Froogle's first look at the 747v3

[scandinavian13 5,192]

*Drags a bucket of water across floor, hoists it up, and hurls it at the flame-based tussle*

 

Knock it off.

 

I was going to leave the release date stuff alone, because unless it's coming from someone on the dev team it's just a wild guess, but it seems people are adding a lot of weight to random guesses. It's fine for people to share their opinions. Froogle based his opinion on his last beta experience and that's fine. You all are welcome to draw your own conclusions. This is also fine. What is not fine is the sniping in various directions at others for sharing opinions. I think some of the predictions that I've seen in the last couple weeks are kinda funny, but I have visibility into the things that even our beta team does not.

 

...but in the end, all of these timelines are all still predictions, notably by people who have no visibility to the behind-the-scenes discussions, so they're nothing to get bent out of shape over.

 

 

 

That means basic engine logic is not in beta and could explain why he guessed at least a few more months of testing.

 

What? No. If anything, it means is that it hasn't been fully dialed in yet.

 

"Basic engine logic is not in beta." Right. The engines just started on rainbows and magic.

 

 

Keep in mind also that he recorded that video a few weeks ago and was not allowed to release it untill the video embargo was lifted. So any comments regarding timing has now moved forward by a few weeks at least. It is therefore probably no reflection of what currently is - or is not included in any current beta version

 

Not entirely sure this is accurate. I believe it was recorded over the weekend if not yesterday. Weeks ago would be multiple versions behind, and I don't see any indication that it isn't the latest build that the beta team has. All the same, what you see in pictures and video is usually about one or two versions behind by the time you see it.

 

 

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

All,

 

After reading some of the responses in this thread, I feel like I need to remind people:

 

What you're seeing in preview pictures, and in these videos, is BETA software. This means that the software is actually still being developed into a polished end product. Stuff will change because it is not in its final form, but let me clarify "final form"...

 

You order a bike from a shop. When it gets to the shop, it's essentially just a bunch of parts all assembled into a human-powered machine. They're all there, but they aren't all working at their top efficiency. The bike, when it arrives at the shop, needs to be tuned. The cables will need to be adjusted to compensate for the individual cable's initial stretching, the seat post will need to be modified to properly adjust for the person's leg length, the handle height will need to be adjusted for comfort and torso length, the pedal tension will need to be adjusted, and a spoke or two might need to be tweaked to keep the wheel true.

 

All of the components are there. After initial assembly, it works just fine. The issue isn't "working," though. The issue is that it should all work, and it should be dialed in such that it is a well-oiled machine in the environment in which it is used.

 

The same goes for our software. The bike is the 747, and the "person" is the simulator that it needs to be adjusted for. All of the components are there, but they may need some tweaking to polish it up. That's part of the purpose of beta. All of this hyperbolic reaction about "oh it's not done," or "there's so much work to do because it's missing X" is unnecessary. Of course it's not done. If it were done it would be released.

 

We occasionally also tell our beta testers to ignore certain things because they are not fully to the point where we want them to be evaluated (panel states are a notable example, when early in tech or beta testing) so that we don't get a ton of unnecessary reports about a function not working when we haven't fully dialed it in. This does not mean that it's missing. It means that it's not where we want it before we want people to start hammering on it. This is not the end of the world, either, and is actually completely normal for this stage of the process.

 

 

 

I'll end with this:

It's very easy to toss a bunch of real world data into a compiler and get things working. It's very different to have to take that real world data and massage it into making it as accurate as possible within the limitations of the sim platforms out there today. FSX has limitations. P3D has limitations. XPL (yes, XPL die-hards...even XPL) has limitations. They all have limitations where the sim's modeling of life falls short of how it should behave, according to real world concepts...like...you know...basic physics. When you hit those limitations, you have to polish your concept up to compensate for the shortcomings of the sim. Depending on the issue, this takes varying amounts of cleverness, time and work. It does not, however, mean that the item in question is completely absent, or that it'll take forever to do. Enjoy the screenshots and videos, but please...relax a bit.

[rheinis 105]

Livestream https://www.twitch.tv/lomaric

 

Jean-Pierre,

 

Hmmm...think you better make this a new thread, because I think a lot of people - in their Quest for finding out a release date - oversee this absolutely amazing link to a stunning 2 hour beta video of the 747 v3...

 

Thank you very, very much for making this  :smile:

[Boomer 1,619]

Kyle, love your "Boom Stick", brother ...

[teopereira 25]

Important "eye candy" to implement: dirty windshield after a flight... Because the windshield is not 100% transparent....

[Boomer 1,619]

Hmmm...think you better make this a new thread, because I think a lot of people - in their quest for finding out a release date - oversee this absolutely amazing link to a stunning 2 hour beta video of the 747 v3...

 

Missed it...

[Avwriter 85]

Well that's just fab! Thanks Kyle.

This functionality was in the original version as well, as it is on the real bird.

[ErichB 3,643]

Has shared cockpit functionality been considered for the 747 range?

[scandinavian13 5,192]

This functionality was in the original version as well, as it is on the real bird.

 

Autostart was available in the original version. Simulating both AS and non-AS birds, however, I don't think was in the original version.

 

 

Has shared cockpit functionality been considered for the 747 range?

 

The 744 is not currently capable, no. It's capable of coordinating its data on a local network for shared processing (more important to the home cockpit builders), but not currently out onto external networks.

 

If/when one of our products would/will be capable of coordinating that much data, I have a feeling it will be made very clear, and made quite a big deal of.

[Avwriter 85]

Great video by Froogle. Really appreciate how he left the faux pas in so we can learn those things. 

Fully agree.  Why people criticize his mistakes is a mystery to me (anybody can be a Monday morning quarterback).  Seeing that oversights like these result in the aircraft systems not functioning correctly is nothing more than a testament to the fidelity of the sim, and is rewarding to see, and absolutely should be a part of the beta process.  These are the kinds of mistakes that everyday flightsimmers make, and I for one want to know that the sim will cope with the in the same way that the real aircraft would.  There was a time, only a couple or three versions of MSFS ago, when even the best payware aircraft had numerous dummy switches.  They literally did nothing, and were there simply so that simmers like us could follow the checklists, knowing that if we missed something that no real consequences would come of it.  PMDG's original MSFS add-ons  were among the first to eliminate such dummy switches, raising the bar for other developers and simmers in general.  Heck, part of the fun of a complex study sim like this is the ability to just jump in, start fiddling around, make some mistakes, and then reverse engineer your own actions to figure out what you did wrong.   Of course the manuals and written materials are fantastic, but the whole idea is that someone can literally sit down with an incredible simulation like this and actually teach themselves to fly it successfully at their own pace, and in their own way, and freely use good old fashioned trial and error when it suits them.  In the real world, no one has the luxury of learning to operate an aircraft that way.  We do.

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

Fully agree.  Why people criticize his mistakes is a mystery to me (anybody can be a Monday morning quarterback).  Seeing that oversights like these result in the aircraft systems not functioning correctly is nothing more than a testament to the fidelity of the sim, and is rewarding to see, and absolutely should be a part of the beta process.  These are the kinds of mistakes that everyday flightsimmers make, and I for one want to know that the sim will cope with the in the same way that the real aircraft would.  There was a time, only a couple or three versions of MSFS ago, when even the best payware aircraft had numerous dummy switches.  They literally did nothing, and were there simply so that simmers like us could follow the checklists, knowing that if we missed something that no real consequences would come of it.  PMDG's original MSFS add-ons  were among the first to eliminate such dummy switches, raising the bar for other developers and simmers in general.  Heck, part of the fun of a complex study sim like this is the ability to just jump in, start fiddling around, make some mistakes, and then reverse engineer your own actions to figure out what you did wrong.   Of course the manuals and written materials are fantastic, but the whole idea is that someone can literally sit down with an incredible simulation like this and actually teach themselves to fly it successfully at their own pace, and in their own way, and freely use good old fashioned trial and error when it suits them.  In the real world, no one has the luxury of learning to operate an aircraft that way.  We do.

Very very well said. Very true as well!

[wedgantilles 76]

It's really nice to see it in video, it's as good as it should be, and it makes me even more eager to get it. But as froogle said himself there are probably still months of beta testing before it gets released, so we'll be patient.

 

There is one option that got me quite curious in this video, I believe it's new as I didn't saw it on the previous aircraft, of a CTL PNL ON/OFF on the CDU Menu mage. I would believe there is some sort of control panel, but I might be wrong. Stil I'm curious about it now

[craig_read 43]

Livestream https://www.twitch.tv/lomaric

 

hmmm he might want to try that again...

[nawarren 83]

hmmm he might want to try that again...

Doesn't work for me. Is it still available?

[Captain Kevin 586]

Happy to have someone correct me, but for Pete (Froogle) pump number 4 should remain in AUX until you've pushed back.  As I understand it the purpose is that it powers the nose gear, so if you have it ON it'll pressurise the nose gear steering hydraulics which will cause problems.  This can be turned on once Pushback is complete and the nose gear is free of any tugs.

Believe that is the case, but keep in mind that he wasn't going to be doing any taxiing for that video. Generally speaking, you'd be starting your engines during or after pushback, in which case once the engines have started and reached that point of the checklist, the pushback will have been completed anyway.

[rheinis 105]

Doesn't work for me. Is it still available?

 

https://www.twitch.tv/lomaric

On the top of the page, go to [ Video's ] and you will see the video - and some more video's he made.

 

Or, this direct link to the video:

https://www.twitch.tv/lomaric/v/102550962