Really excited about the A320 Project,Just some questions.1) Will there be a CD Rom Version and be available in major UK Stores such as Games and PC World?2) Most importantly, will it be out before Xmas?3) Will there be ambiance noises inside such as Apu and Air Con, especially the Packs going off when ENG Master selected to ONThanks and keep up the good work.

>Hello,>>I admit that the cabin doesn't look great on our official>screenshots. But the interior lighting in FS2004 is greatly a>function of the plane's orientation and the time of the day.>It is maybe well adopted to small cockpits with glass canopy>but absolutely unrealistic in a passenger cabin with tiny>windows. In fact, usually any airliner's cabin is lit by an>artificial light. This will be achieved with effects in our>package. At the other hand, if the use of special effects>affects the framerate (in a bad way of course), we will>certainly prefer the framerate.Both realistic lighting effects AND high framerate are easily achievable if your 3-D modeller has any real talent. I don't mean this as a sleight against whomever is in charge of that, I'm just saying... there is no excuse for not having both.You're definately right though, most light inside the cockpit is from artificial light and not from the outside. In fact, the sun is more of a problem then a help. ;) Which reminds me, did your modeller 'fix' the problem of the VC versus exterior sun effect on gauges/panels? If you're unsure to what I speak of, load your aircraft and put it in slew mode while in the VC. Now spin the plane using the yaw axis. Watch the false shadows going all over the place. This is a horrible problem that has not been corrected by any addon yet. :( Though, Level-D and PMDG have done a relatively decent job of masking it a bit.The VC textures look very plain and gray... definately not a realistic touch.I hope the systems programming is better off than the VC textures.

I am sure many will be buying the Airsimmer A320...especially if it works in FS9 as I and many other are staying with FS9 for some time to come. I keep checking your site at least once a week...really looking forward to flying her.

>:( Though, Level-D and PMDG have done a relatively decent job>of masking it a bit.>>The VC textures look very plain and gray... definately not a>realistic touch.>>I hope the systems programming is better off than the VC>textures.Not impressed at all with the Airsimmer texturing can be done far more realistic ;-) No windows effect in the VC too...Feelthere looks far more promising :-)Andr

Andr

That's a good question, will it be out before Xmas? I hope so... I just can't wait...

>Both realistic lighting effects AND high framerate are easily>achievable if your 3-D modeller has any real talent. :) The "real talent" is not a quantifiable measure. There are limits no talent can break. If there are 100000 polygons, 30 texture lists and 20 effects - no talent will make this mess smooth. The talent is to cope with sim and resources limitations and to produce a pretty look with poor means.>If you're unsure to>what I speak of, load your aircraft and put it in slew mode>while in the VC. Now spin the plane using the yaw axis. >Watch the false shadows going all over the place. I know this very well. All the models I've seen so far have the same problem - the gauges become very dark and almost unreadable, and you can't activate the night lighting since it works only by night.In our package, the LCD screens are always bright - day or night, independently of the shadows. Une premi

>Surprisingly, all the people who have seen the VC are>extremely enthusiastic about it. And many people who have only>seen the VC on screenshots are not. Maybe it's mostly the>problem of the screenshots?Happy to say I'm not among the many who dislike the vc from the shots - looks nicely drawn/shaded to me. I don't mind 'clean' as long as it's not cartoonish.regards,Mark

it's not cartoonish.>>regards,>MarkThat's what it is ;-) can be done far more realistic...Andr

>That's what it is ;-) can be done far more realistic...many people say "realistic" but mean "dirty, old and weary". Airbuses are usually clean, especially those with new LCD screens. Anyway, I can't say anything against your own opinion. This is perfectly your right to dislike it. Some people even find real Airbus panels cartoonish :) I hope just people will more often love it than hate.After all, VC textures are simply bitmaps. Those who like dirty cockpits will certainly be able to add some dirt by themselves.

>>That's what it is ;-) can be done far more realistic...>>many people say "realistic" but mean "dirty, old and weary".>Airbuses are usually clean, especially those with new LCD>screens. >>Anyway, I can't say anything against your own opinion. This is>perfectly your right to dislike it. Some people even find real>Airbus panels cartoonish :) I hope just people will more often>love it than hate.>>After all, VC textures are simply bitmaps. Those who like>dirty cockpits will certainly be able to add some dirt by>themselves.I'm not talking about a dirt look but a new clean look...Let me explain a little what I always do in my graphics work to strive and let it look to the real thing with almost no differences...With my trained painters eye I can tell you it can be done with a more realistic look... it's drawn with a cartoonish look ;-) or maybe the screenshots are deceiving ;-)We will release in the very near future a 7... with that look I'm talking about just finished the panel :-lolI know how the airbus "new" panel looks in real life....But when it's out I will maybe try your package when the system stuff is realistic ;-)But as you know there will be lot of Airbus release from several developers soon ;-)I'm a detail guy and all the little details makes the differences...Andr

The "real talent" is not a quantifiable measure. There are limits no talent can break. If there are 100000 polygons, 30 texture lists and 20 effects - no talent will make this mess smooth. The talent is to cope with sim and resources limitations and to produce a pretty look with poor means.Actually, there aren't limits. At the risk of sounding rude (not trying to be), the only limit is the design choice you (or whoever made the VC model) took. First off, GDI+ is a poor technology choice. It IS possible to have even MORE detail than what the VC shows in those screenshots with 0 impact on framerates.I know this very well. All the models I've seen so far have the same problem - the gauges become very dark and almost unreadable, and you can't activate the night lighting since it works only by night.In our package, the LCD screens are always bright - day or night, independently of the shadows. Une premi

>They have a plastic look about them. It's not so much clean>or dirty. I have been in a lot of Airbus cockpits so I do>know how they look -- it's not the clean/dirty part I was>referring to. I should have phrased it differently.I'm with you here Jeff :-) as for the 3d work look carefully at the button stuff and highlights and shades not realistic at all.Funny thing is that MS default in FSX has better graphics as this pay ware package ;-)Even a mirror effect as in real life what you are doing is simulate a car without windows :-lol and the developer that says it isn't done bcz for performance should invest a little more in knowledge...Hope that the system stuff will be better...Andr

Sam,No matter what anybody says, even though I am not any body of real importance, nor do I fly Airbus A/C, I think you guys are doing a wonderful job. I just got back from your gallery and it all looks good to me. I do have only one negative thing to comment about, and that is there are some elements of the pedestal that look 2-D. It looks flat, not any contrast to difference in high or low areas, which I am sure is prolly a limitation of the graphics in FS. Other than that I think it is coming along great.I don't see where it looks cartoonish at all. You want to see cartoonish, go look at the default A/C (Mr. Folkers). Especially the 747.

I do have only one negative thing to comment about, and that is there are some elements of the pedestal that look 2-D. It looks flat, not any contrast to difference in high or low areas, which I am sure is prolly a limitation of the graphics in FS. Other than that I think it is coming along great.Well, it's not a limit in FS I'm afraid. It's just done to save polygons ( which wouldn't be as big of a problem if the initial design was correctly done ).