1 minute ago, sd_flyer said:

So I'm paid for it as anyone else . From what I understand there is a patch coming  that suppose to address most of those issues. And yes it sucks they release like that, but then they don't refuse to fix most of the issue either

What I don't  understand is after the initial reviews which sited most of the problems, some sill rushed out to purchase it giving money to AS for a poorly made product. AS is probably laughing all the way to the bank. 

Just now, sd_flyer said:

So I'm paid for it as anyone else . From what I understand there is a patch coming  that suppose to address most of those issues. And yes it sucks they release like that, but then they don't refuse to fix most of the issue either

I hope you are right of course. I would love to have this in my hanger honestly. Just annoyed this isn't just the usual buggy release, but one that clearly should haven been delayed a little. They knew of some of the issues and still released it. Wait and see I guess.

41 minutes ago, Kilo60 said:

 

I completely agree, but animated "Trim Wheels" is not something I consider "Study Level". 

But Aerosoft clearly does. 

7 hours ago, cavaricooper said:

 MK could use some softening, and perhaps some civility gets lost in translation

Well, here we have the rosetta stone: it's a cultural thing!

6 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

My issue is with MK's attitude and the things he says, which plainly aren't true, make no sense, and are contradictory

...which have nothing at all to do with cultural differences. 

15 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

What I don't  understand is after the initial reviews which sited most of the problems, some sill rushed out to purchase it giving money to AS for a poorly made product. AS is probably laughing all the way to the bank. 

I knew exactly what I get whether it's Carenado or Aerosoft. And you right if sales were up for "study level" vs basic it would encourage developers to put more depth. The problem with MSFS right now it's too early in existence and competition bar is not that high.

Back in time when FSX was released it took some years before PMDG, A2A, FSlabs and other "study level" aircraft developers came to FSX market and started raising the bar.

32 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

VFR is just tick mark you use on your flight plan and rules you obey unless you decide to file IFR. And yes in GA you can file in midflight! But flight plan has  nothing to with how you apply stick and rudder skills  in flight. Those must have skills in VFR or IFR. The only difference where you use as reference visual ques or instruments.

 Both X-plane and MSFS can be used for instrument or visual flying. However, none will ever get a credit in real life  for flying" study level" complex aircraft whether it is in X-plane or MSFS. As far as I concern you can file IFR VFR on TOP and do both at the same time LOL

Let me ask you a question! How many "complex/ study level" twins you ever flown in any sim? I'm pretty sure quite a lot! Now, tell me how many realistic emergency scenarios have your tried in them? How about random failures? I would assume none or not many! Most simmer including myself primary goal is to enjoy sim not torture yourself with emergency drills! It's only a psychological factor that one fly high fidelity or "study level". At the same time simulate stick and rudder which not matter how close to reality always will be approximation! So there are better approximates and not.

So while it's nice to have many system implemented. It is again very entertaining. There is nothing wrong to fly with basic but decent modeling.

I did'nt know Aerosoft at all, i only returned to MSFS after some 25yrs. Maybe my expectations are too high. But i have learn't a valuable lesson in that  to expect some even basic things like trimming animation can be Inop at launch.

and sorry i don't find it entertaining when there is a clear issue with the engine sounds and any increase-decrease in throttle. if this is the level the community is striving for, good luck when the next half baked aircraft lands in MSFS

Edited January 23, 20224 yr by Car147

I don't know why folk keep saying study level. This has nothing to do with anything at this stage. The aircraft doesn't have to be study level to be of a certain standard. 

1 minute ago, Car147 said:

I did'nt know Aerosoft at all, i only returned to MSFS after some 25yrs. Maybe my expectations are too high. But i have learn't a valuable lesson in that  to expect some even basic things like trimming animation can be Inop at launch.

and sorry i don't find it entertaining when there is a clear issue with the engine sounds and any increase-decrease in throttle. if this is the level the community is striving for, good luck when the next half baked aircraft lands in MSFS

Well Aerosoft is no the only company in MSFS market. PMDG DC-6, SWS Kodiak certainly don't fall in half bake category. There will be more developer known and unknown that will bring bar up just like in any other sim!

2 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Well Aerosoft is no the only company in MSFS market. PMDG DC-6, SWS Kodiak certainly don't fall in half bake category. There will be more developer known and unknown that will bring bar up just like in any other sim!

And that is why i have the Kodiak, DC-6 in my hanger. Followed by the Just Flight aircraft. I guess i was just very disappointed especially since Aerosoft are a so called partner

Edited January 23, 20224 yr by Car147

32 minutes ago, RICHUK said:

I think some folks are getting the wrong end of why some folks are complaining. It has zero to do with whether it is study level or not. AS said it wasn't going to be, so if you thought it was and you are annoyed that is a whole different issue.

I believe that there is a "Let's Beat Up On AeroSoft / Mathais Kok" thread. 

ns

Does anyone manage to make it work? When i launch a flight the loading is slow and nothing happens. I have no problem with asobo planes.

3 minutes ago, bean_sprout said:

I believe that there is a "Let's Beat Up On AeroSoft / Mathais Kok" thread. 

ns

I guess some people just cannot accept Aerosoft dropped the ball here. And that's it as far as i am concerned. No point with this back and for, what's done is done.

Edited January 23, 20224 yr by Car147

It is unlikely I will by the Twin Otter, based on all that I have heard, but I also thought MK made a couple of good points in that post, and based on what I have observed and what other developers have said in the past year I think is likely an accurate reading on where we are at.

For developers, MSFS has the potential to generate considerable sales and this is going to be a magnet that will pull developers toward the platform; and it seems to have pulled them primarily away from P3D, for which development has slowed considerably, not so much from X-Plane.

There is a willingness on the part of people using MSFS to buy and use easy to moderately complex aircraft and so this is what is being produced. And, interwoven with this aspect of demand, is that MSFS is not yet developed to the point where it can well support detailed aircraft with more complex systems and procedures. It might be in the future, and here there seems to be a raging debate as to whether it will in the future be able to do so, but for now those who want that kind of experience - especially of flying detailed airliners with developed systems and integrations to things like GSX -- P3D remains the best choice, and that is where those who want this kind of experience should be spending their time. Personally, I am hopeful MSFS will get there, but because I am not so interested in that kind of simulation experience -- I now much prefer smaller aircraft into smaller strips, MSFS is a better choice for me. But if I want to return to the kind of airline simulation I did for 12 years, I would reinstall P3D.

Edited January 23, 20224 yr by Cognita

15 minutes ago, bean_sprout said:

I believe that there is a "Let's Beat Up On AeroSoft / Mathais Kok" thread. 

ns

Yeah, sometimes you get what you deserve, sometime you don't. I think the former applies.

I have purchased the Twin Otter ($35) and I am quite satisfied with it. I am sure that the obvious bugs will be squashed in due course. This is normal with new aircraft addons. I think that this plane compares (or will when updated) well with the SimWorks Kodiak 100 which I bought for $45. I think that it also compares well on a value-received basis with the FlyJSim Q400 ($80) and the Hotstart Challenger 650 ($115). But we will all have different views about what is valuable and what is not. 

Chacun à son goût!

John

Edited January 23, 20224 yr by jcallum