1 hour ago, tweekz said:

Regarding the partnering. I don't know how far that goes. Sure they get a lot of info, but I doubt Airbus really hands them over their aerodynamics data.

+1 on that. As I said I also doubt they really get a lot of time to sit down with Airbus engineers. 

I also do not doubt that MS and Asobo can build a study level plane its just that they have so much on their plate at the moment with building the whole sim that they have to manage the resources and can't put too many people on only one plane.

I have a question for the Airbus experts here: If you look at their chance log. How detailed do you think it is at the moment .If you think that they will work on those things that they mention that are not working at the moment. How far off does it seem in comparison the aerosoft bus atm? 

9 minutes ago, Til19031986 said:

I have a question for the Airbus experts here: If you look at their chance log. How detailed do you think it is at the moment .If you think that they will work on those things that they mention that are not working at the moment. How far off does it seem in comparison the aerosoft bus atm? 

 

I don't know if I qualify as expert, but I fly the Toliss and FF Airbuses on XP, which are considered pretty well done.

From what is implemented right now, it already exceeds the FSX version (or any other default aircraft). But that it is nothing to be proud of. At the moment it would be an arcade plane with some basic realism added (flight envelope protection).

If they implement what is listed as todos, it could range anywhere between Aerosoft quality (most important features available, but aimed towards fun) to study level - depending on the extra mile in detail. Lot of important things are listed, but how good will they realize them.

Edited April 19, 20206 yr by tweekz

1 hour ago, Til19031986 said:

I have a question for the Airbus experts here: If you look at their chance log. How detailed do you think it is at the moment .If you think that they will work on those things that they mention that are not working at the moment. How far off does it seem in comparison the aerosoft bus atm? 

Don't have the alpha, so I can’t really give an opinion. (Even if I would, I couldn’t talk 😅) 

For me the most important is the feeling you have when you fly the aircraft. Maybe it is well done, but I really doubt when I read all the forum. Flying the aircraft with an accurate pitch and power and comparing it with the FCOM is a nice way to test it. How the aircraft behave with flaps, spoiler, gear up/down etc and the impact on power required etc. If it’s not done right, for me the rest it’s pointless 😉 

Don’t need to be perfect but close enough. Then, talking about the other system.  It look weird for me that they simulate something that is completely bug. FD for exemple, not the most difficult thing to simulate unless the structure behind is full of bug as well 😅 correcting only by bugs report will only hide the pb I think. 

They also said that the management part isn’t really simulate but the FD are. What the point of having FD without the structure needed for them to work properly. 

3 hours ago, Til19031986 said:

+1 on that. As I said I also doubt they really get a lot of time to sit down with Airbus engineers. 

What do you base this doubt on? How much time do you think they'll need to sit down with engineers/pilots?

 

3 hours ago, Til19031986 said:

I also do not doubt that MS and Asobo can build a study level plane its just that they have so much on their plate at the moment with building the whole sim that they have to manage the resources and can't put too many people on only one plane.
 

Again I'd love to know about the insider info you have on their resources and their limitations. I mean I've seen 3pd devs come in here and say Asobo have the resources to do a lot in less time but you're persisting with these doubts lol. Nothing wrong with having doubts but it would be nice if you could back them up with some evidence.

5 hours ago, tweekz said:

Things like general problems with aerodynamics simulation and incorporating the flight data into that sim for example. They are still working on the flight model. Implementing the fly by wire and autopilot logic could also be a hurdle to overcome.

Regarding the partnering. I don't know how far that goes. Sure they get a lot of info, but I doubt Airbus really hands them over their aerodynamics data.

About the first part, the more people working on it, the faster it would be done, at least in my point of view. When will we know who's right? When the sim is released and they disclose everything.

Regarding Airbus, why wouldn't they provide the information MS/ASOBO needs, as they signed a partnership? Why sign a partnership if not to make things easier to accomplish? They have contracts, NDAs etc between them (MS and Airbus).

As far as I know, what you are describing is the way 3rd parties like PMDG and FSLabs do currently. They have to do some reverse engineering to accomplish good results on their add-ons. They don't own the simulator Engine (limited access to it) and they partnered (at least not so deeply) with the aircraft manufacturers. Trial and error. Asobo/MS have some advantages here, looking from my perspective.

I'm still pretty sure it will more depends on how complex they want their aircrafts to be on the release. If they want FSLabs quality/complexity (which I doubt), they can get there in less time than a 3rd party would. 

Edited April 19, 20206 yr by ca_metal

4 hours ago, Til19031986 said:

I also do not doubt that MS and Asobo can build a study level plane its just that they have so much on their plate at the moment with building the whole sim that they have to manage the resources and can't put too many people on only one plane.

This is not a bunch of teenagers in the basement, typing code. Asobo is executing a project plan, made way in advance. Project plan is constantly monitored, it may even have some agile elements in it - but the scope of the project and the timeline are set. Why? Because the effort to create a software solution as big as MSFS is always estimated in advance. When you plan to invest dozens of millions of dollars, you will make da*n sure that the result you will get is well described, backed by concepts and plans, and more or less set in stone. 

It is now about if they can do it. Sure they can, and quickly too. Will they do it, and if they do, will they present such a product at release day? Only the project lead can tell you. Their plan could very well be to keep a smaller team on the payroll after release, creating addons - "study level" or not.

As for the "mathematical models" - we are not talking about scientific research here. This is just software development. The FDE in the simulator is a given - your task is to make the plane fly believably using the capabilities of the sim. I doubt that the flight mechanics in MSFS (or any other simulator) have a lot to do with, or even require at all, the aerodynamics data of a real world plane. The computer simulations that the aircraft manufacturers are running to study aerodynamics (and which are actually using accurate physical and mathematical models) are magnitues ahead of any desktop sim. 

Best regards

Edited April 19, 20206 yr by Lorby_SI

And what many are forgetting is that it will be a 10-year project of continuous development.

Maybe at the beginning, they don't have all the systems, but in the next updates (DLC) they can introduce advanced systems at the PMDG and FSlabs level.

At the very least for many, even if they aren't payware quality,  they may be content with the default aircraft for a change, rather then getting frustrated over poor FDE's etc etc. 

12 minutes ago, Doug47 said:

At the very least for many, even if they aren't payware quality,  they may be content with the default aircraft for a change, rather then getting frustrated over poor FDE's etc etc. 

If they implement the core flight systems well I would be more than happy. I don't need simulated faillures or secondary systems. Simulating not so important systems would be just a plus, aimed for people really commited with the simulation of the specific aircraft.

Edited April 19, 20206 yr by ca_metal

1 hour ago, Krakin said:

What do you base this doubt on? How much time do you think they'll need to sit down with engineers/pilots?

 

Again I'd love to know about the insider info you have on their resources and their limitations. I mean I've seen 3pd devs come in here and say Asobo have the resources to do a lot in less time but you're persisting with these doubts lol. Nothing wrong with having doubts but it would be nice if you could back them up with some evidence.

You are absolutely right. I just base it on my personal opinion and I don't have facts to show. I am sorry for that! 

Concerning the engineers and pilots: I just don't really see an advantage Airbus could have by sitting down with them for a longer period of time as full motion flight simulators are already all they need. Plus they also have their day to day business to run which is pretty full anyway. Do you understand where I am coming from? 

And about the thing about resources: I just meant that they are developing a (what looks to be) fantastic simulator which is a ton of work and if you add developing many additional aircraft at a high standard seems like it could be too much. At least in the beginning. They could maybe add them later. 

But hey I would be the happiest man on earth if they prove me wrong.

2 hours ago, Til19031986 said:

it could be too much.

No it can't. It is either in the project plan or it is not. If the workload in a project gets too high to complete the goals and milestones, something is wrong. At the very least it has been planned really badly, and that, I am sure, is not the case with MSFS.

If they want to make a study level airplane, what is to stop them from adding another 20 engineers to the workforce? Or award a contract to make one (or parts of it) to other studios? (or rather: plan for doing this in advance)

In this strange world of end user flight simulators, we customers were lead to believe that making a "study level" airplane is some heroic task that only the chosen few can perform. And we worship them for doing it. In reality this is just like any other tech project. Put enough money and resources on it, and you will get the result.

Best regards

Edited April 19, 20206 yr by Lorby_SI

For me will be good, if there will be all primary systems, what are used in normal manual or automatic flight with parameters and controls close to real plane how is possible. I do not need failure simulation, backup systems, openable cockpit windows, coffe makers etc. 🙂 I think, they can set a new standard for default jet planes about 60-80% details and functions, in compare to PMDG737NG. I am sure, that good 3PD will still have enough space to offer some more and keep their bussines in growht.

1 hour ago, ludekbrno said:

For me will be good, if there will be all primary systems, what are used in normal manual or automatic flight with parameters and controls close to real plane how is possible. I do not need failure simulation, backup systems, openable cockpit windows, coffe makers etc. 🙂 I think, they can set a new standard for default jet planes about 60-80% details and functions, in compare to PMDG737NG. I am sure, that good 3PD will still have enough space to offer some more and keep their bussines in growht.

I hope for the same. I want to fly the bus from A to B and be able to simulate the everyday flight (with the possibilities of holdings etc.). And as you said it should feel like flying the real plane. But I don't need to simulate a bird strike etc. 

P.s. but I would like the possibility to open the cockpit windows 😅

I would be very surprised (use the word "astonished" if you prefer) to see a study level simulation of an Airbus A320NEO as a default aircraft. They could hardly choose a more difficult subject.

2 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

I would be very surprised (use the word "astonished" if you prefer) to see a study level simulation of an Airbus A320NEO as a default aircraft. They could hardly choose a more difficult subject.

What about the 747?