Skis for firm-ish conditions edgeable with Madshus Xplore boots?

[satanas]

How about even further south, Tasmania?

Pretty hard to drive there, so access is expensive! The big problem though is the low altitude and thus very unreliable snow. If you lived in say Hobart and could leave immediately after a snowfall it would be potentially doable, but from elsewhere it's not cheap and planning is basically impossible. There's great walking in Tassie, but winters there can be both cold and wet; the locals tend tp go walking in Queensland in winter. I'm also not fond of walking in ski boots, or carrying skis...

[satanas]

@satanas i think we have almost covered what’s available in a waxless base, excluding what may be available from OAC. I am not sure about OAC offerings. You didn’t care for the Madshus skis, but liked the Fisher skis. That’s fair enough. You like the the Voile Vectors. Are plastic boots really the problem or are alpine touring boots the problem? I ask this, because I’m not a fan of air channel cored skis for firm surface downhill turning (Madshus 68/78, Fischer 98/112), however for other than ideal powder, I wouldn’t go wider than 78 mm underfoot. Now there are guys on this site skiing the Voile Objective with Explore system boots, but PRIMARILY in ideal conditions. Maybe a boot that is plastic, but flexes at the ball of the foot would meet your needs? I have to believe a Scarpa T-4 would be a lot more comfortable that an Alpine touring boot, but it would not have the range of motion offered by an alpine touring boot cuff. If you could find a Scarpa F-1 / F-3 with a bellows you could have the best of both worlds and ski a TTS binding. The other option is wait until next year, and hope the new Scarpa TX P is everything people hope it will be.
Personally I would go T-4 with a Voile SB or SBx2. You want scales, you want a real downhill ski. Get out of the alpine touring boots, and bend the knee. Just my thoughts. All the best

1. What is/are OAC???
2. The problem is more that plastic boots are both restrictive (all current tele boots), and unpleasant to walk in, especially on hard surfaces (all plastic boots). Most current AT boots have excellent ROM, most are lighter than tele boots, and some are very light indeed. The matching bindings are also typically much lighter, so walking is the remaining weak point. (Xplore may or may not be better to walk in, I don't know.)
3. Re width: The Vectors have handled everything well, the limiting factors being very deep or crusty snow where more width would help, or very firm conditions where more stiffness would be useful. They have survived these conditions though, and been both effective and fun vurtually all the time.
4. The Scarpa F3 is basically a T2X with Tech fittings and a tongue rather than overlap liner; I have both. It still lacks ROM and is quite heavy, but I'm hoping to try TTS next winter. (F1 and F3 boots never made it here to Oz; my F3s came from Telemark Pyrenees.)
5. If/when the TX P appears that will be the time to evaluate it, but I won't hold my breath, or be an early adopter.
6. A pattern base is mandatory, and *predictable* performance on firm-ish snow is desirable; I have no expectations of Alpine ski performance on actual ice. It appears to me that the Xplore boots are going to offer the best XCD control short of plastic, hence my interest. The big question is what ski(s) they might go well with here, in decidedly non-ideal, non-dry-powder snow, and that's the dilemma...