1 hour ago, ryanbatcund said:

I think it's going to be a really nice addon.  If I have to use a manual to figure out how start it up and shut it down I'd say it's study level enough.

Yeah, judging by the videos, this easily looks like a 'full feature' aircraft to me.  This looks like something you could 'accurately' use on VATSIM.  That's all that's important for 99.999 percent of us.

This looks like fun.  I didn't use the P3D version much, but this version is really looking good.

8 hours ago, WestAir said:

This aircraft will be great for those people (like me lol) who love a challenge and get a reward out of accomplishments. It's also small enough to fit into a lot of small regional airports with beautiful MSFS scenery to boot.

It fits in Aspen. 🙂

2 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

I think it's going to be a really nice addon.  If I have to use a manual to figure out how start it up and shut it down I'd say it's study level enough.

Lol.

1 hour ago, Noel said:

I'm really confused now (which is easy for me, I know ).  I thought the pathetic SDK was only good enough to build gliders with.  Did something happen to improve that?

It is pointless to look for rationale or reason in this whole thing. 

8 hours ago, fogboundturtle said:

YT Video

Nice flickering around almost every MFD screen in this video, hope this is a compression artifact, otherwise this will drive me nuts...

3 hours ago, Noel said:

I'm really confused now (which is easy for me, I know ).  I thought the pathetic SDK was only good enough to build gliders with.  Did something happen to improve that?

I find it funny that people still believe all these claims that the SDK does not support a "study level" plane. PMDG, FSL and the likes just don't want to convert all their legacy code to the new ecosystem. That's the reason. Period. Maybe from a business point of view they think it is not worth it. To me it doesn't really matter. The PDMG f#ßb?&s can stay on P3D forever and other developers will fill the space in MSFS.

Edited March 3, 20215 yr by carlito777

3 hours ago, B777ER said:

Using the term "study level" and Aerosoft in the same breath is the biggest LOL I've had all day. Thank you

A "study level" ACFT is in my eyes already that aircraft that needs to be flown following standard OP. You have to be acquainted with the complete systems to fly it right.

What would in your opinion be a study level ACFT? 

10 minutes ago, carlito777 said:

I find it funny that people still believe all these claims that the SDK does not support a "study level" plane. PMDG, FSL and the likes just don't want to convert all their legacy code to the new ecosystem. That's the reason. Period. Maybe from a business point of view they think it is not worth it. To me it doesn't really matter. The PDMG f#ßb?&s can stay on P3D forever and other developers will fill the space in MSFS.

I think it is about the company's attitude. For example Aerosoft went full force to support MSFS, instead of whining, they worked directly with Asobo to improve SDK instead of sitting on the bench and complain. 

I have feeling some companies now are regretting of not investing in the sim from early on and instead come up with half baked expansions with ridiculous prices to fill up their cash flow. 

Since when does 'study level' have to include failures?   I think thats what its based on from the other premium aircraft.  Why cant we have a full featured high level systems aircraft without failures  and that doesnt make it any less of a modeled aircraft.  If anything, develop a high fidelity aircraft and make a failures module if thats what some are so inclined to use.   Majority of flights are not going to have major failures.  Probably more issues with toilets or galley issues or a minor thing in the cockpit that has redundancy anyhow. 

 

3 hours ago, WestAir said:

We can't have GSX

It is now possible to have GSX, only with some limitation with the custom windows but virtuali said this will be possible in next SDK versions 

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/595011-gsx-in-msfs-2020-first-preview/

8 minutes ago, omarsmak30 said:

It is now possible to have GSX, only with some limitation with the custom windows but virtuali said this will be possible in next SDK versions 

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/595011-gsx-in-msfs-2020-first-preview/

Oh my god! That's outstanding!

Thanks for this.

16 minutes ago, HighTowers said:

Since when does 'study level' have to include failures?   I think thats what its based on from the other premium aircraft.  Why cant we have a full featured high level systems aircraft without failures  and that doesnt make it any less of a modeled aircraft.  If anything, develop a high fidelity aircraft and make a failures module if thats what some are so inclined to use.   Majority of flights are not going to have major failures.  Probably more issues with toilets or galley issues or a minor thing in the cockpit that has redundancy anyhow. 

 

There is no clear definition. Just going by the word it would mean that you can learn to fly the real aircraft by training with the simulated one. That doesn't mean that you have to be able to learn every bit of the aircraft that way. Failures are important thought. At the minimum those that occur if you over stress it in any way. A big port of learning is what not to do. If mistakes have no consequences that's bad. 

Thing is: accurate systems and failures are simply fun. Fo example I just notices that the DA-62 mod now simulates icing fluid. That changes how I will fly that plane. Before I could just set a flight plan and more or less ignore the weather. Going thrugh a thunderstorm in 14000 feet with -20 degrees C? Not a problem. Now I might have to be more careful If i want to be able to see outside the window.

If I go full gas the entire flight the only thing I hurt is my fuel balance... but normally th engines should not like that and eventually give out or even blow up If I deploy the flaps at 250 knots they might get destroyed and that should be simulated so I actually look at the speed and not use them as spoilers to slow down a messed up approach and so on. You can simply summarise this by Actions should have consequences and that is why I like high fidelity stuff. 

2 hours ago, Jeff Nielsen said:

Yeah, judging by the videos, this easily looks like a 'full feature' aircraft to me.  This looks like something you could 'accurately' use on VATSIM.  That's all that's important for 99.999 percent of us.

This looks like fun.  I didn't use the P3D version much, but this version is really looking good.

I don't think more than 10% of MSFS users use VATSIM.

 

CJ

55 minutes ago, HighTowers said:

Since when does 'study level' have to include failures?   I think thats what its based on from the other premium aircraft.  Why cant we have a full featured high level systems aircraft without failures  and that doesnt make it any less of a modeled aircraft.  If anything, develop a high fidelity aircraft and make a failures module if thats what some are so inclined to use.   Majority of flights are not going to have major failures.  Probably more issues with toilets or galley issues or a minor thing in the cockpit that has redundancy anyhow. 

 

IMHO it's impossible to simulate a complex aircraft system without simulating failures. An example on the PMDG 737 series is when you sit on the ramp with the doors open in the hot Phoenix AZ sun. By the time you're ready to take off you'll get a MASTER CAUTION and a ZONE TEMP light in one of the cabins. This little warning caused havoc with new simmers who didn't know why they were getting alerts, but if you simulate the entire bleed air system, the ambient temps and open doors MUST give you this failure. Period. Another example is when flying in cold weather and you've chosen the wrong Jet A fuel type. The fuel can freeze. These aren't failures, they're the simulation reacting to your choices as pilot in command - which IMHO is a necessary part of "study level".

 

Quote

"A ZONE TEMP trip off occurs when an air condition CONT CAB, FWD CAB or AFT CAB supply duct overheats to ± 90 °C. The ACAU commands the respective Trim Valve to close accompanied by the ZONE TEMP light, MASTER CAUTION and AIR COND annunciator lights.
When the RESET is pushed, the ACAU protection resets and the respective Trim Valve regains controlling warm by-pass bleed air into the duct to mix with the coldest selected air from the pack."

 

Edited March 3, 20215 yr by WestAir

11 hours ago, polosim said:

No, no, no 'study level' don't raised your expectations.

 

Surely ‘study level’ means all systems work as per RL and all the buttons on the panels work? That was my assumption, however, I don’t know for sure to what extent this is the case with the CRJ of course.
 

Perhaps others who know better could comment...

19 minutes ago, WestAir said:

IMHO it's impossible to simulate a complex aircraft system without simulating failures. An example on the PMDG 737 series is when you sit on the ramp with the doors open in the hot Phoenix AZ sun. By the time you're ready to take off you'll get a MASTER CAUTION and a ZONE TEMP light in one of the cabins. This little warning caused havoc with new simmers who didn't know why they were getting alerts, but if you simulate the entire bleed air system, the ambient temps and open doors MUST give you this failure. Period. Another example is when flying in cold weather and you've chosen the wrong Jet A fuel type. The fuel can freeze. These aren't failures, they're the simulation reacting to your choices as pilot in command - which IMHO is a necessary part of "study level".

 

 

'impossible to simulate a complex aircraft system without simulating failures' then 'These aren't failures'. So the examples you gave aren't failures!! I would say a failure is something like a blade snapping and destroying an engine, the landing gear breaking. It is not how systems react to the temperatures around them.