7 minutes ago, ThomseN_inc said:

No custom engine model if i recall correctly?

You remind me of people who complain about the smallest things.  Like if you were served North American lobster, you are the type to complain that the lobster tastes slightly different because it was sourced from the Canadian side of the border, rather than the American side of the border.

I'm happy just to have lobster, whether it's Canadian lobster or American lobster.

Edited May 17, 20224 yr by abrams_tank

10 minutes ago, ThomseN_inc said:

I wonder if and really hope that the trend to releasing unfinished (fullpriced) products and adding further features later on will come to an end at some point.

I'd prefer waiting some longer for a polished product.

This seems more a case of enhancement than polish.  The product as it stands today appears incredibly polished and ready to go.  They are talking about possibly releasing an enhanced engine model months down the road, but it sounds like talks are all it's been so far and they are pleased with how it works now.

I think this is very different than, say, the 737 shipping without a EFB - though even then, PMDG were clear about their plans upfront so if it bothers someone who bought it, that's on them.

5 minutes ago, ThomseN_inc said:

No custom engine model if i recall correctly?

Aamir just told you that the Fenix has a custom, from scratch engine model... 🙄

The "problem" is its internal, and Aamir would like to make an external model that can better handle edge of envelope conditions. 

As an aside, the PMDG and MADDOG both use custom internal engine models. 

5 minutes ago, ThomseN_inc said:

I wonder if and really hope that the trend to releasing unfinished (fullpriced) products and adding further features later on will come to an end at some point.

I'd prefer waiting some longer for a polished product.

LOL....it can most certainly come to an end if Devs decide to hold the release of their product until it is perfect, has every feature (even a beverage cart simulator included so you can play flight attendant while in cruise, hehe), of course flushing toilets (that won't make it to release until the flush swirl goes in the right direction depending on what hemisphere the plane is flying in...I flew one the other day, flushed the toilet, and it swirled the wrong way....immersion ruined!!!)...and lastly, an install feature that installs the plane, takes up only 5 kilobytes on your hard drive, reads your mind on which liveries you want to install (and of course it will include every livery that airframe ever flew), installs them...with your "weathered" or "Shiny new" preferences...and costs $9.99....Oh and the Developer will cover the VAT for those poor unfortunate souls who have to deal with that.

Of course, you'll never have a plane to fly by them, so you may as well switch to everyone's favorite alternate hobby....basket weaving. 🙂

/Snarky mode off.

1 minute ago, Steve Dra said:

LOL....it can most certainly come to an end if Devs decide to hold the release of their product until it is perfect, has every feature (even a beverage cart simulator included so you can play flight attendant while in cruise, hehe), of course flushing toilets (that won't make it to release until the flush swirl goes in the right direction depending on what hemisphere the plane is flying in...I flew one the other day, flushed the toilet, and it swirled the wrong way....immersion ruined!!!)...and lastly, an install feature that installs the plane, takes up only 5 kilobytes on your hard drive, reads your mind on which liveries you want to install (and of course it will include every livery that airframe ever flew), installs them...with your "weathered" or "Shiny new" preferences...and costs $9.99....Oh and the Developer will cover the VAT for those poor unfortunate souls who have to deal with that.

Of course, you'll never have a plane to fly by them, so you may as well switch to everyone's favorite alternate hobby....basket weaving. 🙂

/Snarky mode off.

Strange that things people complained about for month after MSFS was released ("Bleh bleh, why is Asobo using us customers as Beta testers? bleh bleh" We all remember those posts.) now suddenly are obsolete because of a hype train running through. But hey!

38 minutes ago, Aamir said:

 

I made a comment in an attempt to be fully transparent that ended up being received wrong. To be clear, we have not just copy/pasted a default engine model and gone "yep, that's good". We started from scratch using every inch of the SDK available to us to make an engine simulation that represents the CFM56 as accurately as possible within the confines of MSFS. Further, we've created an external simulation for spool logic, starts, EGT, and a few other details. We started to investigate pushing everything 'engine' outside the sim and into our own code, but the reality is it'll potentially take months. None of this is to say the current engine model is bad by any means - we're actually really happy with the numbers we're hitting, and apart from a few edge-cases where the FF etc might read a little higher/lower than you'd expect, performance of the aircraft is will within margin. We'll put some more information about our plans regarding the engine model soon, it's a small weakness but a weakness we want to address, and address right. Masking the issue is not an option, we're going for the full monty.

You know Amir,

You could break Discord, and all the flightsim forums if you simply posted this in your discord:
Hey guys, there's a knock at the door, I'll be right back.

And not reply for 2 days.

Just say'in 😉 

This community actually loves speculation and conspiracy theories more than flying aircraft...strange but true.

4 minutes ago, ThomseN_inc said:

Strange that things people complained about for month after MSFS was released ("Bleh bleh, why is Asobo using us customers as Beta testers? bleh bleh" We all remember those posts.) now suddenly are obsolete because of a hype train running through. But hey!

Then don't purchase the Airbus, if it's that big of a concern for you! 

Honestly, I really don't understand what you're trying to achieve with your posts?

19 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

I'd say in the Maddogs case, it's because ailerons and elevators are controlled by trim tabs (dating back to DC-3 days).

The yoke does not move the actual aileron but a smaller hinged tab. Same with the elevator (where you actually have tree different types of tabs...), which the user can experience as a delay of control surface output/ and or need for excessive yoke input, especially at lower speed regime such approach.

It is modelled quite believable in the MD (but never flown a real MD80 obviously)

 

 

Ah yes thank you, it was the trim tabs. I remember those leading to some ugly accidents or near-accidents because of icing and/or wind. 

6 minutes ago, anden145 said:

Then don't purchase the Airbus, if it's that big of a concern for you! 

Honestly, I really don't understand what you're trying to achieve with your posts?

It's not a concern really. But i read multiple times today  about different products for MSFS that there are "more functions to come" after release and "BETA release...." and so on. I just think its the wrong way to do. Thats all. Dunno why people go haywire because someone has a different opinion.

Edited May 17, 20224 yr by ThomseN_inc

10 minutes ago, ThomseN_inc said:

Strange that things people complained about for month after MSFS was released ("Bleh bleh, why is Asobo using us customers as Beta testers? bleh bleh" We all remember those posts.) now suddenly are obsolete because of a hype train running through. But hey!

The problem with your posts is the assertion that Fenix is using customers as beta testers. Thrice now you've been told the aircraft isn't shipping with beta part, and thrice you've ignored it. 

There aren't any aircraft for MSFS with an external engine model. Fenix would be the first. Holding release for 8 months while they build one is silly when the current one is as high fidelity as it (currently) comes.

Just now, WestAir said:

The problem with your posts is the assertion that Fenix is using customers as beta testers. Thrice now you've been told the aircraft isn't shipping with beta part, and thrice you've ignored it. 

There aren't any aircraft for MSFS with an external engine model. Fenix would be the first. Holding release for 8 months while they build one is silly when the current one is as high fidelity as it (currently) comes.

I havent ignored anything. If it is as told then good. But the trend goes on and thats nothing new. 

From someone that has 1,000+ hours in the FSL, I spent 11 hours yesterday watching the streams and the youtube streams. Wife was NOT happy with me. lol.

So what did I think? 

In a word.

Spectacular.

Could I find fault? MCDU lacking etc. Nope!

Since I last was in the FSL, Fenix seems to have added even more than them OCD guys over there. 

The only thing I saw and wish it had and its so small am smiling as i say it, I wish it had like the FBW the noise of people boarding, the FSL had it with GSXv2, the PMDG does not have it. Its small thing but with the noise of the cockpit with the doors and windows open etc, and even the noise from outside with the door open, it would be lovely if that was added at some point.

BIG TIME Nickpick over.

Stunning, got up at 4am this morning to covert my walkthrought PDF from FSL to Fenix.

I will buy it hopefully within seconds of release and fly it proberly 90% of the time. Stunning.

Let's go...........

Edited May 17, 20224 yr by Nyxx

3 minutes ago, ThomseN_inc said:

Strange that things people complained about for month after MSFS was released ("Bleh bleh, why is Asobo using us customers as Beta testers? bleh bleh" We all remember those posts.) now suddenly are obsolete because of a hype train running through. But hey!

Not saying Devs shouldn't strive for perfection in everything they develop, but there has to be a line where the Dev says, "we've tweaked and tested it enough....its not going to be every simmers opinion of perfection, but they just need to manage their own expectations.  If we hold this release until we've satisfied every simmers wish, we'd never release it."

Simmers will complain, Devs will develop, products will be released in an un-perfect and "incomplete" state, as Mufasa famously said..."Its the circle of life"....He was talking about the lion eating the gazelle, then the lion dying, decomposing, turning into grass, which the gazelle then eats.  I'm just talking about the simmer's circle of life....Devs release a product, we complain, they fix it (and maybe break something else in the process), re-release, we complain...it goes around until the Dev finally gives up, takes up basket weaving, and we simmers feast on the their bones in the "Going out of business" sale they have. 🙂

Complaints about a product should only become obsolete when the dev fixes them or states why they can't (or won't).  Proper complaints should never bow to the hype train, but it happens...however, that is totally different circle of life, and one only qualified health professionals should tackle in a room with a couch with their patient. 🙂

 

50 minutes ago, Aamir said:

 

I made a comment in an attempt to be fully transparent that ended up being received wrong. To be clear, we have not just copy/pasted a default engine model and gone "yep, that's good". We started from scratch using every inch of the SDK available to us to make an engine simulation that represents the CFM56 as accurately as possible within the confines of MSFS. Further, we've created an external simulation for spool logic, starts, EGT, and a few other details. We started to investigate pushing everything 'engine' outside the sim and into our own code, but the reality is it'll potentially take months. None of this is to say the current engine model is bad by any means - we're actually really happy with the numbers we're hitting, and apart from a few edge-cases where the FF etc might read a little higher/lower than you'd expect, performance of the aircraft is will within margin. We'll put some more information about our plans regarding the engine model soon, it's a small weakness but a weakness we want to address, and address right. Masking the issue is not an option, we're going for the full monty.

Thank you very much for the factual, transparent explanation and for also stating clearly what and why you did certain things and did not, and what you are planning to do - and for your calm and positive demeanor. I‘m sure the sale numbers will be high enough to give you a reason to further develop the engines and the aircraft in general (did I mention I‘d LOVE to have a persistant turnaround mode?) and bring on the Sharklets, 319 and 321 and NEO. And 330. I will certainly buy all of it, because such a transparent, positive and self-critical attitude is an encouraging indicator for the level of support one can expect from a developer in the future.

7 minutes ago, WestAir said:

The problem with your posts is the assertion that Fenix is using customers as beta testers. Thrice now you've been told the aircraft isn't shipping with beta part, and thrice you've ignored it. 

There aren't any aircraft for MSFS with an external engine model. Fenix would be the first. Holding release for 8 months while they build one is silly when the current one is as high fidelity as it (currently) comes.

What makes me wonder now - how good is the PMDG engine model? Has to be tweaked default, too, apparently?