It really had that many things wrong with it on release? Damn, who beta tested that thing?

 

Al

 

 

Al

 

Thought you'd been around the buoys long enough to know that you can't blame the beta testers - they only report! Athough I suspect your tongue was firmly in your cheek.

 

Best

 

John R

I'm not blaming them and I know they only report, but the point is, you would think that after release, they'd be out of an NDA and able to 'report' on here saying it ain't ready if they'd never seen a beta version that was working right.

 

To be fair, it does look like BB are getting on the case, but they've done themselves no favours going a few days earlier than necessary.

 

Al

but they've done themselves no favours going a few days earlier than necessary.

 

Hello

They were never any different, as anyone around for the farcical release of the 777 and 757 will attest.

Here BB is doing their own tech support ..correct?

 

Unlike the BB737Professional .. which is JF supported , correct?

 

Just trying to verify who actually supports the products both from BB??

I don't know to be honest, although I do know that JF are effectively 'brokers' on some of their products, and that they commission some others, so they are not always in control of issues such as patching, their sales of CS products is one to be wary of in that regard.

 

Al

Ok,

Thanks for the information.

I don't know to be honest, although I do know that JF are effectively 'brokers' on some of their products, and that they commission some others, so they are not always in control of issues such as patching, their sales of CS products is one to be wary of in that regard.

 

Al

Al,

 

Good point. I bought the 757 Captain marketed by JF as box version. When CS did their latest patch, it did not apply to the JF aircraft.

Well, it's been a few days since anyone posted on this thread, and I'm curious to know if the problems people were having with this were sorted with further patches. Anyone who bought it care to chip in?

 

Al

Well ... :)

 

I would like to say that after we had the initial flurry of issues, they have all now been addressed and V0.53 is getting some really good reports.

 

Most of the "issues" appearing now are requests for additions and enhancements, which of course we planned to do throughout the "Prologue" Period anyway.

 

I think the release of our tutorial "Airbus for dummies" alleviated quite a few problems too because as most of you will know.. flying an airbus is a little different than what most people are used to.

 

SO I would suggest to Anyone who was considering the "Prologue" , have a look at the more recent posts on our facebook page http://www.facebook.com/BlackBoxSimulation and see what others are saying now.

 

If there are any specific questions about Prologue, please feel free to ask, either here.. or on FB. I'd be happy to answer them.

 

Cheers..

 

Graham

As has been stated before, I for one will skip if I have to go down the Facebook route.

Al,

 

Here is m experience with the latest build. Overall the aircraft flies nice, it's probably the best airbus available. That is not to say that it is perfect. For example, when I was flying from LAS to LAX, the aircraft would not descend properly to meet the altitude constraints on the RIIVR2 arrival. About 3 miles from TOD, I pushed the altitude knob to start a managed descent. The aircraft, as it should, started a -1000 fpm descent until tracing the TOD point. Then, the aircraft went to idle and descended quite fast. The speed remained at the bottom of the ECON speed range.

 

This caused the aircraft to descend much more rabidly than it needed too, thus ignoring the altitude constraints. The thrust would not come out of idle. I will mention, the magenta "donut" on the right side of the artificial horizon was correct on the descent path, so I used VS mode to control the descent to match the donut. Of course the aircraft itself should have followed the donut on its own in managed descent mode.

 

Does BBS know about this? I don't know to be honest. During the previous builds, I repeatedly posted in the support forum and submitted a support ticket talking about the managed climb and how the FD would command a rocket ship climb into a stall. The ONLY time I received a response from BBS was when they released v0.53. At that time they responded to my ticket "this issue has been solved by the latest build.". Before that, there wasn't a single answer from BBS. This put a sour taste in my mouth when it came to their support. What's the point on having a support ticket system and/or forum if you're not going to respond?

Does BBS know about this? I don't know to be honest. During the previous builds, I repeatedly posted in the support forum and submitted a support ticket talking about the managed climb and how the FD would command a rocket ship climb into a stall. The ONLY time I received a response from BBS was when they released v0.53. At that time they responded to my ticket "this issue has been solved by the latest build.". Before that, there wasn't a single answer from BBS. This put a sour taste in my mouth when it came to their support. What's the point on having a support ticket system and/or forum if you're not going to respond?

 

Same here.No response.They claim they can do anything better than anyone else.It was on their FB page awhile back. Maybe they were referring to remaining silent.Their support sucks.

In all honesty, I just think they released this product to early. To be fair to BBS, they have fixed a majority of the major issues, but in my eyes the project isnt far enough down the road to make it a releasable, stable product.

As has been stated before, I for one will skip if I have to go down the Facebook route.

 

Who ever said you have to go down the "facebook route" ??

www.blackboxsimulation.com

Well, since you mention it, it was in fact you who recommended looking on Facebook page, which I don't do either incidentally. But, that aside...

 

Although not too easy to locate on the BB website, I did find the forum, which is kind of what I was looking for, since that is generally where one can get to the meat, it being where people note issues. That can be found here incidentally for anyone else who dislikes Facetube:

 

http://hosted.comm10...x?siteId=137861

 

Unfortunately for me, a bit of poking about on that forum revealed that you have to apparently load up a default aeroplane to get it working right, and that has put the brakes on it for me. Can't do that with Air Hauler, since it loads the aircraft from FSX not being running, and that's what I use FSX airliners for mostly.

 

Anyway, I appreciate the feedback everyone offered, it does look like they are getting it sorted in spite of the less than stellar opinions on support ticket feedback. And as I suspected might possibly be the case, some of the problems reported on the forum appear to be more to do with not knowing how an A320 operates rather than actually being problems with the software. Kind of reminded me of years ago when PMDG's original FS9 737 came out and the forums were full of people claiming it had an engine starting issue, because they didn't know how bleed air worked LOL.

 

Nevertheless, in spite of the A320 not working like a Boeing and that being the obvious cause of a few bogus issues, clearly it does still have the odd glitch from what I can gather off reading those forums.

 

Shame about that 'load up a Cessna' thing though, I thought we'd got past all that stuff these days, I might have been tempted otherwise.

 

Al