Monday, June 17, 2013

FSL A 320 : more than 3 years !

The first visual presentation of the project, three years ago.
FSX. On May 28th 2010, (yes 2010), Flight Sim labs proudly announced their second project, an Airbus 320. Three years later, still nothing. And in the meantime, new Airbus A320 have emerged on the market (Aerosoft, Black Box..) and they even got sufficient time to improve their products.  So..?


So.. What's the point ? Does't it Worth the time to wait for this ? Can we expect a much better aircraft than the other ones on the market ?

The first point is economic. If a team wants to survive and develop their company, they need to release their work times to times. So how are they living ? On loans ?  How many developers are still working on the project ? Will they have the organisation to manage the Customer support ?
Will Flight Sim labs find a sufficient base of customers today ? How they will be able to offer a competitive price ?

My second point is about technology. If you start on May 28th 2010 (and i bet they started to work on it sooner than this announcement), you will be facing a lot of new changes and challenges ; P3D, new Windows Platform, new development programs, emerging competitors (Aerosoft, Black Box..), new hardwares, developers leaving you, new ones to recruit etc etc..

My third point is about brand image. But i will spare you this one. Or just to say that the way FSL communicate on its own forum has probably create some frustrations...

Airdailyx, June 18th 2013
Dom Mason



Anonymous said...

Reminds me of airsimmer..

Anonymous said...

Some frustrations, I bet you are talking about you lol. It remind me the "leveld 757" project. Lot of people had a A320 already, it is gonna be hard for them.


Boeing100 said...

ADX, don't you think it's maybe time to revisit your standards before publishing an article? There are words missing/grammar mistakes in every single paragraph! I appreciate not everyone is a native english speaker, but at least get someone to double check it if you want your audience to take you seriously...

Chris said...

and now what? What do you think to achieve with this post? FSLabs will release whenever they think their A320 is ready - they have proven to be able to produce a complex airplane. It took PMDG years to develop both the MD11 and NGX as well. We all know that by the time of release both products where top notch and even ahead of their time despite the long development cycle. Rome wasn't built in a day as well. And to be honest, the AXE and the BBS are targeted towards a totally different group of simmers. the FSLabs Airbus will be on another level, both system wise and also in price - i'm sure the targeted group, including me,however will be more than happy to pay this price for the most complex, most complete Airbus simulation for MIcrosoft Flight Simulator yet.
Finally, you haven't payed anything for the FSLabs Airbus yet, so the company doesn't owe you anything - it is completelly up to them to inform you about the progress or not. And we all know what happens when companies show preview pictures, just look at this forum - "this doesn't look right,...." ("where's the wing flex...) even though the product is clearly still not finished.
As long as it is not out, just forget about it and enjoy all the products that are already released. One day it will be out and you will be more than satisfied with it, im sure.
Case closed!

Anonymous said...

Their 3D cockpit is poor , i know someone who actually tested the 3D cockpit and there will be a disappointment there.....i dt know about the ystems tho...all i can say is that the 3D cokpit is far behind the NGX nd the Dash in terms of qulity. Im not an aibus guy ill pass on this one....

Airlifter said...

Development of the NGX took PMDG about 3 years... Can't find anything wrong with this aircraft nor with the PMDG reputation.

Dan said...

The A320 isn't the only thing FSL does. Revenues from the Concorde, contract development work, and hardware interfacing are also in their company portfolio.

With regards to your economic questions: Does it really matter? I'm sure there is enough incoming revenue to keep the company afloat.

With respect to your technological questions: each new major release brings some significant innovations, especially in the area of dealing with the severe limits of operating within the FSX environment. Trying to stay on, or ahead, of that curve is a likely a very daunting task. Especially when these major innovations are expected to be "standard" on all new products.

I'm kind of dissapointed to see this here. I've always come to AirDailyX to see honest reviews and honest news of what's going on in the FlightSim world. This was my source of news after Avsim became flooded with tons of people stomping their feet demanding to know how come the T7 or DA CRJ or isn't released yet.

Assuming no "pre-release" sales, a developer isn't responsible for anything with regards to the potential end users, until a product is released. If that doesn't satisfy a certain user base, then there is a decisive aveneue of action to express your displeasure.... don't but it as a statement to the company for perceived poor business model/pre-customer relations.

On a side note, something I was thinking of as I was writing this... How long was the NGX in development?

Cowpatz said...

I am sure when it is finished it will be a really great product. The problem for them is most Airbus fans have given up waiting and purchased either the Aerosoft or Black box offerings. Also the FS Labs aircraft is so complex that it will take an age to beta test and mixing that level of complexity to the many varied platforms being used by simmers is probably going to be a support nightmare. Still I wish them the best of luck and commend them on their quest for the ultimate add on.

CAT3Dual said...

Some guesses from my side:

Economics: If I recall correctly, most of the known team members have a main job they are living from. So running out of money shouldn't be the biggest problem

Time: Remember PMDGs' NGX? That thing lasted also 3 years and it was worth the wait. (and it's only a 737, not a way more complex A320)

Technology: FSX hasn't changed since 2010, most of the add-ons are running in P3D without any problems (despite license things) and new hardware shouldn't be a problem, if they got an SDK and LINDA.

Talking about competitors -with the level of fidelity they are trying to achieve according to their descriptions, there are NONE. BBS and Aerosoft are nice toys that look like an Airbus (well, the latter at least) but has in no way a PMDG-style representation of the aircraft systems.

About communication: I agree 10000% with you

btw. their costumer service is outstanding, I had some problems in the past and they presented a solution - even on a sunday evening.

ALX WNT said...

Considering that it's under development for three years and base of the project was created with the tools and tech of 2010, lack of P3D support, i think we can say that FS A320 (if they release it) will be frame eater and most of the buyers wont be satisfied with the product itself.

More you wait, more anticipation and expectation you have, it's always the same thing with any type of product.

I dont want to sound like troll or pessimist person but it's going to be failure.

Anonymous said...

I think their main asset is that one of the persons has been a known part of PMDG.

Truth is that the only addon FSLabs has developed so far, is the Concorde, which actually has it´s roots in the STS FS9 Concorde.

All we have seen are small glimpses of - nothing.

Offcourse I hope that their project will mature, but my gutsfeel tells that a project running over such a long period won´t endup as most of could wish for.

ALE said...

Who even says that FSL is their primary source of income? This field is rather small...
After I got stung by the debacle that was Airsimmer, I now sit back and watch. All products "in development" are vapourware until they are released into the public domain, either as payware or freeware. So, let FSL continue. If or when they are ready to release their product onto the market, the community will then decide if it was worth the wait. I guarantee that a number of FS sites will be reviewing such a product the moment it hits the tarmacs of our simulators...
This "news" post is controversial to say the least and the seed of a potential flame war. In my mind, it would have best been left unwritten, but that is only my opinion and you are of course entitled to yours on your own blog :)

Thodoris said...

Well I don't mean to defend them or something but I guess they are creating a masterpiece.They have modeled extreme things like full ARINC.As for competitors I own black box A320 and I can tell you it is seriously a piece of junk (personal opinion) while FSL's one has to be great after all that time waiting.It has to be.So better wait for something that is PMDG quality than have a semi-finished product

Anonymous said...

FSL has systematically failed in communicating to the market what they have been doing for the last 3 years... As a result, other developers took the opportunity and moved faster. Nothing wrong here... How many potentials customers for FSL remain waiting, nobody knows for sure but I guess they are a minority right know.

Anonymous said...

This article is highly speculative and not very relevant. What is it to us- consumers- how they make a living. You can ask questions about the length of development, but to question their reputation or speculate about customer support is unnecessary and even damaging. Is that fair for a company that has a proven track record with the concorde

Belisar said...

Well put and argued :) I still hope they make it but honestly what else we're gonna get that can change our flying experience substantially enough to get that card out of the wallet?

Stein-Ove Rud said...

"Their 3D cockpit is poor"

...and you know someone also, woooow, i'm impressed.
How can you say that folk's gonna be disappointed? You have no clue of how this will look like. Maybe better to wait until this bird comes out before start screaming over how awful this bus look's like.

Stein-Ove, Norway said...

I think you gonna be surprised, not that you have right in your thoughts, i think you are wrong!

Like me (i'm sure there are many others also), i have that Aerosoft bus in my hangar, yes, it's in the hangar and there it will be staying also! Yes, i'm done being "paying beta tester" for that bird. I put my cent's on FSL and they're incoming bus. I'm sure that bus gonna be a really great addon to my sim.

Mene said...

I really don't understand the meaning of this article.. and the objective of it.
I understand also that this website is making a living from users like me that is visiting. We are visiting your web page so we can see reviews, images of published and not published products. I Don't care about company strategy, marketing etc.
We prefer a good product at the end. We don't care if it takes ten years.
We also are clever enough to see that the blackbox Airbus that is a piece of nothing and more expensive than greater products had a not very "fair" review from your webpage. So please stop writing bu..t and do your job.

Anonymous said...

PMDG and Majestic are both on top with visuals and system models.

We can only hope that one tim one of those developers will make the perfect Airbus series.

Maybe Majestic. The Q400 VC is awesome with fps.

Todd said...

Well, the last time I posted on the FSLabs forum, I asked if they were going to support P3D, being that is what I use. The individual who replied said they haven't decided yet. Well, they better decide soon, because FSX exists by name only and will slowly go the way of FS9. They are essentially developing a systems heavy A320 for a dying platform. Not only that, simming has declined over 50% since Microsoft canned the ACES team and discontinued MSFS, so the market has shrunk significantly. And since no major sim platform has emerged as the heir apparent to FSX, I think companies like FSLabs and PMDG are in a real pickle. Lockheed Martin certainly hasn't made things any clearer - on one hand you have their EULA, and on the other hand they have their actions (or inaction as some may point out). I think Aerosoft's and iFly's attorneys had enough foresight to allow their companies to jump on P3D, and I think they are benefiting as a result. If FSLabs wants to survive, they need to decide what direction they are going. As for FSLabs funding, I think they, like many other developers out there, are placing most of their investment in the commercial market where there is more capital to be gained. While I may not buy the FSLabs A320, I do hope they are successful and get it released for FSX and P3D.


Anonymous said...

I wonder why companies like PMDG, FSLabs, A2A and now Majestic Software, seems to be put into safe heaven, where no one are allowed to question what they do, whereas other companies constantly are allowed to be under fire here at ADX and in other forums.

I fi I remember right, the PMDG 737 NGX was also plaqued with it´s share of problems after release, only fixed after serveral patches and note that a 737 NGX really isn´t that complex. A2A are selling some real nice aircraft, but the last 4 offerings have theie Accusim based on engine types that basicly all resmble the Rolls Royce Merlin, thus having the core accusim module in common.
The FSLabs Concorde has poor graphics, bad FPS and that even without any glasscockpit parts that are known for dragging FPS even lower.
The Majestic Dash-8 Q400 is really nice and in my opinion one of the best addons out there, but still it also has it´s share of problems.

With the hype FSLabs has triggered, by going into pointless expalnaitions about how they simulate ARINC standards etc (just blowing gas into the advertisement baloon), but without much more insight, an article like this makes fully sense.

Commenting Simmer said...

This maybe the first disappointing post I ever read on this site.

Frankly, because I see no reason for it. To me, it is pointless.

Some of the reasons have already been mentioned by others.

But I will also mention 2 serious points that have not been brought to light:

1. What other Airbus "competition" are we talking about?

I will not comment about the BBSes because I do not have them, and because they are not finished.

But I will do so, for the Aerosoft Extended.

In several sites and forums, not only this one, when I read from people "how good it is", I wonder:

- How many flights have they done? One, two, or several dozens?

- How many types of procedures/approaches have they done?

Only RNAV?

Have they ever tried to do an approach that has a DME-arc (expected to be simulated as consecutive points)?

Have they ever tried to do an approach with a VOR radial interception? Or two successive VOR radial interceptions?

Well, I have, and dozens of times.

And I know for a fact, that the plane CANNOT handle this type of approaches (only RNAV). It will fly you on the nearest mountain slope, the radial interception approach is there to avoid.

Also, more than half the times you do a direct-to, you loose all managed LNAV for the rest of the flight as the plane with fly circles around its present position.

And all these are after six months from release, and after the 1st SP.

To summarize:

Its unpredictable, unreliable, and CANNOT be trusted.

And we are not talking about system depth here, we are talking about the few systems that were ADVERTISED. These should have been working FLAWLESSLY.

And the final question for point 1:

Is this the Airbus you want?

Or do you want something RELIABLE? Something you can count on, you can TRUST?

Now to point 2:

Logic dictates that one of the reasons FSL takes so long for development, is not only the inherent complexity of Airbuses itself. But also because they are building a strong set of reusable "modular building blocks" to take advantage of the extended commonality of all Airbuses.

So these building blocks, will allow them to deliver future products (A321, A319, A330) faster to the market. It will also make their code much simpler to fix, maintain and improve - if something is fixed/improved in the A320 it automatically gets so in the A330 as well.

Remember that PMDG also did this with the NGX, which has considerable common code with the 777 (and the 747 v2). And PMDG had to deal with Boeings where there is much less commonality between them.

Anonymous said...


Alpha Bravo said...

I think you are being very rude with this article. Normally as a whole, this lot is pretty good at keeping it together, but this thread is quite aggressive to the developers, and really whats the point? To get your release?
Yes you have a right to free speech but when you come off like this, for an industry as delicate as the FS world is, you just come off bad, especially as a news reporter for us.
As people have stated, great fully functional products take years to develop. PMDG, Magestic, and FSL are 3 companies that strive for realism and function. They spend hours on coding exact movements and features to mimic the real life counterpart. Also remember that this can also be just a side project for them as they have other jobs that actually put food on the table and pays the bills.

This product, while it may not look the best now, will most likely blow the competition out of the water with its full functioning systems and controls. It may also be taking longer so that their coding for this 'bus will be easily transferred to other 'bus models they make

DAndre Newman said...

Those posting as Anonymous, please add names or "nick names" to your posts.

Anonymous said...

I think the quality of the VC will be alot better than you stated. The shots we have seen from FSL so far have not the same quality as Enigma's shots. And I think the textures will be better than the Airbus X.

DAndre Newman said...

You have to remember this is not Avsim and the like. This is a blog and as blogs go, it's all about opinion. You sre using the term "aggressive" very loosely. Aggerssive means aggerssive. A lion is aggressive when it takes out a babe Zebra. That's hardly whats happening here. And the primary point is a valid one. But I also understant your point of view as well. This market is small and very sensitive. But figute this, if Flight had been a replacement for FSX, it likely would have killed off this project.

And the point about P3D is very valid as well. At this moment, it holds the entire future of consumer PC flight simulation in it's hands. Thus deemed pruident upon FSL to ensure their product will be fully compatable with it which could mean a lot more work on the 3 years of work already. But just my opinion...

DAndre Newman said...

And sorry for my sphellings. Aggressive. Im on an iphone with big ass thumbs...

Live Wire said...

Well FS9 isnt'd dead yet and still smoother than FSX when flying heavies into payware airports in heavy weather etc.
Xplane 10 64bit supports as many cores as you can bring. Surely the future.

You are right after all, FSX and P3D are dead. :-)

Anonymous said...

Wow...what kind of hatchet job was this post (I cannot refer to it as an "article" because it doesn't rise to the level of a legitimate news story)? For a website that purports to understand flight simulation software, you clearly have no clue about development at this level. You are quick to criticize companies that release half-baked products (with good reason) yet are equally antagonistic when they don't move fast enough. Well you can't have your cake and eat it too!

Plain and simple - development at this level takes YEARS. The products that people are currently salivating about and hold up as benchmarks were not completed in a year. They took YEARS of work. When you also add in to the equation that no one (and I mean NO ONE) has ever pulled off an A320 with a degree of systems integrity that the FSL bird will have, it is very understandable why it has taken as long as it has taken. Let's not forget that Lefteris Kalamaris and Andrew Wilson are not rookie developers. These guys have serious pedigree when it comes to programming skills (I dare say that most of you are currently flying aircraft they have worked on in the past). If they tell me that the FSL A320 will achieve a high degree of fidelity, then I will take that to the bank. That's as a good a guarantee as you will get in this community.

If you like toys, then go ahead and blow your cash on what's out there currently when it comes to A320s. Me? I'll act like an adult and be patient. I know the work of FSL's developers in the past. I saw what they did with the Concorde (who actually had the nerve to say its graphics and FPS were poor? Do your computer and date of birth share the same year???) and other projects still being sold by competitors. Thank you very much but I'll continue to put my trust in FSL.


Anonymous said...

"Yes you have a right to free speech but when you come off like this, for an industry as delicate as the FS world is, you just come off bad"

I would really like to see other users also make a second thought before posting, if this industry really is so delicate.
Until now many developers are not exactly treated like rotten eggs.

Commenting Simmer said...

To DAndre:

"But figure this, if Flight had been a replacement for FSX, it likely would have killed off this project."

This is not an argument for two reasons:

1. It's hypothetical. It never happened.

2. If it happened, it would apply to all lenghty FSX projects, including the PMDG 777, and the Majestic Dash 8.

High Plains Flyer said...

The best way to approach these projects is to consider them as lies and propaganda until they actually deliver a functioning product.

I really have a hard time in seeing the point of announcing a pruduct three years or more prior to its release. Clearly such a premature announcement does little to enhance sales of the product when it is released years later. It really does not stop other sfrom developing similar products. To the onctrary, such premature announcements anger potential customers and lead to stories like this one.

I suspect the real reason it has not been done is the deelopers do not know how to model something as complex as the airbus. The problem most likely is with the actual systems, because doing the meshes and textures should not be all that difficult. Getting it to work in FSX is probably the problem.

Anonymous said...

I think this is very invalid on many levels, firstly, 3 years isn't long in the aspect of flight simulator development(especially for a complicated airliner).

Secondly, remember that the Airbus A320 isn't a simple aircraft to replicate. The developers will have to work on very complex codes and algorithms, not to mention the Fly By wire system that will need coding from scratch and in immaculate detail as they state.

You also have the modeling (Which by the looks of it, FSL are modeling everything), the Virtual Cockpit has to be modeled and textured.

Developers have failed before us, such as Airsimmer, Airliner XP, NLS A380, this should represent what a huge task and undertaking it is to simulate this aircraft.

Please remember, Aerosoft programmed their A32X series to be more of a medium level simulation (Hence the price tag being lower), they haven't replicated things like custom engine behavior (in an ideal world, you'd have the engine behavior coded outside of FSX restrictions, so you can accurately replicate correct engine spool times, start times, EGT behavior, environmental factors on the engines).

Anyone who sincerely thinks that this project is taking to long has absolutely no clue about FS Aircraft design.

Michael H.

Anonymous said...

Just a quick question for the writer of this post. but where you also so critical about the NGX during her development?

p3 said...

The end result willl be this :

1) they will release the addon.

2) the addon will be based on old (2010) technology meaning it will have huge performance issues

3) the system will not be modeled in full because they had to release it cos they had run out of money.

4) this is my prediction.

Joshua C. said...

There we go about the DME ARC Argument again. I suppose you are the same guy I responded to a few weeks/months ago on the same post.

To put things into perspective on your criticism of the AXE.

1. You complained the AXE is not able to do DME Arc approaches. Question to you, is PMDG 737NGX(one of the most respected addons in the FS world) able to do so as well? Don't start telling me how they plot points on a nice straight line (when it supposed to be a arc) and how its sufficient. Point is, its still false advertising. The AAX since SP1 has been able to do decent DME Arcs, as evidence at here: and here:

2. You complained the AXE is not able to do two successive radial interception, I have successfully done one (example) at RJAA and here is a picture proof:

3. I know who you are, because in the whole flightsim world, there is only a person like you who criticizes the same thing about the AXE and ALWAYS about Aerosoft aircraft products. I know your beef with Aerosoft, but this is my work, and I will not allow someone like you to spread false information on the AXE.

4. If there's a bug with any of the specific approach(that you fail to mention), you are more than welcome to report the bug, but do not falsely generalize A bug as a feature not working.

Joshua C.
AXE Developer.

Anonymous said...

Bad post. Seriously, what do you guy contribute? Zero. Some bad screen shots & cheerleading to your advertisers prehaps? Your nothing special Airdaily. Your site is just a Google preset blog that won't last judging by the quality of the writing.

Pict said...

Remember Majestic's Q400 was more or less in development since around 2005-2007 (at Least that's when Fanda showed the very first renders of it just after the Q300s release...) so to me, for realistic addons to have protracted development times is nothing new.

Commenting Simmer said...

1. I do not know what PMDG advertizes or what it does not. And here we are talking about the Aerosoft Airbus Extended, not PMDG.

I do not expect true arcs from the Extended.

But I do except a series of points, accurate enough to avoid any terrain obstacles around.

2. Show a picture of what the ND displays as the projected path, BEFORE you get airborne, at the moment you have fully finished your flight-plan without any discontinuities.

It does not display a correct flightpath.

So what?

You take-off, and pray that when you get there, something will change?

3. This whole argument is completely false.

I only want to get what I paid for, and to enjoy the aircraft, without constricting myself to RNAV procedures.

4. That's the point, it's not a bug about a specific approach. It happens on hundreds of approaches. It is much more generic/basic.

Besides, if a serious-enough bug gets reported in the Aerosoft forums, the topic simply gets deleted.

Mathijs Kok said...

And IF we are going to compare an existing add-on with one that nobody here has actually tried, let's compare add-ons of the same price level. The average customer of the Aerosoft Airbus paid 24,88 Euro (plus EU VAT where applicable). Now if FSLabs is selling at that price or something like it, let's compare. If it sells for double that let's expect them to do deliver something that is double as good in every aspect, from modeling, via paintkit to systems.

I got very high expectations for their product and am looking forward to it. But unless they sell at the same price level (or in the same ballpark) I feel comparisons are rather silly.

Mathijs Kok said...

"I think Aerosoft's and iFly's attorneys had enough foresight to allow their companies to jump on P3D, and I think they are benefiting as a result."

Uhhh, I assure you no attorney was needed. Lockheed asked us many times to start supporting their sim. We are in good contact with them and we love the way they try to assist the use of P3D for hobby. Even they smile when they use the term Academic License, lol.

DAndre Newman said...

I had always assumed that too. I think it's great that LM is unofficially supporting the FS community and I fully understand why. Let's just hope they are cracking away on updating it...

Anonymous said...

Bad day at the office Dom? Judging by these comments, it's not getting any better for you is it.

I would have been more interested in an interview with FSL and find out exactly where they're at with the A320-X, rather than your little rant. I'd be surprised if they want anything to do with ADX now...

Well done.

- James

DAndre Newman said...

True. Very true.

Robert said...

Most complex addons are released with 'old' technology, even the NGX which itself took about 3 years. It's not even necessary 'old' technology, a good developer already has a good idea what's going to work and what's not and can change things as needed as development progresses.

Secondly, you'd be surprised that most devs don't require a cashflow or very much of a cashflow to keep developing, most involved realize that a payout will not come until release. If groups required a constant flow of money, they'd never see the end of a project, nor would new groups be able to emerge.

Lastly though, just as a whole on the article, I believe it's yet another unfair and misinformed swipe at a developer. D'Andre, you asked if they are living on loans. Do you even realize most developers develop part time and have full time jobs outside of the FS hobby? No developer lives off of sales of FS addons. Do you even realize that most projects, even successful ones see very little return to the developer relative to the amount of time spent working on a project?

Complex addons take so long firstly because the FS hobby takes a backseat to real life and full time jobs away from the hobby. Secondly, and in support of one of your points D'Andre, yes, there are a lot of duplicate aircraft that need not be redone, so all these man hours are spent developing for something the community no longer really needs. But at some point, if you've gone far enough into a project, you are going to be inclined to keep going and try to sell as much as possible because of all of the work you've already put into it. With the amount of work and time put into something like this, it's hard to just drop it when you are already halfway along, that's hundreds if not thousands of wasted man hours otherwise.

Please don't take this as bashing you D'Andre or ADX, but I don't think the community really understands what goes into these projects and how little developers really earn, especially in the aircraft sector. Just my two cents.

Joshua C. said...

1. You missed the point. It simply means you decided to interpret the feature list that way, and then you accuse the AXE as false advertising, but are you willing to call the NGX as false advertising as well? (just answer the question, dont avoid it by saying we are talking about AXE not PMDG here).


Enough said.

3. Well, I have just proven to you that a) DME ARCs work/flies normally. b) Radial Interceptions work/fly normally.

4. You still fail to proof so far that the WHOLE FEATURE IS NOT WORKING CORRECTLY.

Notice that in this whole blog you are the only one saying that we censor bug threads?

Mason Dominique said...

We will never never give up this free speaking and insolent philosophy. I admit that my post was easy but obviously expected from the number of comments we receive.
In all my posts, almost all, i never cease to promote and defend developers.
Dom Mason

Delta Flier said...

Where does ADX get off criticising FSL??? What is this piece of trash you call a report?

FSL are producing a top range Airbus sim, they'll blow anything else there out of the water, to even compare it to the likes of the AXE or BBS Airbus (which are fine for their price point might I mention) is a joke, they're leagues ahead.

Economics? Doesn't matter, most have jobs outside of FSL, economics doesn't come into it, also their highly successful Concorde X is still selling like hot cakes, so they've got income.

Old Tech? So I guess since the Majestic Q400 started development in 2005 I should just throw that out, you know it being so old and all that? Or maybe the NGX which started development in 2008? Such old technology eh? Best to jut get rid of them right now? FSL will be released with the latest in technology, they haven't been sitting on their thumbs the last 3 years, I'm sure any new innovation that they've learnt about has been implemented and likely this project will be one of the more fluid and easy on resource add-ons to be released for FSX.

Platform? Thay've already announced that they'll be using P3D for their professional version, so no reason the consumer version won't work with it like almost every other add-on out there.

To criticise such a team is outrageous. They've got the likes of LEFTERIS KALAMARIS on their team, a proven developer and LEAD DEVELOPER with PMDG for years. They've got ANDREW WILSON, founder of SSTSIM. These are the big names in FS development.

Not only that, but if you're ever on AVSIM you'll see that CAPTAIN RONAN O'CADHAIN is one of the technical advisors for this project. Anyone in the FS community who's worth their salt will know that Ronan is one of the nicest, smartest most helpful people around. He is the FS authority when it comes to AIRBUS, and he's working with FSL, so if that doesn't say something about the character of people and the base of knowledge that FSL has behind them I don't know what does.

If it were up to me FSL should refuse you any permission in future to show any of their pics because honestly, after this you've lost the respect of many.

Perhaps a nice idea would be to issue an appology to them, we all have our off days but at least there's always the option to man up and admit when you were wrong and made a mistake.


Speedbird said...

A poor Article IMHO! I'm all for free speaking, but this article brings down the whole tone of the site.

DannyH73 said...

Have to agree here. I like the fact this is a great place to get updates, but the grammar and spelling is getting steadily worse making it a difficult read at times ... and I'm not a native English speaker either.

3-Peat said...

You can't judge the quality of their writing when you have typo's yourself. I'm pretty sure you know the difference between "Your" and "You're" and how they're used, right?

Annonymus said...

"My third point is about brand image. But i will spare you this one. Or just to say that the way FSL communicate on its own forum has probably create some frustrations..."

Totally agree! FSL customer communications sucks! would it be difficult to post updates every month? & kudos to AirdailyX for this post, good to see you're not scared of saying what you think! BRAVO!

Kevin Firth said...

I think Lefteris is a pretty cool customer, he knows some people will want his product and some won't. Lets's not compare Audi's with Skoda's, they are both good brands but are aimed at different market segments. Each to their own :) Besides, I sometimes struggle enough to find time to hold down a job, commute, raise a daughter, treat my wife, clean my house etc before I lash up some sketch up model or two, let alone participate in building a full blown A320 model ;) So, respect to them all...

Todd said...


Thank you for clarifying Aerosoft's position. I had always assumed attorneys were involved due the whole "commercial vs entertainment" controversey. I mean, I am told that's the whole reason PMDG isn't supporting P3D. I'm glad to see that LM has been very open with Aerosoft about its intentions with P3D. As far as I am concerned, that's all the proof I need that P3D is going to be the heir apparent to FSX. Perhaps, Mat, you should have a talk with the folks at PMDG, er Boeing! A big reason for my support for Aerosoft is your support for P3D, not to mention the quality of your add-ons.

Live Wire, while FSX might be close to dead, I can assure you P3D is no where close. Just wait until v2.0 is released. The Orbx folks are very clear on their forums that we are in for a big pleasant surprise! I liked FS9 a lot, but with so many developers abandoning FS9 completely (Quality Wings being the latest), I decided to jump directly to P3D, which is simpler to set up and smoother to run than FSX ever was.

Todd said...

"FSL are producing a top range Airbus sim, they'll blow anything else there out of the water, to even compare it to the likes of the AXE or BBS Airbus (which are fine for their price point might I mention) is a joke, they're leagues ahead."

And you have proof? It hasn't even been released yet. You have no idea if it will meet expectations or not. It may never get released for all we know.


Robert said...

See though, most developers only develop part-time, they've got full-time jobs and lives and families to look after first. Sometimes, there simply isn't anything new to show or update. It's not fair to the individuals, the people, the human beings that develop these products for our community to jump on them just because they have to go awhile without an update. It's discouraging to see such hostility towards developers and one another in a community that's on the brink as it is. These developers could easily throw in the towel on FS and take their talents to other areas of the gaming industry that pay off far more and are more appreciative of their time and effort. Instead they decided to stick with this community, even though they get very little relative financial gain out of it, and at this point in time, are often received with hostility and impatience.

Is it so wrong to think of FSL or any other developer as people, as individuals who have other things going on in their lives just like the rest of us? And that real-life commitments must come first?

Again, this is yet another disturbing example shown by many in the community of impatience, demanding, and disregard for the individuals behind sustaining our relatively small niche community with new addons.

Anonymous said...

All the excuses you all have for FSLABS.....their 3D flight deck based on the images, and no where up to the AXE, NGX or Q4 level......if you want to say we can't compare because the product isn't released, then go compare the images FSLABS provided, with the images of the AXE preview (before it was released), the NGX and Q4.

Compare the pre released images and you will see. The images Aerosoft, PMDG and Majestic provided is the same as their released product. So unless FSlabs gonna rebuild their 3D VC to the new standard set by those developers, most ppl will stick with AXE for their A320 needs. Who wants systems if the plane looks cheap?

John Barnes said...

"Who wants systems if the plane looks cheap?"

So you are not going to buy it because the competitions photos are better?
Sometimes, if you have nothing to say of worth, then its best to shut up.

P.S I don't hide behind the name anonymous.

Live Wire said...

Quote "Who wants systems if the plane looks cheap?" unquote.

Sim PILOTS, that's who.

Karl said...

I think there is just a real sense of frustration about this whole FSL 320 project. There is no denying that it has been 3 years and there really does not seem to be any light at the end of the tunnel.
For me personally I have lost all interest in the FSL 320. Just tired of waiting. Now if it does get released and reviews indicate that it is one of the best products ever made (like the PMDG NGX737) then my interest will peak again. But I can appreciate that FSL's reputation has been hurt.
I'm somewhat getting fed up with PMDG to be honest with their 777. A new livery every day to build excitement and then nothing..... This hobby sure is frustrating.

Delta Flier said...

"Who wants systems if the plane looks cheap?"

Ehhh, exactly the people who couldn't be halfway bothered with the AXE or BBS, the people this add-on is aimed at. Who wants visuals when the thing can only be used for 60-70% of real world flights.

Besides, have you not seen the preview shots? They're awesome!!! That VC is detailed as hell, and the spoilers look awesome!

Mark Batarina said...

People need to stop sucking up to developers.

Anonymous said...

I too wonder why there seems to be some "safe haven" for some developers?

Where is the criticism? We haven't even seen youtube clips of the FSL airbus.

Would you, for an example, buy a sack that a stranger sold you for $1000? He wouldn't let you open it, but he is telling you that the contents of the bag will blow your mind!

This is exactly the same here, READ the post and understand it's contents. It points to several valid points.

I really hope that FSL will release a mindblowing product, but we can't know for sure just cause "their concorde is awsome".

Batman said...

I love these posts. Even if controversial, they really provoke debate. By now, a thread like this on Avsim would have been deleted. This is why I have totally stopped using Avsim and only use AirDailyX now: no censorship, honest opinions.

Annonymus said...

AXE A320's PFD, ND, & EICAS looks very unrealistic, which spoils the whole VC!

Anonymous said...

1. If the VC will be of a similar low quality as the Concorde VC, it will be disappointing.
2. The way they run their forum is a far cry away from being customer friendly.
3. Aerosoft is continuosly improving their A320 while the BBS (v0.76) is still awfully bad.
3. So far there's only bragging on the FSL forum about what their A320 can do.
It's still only vapourware.
4. The most laughable post was about not revealing info as not to give their competitors an 'advantage'.
It looks much more like the opposite is the case. FSL is just waiting how Aerosoft and BBS are improving their A320s and then they will use the new aquired knowledge on their own A320 :(

Ron Burgundy said...

Well that escalated quickly.

John Barnes said...

Fictitious nonsense from yet another Anonymous poster.

John Barnes said...

About time.

Anonymorse said...

You have lousy developers...and lousy customers. Like lonely people at a dance, they will always manage to find each other. Then they'll each go home to bitch and moan about the other. Everyone gets what they deserve.

Perhaps Aerosoft will fish this dead goldfish from the FS pond and bring it back to life as a 'competitor' to their own.

I love this hobby--it's a race to the bottom!

Anonymous said...

2. Show a picture of what the ND displays as the projected path, BEFORE you get airborne, at the moment you have fully finished your flight-plan without any discontinuities.

Did You know that in the real airbus only the active leg is fully calculated ?
The so-called modern FMS/MCDUS actually uses processors from the 1980th an 1990th at best. They simply don´t have the power to calculate the entire flightplan representation for the displays.
Thats also what causes the delay when entering stuff into them.
Often people even expect highend addons to be more accurate than their realworld counterparts, this also holds true to how acurate an autopilot is able to guide the aircraft, which often leads addon aircraft to act like they are running on rails.

With all this realism there is a danger that it becomes overrealistic, which isn´t realistic either.

Fabo said...

I join you in disappointment. It seems to me, day by day, AirDailyX is less and less objective, more and more opiniated, and somehow it seems that this trend is not going to end...

Fabo said...

Would you mind providing your credentials, as to an informed decision on the value of this post?

i.e. are you just a troll who knows nothing about development and how FSX works, or are you a troll who might now the tiniest bit?

DAndre Newman said...

Have you never seen the term "insolent" at the top of the page?

Objective? About what? It's a blog not CNN or BBC. It's a blog, of course it's about opinion. It's how we got this far. Because of our opinions, something that has been shunned almost everywhere else.

People love to categorize us by their own definitions as you obviously have coined us as an objective news source. Yes, we can be objective in many ways, but it's not the foundation of the work we do. Never was. So the only thing that has changed is the size of our readers and their comments. We have always done opinion posts like this.

That archive on the left column is there for a reason Fabo.

Fabo said...

On the "Advertise with us!" page, Dom chose to include a quote from Umberto Colapicchioni (also known as virtuali).

The last line goes like this: "We can only hope it will stay like this, free from commercial pressures..."

It just feels this is no more the truth.
Maybe it is the language barrier up a comment there, but I did not mean that you guys are not entitled to your opinions, it just seems to me, that you very much like to unobjectively praise the developers that are advertising with you, and, as it sometimes seems, needlessly badmouth the ones that don't work with you.

Fabo said...

Also, for the record, I appreciate that you allow opposing viewpoints and critique in comments.

DAndre Newman said...

@Fabo: ..."unobjectively praise the developers that are advertising with you..."

That is merely your opinion Fabo. It's a false notion. You mistake our honest opinions and translate them to us buckling under "commercial pressures"

I think you want to see us beating up on developers or perhaps you want to see us shinning a more negative light towards those who advertise with us. That is NOT what we are about.

Just because you might not be happy with certain developers does not mean we have to agree with or echo those sentiments.

And your words are proof that you have not been reading my reviews which are very honest. If you read them, you would clearly know this. I point out all the faults I find in the products I review.

And yes, as long as they are always respectful and you sign your name, you may continue to comment your opposing viewpoints and critique! :)

Anonymous said...

ADX needs to stick to posting neutral articles that aren't heavily laced with 1-sided opinions against a well respected developer.

This article is trash and so is the grammar it was written in.

Post a Comment

Comments are now deactivated. Please visit our new website:

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.