Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest chechia

Wilco

Recommended Posts

Guest abulaafia

I would like to commend you for taking the time to point out all the errors and shortcomings of the Feelthere/Wilco model. There are too many "realistic" models out there. And you are absolutely right, it's fraudulent advertisement. The answer "This is not considered as a bug. The documentationnever mentioned this feature was implemented" makes this clear. If that feature is part of a real Airbus, then it should be modeled. What the documentation says or says not is irrelevant, the OP's beef is with the ADVERTISEMENT. And the advertisement is misleading. There is enough here for legal action or at least a complaint to the consumer authority in the developer's country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

>WILCO DIDN'T DESIGN AND/OR BUILD THE A320 SERIES, THIS IS A>FEELTHERE PROJECT EXCLUSIVELY. IT'S UNFORTUNATE EVERYONE HAS>BEEN DIRECTED TO WILCO FOR SUPPORT OVER THE WEEKEND.>>FACT IS WILCO KNOWS VERY LITTLE IF ANYTHING ABOUT HOW A REAL>AIRBUS WORKS MUCH LESS ABLE TO GIVE SOLID SUPPORT ON THE>SUBJECT. THEY JUST PUSH FLIGHTSIM RELATED PRODUCTS DEVELOPED>BY OTHER DEVELOPMENT GROUPS. >>PLEASE STOP TAKING THESE COMMENTS AS GOSPEL ON A PRODUCT THEY>HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH BESIDES RELEASE IT BEFORE IT WAS FULLY>READY...>>yes sure, 99% of wilco's products are feelthere made. do you really buy this, and in all caps to boot? wilco = feelthere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what the heck makes this 'bus soooooo much superior to PSS's?!?!Agreed, the PSS product is old, and anything new would be an advance I guess. But no ND symbol for the vertical profile intercept point (even the old Aviograsf bus has this!), no ADF2, no possibility to set constraints on FPLN page, no overspeed protection etc. etc.?!?! Come on, the list of not implemented items is sheer endless! And many items haven't been discussed yet, so how much is missing in addition to what's public now?Sorry folks, an absolute "no go" for me. A highly incomplete thing, not the kind of Airbus I want, so may others be happy with it.Andreas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest dwojdylo

>Mail sent to me about the A320 bugs:> >---> ( My comments in parentheses )>2) NO Sids/Stars>->Wrong. The SID/STARs exist. The feelThere database is not>100% complete so>you may not see the SID/STAR information for airports that>have some (like>Paris Orly LFPO for example), but the SID/STAR are managed>when they exist.>--->(INCOMPLETE SOFTWARE. No advises no the Wilco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest chechia

All are true bugs comparing with the real bus sir...And I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote from website:------------------------------------* Simulation tested and validated by active Airbus Captain and instructor.* Complete simulation : FMGC, MCDU, IRS, Fadec, ...------------------------------------A "complete simulation" was advertised. Rodrigo's complaints seem to be valid! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first read your post, I said to myself I would never reply, but this is too much. You know what? If you don't like the product, don't buy it, and that's it...This product took almost 2 years in development. It may not be perfect, but the Airbus aircrafts are very complex to model in FS. Anyway, at this time, it is the only Airbus product that is close to the real thing, whatever you say. If you prefer to wait for the Airliner XP product, feel free to do so, God only knows when it will be released.BUT... You must respect the work that was done by feelThere for this product. You have the right not to respect Wilco, but your post shows you don't respect anyone.Don't waste your time answering my post, I will never read this forum again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe for even a microsecond that any "real world A320 pilots" tested or validated this product. It is stated repeatedly that the "FCOM doesn't refer to that". True, the FCOM may not refer to everything so that's where a "real world A320 Pilot" would come in and fill in the blanks. Originally the OP is either a real A320 pilot or spends way too much time studying the A320, but in any respect, obviously a real A320 pilot can detect numerous ommissions. Feethere would have done well to not put claims in their product about "complete simulations" and "tested by pilots" because they look absolutely assinine with so many inaccuracies.Now, with that said, none of those are "bugs" perse, they simply are inaccuracies in a product that claims that it is a "complete simualation". The product has a LOT OF BUGS and Feelthere needs to focus on that first. In the same token it has a lot of ommissions and the product is in no way deserving of the legacy of the PIC name....unless PIC stands for "Product Is Crap".Feelthere has a LOT of work ahead of them to redeem themselves after this disaster of a release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest dwojdylo

>Quote from website:>>------------------------------------>* Simulation tested and validated by active Airbus Captain and>instructor.>>* Complete simulation : FMGC, MCDU, IRS, Fadec, ...>------------------------------------>>A "complete simulation" was advertised. Rodrigo's complaints>seem to be valid! :)>>Nothing more that word picking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL!!!! "Nothing more that(n) word picking"..Yup, I would imagine that it would be wordpicking if your local restaurant was selling "100% beef hamburgers" and you bought one and you took a bite to find that it was made of "100% eel". Sure, you'd be okay with that? After all, truth in advertising is just a concept obviously having no nessecity to be truthful :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest chechia

You said... I will never read this forum again.It

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the one word which stirred everything up is "complete" as stated at their website (maybe the marketing guy is to blame). Perhaps they should have said something like "Richly featured FMGC, MCDU, IRS, Fadec," or "Most advanced FMGC, MCDU, IRS, Fadec, modeling to date". Or they could have posted a list of systems and sub-systems modeled.However, there is not a single product out there be it scenery or aircraft that is complete... heck not even FS9 or FSX is 'complete'.


Intel i9-12900KF, Asus Prime Z690-A MB, 64GB DDR5 6000 RAM, (3) SK hynix M.2 SSD (2TB ea.), 16TB Seagate HDD, EVGA GeForce 3080 Ti, Corsair iCUE H70i AIO Liquid Cooler, UHD/Blu-ray Player/Burner (still have lots of CDs, DVDs!)  Windows 10, (hold off for now on Win11),  EVGA 1300W PSU
Netgear 1Gbps modem & router, (3) 27" 1440 wrap-around displays
Full array of Saitek and GoFlight hardware for the cockpit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, however, I don't think anyone expects a 100% model as it doesn't exist.What is really "teeing" people off is that fact that there are so many obvious omissions, functional inaccuracies, and even the sounds came from a Boeing not an Airbus. We are not talking the functional modeling of the aerodynamic coefficient of each fan blade or the interaction of the third inboard vortex generator with the relative airflow is a stall.Rather we are talking obvious things that "real pilots" would have caught. AND at this point the line between bug and omission is being blurred. For instance, are Boeing sounds released for an Airbus a bug or an omission in an "accurate" airliner simulation??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Seems the one word which stirred everything up is "complete">as stated at their website (maybe the marketing guy is to>blame). Perhaps they should have said something like "Richly>featured FMGC, MCDU, IRS, Fadec," or "Most advanced FMGC,>MCDU, IRS, Fadec, modeling to date". Or they could have posted>a list of systems and sub-systems modeled.>>However, there is not a single product out there be it scenery>or aircraft that is complete... heck not even FS9 or FSX is>'complete'. Obviously no product can be a complete simulation (even a full motion LevelD sim is not quite a complete simulation).But you have to be carefull the words you use to describe your product as some people will hold you to it.Never say 'Complete' or 'Realistic', your product could never live up to that kind of billing. Someone will always find fault with it. Instead say 'Extensive' or 'Detailed', that leaves itself a fair amount of interpretive room as to what it exactly means. You can't be accused of false advertising if your view of 'detailed' is different from others.Regards.Ernie.


ea_avsim_sig.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest darrentoogood991

Eric are you having a laugh?You say if we dont like the product dont buy it.Unfortunately some of us mugs out here have already paid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...