Just flight BAe 146

[jon b 2,041]

11 hours ago, danklaue said:

And especially stepping from smaller GA aircraft to the bigger planes, it's not just more complexity, longer development times, bigger up-front investments, and more stress that we also have to deal with, but also a psychological preparedness to absorb an onslaught of criticism, dissatisfaction, trolling, etc, as these larger projects don't just attract MORE people, they also attract a different crowd

 

11 hours ago, danklaue said:

Big plane customers are a tough crowd

Dan, quite frankly I have been appalled by some of the comments and absolute nonsense that has been spouted about this release, specifically surrounding the FMC . I should be clear I’m not talking about this discussion here on avsim but comments posted elsewhere.

I’m all for honest negativity on forums where it’s warranted, only recently there was a release I was tempted by but I suspected may be a little ,shall we say subpar. Forum posts from users confirmed my suspicions and I was able to divert my cash elsewhere. So, I would not want  to see honest posts stifled.

However post along the lines of “ sorry, I’m not buying this at that price “ from someone who most likely were never going to buy the product anyway serve little purpose other than the self validation of the poster. Sure, if several people who actually own a product or have paid close attention to its features start saying I don’t think the price is justified, because in comparison to similarly priced product B this is missing X , then that’s helpful. I can’t afford it ,therefore I think it’s  rubbish posts are not.

How many posters complaining they won’t buy the 146 because it has a default FMC will actually go on to buy it when a custom FMC is released? I suspect none, they’re simply using an ill informed argument to poke a stick at the release because it’s not in their budget or they wish to stir up negative sentiment for whatever reason. These I would suggest are not your “big plane customers “ but a different fraction entirely.

Yes, your big Plane customers will be demanding of system and flight dynamics accuracy and will eagerly voice anything they suspect is out of place, but in a constructive manner. I doubt many would be involved in the current whining.

The arguments being made about the FMC are pretty much null and void to my mind , as a custom FMC will be provided free of charge shortly, so where’s the issue? Should the alternative have been to delay the release entirely until the custom FMC was ready? I don’t think so at all ,as many users can now be enjoying the 146 using traditional ground based navigation  or god forbid the default FMC without having to wait. For those who simply have to have a custom FMC they can buy the aircraft now, learn the systems and fly the circuit to familiarise themselves before the FMC arrives, it’s a win-win in my view.

Perhaps, playing devil’s advocate , and in hindsight ,a bit of marketing speak to manage expectations of the release may have been beneficial. Something along the lines of , The original 1980’s BAe146 as  simulated here left the factory without an FMC, however to cater for those who wish to use an FMC for navigation we have incorporated the ability to use the X-PLANE default FMC.  But wait, there’s more ! ...From the early 1990’s many operators started to retrofit basic FMCs to the 146’s flightdeck and we have commissioned a specialist FMC developer to provide you with a realistic FMC as used on the 146 should you wish to experience this aspect of the 146’s operation. This FMC add on will provided completely free of charge shortly ,however for those who wish to enjoy the BAe146 as it left the factory  and was flown in the 1980’s the package is available NOW !

Who could possibly argue against that? Some one would though  I’m sure.

I can understand the rationale behind including an FMC where one wasn’t strictly needed to cater for online flyers being cleared direct waypoints etc. There is a difference however  between “ cleared direct Trent (TNT) “  and “ cleared own navigation Trent” which I’m sure the VATSIM guys will be aware of, it’s more challenging yes, but it doesn’t need an FMC and would be accurate to the era. And as big plane customers the challenge and accuracy is why we’re here.

Although sadly now just a part of the online world everywhere , as a community/ user base I think we need to be very careful tolerating such continued and unnecessary badgering of developers or they’ll end up just walking away and we’ll be left with nothing. Why would you put your heart and soul into making a high quality accurate simulation only to face a barrage of unfounded criticism and abuse every time. It would be far easier and more lucrative to just make a shiny generic model for the kids to fly under the Golden Gate Bridge on MSFS and Xbox.

To the aircraft itself then for those who maybe considering it, the FMC argument to my mind is null and void for the reasons above.

The pricing in comparison to other complex products on the market is extremely fair to to point of being potentially  underpriced in my opinion.

The systems are detailed and well modelled and the flight modelling is excellent. Overall it leads to a very immersive and pleasant flying experience.

There are some high end simulations where I just sit on the flight deck in VR , on the ramp with just the APU or ground power plugged in with the cooling fans whirring away and become completely convinced I’m sat on a real aircraft. I start leaning on my chairs armrests and tapping the seat just as I do in real life while waiting for a load sheet , I’m completely drawn in . The 146 Flight deck certainly has this real quality about it which is a step above more mainstream generic simulations.

I for one would like to take the opportunity personally thank the developers for what they’ve done bringing the BAe146 to both XP and P3D in such fine detail . It’s an aircraft I always really wanted to fly back in the day and now I’ve got the chance to experience what it would have been like.

Thank you ,from a big plane customer, and real world big plane pilot 👍

[danklaue 65]

2 hours ago, jon b said:

a bit of marketing speak to manage expectations of the release may have been beneficial.

Yeah, us dev's aren't always the best at marketing, are we?  We often partner with people who are good at that... and we tend to pay a huge premium for their services as well. But that's not always the best solution either... to just leave the marketing message in someone else's hands... in the past, we've been attacked by others (mostly competitors), who picked apart the marketing messaging of our product, blaming US for the marketing jargon, and using it to smear our reputation and attack our honesty or character.  (Another dynamic that end-users maybe don't really have much of an insight into, and which adds to the need for grit in this industry).  

2 hours ago, jon b said:

It would be far easier and more lucrative to just make a shiny generic model for the kids to fly under the Golden Gate Bridge on MSFS and Xbox.

Yup.  This tension is real.  It can cause partners to part ways.  As a company, striving to aim for solid foundations, tools, service, reliability, treating those you work with fairly, putting products out there that you can feel good about, walking alongside customers as the sim world changes, etc. is definitely NOT the best bang-for-buck formula... but hopefully, having long-time developers who continually try to prove that there are ways to resist succumbing to the lure of the quick buck contributes to building a happy, healthy, supportive, and understanding sim community.  And I think that's valuable.

I see great value in our hobby (well, it IS a livelihood for myself and those I work with... but it's a great place to make a living).  In the forums, on the live streams, in chats, on Discord, you see people putting aside divisive political or world view opinions, and come together in an environment where they can learn about and discuss marvels of technology that most of us don't have ready access to, but have dreamt of experiencing since our childhood.  Sure, we still get some toxicity and divisiveness, but overall, the sim, the VR world, the planes we get to learn about, what a great way to spend our time!  And I AM grateful for all the people who actually purchase our products, making it possible for us to spend time we'd otherwise spend labouring away in some other industry, to help us contribute to building this environment.

[jarmstro 2,402]

2 hours ago, jon b said:

How many posters complaining they won’t buy the 146 because it has a default FMC will actually go on to buy it when a custom FMC is released?

I will for one. But not before the custom FMC is actually released. 

Edited May 1, 2021 by jarmstro

[Paul Deluca 164]

4 hours ago, danklaue said:

Yeah, us dev's aren't always the best at marketing, are we?  We often partner with people who are good at that... and we tend to pay a huge premium for their services as well. But that's not always the best solution either... to just leave the marketing message in someone else's hands... in the past, we've been attacked by others (mostly competitors), who picked apart the marketing messaging of our product, blaming US for the marketing jargon, and using it to smear our reputation and attack our honesty or character.  (Another dynamic that end-users maybe don't really have much of an insight into, and which adds to the need for grit in this industry).  

Yup.  This tension is real.  It can cause partners to part ways.  As a company, striving to aim for solid foundations, tools, service, reliability, treating those you work with fairly, putting products out there that you can feel good about, walking alongside customers as the sim world changes, etc. is definitely NOT the best bang-for-buck formula... but hopefully, having long-time developers who continually try to prove that there are ways to resist succumbing to the lure of the quick buck contributes to building a happy, healthy, supportive, and understanding sim community.  And I think that's valuable.

I see great value in our hobby (well, it IS a livelihood for myself and those I work with... but it's a great place to make a living).  In the forums, on the live streams, in chats, on Discord, you see people putting aside divisive political or world view opinions, and come together in an environment where they can learn about and discuss marvels of technology that most of us don't have ready access to, but have dreamt of experiencing since our childhood.  Sure, we still get some toxicity and divisiveness, but overall, the sim, the VR world, the planes we get to learn about, what a great way to spend our time!  And I AM grateful for all the people who actually purchase our products, making it possible for us to spend time we'd otherwise spend labouring away in some other industry, to help us contribute to building this environment.

Hey Dan:After reviewing the package that's available for this plane from the manual, i can see why the going price is $74. 00 and change in US dollars.This is even better than the Saab 340 your company built.Thumbs up!!!!!!!

[Dereksmalls 36]

7 hours ago, jon b said:

Perhaps, playing devil’s advocate , and in hindsight ,a bit of marketing speak to manage expectations of the release may have been beneficial.

Unfortunately, that wasn't possible. As I wrote earlier:

"It was never intended to have a custom FMC, on the basis that the default one in X-Plane was (based on customer feedback) more than adequate - given the real aircraft didn't ship with one. 

However, once we announced the project and started previewing it, we received a load more (contradictory) feedback saying that a custom FMC was a necessity. So, "in response to popular demand" (as they say) we commissioned an FMC and this is in progress now. It will be finished soon (weeks, rather than months or years) and offered as a free add-on for Feedback Group 2. Meanwhile, to satisfy Feedback Group 1, we have released the '146 - As Nature Intended' version. This is finished and, as far as we are concerned, it is a very faithful representation of the aircraft. It certainly isn't 'early access', or, as seems to be the mot du jour, 'a cash grab'. It's complete and any minor bugs that appear will be addressed asap - as normal. 

Hopefully this approach will satisfy both groups."

If the plan from Day 1 had been Default FMC => Custom FMC, then we would have handled this very differently. As Mac said "Events, dear boy, events."
In contrast, feedback on our own forum and on X-Plane.org has been much more positive, in general. 

Edited May 1, 2021 by Dereksmalls

[mjrhealth 820]

28 minutes ago, Dereksmalls said:

Unfortunately, that wasn't possible. As I wrote earlier:

"It was never intended to have a custom FMC, on the basis that the default one in X-Plane was (based on customer feedback) more than adequate - given the real aircraft didn't ship with one. 

However, once we announced the project and started previewing it, we received a load more (contradictory) feedback saying that a custom FMC was a necessity. So, "in response to popular demand" (as they say) we commissioned an FMC and this is in progress now. It will be finished soon (weeks, rather than months or years) and offered as a free add-on for Feedback Group 2. Meanwhile, to satisfy Feedback Group 1, we have released the '146 - As Nature Intended' version. This is finished and, as far as we are concerned, it is a very faithful representation of the aircraft. It certainly isn't 'early access', or, as seems to be the mot du jour, 'a cash grab'. It's complete and any minor bugs that appear will be addressed asap - as normal. 

Hopefully this approach will satisfy both groups."

If the plan from Day 1 had been Default FMC => Custom FMC, then we would have handled this very differently. As Mac said "Events, dear boy, events."
In contrast, feedback on our own forum and on X-Plane.org has been much more positive, in general. 

You will notice that people come here fir no other reason but to vent, some people need a life.

[jon b 2,041]

2 hours ago, Dereksmalls said:

Unfortunately, that wasn't possible. As I wrote earlier:

 

It certainly wouldn’t have made any difference to me nor I believe the vast majority of people who’ve already bought it as we are more than happy with things as they stand. Unfortunately it  seems to have  been wrongly  perceived by a couple of individuals  as a Chink in the armour and thus an excuse for unfounded negativity.

 

2 hours ago, Dereksmalls said:

In contrast, feedback on our own forum and on X-Plane.org has been much more positive, in general. 

Yes, I’ve been following the talk at .org and am pleased to hear you’re  getting positive feedback elsewhere , the work in bringing such a superb and detailed 146  to the market deserves recognition.

Edited May 1, 2021 by jon b

[torfih 49]

41 minutes ago, jon b said:

It certainly wouldn’t have made any difference to me nor I believe the vast majority of people who’ve already bought it as we are more than happy with things as they stand. Unfortunately it  seems to have  been wrongly  perceived by a couple of individuals  as a Chink in the armour and thus an excuse for unfounded negativity.

 

Yes, I’ve been following the talk at .org and am pleased to hear you’re  getting positive feedback elsewhere , the work in bringing such a superb and detailed 146  to the market deserves recognition.

X Plane forum here at avsim has become a cesspool for trolls

Edited May 1, 2021 by torfih

[Martyn JF 388]

I think the difference versus feedback from those who have actually used the product extensively, including many independent and respected community members and YouTubers, and from the Org and JF forums where feedback is perhaps more considered, is very telling and a clearer indicator of the product quality/value. 

We've been really pleased with all the great feedback, especially given this is our first study-level airliner for XP11. Content from Flightdeck2Sim, 320 sim pilot, X-Plane reviews etc has been incredibly enthusiastic and positive. 

Criticism about the lack of the custom FMC at release did initially catch us by surprise given the aircraft type - this is an aircraft designed in real life with no FMC rather than an A320 or 787 where it's a central component - but we recognise the importance of FMCs and automation to some of the community, especially those simulating modern operations (e.g. VATSIM), hence our significant investment in adding a custom FMC at no extra cost. 

In terms of value for money, I think it's pretty rare (if not unique) to find a study level airliner with 8 variants, 34 liveries, 250 page manual, regular updates and direct input into future development/features etc for under £60? We will also be releasing a demo soon so you can see for yourself just how much you would get for that price. 

As ever with our products, hopefully it's clear that we're keen to interact directly with our community and will take on board your feedback, good or bad. We've already released a handful of small updates in the days since release, and the custom FMC work is progressing very well (more on that soon!). 

Thanks for all the feedback, Martyn

Edited May 2, 2021 by Martyn JF

[alexcolka 183]

Agree with you Martyn, excellent product, updates, support, quality and very decent price for what we get, thank you.

[dbw1 443]

As a retired pilot, 40 years worth, who started flying in the 1970s when GPS was unknown and something called NavStar was talked about and considered by most as a wet dream I remember this era well. I remember being permitted as a guest  in the jump seat of an Air canada DC9 (Ottawa to St. John's) that was dispatched without a functioning DME and the crew simply used the radar mapping. Flight of my own in the Canadian arctic that involved driving off the end of one VOR and going 2-300 miles on a heading to picking up the next VOR - another time was waiting for a low powered community NDB whose range was usually under 50 miles. Flying was interesting then and when I finally got GPS thought I had died and been taken to the promised land. I don't think flying this JF creation as it is would be a hardship, more like an enjoyable treat.

I'd sure like to see the visual quality of the JF cockpit, if everything else works as it should, before i part with the $$Cdn where exchange can kick us in the n**s. it is a kind of flying that was pretty darn interesting and today for the most part is gone. Could be why older pilots like good quality watches with easily read sweep second hands for timing the MAP of an NDB approach, lol.

[danklaue 65]

There's over a dozen videos uploaded to YouTube within the last few days, many of them several hours long.  Just go to YouTube, punch in "Just Flight 146 X-Plane", and you'll find lots of material on this... along with those YouTubers' impressions, tips, assessment, likes/dislikes, etc. of the plane.  

[dbw1 443]

Thanks. Will do.

[JustFlightScott 900]

32 minutes ago, dbw1 said:

Thanks. Will do.

And there should be a demo available in the coming week for those who are yet to make up their mind. 

[dbw1 443]

Just watched an hour long flight from the UK to Rome. I would like to try the demo. I'll watch for it.