CaptainSim releases Boeing 777-200ER for MSFS!

[Manny 1,293]

10 hours ago, Doug47 said:

Thank goodness one of the most popular YouTube videos of the new 777 is being honest. 

 

Pilot Stud? Ha Ha Ha! Pffft!

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Manny

[Matchstick 1,888]

26 minutes ago, rob0203 said:

What is next a Cessna 172 with jet engines?

Considering a Turboprop engine is a jet engine with a prop duct-taped to the front those already exist as conversions.

[Chock 17,769]

11 hours ago, Doug47 said:

Thank goodness one of the most popular YouTube videos of the new 777 is being honest. 

Yeah, because my video review was completely dishonest. 🤣

Edited May 19, 2021 by Chock

[FlyBaby 659]

15 hours ago, Doug47 said:

At the moment, it’s more then slowly become apparent that MSFS IS solely an extended version of bing images. Hence the majority of freeware and payware offerings being scenery. With a few toy airplanes thrown in here and there for the gamers to ‘fly’ around in. 

 

"majority of freeware and payware offerings being scenery"

Well, we don't need a clouds fix beccaue MSFS took care of that stock , we don't need lighting / color fixes because MSFS took care of that stock...etc.

MSFS does not need basic "fixes" like XP and P3D, so Devs focus on "enhancements"

An enhancement is like "icing" on top of a very good tasting "cake"....a fix is trying to make the cake taste good.

"With a few toy airplanes thrown in here and there for the gamers to ‘fly’ around in. "

Somehow, somewhere...users on Avsim began to believe that words like "gamers" and "VFR sim" is an insult....to the MSFS.

But's its funny how 2M+ "gamers" bought this VFR sim with many Devs jumping on board producing content at a faster pace than any other flight "sim" in history. Its also funny how Asobo has a roadmap for continued development, livestreams and feedback channels for continued development to address the issues of "gamers" in their VFR sim.

Be it an SU or a WU every other month, "U" won't get this type of dedication from any other flight "sim" developer.

[EvidencePlz 276]

1 hour ago, rob0203 said:

What is next a Cessna 172 with jet engines?

If Jorg Neumann can release a Cessna CJ4 with reverse thrust then anything is possible!

[Alaska738 8,438]

Am i the only one who has no sound? no engine sound.

[Cristi_Neagu 134]

36 minutes ago, FlyBaby said:

But's its funny how 2M+ "gamers" bought this VFR sim with many Devs jumping on board producing content at a faster pace than any other flight "sim" in history.

So? Most of those people bought it for the scenery and the looks. The ones that bought it for other reason are the ones expressing their disappointment all over various forums. And most of the addons coming out are indeed sceneries. And so what if there's way more content being produced for FS2020 than for any other sim? It's all in the lower brackets of fidelity, with less exceptions than you can count on the fingers of one hand. I'd rather have a handful of quality addons than millions of useless ones.

 

36 minutes ago, FlyBaby said:

Its also funny how Asobo has a roadmap for continued development, livestreams and feedback channels for continued development to address the issues of "gamers" in their VFR sim.

What's actually funny is how you think that's a sarcastic statement, when in fact it is pretty factual. Yes, Asobo have a roadmap for continued development and they're spending a lot of effort addressing the needs of gamers in their VFR sim. The needs of simmers in their flight sim... not so much. There are HUGE issues with the flight model that have barely been acknowledged. Slats still don't work. Swept back wings are broken. Playing around with wing dihedral is a dangerous gamble. And every single landing and takeoff requires more knowledge of drifting around corners in Forza than it does aviation knowledge. And so far I haven't seen much indication that the devs have actually acknowledged these issues. Last i saw rudder problems being mentioned in a Q&A, Seb was talking about rudder response in straight and level flight, not on ground.

And all of these issues would be nothing-burgers if they would allow developers to replace the default flight model, which they don't. So even if the flight model becomes as good as it can be, it will forever be a generic flight model that is trying to accommodate everything from a Top Rudder Solo 103 to an Airbus A380. And even though doing that is a stellar achievement, everything will simply feel generic. So it will never be good enough for anything other than a generic addon.

So the question is: What does anything you said have to do with what the post you were responding to was saying?

Edited May 19, 2021 by Cristi_Neagu

[kaosfere 3,115]

9 hours ago, WestAir said:

You are now cleared to tear me apart for daring to cross Captain Randazzo's word. I've committed the worst of sins. 😄

Nah, I've no interest in doing that.   I can always accept dissenting opinions that actually come with thought behind them.   So, thank you for sharing that, unlike some other folks in the thread. 🙂

I'm none one of those who sees RSR as a demigod, anyway.  He's a developer, and arguably a talented one, but he's human like any other, and he has his foibles.  However, his word is taken as gospel by many folks here, which you can see by that very thread I shared being deemed worthy of posting and getting as much response as it did.   There are plenty of highly talented developers who aren't at PMDG who said similar things even before he did but got much less attention.

At any rate, your points are valid.   There are indeed some things you cannot currently do in the sim, although as @abrams_tank pointed out not all of Randazzo's statements in that thread are fully correct -- see earlier comments about being human, and all the foibles that includes.  And I'll note that of the things you listed, AI traffic and camera positions aren't things that I'd argue are really required to accurately simulate a plane.

That leaves you sound, WX radar, and rain on windshield among the points you quoted.  (As often as "serious simmers" dismiss MSFS as being eyecandy only, I'm surprised they care that much about rain effects, but I guess even they have their flaws.  😄 )

I could argue that only one of those really feels truly relevant to "study-level" simulation, but I'd be quibbling.   Because, you are correct, there are things the sim can't do.   And if the community really, really expect to see accurately modeled rain effects on the windshield to consider giving a plane that somewhat meaningless badge of "study level", then sure.  MSFS can't do study level right now.

But I think that's probably an extremist position. 🙂

At any rate, like I said...  I'm not sure if you were just playing devil's advocate here or not, but thank you for sharing your own logical reasoning on the matter.   That's all I ask for.  We don't all have to agree -- we never will -- but we should all be expected to have put thought into our opinions if we want them to be taken seriously.

[styckx 1,872]

59 minutes ago, Chock said:

Yeah, because my video review was completely dishonest. 🤣

You literally went into 10x more detail about the failures, shortcuts, and basic features it lacked than that video.  

The Jetway still thinking it's a 747, no working doors.. Hilarious.

[Chock 17,769]

3 minutes ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

So even if the flight model becomes as good as it can be, it will forever be a generic flight model that is trying to accommodate everything from a Top Rudder Solo 103 to an Airbus A380.

and yet when Laminar Research profess that their flight model does that, everyone cracks on about it as though it is the best thing since sliced bread.

[kaosfere 3,115]

Just now, Chock said:

and yet when Laminar Research profess that their flight model does that, everyone cracks on about it as though it is the best thing since sliced bread.

 

But Chock, they use Blade Element Theory™!   That makes all the difference in the world, apparently.

[Doug47 574]

2 hours ago, pmplayer said:

I think all this anomalies ( or at least most ) gets fixed with a next update !

But it looks like this is a interested thread for everyone - i mean around 18000 clicks in sutch a short time -  respect 😎

 

cheers 😉

It’s only proving the lame airplane offerings available right now in MSFS. When people are excited over a carenado release along with a 777 with a 747 cockpit, then all hope of a serious flight simulation is lost. 
 

Yes a gameboy was popular, but no business ceo was using it to keep track of the company kpi’s. 🙂

 

[styckx 1,872]

Has anyone even truly delved in to the flight dynamics to see if they even attempted to make it fly like a true 777, or just copy pasted the 747 flight model also and wiped their hands clean.

[Chock 17,769]

Just now, kaosfere said:

 

But Chock, they use Blade Element Theory™!   That makes all the difference in the world, apparently.

It does if you are testing how efficient underwater screws are compared to the paddles on the side of 19th Century steamers, which is what that kind of analysis was originally developed for. Funny how they never mention that part about it.

[fogboundturtle 2,708]

2 minutes ago, Chock said:

It does if you are testing how efficient underwater screws are compared to the paddles on the side of 19th Century steamers, which is what that kind of analysis was originally developed for. Funny how they never mention that part about it.

you have to leave the XP11 community they only thing they have left to brag about. It's been hard for them