing, moved the aircraft to the line and made a PERFECT CATIII auto land in a situation where a go around was the correct choice (but i don't have read the HOLD section of the flight manual ;) )

What to say... it flied PERFECTLY.

The only REAL thing it's missing is a decent pushback feature... straight, turn left, turn right... and features like rain effects from A319 as i can buy the little bird but i definitely need those effects also on the bigger one...

My new preferred aircraft? Probably yes... it flies perfectly and now it's on my library with PMDG 737 and Majestic Q400

Please, add a simple pushback feature (i will get GSX later on, but the aircraft is really missing that small but fundamental function).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Till Lukas

Thanks for your impression Daniele! Good to hear you having fun with the bus.

I really can recommend GSX, you would not need a pushback tool anymore and our bus integrates amazingly with GSX (even more features planned :) )

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Daniele Pistollato

Thanks Lukas, i'll give a try to GSX (next month, as my wife didn't really appreciated the side effect on the credit card :D)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
  • 3 months later...
Curtis Branch

I purchased the A320X several days ago, and I'm thrilled with how immersive the plane is.  I had some concern over the price initially, but it's actually worth more than the selling price.  This plane has the best sounds of any addon I own, and the whole aircraft just has a top of the line feel to it.  My  computer is a few years old, but I'm not having any performance issues.  Really, just a super product all around, and looking forward to a lot of flights in the future.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Chris Kreuzbichler
52 minutes ago, Curtis Branch said:

I purchased the A320X several days ago, and I'm thrilled with how immersive the plane is.  I had some concern over the price initially, but it's actually worth more than the selling price.  This plane has the best sounds of any addon I own, and the whole aircraft just has a top of the line feel to it.  My  computer is a few years old, but I'm not having any performance issues.  Really, just a super product all around, and looking forward to a lot of flights in the future.

Then better not get the A319 as well as you will then only find yourself flying the 319 (also because of the effects - Winter is coming!). You would then join the cult like many of us did ;-)

  • Like 2
Link to post
  • 1 month later...
Roy Maffei

I am an Airline Pilot and I purchased the A320X and P3D in June of 2018 to help with my transition training from a MD80 to an A320.  I could not believe how close it was to the real airplane.  I was able practice all my company procedures before going in the real sim.  The best things were being able to do the preflight to see how everything worked, practice programming the MCDU (it was almost exact to the real thing, only found 2 functions that were not there), and being able to do approaches, go arounds, V1 cuts.  This sim is great for practicing for the real thing.  I am using it again now to get ready for my Proficiency Check!  I am thinking of getting the A319X add on now because I fly both the A319 and A320.  This sim helped me pass my checkride (first time), and it will continue to help me with any testing in the future.  It was totally worth the cost and a small investment to help me with my profession.

The picture below is the set up I had in my hotel room during training.  I had the sim on my laptop, hooked up the hotel tv as a 2nd screen for easy access to the upper panel and pedestal, used a VKB Gladiator Pro with T-Ruder pedals for the controls, and my company I-pad with all my Jep charts.  I also had the cockpit posters they gave us to study with taped up on the wall.

Needless to say, my room was the place to study!

20180625_221027.jpg

  • Like 16
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
  • 1 month later...
Scott Wilson

Oh my !

Hello all, thought I would pen a few notes. I started my flying and indeed flight-sim in the, ahem, nineteen eighties ..... I remember being hunched over a new pentium 386 desktop with VGA colour monitor (borrowed from work) and loading sub logic , from floppies. They had arrived in a box with some charts of the Chicago area I remember.

Anyway, ive flown most things and have recently retired my worn out pee em dee gee 737-800 to the arizona boneyard. Kyle is re-cycling it into a 748s.

What stood out after I spent 5 minutes installing and activating this was how quickly I was up and running. I have the other bus that we dont talk about, with the snatchy vnav and co-pilot with SARS.

The sound is just astounding, not just the quality but how it's managed from cold and dark to the drone of the aircon and fans, the apu, the engines and closing those windows to hear it all fade away after engine start very clever and very immersive. As a business traveller I spend a lot of time in the back and walking on and off them so the hacksaw noises of the hydraulics systems bleeding down to the external vents hissing at 4000db very realistic. One real world captain once joked to me "you'd never get run over by one taxiing like a tram in Amsterdam".

External textures superb, even the small signs and stickers you can walk up and read. The devil is in the detail.

The breadth and depth of the individual systems hooked together into the ECAM is just stunning .... although I did notice the generators seem to get a bit too hot (?), but there's all that nice fuel to cool them. You have even modeled the missing fuel after the wingtip tanks transfer; you total anoraks, brilliant. You've also got the slight lag on the FMGS the real thing has. Programming went well from a PFPX flight plan using DIFSRIPP. GSX2 fueled me up, closed the doors as I started the APU, what a great sound as it spins up at the back. Pushback and engine start what a NOISE I CANT HEAR MYSELF THINK SHUT THE B(&*) WINDOWS....Ah thats better. We need a USB Jet-A diffuser during the start-up, no, scratch that, especially if you smoke !

Taxi out was a bit special once I hit the button to use the tiller. I cant get the brakes sorted on my saitek peddles on this bus tho, yes, ive read all the threads on here but theres still someting a bit strange, if I set their sensitivity down in P3d the brakes bind. I wonder if this is due to the Saitek peddles being in reverse ? Anyway I have applied an extreme FSUIPC curve to them and that seems better.

First flight, a short one, EGPF->EGAC FL150 Ci20 cloudy and windy.

Takeoff run had me overcontrolling (pause, dampen down rudder axis with some expo, unpause) and rotate, nice, flys really well and again the sounds and the mix of sounds as the gear comes up and you work through the flap schedule is just sublime. I flew a couple of circuits and stuck the auto-throttle and ap on. It disconnected a couple of times so i reduced the activesky turb and all was well. VNAV accuracy and the auto-trim on this do their job very very well in chop.

Fuel usage, at or around OCD levels of detail to 20-30 kilos, impressive again.

Wind data mmmmm, cant find where to load wind data for the route, I put in INIT A the average winds which helped. I need to RTM more. I stuck in the descent winds manually.

Descent down to 2000 feet to capture the ILS on 24 at EGAC .... by the numbers with decel point correctly calculated. Flight computer did a great horizontal and vertical job of getting me down, the speed down and at the sweet spot for LOC capture, the GS. That's a lot of lines of code and it's something lesser add-ons just cant do especially in strong gusting variable crosswinds.

Approach was great got her fully configed F4. Wind was 22-34 @200 to 290 .... gusting and variable, I decided on 2 landings #1 Autoland , utter greaser, I flew around manually, re-established the approach and '2 landed myself, not an utter greaser, more a weaver and thats a short runway, The trottle lifted off the desk. "As the captin taxis whats left of the aircraft to the stand can we ask you remain cowering in your seats whilst we bring dry cleaners onto the flight ". APU started and into the gate to watch Umbertos minions run from my flight like mice from my cat. Wont be seeing them again.

What a superb aircraft, it didn't do anything it shouldnt have. I have a few question, below, if anyone can help but I can say, out of my 300000000 hours of flightsimming, no other add-on has all of this together at this level of detail. (or for the real professional, Roy, above who does this for a living).

Questions

1) The apu on switch you hit once but the apu start switch sometimes you have to hit it two or three times to get it to start ?

2) The GSX2 integration sometimes is a bit funny with door closing (I have it set to auto will try fast tomorrow). I'd raise it on the GSX forum but ive run out of beta blockers

3) The brakes feel really snatchy like the first mm of pressing sets them to full ..... FSUIPC expo curve 5 has helped.

4) Gens produce a lot of heat and sit at 100 are they that hot in real life I thought they should run a bit cooler ... dont know, sorry, ignorant new user here complex aircraft :)

5) Ground GPU interaction with GSX2 again, sometimes it works, sometimes you have to attach yourself. Is there a GSX2/FSLABS best practice guide or post somewhere ?

6) Framerate .......Are there any specific p3d v4.4 cfg file entries that help this aircraft ? I try and run as few tweaks as poss. I have the SLI texture copy to second card tweak and the texture load distance upped to 20km along with TEXT_BAND_MULT at 160 , nothing else. Recently I fried my 5960X 8 core and have had to drop back to it's less exciting brother the 5930k 6 core. I have sliders of note in the middle (detail, distance, density etc). I'm getting 20 in busy areas and can hold 30 in the cruise. I have 30FPS locked in p3d with VSync on and the SLI tweak to switch between 30 and 60 when needed without stutters. Still very flyable but maybe 8FPS down on my 737-800. Im happy to turn more scenery shit off in favour of fluidity.

7) The 2D and 3D panel framerate what is best to set these to ? I cant seem to see a lot of FPS difference between 10 and 30 ?

That's a heck of an ammount of money for one aircraft, many have said ..... myself included, but, the level of innovation, engineering and QUALITY in the product and the time I will spend flying it will have a better cost/benefit curve. This is what I explained to my wife anyway. I've bought too much rubbish over the years for £20 that you fly 3 times and give up on.

I read somewhere on this forum, cant remember who it was that used the term #fslabbed. Really made me laugh and after buying the 320 I know what that means now. A level ocD simulator for people who are boyond help in terms of the level of detail they need.

I dont want anyones wrath by asking about the upcoming goody bag update so I wont mention it ! Will the glass be modeled down to the cellular, atomic or quantum level ?

Thanks for a great product, went from installing to flying a couple of routes in very little time.

Have a great vallentines day, i'd better get back through and see my other half now, sorry if this is a bit TL;DR. The bus exceeded my expectations by a lot ! A lot of hard, detailed work went into this, now added to my cherished add-ons !

 

EGAC_APPR.JPG

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Gerard Beekmans

Hi @Scott Wilson,

That delay between APU master on and start switches is normal. In the real world you are supposed to wait a short while. I believe it's roughly 5 seconds but I never timed in. During this interval the APU systems power up and perform a power-on test. When the test is finished, you can actually begin the start sequence.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Scott Wilson

many thanks it was my un-educated button jabbing

also just looked at my right brake ...... the pot/sensor is very non linear thats the braking issue sorted too

Link to post
Gerard Beekmans

I believe the flap actually takes a bit longer to open but you can hit the 'start' pb sooner before it is fully open. The button will illuminate indicating it's on (more like 'armed' at this stage if that's even the correct terminology but you get the idea) and it'll do its thing once the whole system is primed and ready to go. Correct me if I'm wrong on that timing sequence. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Essono Fritz

1. APU self test it is. Not APU Flap Opening. Waiting 2-3 seconds will do.

2. Both GSX and FSL are constantly being improved. Make sure you have the latest of both addons though.

3. FSUIPC helps yes. And it really depends on your hardware. Switching from SAITEK to MFG really changed the way I tune my pedals through FSUIPC. No need for slope anymore now.

4. Yes, GENs produce a lot of heat. 90ish degrees is normal OPS.

5. Same as #2

6. You need to upgrade your rig. :)

7. VC flyer here. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Scott Wilson
7 hours ago, Essono Fritz said:

1. APU self test it is. Not APU Flap Opening. Waiting 2-3 seconds will do.

2. Both GSX and FSL are constantly being improved. Make sure you have the latest of both addons though.

3. FSUIPC helps yes. And it really depends on your hardware. Switching from SAITEK to MFG really changed the way I tune my pedals through FSUIPC. No need for slope anymore now.

4. Yes, GENs produce a lot of heat. 90ish degrees is normal OPS.

5. Same as #2

6. You need to upgrade your rig. :)

7. VC flyer here. ;)

thanks Fritz for the input, noted. I think the next update should have some GSX2 fixes in it for the ground power side of things. I will play around with it a bit. The rudder peds are not the greatest quality !

Link to post
Ju_li_en Ke_ml_er

I think i have my panel framerate at 12 fps. It doesn't feel laggy unless you fly the plane like a fighter jet. I tried searching for the actual refresh rate from the real displays but couldn't find any info.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Daniel Saffran

I'm glad to see that there is an official thread to share the first impressions on the A320. I feel somehow urged to give my 2 cents on that! If I had to coin it in one sentence:

I'm happy, but at the same time I'm disappointed.

Why is that? I see two aspects of the product here: the aircraft and the "addon". The level of quality isn't the same through the whole product. For me an important key factor when I spend more money on something.

[DISCLAIMER: English is not my native language, it may read harsher than it is really meant. So please don't be instantly offended if don't get the "tone" right - it is not my intention. I just want to give an honest feedback :) ]

I'm happy about the actual aircraft itself. I expected (for that price) a very detailed, deep and realistic aircraft. I'm still baffled that actual pilots can really use it to train for their job.
These looks! The handling! The sounds! I like the detail that pushing a button really feels like ... pushing a button!
The really first experience was already great: Straight loaded to the active runway (excluding the first bump here), made it quickly ready, takeoff. Wait ... why is that stupid thing beeping at me?! Of course ... didn't program the MCDU, the bus doesn't know how to pressurize the cabin. Wonderful! Exactly the level of detail I was expecting (already learnt something new^^).
Here FSLabs delivers a great product which is worth every cent. Opinions may vary on the actual number - but one feels that a lot of work with love for detail was necessary to get to that point and still continue to improve it. If you want good quality, you have to spend more money - it's just an universal law. ;)

 

But I'm somehow disappointed about the addon. What do I mean with "addon"? Everything around and on the way to the point of actually using/flying the aircraft itself. Or lets say: mostly everything else minus the aircraft. (The documentation is excluded from that definition,  it's really great!)
In that aspect, the delivered product is overpriced for what and how it is delivered imo:

  • Installer: Since every customer gets spotlights with the purchase and it is recommended to install it ... why it isn't bundled with the installer?! Sure, I wan't to approve my account and join the community - but let me finish installing it first!
  • Installer Options? Example: I didn't want to have 2D panels installed, yet I have them. Don't want to fiddle around in the cfgs myself (it ain't FS98, don't want to waste my time again with that *g*)
  • Far more inferior products deliver more additional software (fuel/load planner, livery manager) - for far less money!
    OK, that is only quantity - therefore ditch the last one (official liveries are quickly installed) and for the first one there's another gold-standard ... but there are issues (see below).
  • Stability: I didn't / don't have a good start here. I hope it will make longer flights (there could be issues, from what I was reading so far in the forums)
    • Hangs while building the runways.bin - someone suggested to press "S" to make it finish. It worked, but what the heck!?! (Great Community btw! :))
    • Makes my P3D crash every time trying to load the aircraft. But maybe it was just my crazy idea to save it a part of the default scenario. And again: whaaaaat?!?!
  • Flightplans: Oh dear! The design-decisions are just beyond my comprehension. Or was it the actual goal to make it cumbersome and far more complex than necessary (even for the overall goal to simulate the datalink-capabilities of the real bus)?
    • We do standard pln-files ... but ONLY if you name it absolutely correctly and load them in THAT way. What spoke against just typing DEP/ARR and select one of the matching plans/files? (If it should work that way: No, it doesn't)
    • Yeah you can do that, but ONLY for the routes stored by PFPX - named correctly of course! (Nice idea though for getting a route quickly!)
    • Ok why import those dumb and plain pln-/route-files if you can directly import your whole OFP from PFPX or SimBrief in several ways? Cool thing! But: It doesn't work.
      • Printer?! What where you thinking?! Why would I even think about working with an Windows-Device-API when my job is to actually program a complete aircraft? It's cool yes, but imo it is more a "showoff-feature" than a helpful assistance. It did work only 2 or 3 times, the other times either PFPX crashes, nothing happens or it has an invalid format. It's a too complex and error-prone solution for the initial problem definition imo.
        Other "features" I got so far out of it: crashing and bugging PFPX. I know the blame is very likely on the PFPX-side, but only the hassle of getting a flightplan loaded forced me to.
      • File-Import (by flightnumber): didn't work once. I tried many tips found here in the forum (oh ... naming-conventions, again) - nothing helped. So many times that PFPX didn't allow to release the flight. The bus just doesn't want to read a simple textfile. A textfile! And especially this bugs me the most - I could completely ignore the other options and be very happy with that. How cool would that be? Enter your flightnumber, hit init, have your data: route, fuel, weight! (At least I hope that weight and fuel are also imported - what would otherwise be the point?)
        I don't know how realistic that is, but I would love it.
  • Integrations: I was very puzzled that having THE bus doesn't easy anything.
    • GSX/2: Worked mostly out of the box, till the refuel truck came. Wanted to fill the center tank by driving straight into it :lol:
      Good thing a working config is shared in the utilities (I had GSX live-update, didn't help)! But somehow it has a strange taste that it had to be taken care of by the community - it is "promoted" in the documentation! Is there no dev that uses GSX? Probably FSDT would have it perfectly integrated in their internal DB if you stitched one of their devs with a free bus *g*
    • PFPX: Oh my. You suggest PFPX as (one of) the preferred tool for fuel/load planning and even go that far to develop a printer so it can print into the MCDU  (still can't wrap my mind around that) ... and yet, there's no ready-to-use profile or at least a small document with some pics showing the right values for a profile?! Also, I didn't find any hint (so far) what pax/bag weight to be used in the general settings. Yes there is / are threads, but it just can't be the job of your costumers / other members trying to guess what was exactly was modeled. It doesn't make sense ^^
       

If on some points you ask yourself "what is his problem? that's not a big deal" - you're right and wrong :P
Maybe not a big deal in general or for a single issue, but becoming more and more a problem if you call a high price for something which is perceived as quality product and your first hours mainly consists of solving on issue after another. As one can read between the lines, I was busier finding workarounds instead of enjoying my new "treat".

 

TL;DR: Great Job on the aircraft! But remember the KISS-Principle from time to time and put some polish here and there to get rid of the sharp edges :)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Markus Burkhard

Daniel,

thanks for your elaborate feedback! Here's a few hints and ideas for some of your raised issues:

  • Flight plan loading: With the upcoming update all flight plan loading tasks will be much easier due to datalink being fully modelled from then on. No more approximations.
  • We do deliver a GSX aircraft config file. So I don't know why this didn't work for you. It should have been installed and used automatically.
  • PFPX profiles are available here: https://forums.flightsimlabs.com/index.php?/topic/7242-pfpx-profiles/
  • The real Airbus FMGC offers a fuel calculation option which we have modelled. So why should we do our own fuel planning tool next to all these that are already available? And load planner utility? How could we possibly include something to calculate payload that is accurate? Name me the add-on which includes a full flight/load planning utility. Because that is what would be needed to be remotely accurate.
  • You should NEVER use a complex airliner add-on as part of your default flight scenario. This has never worked in FSX and doesn't work either in P3D. We strongly recommend against it. That being said, if you still get crashes and hangs, you may open a support ticket to get help for that. We'll be glad to help you with that.

Thanks again and I hope you'll continue to enjoy the product!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Wanthuyr Filho
2 hours ago, Daniel Saffran said:

I'm glad to see that there is an official thread to share the first impressions on the A320. I feel somehow urged to give my 2 cents on that! If I had to coin it in one sentence:

I'm happy, but at the same time I'm disappointed.

Why is that? I see two aspects of the product here: the aircraft and the "addon". The level of quality isn't the same through the whole product. For me an important key factor when I spend more money on something.

[DISCLAIMER: English is not my native language, it may read harsher than it is really meant. So please don't be instantly offended if don't get the "tone" right - it is not my intention. I just want to give an honest feedback :) ]

I'm happy about the actual aircraft itself. I expected (for that price) a very detailed, deep and realistic aircraft. I'm still baffled that actual pilots can really use it to train for their job.
These looks! The handling! The sounds! I like the detail that pushing a button really feels like ... pushing a button!
The really first experience was already great: Straight loaded to the active runway (excluding the first bump here), made it quickly ready, takeoff. Wait ... why is that stupid thing beeping at me?! Of course ... didn't program the MCDU, the bus doesn't know how to pressurize the cabin. Wonderful! Exactly the level of detail I was expecting (already learnt something new^^).
Here FSLabs delivers a great product which is worth every cent. Opinions may vary on the actual number - but one feels that a lot of work with love for detail was necessary to get to that point and still continue to improve it. If you want good quality, you have to spend more money - it's just an universal law. ;)

 

But I'm somehow disappointed about the addon. What do I mean with "addon"? Everything around and on the way to the point of actually using/flying the aircraft itself. Or lets say: mostly everything else minus the aircraft. (The documentation is excluded from that definition,  it's really great!)
In that aspect, the delivered product is overpriced for what and how it is delivered imo:

  • Installer: Since every customer gets spotlights with the purchase and it is recommended to install it ... why it isn't bundled with the installer?! Sure, I wan't to approve my account and join the community - but let me finish installing it first!
  • Installer Options? Example: I didn't want to have 2D panels installed, yet I have them. Don't want to fiddle around in the cfgs myself (it ain't FS98, don't want to waste my time again with that *g*)
  • Far more inferior products deliver more additional software (fuel/load planner, livery manager) - for far less money!
    OK, that is only quantity - therefore ditch the last one (official liveries are quickly installed) and for the first one there's another gold-standard ... but there are issues (see below).
  • Stability: I didn't / don't have a good start here. I hope it will make longer flights (there could be issues, from what I was reading so far in the forums)
    • Hangs while building the runways.bin - someone suggested to press "S" to make it finish. It worked, but what the heck!?! (Great Community btw! :))
    • Makes my P3D crash every time trying to load the aircraft. But maybe it was just my crazy idea to save it a part of the default scenario. And again: whaaaaat?!?!
  • Flightplans: Oh dear! The design-decisions are just beyond my comprehension. Or was it the actual goal to make it cumbersome and far more complex than necessary (even for the overall goal to simulate the datalink-capabilities of the real bus)?
    • We do standard pln-files ... but ONLY if you name it absolutely correctly and load them in THAT way. What spoke against just typing DEP/ARR and select one of the matching plans/files? (If it should work that way: No, it doesn't)
    • Yeah you can do that, but ONLY for the routes stored by PFPX - named correctly of course! (Nice idea though for getting a route quickly!)
    • Ok why import those dumb and plain pln-/route-files if you can directly import your whole OFP from PFPX or SimBrief in several ways? Cool thing! But: It doesn't work.
      • Printer?! What where you thinking?! Why would I even think about working with an Windows-Device-API when my job is to actually program a complete aircraft? It's cool yes, but imo it is more a "showoff-feature" than a helpful assistance. It did work only 2 or 3 times, the other times either PFPX crashes, nothing happens or it has an invalid format. It's a too complex and error-prone solution for the initial problem definition imo.
        Other "features" I got so far out of it: crashing and bugging PFPX. I know the blame is very likely on the PFPX-side, but only the hassle of getting a flightplan loaded forced me to.
      • File-Import (by flightnumber): didn't work once. I tried many tips found here in the forum (oh ... naming-conventions, again) - nothing helped. So many times that PFPX didn't allow to release the flight. The bus just doesn't want to read a simple textfile. A textfile! And especially this bugs me the most - I could completely ignore the other options and be very happy with that. How cool would that be? Enter your flightnumber, hit init, have your data: route, fuel, weight! (At least I hope that weight and fuel are also imported - what would otherwise be the point?)
        I don't know how realistic that is, but I would love it.
  • Integrations: I was very puzzled that having THE bus doesn't easy anything.
    • GSX/2: Worked mostly out of the box, till the refuel truck came. Wanted to fill the center tank by driving straight into it :lol:
      Good thing a working config is shared in the utilities (I had GSX live-update, didn't help)! But somehow it has a strange taste that it had to be taken care of by the community - it is "promoted" in the documentation! Is there no dev that uses GSX? Probably FSDT would have it perfectly integrated in their internal DB if you stitched one of their devs with a free bus *g*
    • PFPX: Oh my. You suggest PFPX as (one of) the preferred tool for fuel/load planning and even go that far to develop a printer so it can print into the MCDU  (still can't wrap my mind around that) ... and yet, there's no ready-to-use profile or at least a small document with some pics showing the right values for a profile?! Also, I didn't find any hint (so far) what pax/bag weight to be used in the general settings. Yes there is / are threads, but it just can't be the job of your costumers / other members trying to guess what was exactly was modeled. It doesn't make sense ^^
       

If on some points you ask yourself "what is his problem? that's not a big deal" - you're right and wrong :P
Maybe not a big deal in general or for a single issue, but becoming more and more a problem if you call a high price for something which is perceived as quality product and your first hours mainly consists of solving on issue after another. As one can read between the lines, I was busier finding workarounds instead of enjoying my new "treat".

 

TL;DR: Great Job on the aircraft! But remember the KISS-Principle from time to time and put some polish here and there to get rid of the sharp edges :)

I tend to totally agree with you, very detailed explanation of the thing.

During my first hours in the addon I had the impression different programmers were responsible for different parts and they forgot to keep it standardised.

I'd love the company to hear this criticism and correct these things.

 

Link to post
Daniel Saffran

Thanks for your Answers, Markus!

11 hours ago, Markus Burkhard said:

We do deliver a GSX aircraft config file. So I don't know why this didn't work for you. It should have been installed and used automatically.

Oh-oh ... I have the bad feeling that I messed this up myself while fiddling around with GSX (resetting to the Defaults ...). :rolleyes: Would it be possible to get a copy of that file? I don't want to deinstall/install just for that.
So please ignore my first feedback on that point! My new suggestion would be to share the file placed by the installer under utilities. Or alternatively convince FSDT to integrate it in their internal database. They can replace missing files with their updater-tool (a feature missing with the bus). You know users tend to do stupid things from time to time :lol:

 

11 hours ago, Markus Burkhard said:

Yes, I saw them but I wonder if they are "approved" / reviewed? DOW / ZFW don't seem to be correct, the MCDU-Options allow 42.5 / 68.5. With the DOW of 44.1 in that profile the MCDU loads already passengers and cargo! In the Aircraft description the DOW (OEW is the same as DOW, or?) is stated as 43.6 (already loading pax too). The modeled DOW seems to be around 43.2 ( full crew, some cargo (catering?!), no pax). And that is only one rather basic weight parameter, not the more complex data/performance tables (beyond my understanding).

 

12 hours ago, Markus Burkhard said:

The real Airbus FMGC offers a fuel calculation option which we have modelled. So why should we do our own fuel planning tool next to all these that are already available? And load planner utility? How could we possibly include something to calculate payload that is accurate? Name me the add-on which includes a full flight/load planning utility. Because that is what would be needed to be remotely accurate.

Oh dear, learnt something new again - I wasn't aware of function at all! Love that level of detail! :)
You're completely right, it would not be reasonable to develop a full planning utility on your own. But that wasn't what I intended to express. I didn't want to suggest of writing another PFPX on your own or anything similar.

What I basically try to achieve (in my "playing-captain-style"), is to get a reasonable OFP (don't go out of fuel, don't come in too heavy). So let's say I plan for flight LH110, we're having 143 pax and additional 2t cargo today. Gives me a ZFW of x and an FOB of y which I can enter in my MCDU to let the GSX-Magic happen. I love to replicate some of the real operations for the immersion, but I don't want to get that accurate. "For Simulation purposes only" as it is said, is more than fine ;)

 

13 hours ago, Markus Burkhard said:

You should NEVER use a complex airliner add-on as part of your default flight scenario. This has never worked in FSX and doesn't work either in P3D. We strongly recommend against it. That being said, if you still get crashes and hangs, you may open a support ticket to get help for that. We'll be glad to help you with that.

Thanks! I was completely unaware of that! (Maybe something to add in the documentation? If already written there ... please ignore my uneducated suggestion *g*)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Koen Meier
8 minutes ago, Daniel Saffran said:

Thanks for your Answers, Markus!

Oh-oh ... I have the bad feeling that I messed this up myself while fiddling around with GSX (resetting to the Defaults ...). :rolleyes: Would it be possible to get a copy of that file? I don't want to deinstall/install just for that.
So please ignore my first feedback on that point! My new suggestion would be to share the file placed by the installer under utilities. Or alternatively convince FSDT to integrate it in their internal database. They can replace missing files with their updater-tool (a feature missing with the bus). You know users tend to do stupid things from time to time :lol:

Oh dear, learnt something new again - I wasn't aware of function at all! Love that level of detail! :)
You're completely right, it would not be reasonable to develop a full planning utility on your own. But that wasn't what I intended to express. I didn't want to suggest of writing another PFPX on your own or anything similar.

What I basically try to achieve (in my "playing-captain-style"), is to get a reasonable OFP (don't go out of fuel, don't come in too heavy). So let's say I plan for flight LH110, we're having 143 pax and additional 2t cargo today. Gives me a ZFW of x and an FOB of y which I can enter in my MCDU to let the GSX-Magic happen. I love to replicate some of the real operations for the immersion, but I don't want to get that accurate. "For Simulation purposes only" as it is said, is more than fine ;)

6

It is already in the internal gsx database. and there is a custom gsx config available which has the third loader on the bulk door beside the uld loaders on the a320.

the currently you can enter in the ZFW and Fuel in the INT B page and let GSX do the boarding and refuelling. in the upcoming update this is even more detailed in that you can use the AOC menu to request catering, fuel and payload as given in the OFP. this will generate a loadsheet which can differ from the OFP.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Daniel Saffran

Sorry now im confused - what should the gsx integration look like?

a) A Custom-GSX-Config, provided by the FSLabs Installer, like Markus said?
b) Completely integrated in the internal database of GSX (no Custom-Config to be used), like Koen said?

 

Link to post
Koen Meier
7 minutes ago, Daniel Saffran said:

Sorry now im confused - what should the gsx integration look like?

a) A Custom-GSX-Config, provided by the FSLabs Installer, like Markus said?
b) Completely integrated in the internal database of GSX (no Custom-Config to be used), like Koen said?

 

The plane itself is supported by the internal database of gsx so that all works fine. The custom config that Markus mentions is that gsx will automatically open the doors and close the doors once done. It also will connect the jetway automatically if it has sode and hook up the GPU and the chocks. As it is currently if you hit deboarding it will automatically dock the jetway to the correct door and hook up the gpu and set the chocks. The user doesn’t need to go into any menu.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Daniel Saffran

@koen meier

So it is both, depending how automated the integration should be. Sounds great, I definitely need that file back!

Can someone please share it with me? I promise I will take a backup! :lol:

 

@Mike Ionas

Thanks, for that interesting background information! But that exactly backs my point: only the one who modeled that actual airframe can give the right numbers for weight and performance for a PFPX/SimBrief Profile!

Link to post
Mike Ionas

The one who modeled the actual airframe, did create the PFPX profiles. You cannot get any better than that! ;)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
  • 5 months later...
Jordan Heyburn

Hello,

Glad I found this topic! 

My first impressions are extremely positive of the A320. 

First of all I always look for the functionality of the FMC which works beautifully including having to put in a manual FLEX using a calculator giving it a more realistic TO setting. On an offline flight I did Dublin - Athens with a planned diversion to EDDM to see how the system works if one has to divert again it didn't fail me and with the use of the navigraph charts everything went smoothly. 

I normally start up on the GPU and then work through the checklists such as aligning the IRS etc. 

I flew only two weeks ago from Berlin - Dublin in an A320 I still have the ambient noise fresh in my memory and again it sounds like IRL even down to the TOD when you can hear the vibration of the engines go down. 

Hand flying it has been fantastic especially on the LIFFY SID out of Dublin once passing the OE it holds the turn towards the Dublin VOR. When landing depending on the wx I've been disengaging around 5/6 miles out and getting good landing rates.

Overall it's been worth the money and I can't wait to see what's in the future developments.

Cons? I'm spending a lot more time flying ;-) 

Is an A321 being planned? 

Thanks! 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Norman Blackburn
16 minutes ago, Jordan Heyburn said:

I flew only two weeks ago from Berlin - Dublin in an A320 I still have the ambient noise fresh in my memory and again it sounds like IRL even down to the TOD when you can hear the vibration of the engines go down. 

Is an A321 being planned? 

Hi @Jordan Heyburn

It's your fault I never got to meet your dad last week :)  Glad to hear that you are enjoying your purchase.

We are currently developing a 321 however we can't give a time for its release.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Jordan Heyburn
4 hours ago, Norman Blackburn said:

Hi @Jordan Heyburn

It's your fault I never got to meet your dad last week :)  Glad to hear that you are enjoying your purchase.

We are currently developing a 321 however we can't give a time for its release.

We got a work out at Krampnitz to say the least haha! We flew on the A343 Wednesday service with Lufthansa on the way to EDDF it was a great experience! 

It's been well worth the money I'll say that. Would it be worth adding GSX into my library? I was reading the tutorial on the ATSU it had mentioned about it.

My normal flow is to import the FP, winds, CI and FL from simbrief and then I manually add in the passenger numbers, fuel and finally use a calculator for the FLEX temp and trim setting.

 

Link to post
Norman Blackburn

Hi Jordan,

From what I heard you guys had a great time!

Personally I use GSX level 2 every flight.  At first I was reticent but the more integrated it is now it really makes a huge difference to the immersion.  It does not do anything that you are currently doing aside from loading your aircraft - fuel, passengers and cargo.

Link to post
  • 3 months later...
Nadim Janjua

First impressions....

 

What can I say, having had experience with PSS, Wilco, Airsimmer and then the real thing for over 10 years now, I am delighted to see an A320 addon that is worth every penny. Amazing attention to detail.  Well done.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Ralf Goertz

I see the whole thing a little more cautiously. Of course, the FSL A320 is one of the best converted, but also most expensive aircraft on the flight simulator market. I have considered a long time buying this aircraft and have read a lot of forum posts about it.

I am a little disappointed that this airplane was developed 6 years and is already 3 years on the market and still has so much little bugs. Sounds are missing, switches are wrong or not animated at all - the support forum (to which I now have access) is full of such messages.

An airplane that is so acclaimed should act like the original in all areas of the cockpit and should be almost bugfree if it claims to have study level.

Link to post
Koen Meier
11 minutes ago, Ralf Goertz said:

I see the whole thing a little more cautiously. Of course, the FSL A320 is one of the best converted, but also most expensive aircraft on the flight simulator market. I have considered a long time buying this aircraft and have read a lot of forum posts about it.

I am a little disappointed that this airplane was developed 6 years and is already 3 years on the market and still has so much little bugs. Sounds are missing, switches are wrong or not animated at all - the support forum (to which I now have access) is full of such messages.

An airplane that is so acclaimed should act like the original in all areas of the cockpit and should be almost bugfree if it claims to have study level.

Which version are you talking about?

Link to post
NilsUnger

I see your point and can agree with you. But, as a customer of the very early days, let me tell you that the improvements in all aspects and the number of features added (ground breaking features I might add) are truly remarkable. I see it as a living project. With the A321 important new features will arrive. And then even more new features with the sharklets. 

The only real critique I have: for my liking to many basic features of the MCDU are still missing or not completely modeled. But I can understand in a way: ATSU sells better than RTA, OFFSET, ETP, PROCEDURE TURNS, ENERGY CIRCLE etc. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Ralf Goertz

I can understand that it is also important to keep a product attractive on the market and therefore to implement additional or even new features again and again. But imo there is nothing worse than adding a new feature with every update and creating 10 new bugs on systems that have already worked flawlessly. At some point you have to reach a development stage where all bugs are fixed.

At this point you can then implement new features and release a version 3.0. Otherwise it will be a never ending story.

And I won't have any fun installing an update every 3 weeks and hope that basic functions will finally work (again).

Link to post
M_i_k_e_V_o_g
2 hours ago, Ralf Goertz said:

I can understand that it is also important to keep a product attractive on the market and therefore to implement additional or even new features again and again. But imo there is nothing worse than adding a new feature with every update and creating 10 new bugs on systems that have already worked flawlessly. At some point you have to reach a development stage where all bugs are fixed.

At this point you can then implement new features and release a version 3.0. Otherwise it will be a never ending story.

And I won't have any fun installing an update every 3 weeks and hope that basic functions will finally work (again).

Who's stopping you from remaining on the current version, or better still, reverting to that from last year?

Link to post
Ralf Goertz
2 hours ago, M_i_k_e_V_o_g said:

Who's stopping you from remaining on the current version, or better still, reverting to that from last year?

So you can confirm that the current version is buggy and you advise me to switch to last year's version?

I bought the A320 on Nov. 15th and only have a download link for the current sales version 2.0.2.424. I thought that was the best version I could get for my money!

PS: Sorry to sound a little rude but it took me 10 minutes in the cockpit to find a few things that are not working as expected and that makes me angry in a sim-airplane that's supposed to be the best on the market.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Norman Blackburn
7 hours ago, Ralf Goertz said:

PS: Sorry to sound a little rude but it took me 10 minutes in the cockpit to find a few things that are not working as expected and that makes me angry in a sim-airplane that's supposed to be the best on the market.

Could you detail what it is that does not work as expected please?

Keep in mind please that the software currently modelled is S7.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Ralf Goertz

I'm on a business trip, absent from my home Sim-PC. After I have looked through the support forum, the small bugs I found in the cockpit are already described by other users. I'll wait for the next update and of course I'm eagerly awaiting the A321...

Link to post
Ralf Goertz

After several flights, overall i have to say: this FSL aircraft is impressive. I did a few extreme conditions during flight and the implemented system diversity is amazing. (even the great looking RAT, cute)

  • Like 2
Link to post
  • 1 month later...
Scott Wilson

have had 2 weeks off at xmas so thanks for a rock solid a320 really enjoyed the latest version. A lot of improvements in the last 6 months I can see and with GSX integration. A few small things

1.The battery pulsing issue after APU start (reported before) seems to occur if you cycle fuel pumps off prior to shutdown. The fix, after APU start is to cycle the fuel pumps off and on.

2. Y20k issue with boarding times on AOC menu already reported on another thread

3. Ground frication is different in either this version of the bus of the last p3dv4 patch (IAE version), when i now use the period key to brake it's less effective and generates more heat , you may just have tuned this to be close to orig

Just smashing aircraft thanks all the very best to all at FSLabs for 2020 and indeed the beta team and forum contrubutors, all helped me out over the last year.

  • Like 1
Link to post

×
×
  • Create New...