I still remember a time when i was flying it on FSX . I had the entire Airbus family package from Aerosoft, and was pretty pleased with it. But the FBW A20N is waaaay more “realistic” than the one from Aerosoft (or any other Airbus model they developped) for FSX. I wonder if they are going to be as good as then, or as good as FBW level 
There is otherwise a freeware A330 Neo, that is not too bad, but that’s just the exterior model that is “fun” to see while flying. But nothing close to FBW when it matters cockpit functionnality or aerodynamics
It’s been years since I’ve last flown the Aerosoft Airbuses, but I’m pretty sure they already had implemented tiny, negligible features like VNAV which the 320nx is lacking. 
it’s on it’s way, and honestly, it’s the ONLY minus point one could give FBW, because it’s still can’t perform a HOLD. But Except from that sole little point, i think (and it’s a personnal opinion…not the truth and only one) that its better than Aerosoft Aibuses where for FSX. Yet, i repeat, I loved flying with them, and still have good memories of hrs spent on FSX with them. If Aerosoft would do a similar “pack” for msfs, i wonder if they are going to use the full potential on the model and aerodynamics that MSFS proposes nowadays, and not just “import” from FSX to MSFS to make fast easy €$£ 
2 Likes
They are under development, and I’m sure Aerosoft didn’t take 3 days to implement them.
2 Likes
Yep, that is my main issue with FBW A320, once the get around it with their experimental FMC the plane will be almost perfect for me.
Fenix is doing an amazing job with their 320 though, I will definitely buy it and compare what both offer!
1 Like
same here, once they’ll dealed with that “lack” (FBW) they will be very close to perfection…and FREEware (which brings them closer to perfection, any third dev party will ever be ! 
).
I’m very curious about what FENIX’s A320 is going to be. So far, I’m positivily surprised about the breathtakingly detailed graphics of it. I think I’ll watch a couple of vids about it on youtube, before buying it though. The one from FBW does already an amazing job to me. Now i’d wish more for medium and long haul aircrafts. If Fenix or FBW would make an A321 XLR, I would definitely go for it
1 Like
I’m sorry, but what do you mean by “potential” here? Are you suggesting that Xbox simmers are not serious enough? And I don’t know who said the simulator is different on Xbox - Aersoft and PMDG are already testing their products on an Xbox kit. Surely if the Xbox version was a completely different than the PC version, then Aerosoft/PMDG would’ve been far from testing on Xbox. I know I may sound snarky, apologies for that, but I just don’t buy it. It’s not fair to treat Xbox users differently because of “potential”.
2 Likes
Never did I suggest that XBOX simmers aren’t as serious as PC simmers, I myself use both and find them both pleasurable in their own way.
I haven’t seen Aerosofts and PMDGs plans but as far as I was aware, they don’t have any plans to release modules for XBOX yet.
PC is easier to develop for because you can run executables outside the sim and do operations not possible in the SDK, such as terrain APIs, this is simply not possible in XBOX. Take for example the Fenix A320 project, which filly runs outside the sim.
This is why I can’t confirm anything because development is still ongoing and external dependencies are still being developed so I cannot confirm how the addon will run in the sim (externally or internally).
It’s partially the SDK and partially the different platforms.
1 Like
To give some context on this, holding patterns are not as simple as it might seem.
Other addons have taken a different, more generic route to implementing them. Which is perfectly fine - it does allow getting the functionality earlier, and it works. Our approach is a bit different in that we implement the path computation specific to a particular version of the A320 FMS. This includes special stringing rules and transition paths that are applied in some cases that depend on a long list of factors.
This is hard to implement and complex, but it pays off greatly and it is something we have not observed any other Airbus addon implement precisely. It’s an approach we think will eventually yield the most accurate LNAV and path prediction available to date - but it takes a bit more time.
Now back to the A350
3 Likes
Very interesting! I just want the FBW team to take all the time they need, learning how different features work as they come has proven to be very useful in order to learn how the plane works step by step.
In what regards the A350, I would LOVE to see that plane in-game, this thing is to aviation what space X is to spaceships. It feels an looks futuristic. It is most likely a nightmare to program though xD
I think the A350 has a couple of features which could be difficult to implement into MSFS. One of these features is a dynamic deceleration during the rollout. You can program the A350 to aim for a specific runway exit. The plane can adjust the braking power in order to reach the desired exit with optimal speed. In MSFS the aircraft would need to be able to read the navigational data for the airport, calculate the distance and dynamically adjust the braking power. That sounds like a huge coding galore.
2 Likes
Brake to Vacate
I don’t know if this feature is implemented in the Flight Factor A350 for XP, but from configuring that aircraft, it’s likely that the data for runways is pretty easy to pull from the navdata. You set up for the runway in the configuration options for the aircraft. There is a ton of workflow regarding setting up all that stuff on the ground before you take off. It takes longer to set up than the A320, that’s for sure. And pretty much everything is in glass panels over there, so a lot more goes into programming the new MCDU than the old one. I don’t think THAT feature is the most difficult thing to implement in terms of A350. There is whole ton of other stuff there too. I am far from being an expert on that one.
1 Like
There is also a thing in the weather system which allows you to see the cloud formations vertically, in order to check how strong is the weather in the different heights of the cloud in front of you, which is crazy.
I don’t think the current weather system allows for that.
EDIT: Found a picture
The weather radar that comes with Carenado Seneca allows for this vertical view. I haven’t played enough with it in challenging weather, but… it’s there. It may make sense to try that out and see how that works. Do you have the Seneca?
1 Like
Oh does it?? I did not know, I have not tried the plane yet, I will buy it this week-end and check for myself!
Yeah, it’s the view I usually set up as my go-to because I find it infinitely more useful than the top down one.
1 Like
The Asobo Cessna Longitude has a similar feature that shows you the altitude of the clouds in front of you. It helps you with going above or below the formation.
Break To Vacate (BTV) as you describe here is planned to be implemented.
PMDG never said that they were testing their products on Xbox. Do you have a source?
1 Like