This is what the author of this payware posted on twitter

6 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

This is what the author of this payware posted on twitter

For the most part that would be true, however, anyone who has a personal preference for four engine gauges on a twin-engined airliner needs to put the crack pipe down and step away from it. So that's kind of where their excuses for lazy work fall down a bit. If they sorted out the things I pointed out on my review, it would be a perfectly acceptable add-on for the price.

As it stands though, they need to address those things to make it acceptable. We can look the other way with such anomolies if we like and the plane can still fly, but if they don't address these things, the hit on their credibility and willingness to address issues will do them more harm than good in sales in the long term for repeat custom. They need to bear in mind that since it is where the sales are going, for their revenue stream, developing for MSFS is a marathon, not a sprint.

Edited May 19, 20215 yr by Chock

32 minutes ago, Alaska738 said:

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

Do you look in here about that, maybe needs a update for some people..

CAPTAIN SIM FORUM - No sounds

I have no problem with the sounds - by the way but that dosen`t help you i know...

 

cheers 😉

It definitely does have engine sounds. They aren't loud and since they are the default sounds too, I turned them down on my video review because everyone already knows what they sound like anyway and they would have just stomped on the V/O, but they are there.

10 minutes ago, Chock said:

For the most part that would be true, however, anyone who has a personal preference for four engine gauges on a twin-engined airliner needs to put the crack pipe down and step away from it. So that's kind of where their excuses for lazy work fall down a bit. If they sorted out the things I pointed out on my review, it would be a perfectly acceptable add-on for the price.

As it stands though, they need to address those things to make it acceptable. We can look the other way with such anomolies if we like and the plane can still fly, but if they don't address these things, the hit on their credibility and willingness to address issues will do them more harm than good in sales in the long term for repeat custom. They need to bear in mind that since it is where the sales are going, for their revenue stream, developing for MSFS is a marathon, not a sprint.

 

So basically. It's Halloween to him. They dressed up a 747 with a 777 costume from the local pharmacy and appeal to the cosplay crowd

Got it.. Good lord he's not helping himself at all. 

Edited May 19, 20215 yr by styckx

11 minutes ago, pmplayer said:

Do you look in here about that, maybe needs a update for some people..

CAPTAIN SIM FORUM - No sounds

I have no problem with the sounds - by the way but that dosen`t help you i know...

 

cheers 😉

Thanks! The team is working on a patch. I must wait.

41 minutes ago, 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.

And despite of that, X-Plane still allows you to plug in a custom flight model.

This isn't about whose flight model is the best. This is about the fact that there is no one size fits all solution. It is impossible for the FS2020 flight model to ever accurately reproduce every single airplane ever in every single possible flight condition. Even if it technically is possible, 10 years is not enough development time. That's why i have always only been advocating for official support (or at the very least official recognition) for the ability to override the default flight model. Everyone wins. Developers get to stop wrestling with the default flight model and produce highly accurate addons, I get way better flight dynamics, you get to go on using the default flight model, and Asobo get to stop listening to me whine.

Edited May 19, 20215 yr by Cristi_Neagu

45 minutes ago, kaosfere said:

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

The difference seems to be good enough for NASA to use and recommend X-plane 11 back in October 2019 for testing the flight model of their experimental X-59 QueSST aircraft during a engineering competition. They even made a website for it: Instructions for Downloading and Flying all Three X-59 Laptop Flight S | NASA

Edited May 19, 20215 yr by EvidencePlz

40 minutes ago, Cristi_Neagu said:

And despite of that, X-Plane still allows you to plug in a custom flight model.

This isn't about whose flight model is the best. This is about the fact that there is no one size fits all solution. It is impossible for the FS2020 flight model to ever accurately reproduce every single airplane ever in every single possible flight condition. Even if it technically is possible, 10 years is not enough development time. That's why i have always only been advocating for official support (or at the very least official recognition) for the ability to override the default flight model. Everyone wins. Developers get to stop wrestling with the default flight model and produce highly accurate addons, I get way better flight dynamics, you get to go on using the default flight model, and Asobo get to stop listening to me whine.

You are aware that MSFS has two flight models aren't you? And of those, one is the flight model which all those PMDG and FSL and Majestic aeroplanes were using. Moreover, if it can have two selectable flight models, who says it cannot have three? or four?

36 minutes ago, EvidencePlz said:

The difference seems to be good enough for NASA to use and recommend X-plane 11 back in October 2019 for testing the flight model of their experimental X-59 QueSST aircraft during a engineering competition. They even made a website for it: Instructions for Downloading and Flying all Three X-59 Laptop Flight S | NASA

And yet they had to have, not one, not two, but three different stabs at a flight model for the thing to make it work in the sim; one for the physical geometry - which is what Laminar always claim can instantly be reflected in a realistic representation of the aerodynamic behaviour of something in the sim, but which we know is not true - so they then have to have one which reflects the control throws of the real thing, and since that isn't an accurate representation of how the thing flies, they have to have another one to make it possible to fly the thing without going out of control.

People keep on touting that 'NASA used it' malarkey for XPlane, but they don't bother to read exactly what they used it for, which was to roughly knock up the shape of a proposed thing in the plane maker as a quick way to get something which can go in a sim quickly and be vaguely like a real prototype for some promo videos and PR, prior to them making a proper wind-tunnel model for the actual testing they do on the thing, in a real wind tunnel. 

So what does that tell you about how wonderful Blade Element theory is in being a one stop shop for super-realism? It tells you that it's a bunch of marketing cobblers and it is capable of nothing of the sort. It can get you in the ballpark, but it isn't some magic bullet, and if you don't believe me when I say that, then I suspect you can believe probably NASA and that website where it has three different flight models for the thing for you to download and try out and tells you exactly why there are three of them, and not just one.

Edited May 19, 20215 yr by Chock

Blade Element Theory always reminded me of  the "simulated surround sound" market. While it does indeed sounds good, and adds a bit more atmosphere then stereo  it's still literally not the real thing and key elements missing from the experience. 

899 downloads of the Emirates livery, say £20 a pop = £17,980 just from the ones who have downloaded the Emirates livery.

Edited May 19, 20215 yr by garlicbread11

20 minutes ago, Chock said:

You are aware that MSFS has two flight models aren't you? And of those, one is the flight model which all those PMDG and FSL and Majestic aeroplanes were using.

First off, even though in a lot of aspects the FS2020 flight model behaves more realistically than the old model, the old model does not have the obvious and gaping holes that the new model has, issues which i have pointed out earlier.

Secondly, replacing the flight model in FSX and P3D is pretty common place. I highly doubt any of those producers used the default flight model in their addons. I am fairly certain PMDG use a custom flight model. I know for sure that they completely bypassed the engine logic, as well as many other systems. So no. They weren't using that model, and that's the whole point: they had the choice.

23 minutes ago, Chock said:

Moreover, if it can have two selectable flight models, who says it cannot have three? or four?

Asobo.

Just now, Cristi_Neagu said:

First off, even though in a lot of aspects the FS2020 flight model behaves more realistically than the old model, the old model does not have the obvious and gaping holes that the new model has, issues which i have pointed out earlier.

Secondly, replacing the flight model in FSX and P3D is pretty common place. I highly doubt any of those producers used the default flight model in their addons. I am fairly certain PMDG use a custom flight model. I know for sure that they completely bypassed the engine logic, as well as many other systems. So no. They weren't using that model, and that's the whole point: they had the choice.

Asobo.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that Asobo and Microsoft had personally contacted you and told you exactly what they are doing with their multi-million Dollar project and skyped you in on their discussions with all the developers in relation to their requests for functionality.

10 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Actually, some of it can be done in the current SDK.  For example, the weather radar for the CRJ can be done with HTML and JavaScript. But Aerosoft doesn’t want to use HTML and JavaScript.  They want to use C++ and WASM.  So Aerosoft is waiting for changes to the SDK.

It’s understandable that Aerosoft is willing to wait because from a software development perspective, it’s easier for them to maintain the code in C++ if all the rest of their code is in C++.

So what you say is not completely accurate.  Some things can be done, like the weather radar, if the 3rd party developer is willing to use another method of development (ie. Javascript & HTML).

Having said that, there are still limitations with the SDK.  But it still needs some time to be resolved.  But for PMDG’s needs, they have all the tools they need from the SDK to make a study level airliner.

What we have in MSFS It is not a weather radar but a "cloud viewer".

I don't believe the point was saying XP11 blade element theory would be any better, or not, than FS2020 1000 element theory. It seems to me the point was instead just saying both titles are differing by their openness to supporting alternative flight model implementations.

I believe their is no better flight model than any other, they are all different and addressing the problem with different angles and interpretation of what is a flight model. However there is a better architecture to help getting an appropriate experience and this is the architecture which is allowing 3rd parties delivering this experience to their customers.

And actually if some are considering the very fact XP11 flight model is not capable of being completely or even remotely accurate, by the same reasoning I believe they should also consider the FS2020 flight model can't be either. Therefore by this reasoning, a possible solution is just to accepting opening the capability to letting 3rd parties providing their own model.

The same principle and reasoning to me applies to every single core component in general, because otherwise the more locked-in, the less open the experience for the customers.