A320 aerosoft/black box/default FBW ???

[bstolle]

Hi folks,

As I've already started my A320 type rating, I decided today to buy one of the two available A320s. The first one exhibited the same wrong FBW behaviour as the default A321, so I bought the second one as well.
Guess what, both add-on Airbuses apparently rely on the default A321 FDE which means all 3 show the same wrong behaviour which makes flying them much more difficult and hence much more unrealistic than IRL.
Furthermore even basic things like roll spoiler, speedbrake or reverse animations are wrong.
If you are looking for a realistic Airbus FBW system, I guess we have to wait what flightsimlabs has to offer.....I'll keep you updated how that one performs once it's out.
If it's just about the flying part, the default A321 doesn't differ to much from the add-on version.

[Sundog]

Thanks for the heads up.

[StormILM]

Bernt, just to clarify, did you get the Aerosoft Airbus X Extended? I had looked at the Dev videos and nomenclature for that and they indicated a custom FBW FDE with all the protections. I know the original FDE was way off(close to the stock A321 FDE) which is why I originally decided against that model.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gCVA5p26nk

[bstolle]

Bernt, just to clarify, did you get the Aerosoft Airbus X Extended? I had looked at the Dev videos and nomenclature for that and they indicated a custom FBW FDE with all the protections. I know the original FDE was way off(close to the stock A321 FDE) which is why I originally decided against that model.

Yes. It's still awful. Funny thing is that Aerosoft claims that they didn't want to simulate any abnormals, yet they are proud of the protection you will also never experience during normal ops.
Check the video at 2:15. As he's rolling out of the turn the bus rapidly starts climbing. In fact the default A321 is even less aggressive (more realistic) during the negative pitch limit test.
The whole autopilot system acts way too aggressive on the Aerosoft bus (v1.02c)
I'll try the same short flight with the BBS Airbus today and report the differences. Considering that the Aerosoft A320 is already considered finished and the BBS A320 has just reached v0.6, the BBS version seems to have more potential.
But at least the VC on the Aerosoft version is much better than the BBS VC.

[StormILM]

Yes. It's still awful. Funny thing is that Aerosoft claims that they didn't want to simulate any abnormals, yet they are proud of the protection you will also never experience during normal ops.
Check the video at 2:15. As he's rolling out of the turn the bus rapidly starts climbing. In fact the default A321 is even less aggressive (more realistic) during the negative pitch limit test.
The whole autopilot system acts way too aggressive on the Aerosoft bus (v1.02c)
I'll try the same short flight with the BBS Airbus today and report the differences. Considering that the Aerosoft A320 is already considered finished and the BBS A320 has just reached v0.6, the BBS version seems to have more potential.
But at least the VC on the Aerosoft version is much better than the BBS VC.

Glad to get this straight. I had dismissed the original version because of negatives I heard about the FDE but thought the Extended update would have overcome these issues. I had bought the old FS9 Wilco version and my friend who's an Airbus Captain felt it was as close as possible in FS standards at the time regarding the FDE/FBW simulation and FMC functionality. Oh well, the wait continues.

[Spikehughes]

As you mention the standard A321 - the Aerosoft A320 X extended system software and VC appear to be considerably more advanced.
The fact you say that it doesn't emulate FBW from your perspective is a bit of a downer if this is so. I was intending to purchase this aircraft.

[bstolle]

Just found out that it's not only the FBW that is off, but pitch/power settings are not even remotely realistic
e.g. at green dot (opt L/D ratio) the A321 should need at average weight 60%N1. On the Aerosoft version at 60%N1 it a high speed run at 330kts.
On final at config 3 the attitude at Vls+10 should be 1.5° and on the Aerosoft bus it's 7.5° (but with the correct 56% power setting). There's something basic wrong even with the FDE, not only the FBW.

update: the BBS bus is defintely more realistic concerning pitch/power settings. e.g. green dot 54% at 6° nose up IRL vs 54% and 5deg nose up.
Only at config 3 on the ILS the required power setting is way too high (46% vs 60%) but as the attitude is ok this seems to be an easier to correct thrust/drag problem than on the Aerosoft bus.

[bstolle]

update on the FBW: turned out that a few RL Airbus pilots (and Airbus) are a bit optimistic when describing the capabilities of the FBW

FBW on the Aerosoft (and the BBS) A320 is working as IRL. (That's also true for the default A321 but to a slightly lesser degree)
Airbus says that the A320 features flight path stability while this is actually not the case, the A320 maintains its present attitude!
If you fly straight and level autotrim keeps the present attitude and when decreasing from e.g. 320 to 220kts, the A320 starts descending! (Same happens if you are rolling into a turn).
According to a few of our A320 FIs the target was to make the A320 easy and natural to fly, not to rigidly maintain a totally fixed flight path.
Everything else concerning systems, operations, FDE remains unchanged for the time being

[bstolle]

Final upate on the FBW. Got now docs and infos from Airbus, FIs, technical pilot etc etc and the A320 does maintain its flightpath in manual flight (e.g. altitude in level flight) when banking, reducing speed etc...
So it's now up to FSL to deliver a realistic FBW

[kilo delta]

I thought that the following video would be of interest to those that are interested in the A320...

Watch as a novice pilot (in this case a member of the cabin crew) is guided to complete a (semi) automated landing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkOT3fbc1O4

This site is also of interest.. http://www.a320typerating.com/howtoflyanairbus.html