7 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

I assume that one reason that A2A doesn't do new warbirds anymore is that they like to be able to pilot the real life aircraft,  in order to model it in a flightsim. Hence, their Aerostar project. They bought one and spruced it up. The military stuff that they do probably relies on working with the client's pilots to fine tune the aircraft's systems and aerodynamics. 

Personally,  I think that a lot of the aerodynamics talk here is a bunch of people arguing about a goal that is presently unobtainable in a consumer flightsim. No one here wants a whole fleet of Carenado aircraft in MSFS. But we're not the target audience for MSFS. As long as someone can either fly a 747 upside down under the Golden Gate Bridge or crash into every other multiplayer aircraft that they can see, most users will be happy. At least until they get bored and start asking for weapons and damage. Watch out DCS World! 😉

A year ago they said they were working on the T38 and T6 and had developed for these projects their Accusim expertise on turbo and jet engines. And they were looking after releasing a version to the public. I suppose the USAF didn’t agree. A T38 or a T6 in FS20 ? I wouldn’t mind (understatement).

1 hour ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Personally,  I think that a lot of the aerodynamics talk here is a bunch of people arguing about a goal that is presently unobtainable in a consumer flightsim.

I agree, and I'll even take it a step back. The vast majority of the people arguing about these aerodynamics have no experience in a C172, much less a 777.

I have 270 hours in a C172, I'm pretty comfortable discussing the general qualities of the various C172 sim models that I have tried. You know what I don't have experience in? A C182...or a Piper Comanche, any Cirrus (yet), a Beech Barron, a P51, any variant of a King Air (yet 😉), a Constellation, an ERJ-175, B373, A220.....Hmmmm this could take a while. Let's just say that there are a lot of planes that I have never flown. For all of those planes, do they come close to the performance numbers in the book? Close enough! Are there even numbers readily available to compare to? No? Well then...I guess that is close enough too!

I've really enjoyed the C172 for FSX; what have I enjoyed the most?

The persistence modelling, I like being able to get in a virtual plane and know I have to check the systems and pre-flight the plane prior to take-off, I suppose this also includes the modelling of being abusive to the systems.

If that's modelled in the MSFS aircraft now I will be very happy (i'm not sure it is), if someone; A2A or otherwise develops it; I'd be happy to part with the £££'s.

47 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

 The vast majority of the people arguing about these aerodynamics have no experience in a C172, much less a 777.

 

Granted, most of the simmers, I for one, have no experience in an aircraft except for being passengers. Time,money, handicaps etc. We can know the basics of aerodynamics (or more  - some of us went to school 😉) but we  have not experimented the sensation of the flight. 

Then willing to fly A2A is just a snobbery   ?

The A2A or RealAir or PMDG or FLS etc. typical customer read of lot : manuals, posts from real pilots like you here and there. Watching real flying on Youtube teaches you also quite a bit etc.  

Having had flight simulator aircraft for many decades I feel when an simcraft is not far from what it should be, within the limitations of the exercise (gravity/acceleration pulls). We may be wrong but I can tell you I don't have the same sensation of being there when I land the  Comanche or the T6 or the T-Duke than   the two Carenado/Abaleo aircraft I have. 

 

Edited July 20, 20205 yr by Dominique_K

I don't know why everyone was expect day 1 3rd party content. My guess is that it will take between 4 to 6 months before we see any new 3rd party content making it's way to MSFS. 

1 hour ago, Dominique_K said:

We can know the basics of aerodynamics (or more  - some of us went to school 😉) but we  have not experimented the sensation of the flight. 

Who knows but theory knows nothing.

🙂 

Hook

@Dominique_K, knowledge gained through theoretical study is not a bad thing at all. One can memorize the handbook from cover and watch every YouTube video ever published. That hopefully leads to a better understanding of the general operation a particular aircraft and a deeper enjoyment of the sim if that is, in fact, part of what brings you joy in the sim. You have to be really careful declaring a flight model good or bad based only on that information. Even book numbers are limited in describing expected performance to some extent.

I appreciate the subtle details that the folks at A2A or RealAir include. To me it adds a sense of fidelity that can seem lacking in other companies offerings. People like to pan Carenado/Alabeo as all style with no substance. In fact, I have made similar statements. Truth be told, however, is that even in the real thing, sometimes your performance isn't exactly what the book told you to expect. You just take what the plane is giving you, make the necessary adjustments and move on. I still love to use the old Carenado King Air B200. Is it relatively shallow from a systems perspective? You bet. Does it get anywhere close to "the numbers"...I don't know. I suspect not. I still enjoy it though.

By the way, I agree that your preference is your prerogative. I'm not trying to argue that you change that at all. It is my own fault that I let armchair airline captains who insist on PMDG/FS Labs...or whatever, everything else is garbage, get under my skin.

Edited July 20, 20205 yr by snglecoil

1 hour ago, fogboundturtle said:

I don't know why everyone was expect day 1 3rd party content. My guess is that it will take between 4 to 6 months before we see any new 3rd party content making it's way to MSFS. 

Yes, until a functionally complete and stable SDK is available, I doubt that we will see any complex add-ons that depend on the SDK — and a “finished” SDK isn’t likely to happen until the sim itself is released. Since the sim is still in active development and testing, any significant changes in core sim functions between now and release day may change related SDK content.

On 7/18/2020 at 10:25 AM, Dominique_K said:

Dangerous game. I’d say that many simmers looking for high quality aircraft à la A2A are not serial buyers. We spend a lot of money but wisely.  And we are not married to A2A, if some other dev releases an aircraft of high quality,  A2A will be out of my portfolio for the same kind of aircraft.

Not a dangerous game at all I think. A2A aircraft are a class apart. Even if other developers would offer high quality aircraft that interest me I would still get A2A aircraft when they appear eventually.

1 hour ago, fogboundturtle said:

I don't know why everyone was expect day 1 3rd party content. 

Did I say anywhere in this thread that I expected day 1 3rd party content ?

1 hour ago, snglecoil said:

 People like to pan Carenado/Alabeo as all style with no substance. In fact, I have made similar statements. Truth be told, however, is that even in the real thing, sometimes your performance isn't exactly what the book told you to expect. You just take what the plane is giving you, make the necessary adjustments and move on. I still love to use the old Carenado King Air B200. Is it relatively shallow from a systems perspective? You bet. Does it get anywhere close to "the numbers"...I don't know. I suspect not. I still enjoy it though.

By the way, I agree that your preference is your prerogative. I'm not trying to argue that you change that at all. It is my own fault that I let armchair airline captains who insist on PMDG/FS Labs...or whatever, everything else is garbage, get under my skin.

My intent was not to pan Carenado so if this is what you understood I expressed myself badly. A lot of people like them and I respect that. They certainly are not garbage. I don't like the ones I have and understand that they are not atypical of what they offer. Thats all.

That preference is my prerogative goes without saying, this was not my point. I think that after years of simming, even if you have never be in the left chair, you can have a feeling whether a simcraft is good or not. 

Edited July 20, 20205 yr by Dominique_K

4 hours ago, snglecoil said:

The vast majority of the people arguing about these aerodynamics have no experience in a C172, much less a 777.

Sometimes you’ll find even people with experience don’t always even agree on what feels correct.  I think a lot of how we respond to what an aircraft does becomes subconscious.  While flying the real thing you don’t ever challenge unexpected handling as being accurate or not.  I remember a few posts when the 172 came out about how it reacted to certain config changes, trim settings, etc.  I thought at the time that maybe these people were correct because I didn’t remember a real 172 doing what they mentioned.   So I went out and tested it in a 172S while paying special attention to these things.  Much to my surprise the A2A was more accurate then how remembered the real thing even though I had flown the real thing only a few weeks prior.

12 hours ago, snglecoil said:

People like to pan Carenado/Alabeo as all style with no substance. In fact, I have made similar statements. Truth be told, however, is that even in the real thing, sometimes your performance isn't exactly what the book told you to expect.

There is substance. Carenado is bad in nearly every sim I tried that is include XP11. In fact, other than visual it doesn't resemble anything but generic representation of something that fly. 

Also, If real thing is not up to performance by the book it become not airworthy. There is no comparison here

9 hours ago, BrianW said:

Sometimes you’ll find even people with experience don’t always even agree on what feels correct.  I think a lot of how we respond to what an aircraft does becomes subconscious.  While flying the real thing you don’t ever challenge unexpected handling as being accurate or not. 

 So if on run up you can't clear the mag, or your static RPM below allowable value during  take of run you don't challenge it?

6 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

Also, If real thing is not up to performance by the book it become not airworthy. There is no comparison here

Never thought about like that. Lack of airworthiness is nothing to mess around with. Someone needs to report this to the appropriate agency....oh wait you can’t because it’s not real.