Promises in the dark

[Bob Scott 7,715]

Wow, such an amazing couple of days here in the forums. ScareBus fever, or Ebola of the Skies.Feelthere comes from behind and delivers the first new Scarebus in many a moon, only to have someone find one of their panel bitmaps in an Airliners.net photo that predates their product by over a year. Couple that with another simply stellar Wilco product delivery, and we have mayhem redefined.But...it gets even better. Lou Betti announces imminent arrival of another Scarebus project developed between Reality-XP, Dreamfleet, and FlightScenery...due in 1st quarter 07 (OK, but maybe as late as 2nd quarter 07, or maybe even...). Jean-Luc puts up a QT movie of a PFD running all by itself and the hordes are ready to declare AirlinerXP the victor.But...Jean Luc has been promising and has failed to deliver an FMS in the RealityXP product line for what, three years now? Dreamfleet makes great small planes and produced a wonderful steam-gauge 727, all with Lou making himself one of the most vocal critics against any form of automation in the forums for some time. Before we throw ourselves at the vapor-like promise of this new offering, let's look at the lessons of history. *Every* new add-on that included advanced automation in recent times has had difficulty with the FMS and automated flight control systems. That included the Level-D 767, the PMDG 747 and 737, Feelthere's 737, the PSS 777 and 757...I can't remember one that got it right first time around. FMS issues, waypoint turn point problems, all sorts of VNAV issues...it's hard in a conventional jet like the 737...it's way more difficult in an integrated system like the ScareBus. Add to that the difficulties of fly by wire...now why do we think these guys have any more chance of getting it right the first time out than Level-D or PMDG did? Then there's flight dynamics. Ron Freimuth, one of the grand wizards of FDE, built a wonderful flight dynamics model for the DF 727, based on over a year of discussions and sidebars on the AvHistory forum. Rob Young, another guru of the art of FDE did the FeelThere FDE. But nothing heard from AirlinerXP as to who/how this really critical piece has been developed. Pair fluid displays with a mediocre FDE, and you have a mediocre product. Not to say the AXP has that issue...but we simply don't know.Bottom line, there's a lot we don't know. If history is any guide at all, AXP's first release is gonna be on the same rocky road as others. Maybe it's a good idea to wait and see what shakes out...we still have the mysterious AirSimmer ScareBus in the wings, and of course PMDG, the current keepers of the crown. But those who insist on dumping on a currently released product based on website promises and a nifty quicktime video of a PFD in God knows what conditions...well, they deserve a good let-down at the end of all the anticipation.Have we lost our minds (again)?RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

[Gavin 99]

BobI'm beginning to find the use of the word Scarebus a little boring. I have no connection whatsoever with EADS but am sure that every single employee of that organisation does their best to produce safe aircraft. Of course your right to your own opinion is without question, but don't you think it's insulting to EADS staff? From my point of view (and just my point of view) your use of this word devalues your whole post - which is a shame.I mean no offense to you at all by this post and, if necessary, will be more than happy to agree to disagree with you in a civilised manner.Best regards!Gavin

[GHarrall 494]

Couldn't agree more.'Scarebus' is long in the tooth, boring and untrue.Made up by Boeing protectionists who apparently beleive that Boeing is never wrong and have never had an aircraft crash!Airbus relase A320 family with FBW controls - Boeing state they will never make an aircraft with FBW - roll on the 777 albeit a 'diluted' FBW system.Airbus use composite, lightweight materials where possible. Boeing say it's better to use all metal construction with 'big rivets' wherever possible. roll on the 787 which contains many composite materials.Despite Boeings great history, in recent times (1980 onwards) it has not been an innovator. If it wasn't for competition from Airbus you probably wouldn't even be seeing the 787.......As for the Airliner XP project, if it's initial release is as good as the efforts from Level-D and PMDG, I will be more than happy.If this was a 777 in development there would be mass hysteria, presumably from the "I hate Scarebus" camp.

[windycloud 30]

First time I heard this term actually. Is there any ground to it though? I don't think airbus is percieved less safe than anything else or am I wrong?Jason

[N400QW 205]

Bob has some interesting perspective on a number of issues which could be clouded by overly sensitive reponse to his choice of terms.There really is much more to his post than the semantics of terminolgy:-)

[Guest jgreth123]

>Bob has some interesting perspective on a number of issues>which could be clouded by overly sensitive reponse to his>choice of terms.>>There really is much more to his post than the semantics of>terminolgy:-)Too many big words, Ron! :(I agree though. He has made some good points. Though, not too unlike the texture/bitmap thread, it's just made to give us something to pass the time with. :)

[Gavin 99]

>Bob has some interesting perspective on a number of issues>which could be clouded by overly sensitive reponse to his>choice of terms.>>There really is much more to his post than the semantics of>terminolgy:-)Yes you are probably right, maybe I was a little oversensitive. It is, after all, just a word. Even if I think it's a silly one.

[Guest]

I think most of the hype is justified, whether it comes to fruition or not. What AXP is promising is a high fidelity simulation with minimal performance loss - and considering the people behind it, I believe they will (really, already have) achieve this goal. I wouldn't think that with most other developers, but considering the heavy hitters behind the project I know we're in for something special.

[Mike T 208]

Actually, a very good post marred by *Scarebus* similarly if my post inclusive of Microsoft referred to them at Micro$oft, Microsnot, Microshaft or M$, it would undoubtedly diminish the efficacy of my words and the seriousness with which my post would be taken. Agreed?

[Bob Scott 7,715]

>'Scarebus' is long in the tooth, boring and untrue.But it still makes the AB a really excited user crazy, so it's fun to use.>>Made up by Boeing protectionists who apparently beleive that>Boeing is never wrong and have never had an aircraft crash!>I also use the term US Scareways, Scare America, and US Scare Force. As well as Humana HealthScare and KinderScare.>Airbus relase A320 family with FBW controls - Boeing state>they will never make an aircraft with FBW - roll on the 777>albeit a 'diluted' FBW system.If by diluted you mean a FBW system that still gives the pilot veto authority, they have indeed. >Airbus use composite, lightweight materials where possible.>Boeing say it's better to use all metal construction with 'big>rivets' wherever possible. roll on the 787 which contains many>composite materials.This is too funny for words. Scarebus Industrie tried their level best to seed doubt in the industry by attacking the composite technology in the 787. That was right before their A380 project took it right up the keester the second time in a row, and we all know how badly that's still going.>Despite Boeings great history, in recent times (1980 onwards)>it has not been an innovator. No, that's not what my friends flying the C-17 think. And just because a 747-8 looks like a 747-400 which looks a 747-200, don't confuse the shape of the fuselage with the innovation inside.>If it wasn't for competition from Airbus you probably wouldn't>even be seeing the 787.......As if ScareBus were the only factor in the global market. It is a factor, but the route structure changes to/from Asia, and the price of fuel are at least as responsible for the changes in aircraft marketing and design. BTW, the 787 isn't what's kicking the A380s butt down the Champs-Elysees, it's the old uninnovative B747-8. The 787 doesn't compete against anything in the ScareBus lineup since the A350 went TU years back.>>As for the Airliner XP project, if it's initial release is as>good as the efforts from Level-D and PMDG, I will be more than>happy.Me too...eventually. Key word here is "if.">If this was a 777 in development there would be mass hysteria,>presumably from the "I hate Scarebus" camp.Yeah, my hatred for the plane is what motivated me to completely rewrite the FDE for the PSS A330-340 when it came out.CheerioBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

[Gavin 99]

>Actually, a very good post marred by *Scarebus* similarly if>my post inclusive of Microsoft referred to them at Micro$oft,>Microsnot, Microshaft or M$, it would undoubtedly diminish the>efficacy of my words and the seriousness with which my post>would be taken. Agreed?>>This is obviously a question of opinion, but yes. I tend to feel that all the clever little word tricks do make a post look childish. Obviously I fully respect peoples' right to write in any way they see fit - within the forum guidelines. On that point may I ask you all to leave this issue as I've just realised that I've disrupted the point of Bob's post - which is unfair.Bob, I apologise for this. All I can say in my defence is that having recently reached the grand old age of 43, it looks like I've turned into a grumpy old f**t. I'll now go back to huffing and puffing about the stupidity of what I'm about to see on the news.Best wishes to all.

[Ricardo41 5,935]

I only have one question:Why is that grown men, many of whom have racked up quite a few accomplishments in real life, get all excited and bent out of shape over a game?????????ricardo

[ErnieAlston 33]

>Actually, a very good post marred by *Scarebus* similarly if>my post inclusive of Microsoft referred to them at Micro$oft,>Microsnot, Microshaft or M$, it would undoubtedly diminish the>efficacy of my words and the seriousness with which my post>would be taken. Agreed?>Agreed.He did make some good points though.My view is, it sounds really great, but I ain't gonna be the first one to buy it.I'll just sit back and see how well it lives up to its hype after others have tried it first.Regards.Ernie.

[MarkRey 16]

Despite my sig I too will believe it when OTHERS have seen it :-lolEven if the miracle liquid vc technology does not live up on my system, for sure this one is exciting, and I for one will happily settle for typical high end (PMDG LDS) airliner representation of the A320 kind.And thanks for the A330/340 fde - still use them to this day :)Info - I do believe Lou said it was Dreamfleet that developed the F1 ATR so..edit - personally I've not counted Airsimmer out, they're just so quiet right now I can't seem to find their bandwagon :-lolPMDG PMDG - alas I'm still not sold on FSX so who knows.regards,Markhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/a320/custbanner4.jpg

[Guest Pilot533]

I only have one question:Why is that grown men, many of whom have racked up quite a few accomplishments in real life, get all excited and bent out of shape over a game?????????This isn't world of warcraft buddy, its more than a simple game unless you fly in fs to see how well you can crash.