Will vote for a321.

edit: since the 321 is out of choice now, would love to have an fslabs class a330

4 minutes ago, MoeGhaziri said:

Will vote for a321.

Lefteris wrote "it can take... well... more fuel than the A320-X series "

so it cant be a A321

i hope to be a A350

The A321 is part of the A320-X series so it's not that - I've removed the option from your poll.  

1 minute ago, Sarantos said:

Lefteris wrote "it can take... well... more fuel than the A320-X series "

so it cant be a A321

i hope to be a A350

To be honest, I will go for anything fslabs will do, even if it was a BMW 

2 minutes ago, Karl Brooker said:

The A321 is part of the A320-X series so it's not that - I've removed the option from your poll.  

Noted and thank you

I personally voted for the A380, we don't have one at all thats even good quality and just imagine how great it could be! 

It's an A330. There's no information about the A350, so easy guess.

 

Nobody in their right mind would do an A380.

Hi,

I would love to have an A350 or A380 but the question being "expect to be", I voted for the A330 as it is for the more logical next step after the A320 series.

Without a deep knowledge, the A330 looks the closest to the A320 amongst all the other Airbus -despite many differences- which allows for a less steep learning curve for FSL.

And it is still in production and widely flown compared to its big brother A340.

Defiantly either the A330 or A340 as the  a380 and A350 would be hard to get access to due the limited number of the aircraft and how new they are 

It,s an A330 for sure, that is the obvious and most logical progression. The question should be: 200 or 300?

 

I think it will be an A333. Agree with the other people in the forum, makes sense as the upgrade with the lesser effort required in terms of systems development/upgrade.

Hah, Aerosoft fellas will miss a heartbeat when they read FSL AXXX-XX

If it's an A340 i'll travel to Greece and kiss Lefteris in the forehead. Then head back home and wait patiently

IMO it's likely to be either an A330 or A340 since they're the closest technology wise to the A320 and as such at least some of the underlying code and systems could be reused. The A300 is unlikely because it'd require completely new code; the A380 and A350 are unlikely because barely any technical information is available for both, making the process of coding even harder.

Whatever opportunity may have presented itself will be the next plane... I do agree the 330 is most likely though. Could be anything tho

Would love an A340 

Fingers crossed for a 380!

What airline did FSLabs use? If so, what do they have in the fleet. Makes sense then?

4 hours ago, Robbie Garrett said:

What airline did FSLabs use? If so, what do they have in the fleet. Makes sense then?

We didn't say for the 20.  We are not saying for the 19 or the xx.  All of which may or may not be different companies.

On 5/24/2017 at 8:03 PM, WayneG said:

I personally voted for the A380, we don't have one at all thats even good quality and just imagine how great it could be! 

yeah..same here..i'm a member of ba virtual so we don't have any good heavy aircraft and as the 747 series are being replaced by the A380-800 in my case it would make sence

of course it will be A330-X 

On 5/28/2017 at 6:08 PM, Norman Blackburn said:

We didn't say for the 20.  We are not saying for the 19 or the xx.  All of which may or may not be different companies.

I bet you there is no "real" A319 and xx. I even go sofar as to say the A320 MSN you used is actually an old flatplanel trainer software rewritten for FSX/P3D use.

Don't get me wrong, I love the product but I am seeing many similarities with the RW training software I use. 

 

1 hour ago, Frank Docter said:

I bet you there is no "real" A319 and xx. I even go sofar as to say the A320 MSN you used is actually an old flatplanel trainer software rewritten for FSX/P3D use.

Don't get me wrong, I love the product but I am seeing many similarities with the RW training software I use. 

 

Careful what you bet.  Because I can say without fear of contradiction that real MSN were (and continue) to be used.  

5 hours ago, Frank Docter said:

...I am seeing many similarities with the RW training software I use. 

 

 Means FSLabs have done their job then

11 hours ago, Rudy Fidao said:

 Means FSLabs have done their job then

Actually no, what I mean is that FSL did a super job modeling training software. 

If they used a real MSN there would be some stuff that works like RL and not like a manual says. 

Take for example the MCDU. Every Thales RW software version has some RW quirks that are not documented. The INIT A page CRZ FL / TEMP for example. Every RW Airbus pilot which flies Thales will tell you that you can just enter /54 and it will insert the "-" by itself. No need to type -54. This is not documented but is like it is IRL. FMS trainer tools mostly do not have this "feature", hence my assumption  

 

 

Your assumption is wrong. Take it from the horse's mouth.

We modeled a specific MSN. No, we won't reveal which one. 

Thanks for your support! 

14 minutes ago, Lefteris Kalamaras said:

Your assumption is wrong. Take it from the horse's mouth.

We modeled a specific MSN. No, we won't reveal which one. 

Thanks for your support! 

Will these RW features make it into the SP1? And why leave them out in the first place?

Thanks

You assume that 1 real world plane = another.  Take for example software versions - they differ wildly between what we modelled and those leaving the factory now.

 

Now about that bet.....

I fly/flew every thales software version there is on aircraft ranging from build year 1989 (retro fit) till March 2017 (including the NEO) since 2005. 

Shall we bet a beer at the next AS FS conference?  

Thick fingers. Delete please. 

Given that I know the MSN modelled it would be just a little unfair.  And no, I can't tell you which.

Just now, Norman Blackburn said:

Given that I know the MSN modelled it would be just a little unfair.  And no, I can't tell you which.

Then why not model it in more detail?

You left stuff out that should have been there. If you really had an MSN for the fast ammount of time to model it and pilots that fly it. I am talking the actual MSN here. Not the disks that are stowed on the rightside of the FO. 

In our company those disks are sorted behind the Captain.  I know our software differs in so many ways from the FSL.   In any event, you are free to think what you wish.  

Honestly, I fail to see what the point of this discussion is. It has derailed from its original topic. I'm locking.