I do not see them producing a study level simulation of the 747-8 either. It may well be more detailed than default aircraft of the past, but "study level" involves a lot more than a basic FMC, PBR textures, and fancy heat exhaust effects.

45 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I do not see them producing a study level simulation of the 747-8 either. It may well be more detailed than default aircraft of the past, but "study level" involves a lot more than a basic FMC, PBR textures, and fancy heat exhaust effects.

It's still just a fraction of what it takes to develop an entire fligh sim of this level from scratch. Additionally i'll just quote this bit from Lorby_SI:

On 4/19/2020 at 5:14 PM, Lorby_SI said:

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.

In the end a virtual plane is nothing but lines of code, be it Abacus or PMDG. The difference is made by the resources and effort put into it. It's not some black magic witchcraft.

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

I do not see them producing a study level simulation of the 747-8 either. It may well be more detailed than default aircraft of the past, but "study level" involves a lot more than a basic FMC, PBR textures, and fancy heat exhaust effects.

It's true, but Asobo has a much more people and other sources, than every 3PD. So if they want make a "study level" plane, sure they can do it and probably much faster. Only one question is there, how detailed plane they want make, nothing more :-)

34 minutes ago, nikita said:

 

It's not some black magic witchcraft.

Oh yes it is, another name for it could be talent. Working with the same architecture (tables et.) and spending the same amount of effort, a FDE coder can make a convincing flight model if he is gifted or a toyish on-the-rail one if he is not. 

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

I do not see them producing a study level simulation

I doubt that they will too. But for a different reason. IMHO, this very thread shows, that the requirement for making anything "study level" is not really there. It has to be good enough to satisfy the majority of users - nothing more.

Best regards

26 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

Oh yes it is, another name for it could be talent. Working with the same architecture (tables et.) and spending the same amount of effort, a FDE coder can make a convincing flight model if he is gifted or a toyish on-the-rail one if he is not. 

In this case, there is no "the same". Everything is new. Asobo is writing the FDE on both sides, in the sim and for the addon that uses it. That is quite a unique position to be in. 

IMHO, in this situation, if anybody can make a "study level" product in any reasonable time frame, it is them. All the rest will have to play catch-up first.

Best regards 

 

25 minutes ago, Lorby_SI said:

In this case, there is no "the same". Everything is new. Asobo is writing the FDE on both sides, in the sim and for the addon that uses it. That is quite a unique position to be in. 

IMHO, in this situation, if anybody can make a "study level" product in any reasonable time frame, it is them. All the rest will have to play catch-up first.

Best regards 

 

Agreed. My point was that everything being equal, to design an aircraft including the FDE is not just aligning code, the result is not only proportional  to the effort put in menXhours. You need more than brute force. You need talent, inspiration  I suppose that is true for many software.

Edited April 21, 20206 yr by Dominique_K

28 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

You need talent, inspiration  I suppose that is true for many software.

That is how the small companies operate. Or product development. I guess it all depends on how big the team is and what you do. I have been working for a very large tech company for many years, in Enterprise Application Development (as programmer, architect and project manager). They weren't interested in talent. Why? Because you can't replace it, and you can't plan a project based on talent. But you have to plan it, because naturally, the customer wants to know in advance what it will cost, before he signs the contract. If a project is large enough, all you want is average worker bees, whose performance you can estimate. 

Talent is even dangerous in real software projects - because when a crucial resource fails, one that you were depending on, your plan, maybe even your whole project, goes to sh*t. And that can never happen. Not when you are the project manager and have to explain to your superiors and the paying customer why you failed to meet the milestones.

Simply put: talent and inspiration are unprofessional. At least that is the lesson that I was taught. All the large companies go to great lengths to beat that stuff out of you... call me a cynic if you must 🙂

Best regards

 

Edited April 21, 20206 yr by Lorby_SI

As others have said, I'm guessing the complexity of the default aircraft will be something between FSX and study level. Maybe something close to X-Plane?

Considering the long list of inoperative (non simulated?) systems, I fear that it is going to be an eye candy version of the default FSX A321, which reminds me some notorious General Aviation developers and their shiny exterior with no systems.

As Christopher Low rightfully pointed, choosing an Airbus for a default Aircraft was pretty ambitious.

1 minute ago, GearUp180 said:

Considering the long list of inoperative (non simulated?) systems

It's a work in progress, that's what an Alpha is. Those features are coming, or they wouldn't have listed them as not working at the moment.

Edited April 21, 20206 yr by Tuskin38

Well, if you have told me an year ago that we would have a flight simulator with all we’ve seen so far included by default, out of the box, I wouldn’t believe.

 

About the accuracy/complexity of the default airplanes, I will just wait see. Based on what they’ve said so far, I’m hopeful on that regard.

Edited April 21, 20206 yr by ca_metal

1 hour ago, Tuskin38 said:

As others have said, I'm guessing the complexity of the default aircraft will be something between FSX and study level.

Obviously none of us know just how detailed and realistic the A320 will be when it comes to release but I suspect they want something that's a showcase for the sim and also sets a bar for the quality of third party addon expected in the future. Therefore it won't be study level but will be considerably higher quality than the FSX version.

Christopher is keeping his expectations..... Low so he doesn't get disappointed

1 hour ago, Tuskin38 said:

It's a work in progress, that's what an Alpha is. Those features are coming, or they wouldn't have listed them as not working at the moment.

You'd think that would be glaringly obvious.

@Lorby_SI can you DM me info about your products? I really respect your honesty especially in light of how some other devs have chosen to react to the new sim and I'd love to support you.