# A320 performance

<[string8][object][rigidbody]
<[string8][Name][Passengers]>
<[float64][Mass][4000.0]>

assuming this means 4000 kg, divided by 80kg, makes a pax count of 50 ?

[-3.5 0.0 -0.5] obviously lets them sit one on top of each other in a near to CG-seat

the fuel however seems split up into diversified areas of the wing.

• Official Post

Yes that is 4000kg. Any physical value that you find in the tmd file is in SI units. Lengths are all meters, Pressure in Pascals, masses all kg, thrust is in Newtons, torque is in Nm, angles are in radiants so you never have to ask what unit its in, very convienient.

Technically the mass of all passengers is currently simulated as one rigidbody with a certain mass and size (inertia). So they can't be sitting on top of each other, otherwise the InertiaLength would be the size of a single human, but it is currently set to the size of the cabin, ergo the mass distribution is the same as if the passengers filled the cabin...

The fuel systems that you currently find in the Airbus just simulate the fuel flow not the mass... Therfor you find the mass of the fuel tanks twice but the one in the fueltank objects currently have no simulated mass.... In order to increase the total weight of the aircraft you just have to increase the mass of the rigidbodies of the payload. The center of gravitiy should still remain in the takeoff range if I did everything correctly and you load the aircraft realistically.

The fuel currently has three mass objects I think, center tank and two for the wings if I remember correctly. Later it will probably have 5 tanks, two outer wing tanks as reserves, two inner wing tanks and one center tank that is drained first

Cheers,
Jan

Regards,

Jan

• Later it will probably have 5 tanks, two outer wing tanks as reserves, two inner wing tanks and one center tank that is drained first

There are no 'reserve' tanks on the A320 and you can't control these. When the inner quantity drops below 750kg, the outboard valves open and the 700kg from the outer tank are flowing into the inner tank.

• Official Post

There are no 'reserve' tanks on the A320 and you can't control these. When the inner quantity drops below 750kg, the outboard valves open and the 700kg from the outer tank are flowing into the inner tank.

Exactly, but these 700kgs stay in the outer tanks for the first part of the flight, therfor the mass distribution tends to be more outboard... ergo we need to simulate those as seperate tanks that directly feed into the inner tanks. Its not really a reserve tank, yes

Regards,

Jan

• makes all sence, meaning development seems to go the right direction.

Same time we see how raw this sim yet is, considering the tremendous amount of construction places.
The longer they wait with SDK-release the bigger the frustration for ourselves.

I really hope they are not wasting time with VR-/oculus crap now but proceed with completing the core elements of what is.
ATC is construction place 12, Weight&Balance (including UI-Planner) should be 2, NAV-/RNAV should be 3, bug rectification should be 1,
and so on.

SDK still pending.

• Exactly, but these 700kgs stay in the outer tanks for the first part of the flight, therfor the mass distribution tends to be more outboard... ergo we need to simulate those as seperate tanks that directly feed into the inner tanks. Its not really a reserve tank, yes

Well, there are so many important things still missing/to do in Aerofly and its planes that it would be precise enough if the A320 would just have a left/right and center tank, with the outer/inner tank indication just being on the EICAS.
I can assure you that at 60t (or 50) you don't notice any difference at all.

@Almudler
my priority list would be
1. bug fixes
2. ATC
3. realism/immersion items
597. W&B

• I really hope they are not wasting time with VR-/oculus crap now but proceed with completing the core elements of what is.

Crap for one person may be very important for many others. I myself believe that the interest of VR enthusiasts is very much responsible for the surge in sales of this sim recently, and without sales, where does the money come from to implement the minutia so important to those who think that VR stuff is "crap?"

Devons rig

Intel Core i5-13600K - Core i5 13th Gen 14-Core (6P+8E) @ 5.5Ghz / G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB Series 32GB RAM DDR5 6000 / GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4070Ti GAMING OC 12G / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Quest 2 VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 6x Samsung SSD/NVME's various sizes / Windows 11 Pro 64-bit / GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS ELITE AX LGA 1700 ATX Motherboard DDR5

• Crap for one person may be very important for many others. I myself believe that the interest of VR enthusiasts is very much responsible for the surge in sales of this sim recently, and without sales, where does the money come from to implement the minutia so important to those who think that VR stuff is "crap?"

Very well said.

AFFS2 Needs Multiplayer - Please make it happen!

• Like we have mentioned before, each update will improve the airplane physics and airplane functionality, but we have to add new features like VR or ATC als, to keep other users happy as well.

The complexity of our A320 and the degree of realism the A320 currently has, is sufficient for more than 95% of all users.

Please keep in mind, that if you complain about the system depth, GUI layout or missing functionality when it comes to auto pilot or navigation features, that again more than 95% of our users would rather see more airplanes, more regions, VR support or multi player!

Also, the SDK is already available to anybody interested, all you need to do is drop us an email and we will send you the SDK. The reason we haven't made it public yet is, that we would like to get feedback first. On e we really make it public, its very difficult to change it substantially.

Since you are the first ever developer not giving pc-drivers a pole position, uncertainties arise, obviously.

Serving all platforms (including pads and VR-gadgets) before making airplanes or functionalities complete in its base product,
is very uncommon, looking at other developments to date.

Everyone seems participating emotionally in afs' advancements and reserving a space of interest in order to get this thing going the right direction to avoid disappointments.

My appologies for calling low number usability features "crap", i simply see these steps as to be less priority and less sales driving
than lets say ATC or really essential things that should complete for the big 90% stake, users, no matter which plattform they use, no matter what addtional gadets they use.
I say yes to oculus, i say yes to mosquitos on the windshield, i also say yes to Hillary, but please in a comprehensive rank, right things at the right time and not on the account of more important things we all wait for.

Cavendish or Highflyer may have as few information on who contributes what portion of the sale stake as i do, but it is probably not oculus drivers. Oculus sales numbers are "overseeable" if i can trust their own pm's statement. As they seem served now, attention's hopefully getting back to real content.

• The problem is, that it can be a mistake to assume that what one person finds important is equally important to others or vice versa.

Honestly, it only takes a quick google search to find references regarding Aerofly showing up all over the place in VR forums, and VR users are by definition early adapters with disposable income. (Those headsets are expensive!)

Projections for sales figures of these headsets show them quickly dwarfing the dedicated Flightsim community, and those new headset owners are going to be looking for graphics showcases to justify their purchases. It wouldn't do to downplay or underestimate that potential market, and this is one of the reasons I started another thread asking the developers about Nvidias VRWorks.

On the other hand, flightsim users are, as a community, much more conservative (and hard to please!) and tend to be locked into specific platforms already, such as FSX, X-plane etc.

A quick search finds that while Aerofly is definitely mentioned in various aviation forums, the interest only now appears to be be increasing, and among those users, many are the type who will sit on the fence, waiting for more and more advanced features before making a commitment to buy. Similarly, many 3rd parties will be watching sales numbers, and a lot will likely also sit on the fence before (reluctantly) diverting any resources from their main bread and butter of the last few years.

This leaves the early market to other types of more casual users, and if Aerofly can't attract those people in significant numbers, the company may simply never have the resources to implement the time consuming and labor intensive features of the type you're requesting.

In fact, expecting deep systems and super high fidelity from default planes may actually be a bit unfair.

I would say profit first, then everything else as and when possible.

Your mileage may vary, and also, I could be dead wrong, but I suspect I'm in the right ballpark.

Devons rig

Intel Core i5-13600K - Core i5 13th Gen 14-Core (6P+8E) @ 5.5Ghz / G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB Series 32GB RAM DDR5 6000 / GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4070Ti GAMING OC 12G / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Quest 2 VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 6x Samsung SSD/NVME's various sizes / Windows 11 Pro 64-bit / GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS ELITE AX LGA 1700 ATX Motherboard DDR5

• they can not be everything to everybody.

a clear visionary statement would help,
and them providing more details on how they expect the sim to be in 1 year from now.

If arcade, some people turn away.

• I think the devs are concentrating on developing the engine itself and adding fundamental sim features to create a great base sim that 3rd party developers can create some very high quality aircraft for in the future. You have to be realistic about what level of fidelity on default aircraft can be achieved by such a small development team... PMDG probably have as many people working on a single cockpit as the entire AFFS2 dev team. And the included aircraft have never been the greatest in any sim, I mean find me a default FS-X aircraft with a working FMC... You can't. The default aircraft need to be good... but they don't need to be study level because 80% of the player base wont be wanting to fly like that. Building a base sim that attracts 3rd party developers is the smart option.

AFFS2 Needs Multiplayer - Please make it happen!

• The problem is, that it can be a mistake to assume that what one person finds important is equally important to others or vice versa.
[...]
In fact, expecting deep systems and super high fidelity from default planes may actually be a bit unfair.
I would say profit first, then everything else as and when possible.
Your mileage may vary, and also, I could be dead wrong, but I suspect I'm in the right ballpark.

I would tend to agree.
I bought Aerofly specifically because it supports VR, learned about it from a VR forum, and been recommanding it to VR users.

• The only problem is that VR thrill seekers seem to be a pretty volatile group, and while you might get a lot of sales (especially in the short term until something else comes along) its probably wise to factor in how many of them will treat it as a two hour thrill and then quickly ask for a refund.

To counter that the most obvious answer is to attract a broad cross-section of other types of users as well.

Its gonna be a delicate balancing act, especially as every group will tend to think they're the most important, and have their mouths open like baby birds to demand instant feeding.

Good luck, Ipacs!

Devons rig

Intel Core i5-13600K - Core i5 13th Gen 14-Core (6P+8E) @ 5.5Ghz / G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB Series 32GB RAM DDR5 6000 / GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4070Ti GAMING OC 12G / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Quest 2 VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 6x Samsung SSD/NVME's various sizes / Windows 11 Pro 64-bit / GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS ELITE AX LGA 1700 ATX Motherboard DDR5

Edited once, last by HiFlyer (August 20, 2016 at 10:26 AM).

• Its gonna be a delicate balancing act, especially as every group will tend to think they're the most important, and have their mouths open like baby birds to demand instant feeding.
Good luck, Ipacs!

A raw product with high potential deserves anticipation, contribution and investment.
Baby Birds may not exactly do that,
although the oculus excursion has shown where consumer discussions can go and leave exactly this kind of impression.

What we have here is a raw product launched in 2012
not dedicating to a longterm perspective
other than adding scenery, some aircraft and oculus playability,
and an endless wait for third party developers to join the party.

having said that i realize this topic being started as A320 performance :confused:

• The only problem is that VR thrill seekers seem to be a pretty volatile group, and while you might get a lot of sales (especially in the short term until something else comes along) its probably wise to factor in how many of them will treat it as a two hour thrill and then quickly ask for a refund.

To counter that you the most obvious answer is to attract a broad cross-section of other types of users as well.

Its gonna be a delicate balancing act, especially as every group will tend to think they're the most important, and have their mouths open like baby birds to demand instant feeding.

Good luck, Ipacs!

Absolutely, to clarify I agree with your whole premise, not that VR users are the biggest source of revenue, even if that's why I bought Aerofly.
Good luck to the devs indeed !

• What we have here is a raw product launched in 2012
not dedicating to a longterm perspective
other than adding scenery, some aircraft and oculus playability,
and an endless wait for third party developers to join the party.

And 64Bit.
And clickable cockpits
And autopilot
And a round earth.
And Night lighting
And nearly 200 new airports
And many more buildings....
And an SDK.......

I actually think they've come very far, especially for such a small team.

I also realize the original topic focus; I'm simply pointing out that its unlikely anyone gets to have everything they want, and that deeper aircraft fidelity and systems depth is only one part of a hopefully diverse and balanced buffet being offered by Ipacs.

Again, good luck to them!

Devons rig

Intel Core i5-13600K - Core i5 13th Gen 14-Core (6P+8E) @ 5.5Ghz / G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB Series 32GB RAM DDR5 6000 / GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4070Ti GAMING OC 12G / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Quest 2 VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 6x Samsung SSD/NVME's various sizes / Windows 11 Pro 64-bit / GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS ELITE AX LGA 1700 ATX Motherboard DDR5

• It's already far more than "arcade," and hardcore sim fans who don't feel that weird Internet compulsion to adopt and defend a single sim will find so much to do here already.

Any real fan of flight simulation shouldn't sit on the fence. They should embrace what the Aerofly FS team is trying to do, invest the very reasonable cost in the program, and support the sim with constructive feedback as it comes together.

Rivet counters and switchology fans mostly killed the FS hobby. This sim has the potential to help it come back. We should all love that, even if there's still detail to be added over time.

• DennyA, can you help me understand these 2 statements better please

Rivet counters and switchology fans mostly killed the FS hobby.

This sim has the potential to help it come back