deleted for personal reasons

Edited May 22, 20197 yr by JB3DG

On 5/15/2019 at 7:17 PM, pilottj said:

The Aerostar is fantastic news, can't ask for a better high performance twin to scare yourselves in.  It is kind of like a Mustang, MU-2, or any other serious HP airplane, it requires a very proficient pilot or it will bite you hard.  I hope A2A has a setting to have engine failures after takeoff, so you guys can see just how scary that phase of flight in a twin can be and knowing A2A's attention to detail on flight dynamics, their Aerostar or whatever other twin they do in the meantime, you will know why the FAA requires twin pilots memorize the 11 Vmc factors for a MEL checkride.

But will the A2A Aerostar have a trap door in the floor?

And that T-6 Texan II -- that would be wonderful to be released to the public for the sim.  I wonder what it's missing at present?

 

On 5/16/2019 at 8:39 PM, Alan_A said:

Thanks, hadn't seen that - a helpful clarification, or maybe, given what they'd said on Facebook, a policy change.  Should be a fun aircraft when it comes along.

 

The plot thickens

https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=68326

 

5 minutes ago, domkle said:

The plot thickens

It does, doesn't it?

They're asking the right questions about the tradeoffs between "lite" releases and their brand reputation - which, of course, also points to the fact that their brand reputation is a bit of a bind: compromise it, or seem to be compromising it and you dilute the brand a bit and risk angering people.  CAPFlyer's suggestion about reviving the Aircraft Factory brand was a good one but in a way that just points to the problem - I'm not sure how well they ever did with Aircraft Factory, because "lite" isn't what attracts people to A2A.

The elephant in this particular thread is development resources - reading between the lines, they don't seem to be thick on the ground, at least for consumer projects.  The professional side must be demanding a lot from them.

I'm not flying any A2A at the moment - I've parted ways with the warbird community for reasons, and GA was never my thing, so I'm finally making progress on airliners, which is where I started as an aviation buff - but it's interesting to watch.  I don't envy them having to balance all their priorities and assignments.

1 minute ago, Alan_A said:

It does, doesn't it?

 

I was amazed by the apparent absurdity of the question : wha does a partially completed aricraft mean ? Yes, they are in a bind. They want to grow without taking debt, a difficult exercise. So they need cash...

 Aircraft Factory ? Do we need another Carenado ?  Killing their market edge is a dangerous game. They already have Milviz breathing on their neck on the same market segment.

I guess a "partially completed aircraft" could mean anything - one-and-a-half wings?  But I took it to mean, "an aircraft that's complete in many respects but doesn't deliver what 'Accu-Sim' would imply."  If I had to bet, it's that the turbine model and/or other systems aren't fully realized (aircraft systems might not be the focus of an Air Force training sim) and it'd be a huge task to develop them to an Accu-Sim standard.  Pure guesswork on my part but it sounds like something along those lines.

A second brand could work well for them.  I think the original idea for Aircraft Factory was that it was going to be a home for projects by independent developers - not just lighter but not built by A2A.  And mostly they modeled airplanes that weren't available for flight test (the Accu-Sim standard again).  There were some good Aircraft Factory projects - the Uhu was nicely done, and it was an exotic subject where you wouldn't really expect any developer to produce a "full-fat" version.  But over time Aircraft Factory seemed to get left behind - the projects were few and far between.  I also have to wonder if the P-51H wasn't a mistake - hard to sell a lite Mustang (even if it's a different airplane) when what people want is your Accu-Sim one.  Which points to the big problem - a second "lite" brand only works if it's active and if it contrasts to your main brand - AND if your main brand is ALSO active.  In other words, if you're producing Accu-Sim products on a reasonable schedule, then you can publish some Aircraft Factory stuff and attract some attention (and generate some revenue).  But if you're not producing Accu-Sim products and Aircraft Factory is the only thing you're doing, then Aircraft Factory looks like a not-very-satisfying attempt to keep a toe in the consumer waters while you deal with your other priorities.  And yes, the risk is that you wake up one morning and find out that you're Carenado... and that somebody else has gotten his act together and turned into A2A.

Of course it's impossible to know from the outside what they're actually thinking or dealing with.  But the poll makes it sound like they're flailing a little - or, more charitably, trying to balance some hard choices.  "The goal is professional-grade, consumer-focused and possible with current resources - pick two out of three."  If so, not a happy thing to figure out.

The military isn’t going to care about whether the window fogs up if you forget to turn the air on.  A lot of those little things that we crave for their immersion value will get left off a military trainer. But I bet the flight model will be spot on - that IS what the military cares about.

2 hours ago, domkle said:

I was amazed by the apparent absurdity of the question : wha does a partially completed aricraft mean ?

That was precisely my reaction as well, as the only real answer to the question as asked is, "That depends", and that answer wasn't available.

 

Scott

2 hours ago, Alan_A said:

"lite" isn't what attracts people to A2A.

Pre-xactly!

They've posted more information on their Facebook page about what these would and wouldn't include:

"We've discussed in the past the "bucket" theory, and that is every product is limited by how much this bucket can hold. Basically, the bucket is time and resources. So I would ask again, what if we released this line of Official Military Trainers, that would have the following:
- Top level PBR modeling
- The highest level of flight physics
- Brand new turbine and turbo prop physics
- Accu-Sim sound
- Military manual approved for the public

What won't fit in this bucket will be:
- In depth manual with history
- Maintenance Hangar
- Walk around"

Seems like a no brainer yes to me personally.

Their post also clarifies that these would be a separate product line.

Edited June 20, 20196 yr by regis9

This was a statement made by Scott, "I put the T-6a and a T-38a through Accu-Sim flight tests.  We've built these engines brand new, from the ground up.  The level of fidelity is crazy good."

Then the missing parts he mentioned were things like Walk around and hanger. I had voted No but i've decided if the (possibly mis-named as incomplete) were labeled some thing other than the current Accu-Sim or Flight Factory models

 

*lol regis9 posted same time

Edited June 20, 20196 yr by jimcarrel

Well, if that's the only set of compromises they have in mind, then it's much easier to say "yes."

Which makes me wonder why they described it as "partially completed," which suggests a lot more missing stuff than just the historical background, the hangar and the walk-around. As it stands now, none of their military aircraft feature the walk-around, so we're only talking about two features omitted.

They could have saved themselves some trouble by just describing up front what they had in mind.  Next time, they really ought to take a couple of breaths and think through what they're going to say before they say it. Company in crisis?  Likely not.  Mangled communications?  Definitely.

Edited June 20, 20196 yr by Alan_A

4 hours ago, regis9 said:

They've posted more information on their Facebook page about what these would and wouldn't include:

"We've discussed in the past the "bucket" theory, and that is every product is limited by how much this bucket can hold. Basically, the bucket is time and resources. So I would ask again, what if we released this line of Official Military Trainers, that would have the following:
- Top level PBR modeling
- The highest level of flight physics
- Brand new turbine and turbo prop physics
- Accu-Sim sound
- Military manual approved for the public

What won't fit in this bucket will be:
- In depth manual with history
- Maintenance Hangar
- Walk around"

Seems like a no brainer yes to me personally.

Their post also clarifies that these would be a separate product line.

Thank you for the headup. A classic case of a developer who doesn’t read his customer base very well. The walk around and maintenance hangar are merely  gimmicks . Even if A2A is proud of them, I certainly  do not buy their planes because of them but for their flight and engine modeling! As for the historic part of the manual, there is something called Wikipedia. Yes, that poll was absurd after all. 

Looking forward to their release.

Edited June 20, 20196 yr by domkle

With that clarification I'm now solidly in the "Yes" camp as well.

 

Scott

If there is no maintenance hangar, does that mean there are no failures modeled?  Will the aircraft still be persistent?  That’s a big part of Accu-sim to me, and I really do treat my A2A planes differently because of it.