Mika From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 2788 posts, RR: 4 Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3659 times:
Just found this site through the avsim headlines page...check out how badly modeled many of these MSFS addon planes are, there are freeware versions avialable from other makers that by far succeed these payware ones.
Somethingt hat they claim is a A319. Look at the cockpit windows how large they are and the CFM engines...IFDG's A32x is worlds better modelled than this!
A310. The front section of the aircraft reminds me more of the B777 than the A310, the bulging shape of the upper first half of the aircraft.
Supposed Airbus A340-300. Anyone esthetically knowing of the A340-300 can say that those engines look like the CFM's on the A340 or that the cockpit section looks anything like the real A340s one!
Same applies for their A330, engines and cockpit secion wrongly modelled.
I really coulnd't believe all this when i first saw it, this is a payware package that these guys want $29 for. All of the above is avialable to download for free and those IFDG and Posky models are very accurately modelled. Either these guys have people who model the planes that have no or very little interest in aviation or they just want to get money from a bad product.
Jamman From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 142 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3653 times:
I agree!
Well I've always thought some Abacus titles were always below par (I used to do software reviews for FSnordic), they seem to have a quantity not quality production ethic.
Your best off with PSS addon's for payware airbus'
Dreamer From Norway, joined Jul 2004, 374 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3599 times:
I have several ABACUS add-ons (3) and to be honest I'll never buy another one, they are baaaaaad, but then again, they are cheap... and they install easily (important for some) so I guess they are kind of OK, for some
Newark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 33 Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3529 times:
Quoting Trekster (Reply 7): verygood price for what your getting.
But why pay at all when you can get better for free?
Jeffry747 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 961 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3500 times:
Dreamer From Norway, joined Jul 2004, 374 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3473 times:
OK, I'll say again, I too have the A380 (installed easy, runs as easy as default MSFS planes, but lacks realistic panel, and is very uneventful. However it is OK for the low price, and nothing on AVSIM installs that easy and works right away, usually you need to mess with panels and stuff.
I also have their carrier operations, which at least has loads of planes and carriers, and is fun to fly.
My third package from them is Fighter pilots, works ok, but again, the panels are unrealistic and the models are not very good looking, but again they are OK.
So I'd say that if you prefer planes that install easily and fly straight away and want planes that runs with out framerate hits and doesn't hog diskspace, go for ABACUS. Do you want realistic planes that look really good, stay away from it.
So to sum it up, I have been disapointed with ABACUS, but then again, I have compared it to other packages that are more than twice the price, and those expensive packages DO NOT run well on a smaller PC, ABACUS does.
ABACUS gives loads of fun with their add-ons for little money, runs on a slow PC that is unable to run the larger packages, both because of disk space needed and resources. Mayby they are OK after all ???
........................but not for the experts like GEEZ, Lee, Harry and others
I think the Iberia one is a 346, so perhaps the engines look a little more like they should. What I found not proper of a payware pack, even if the main objective was not to be realistic, is the IB tail logo. It really seems to be done by someone who hasn't even seen a single photo of an IB one.
The Air India A310 seems completely another kind of plane. The nose and tail a lot different to the supposed model, and out of proportion. For me it looks rather like an A320 a little scaled up.
variety is the spice of life; that's what made the "old times" so good
Sponsor Message: 
From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 2788 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 142 posts, 
Make way for that crap!
From Norway, joined Jul 2004, 374 posts, 
From Spain, joined Dec 2000, 130 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Feb 2004, 8810 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, 
From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1460 posts, 
If you're after any realism at all, this package looks worthless.
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
