FSS Embrear 175

[micstatic 4,316]

There's early access which I have no problem with and generally like.  But this looks like early-early access.  The VNAV thing is huge.  In fact it could be argued that there are some mature jets for flight sim that have never got the vnav thing right.  It's one of the hardest elements of making a new airplane for a flight sim.  So I'm going to go ahead and stay on the sidelines right now.  But I will be hoping they are able to succeed.  

[F737MAX 5,557]

3 hours ago, Abriael said:

Ultimately, I absolutely don't see a logical reason for some of the extreme negativity I'm seeing.

Then you fail to realise that this sets a really poor trend in flight simming.

This product promises much, delivers very little, yet they will get paid for it. For some people, calling it 'early access' seems to sweep aside the genuine criticism this type of model deserves.

It lowers the bar significantly. In MSFS we have now seen:

• 2 developers who misused MSFS assets to create a mongrel versions of the aircraft they delivered.
• A developer create a limited time offer for a product that won't release for another 9 months, but charged at the high end of the add-on price bracket.
• Another developer whose airliner's basic systems functions only haphazardly work and whose focus is on exteriors.

I'm all for choice, yet this prevents another developer from taking a risk on a sought after airliner. Instead, it creates a disincentive for the current developer to push for the best quality product as they will soon have people's cash.

It's especially bad when there are arguably only two high quality payware airliners in MSFS. And yet, people keep finding ways of justifying developer actions like these.

[GentleGroove 69]

27 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

It's especially bad when there are arguably only two high quality payware airliners in MSFS. And yet, people keep finding ways of justifying developer actions like these.

I would say there are actually four, I think the Leonardo Maddog and the Just Flight 146 are also very high quality despite representing older models.

On the rest I totally agree with you - dodgy "payware" designers and overenthusiastic but underqualified freeware designers end up having a toxic effect on the market. If we look at this list:

List of aircraft under development for MSFS

and particularly at the dates of some of the last updates - honestly speaking, how many of these projects do we believe will be actually finished?

[micstatic 4,316]

To me I like

PMDG 737

Fenix A320

Inibuilds A310

Maddog (Textures get an asterisk here)

CRJ (But a step down from those above).  

[Abriael 952]

2 hours ago, F737MAX said:

This product promises much, delivers very little,

It certainly delivers even in its initial stage more than what 99.9% of the people spouting negativity here have ever delivered.

2 hours ago, F737MAX said:

yet they will get paid for it.

Here's the trick: Don't pay. You don't have to. Those who pay will have decided it "delivers" enough for them. It's their prerogative. 

2 hours ago, F737MAX said:

It lowers the bar significantly. In MSFS we have now seen:

If you think this is "lower" than what happened before MSFS, you must not have been around long.

2 hours ago, F737MAX said:

yet this prevents another developer from taking a risk on a sought after airliner.

It "prevents" absolutely nothing. The history of flight simulation is chock full of developers creating and releasing add-ons that already exist from other developers. The existence of the Fenix isn't preventing FSLabs to bring its aircraft to MSFS. FlyByWire did not prevent Fenix. The coming of the ATR by Microsoft itself isn't gonna prevent Milviz/Blackbird from doing theirs. Bredoked did not prevent PMDG from bringing their 737s to market, including the upcoming Max, nor did they prevent TWO eurofighters of which a second is in the works. Just flight is making a Tornado, and so is IndiaFoxtEcho. 

And guess what? We already have Embraer E-Jets in the maerket, by virtualcol. Did they prevent FlightSim Studio from making theirs? Nope. Hell, a freeware version is being made by Ouroboros and that's always been promising. Yet, it presents *nothing*

Those who believe they have strong products will release them. Those who don't... it's their problem. Nothing of value was lost.

2 hours ago, F737MAX said:

It's especially bad when there are arguably only two high quality payware airliners in MSFS. 

You're not good at counting, and two years after the release of a brand new platform, what we have is much more than what we've ever had historically. Not by a small margin.  And the same can be said about literally every kind of add-on, not just airliners.

Edited January 6, 2023 by Abriael

[Farlis 2,280]

6 hours ago, Abriael said:

There's nothing wrong with early access.

I beg to disagree. There is absolutely everything wrong with early access. Having people pay for alpha versions that may never get to the initially planed final stage, is one of the worst cancers in gaming. There should be legislation against it, because people certainly can't help themselves and stop their impulsive shopping for stuff that is not finished.

[Abriael 952]

6 minutes ago, Farlis said:

I beg to disagree. There is absolutely everything wrong with early access. Having people pay

Gonna stop you right there. You don't *have* to pay. Don't want? Don't.

6 minutes ago, Farlis said:

because people certainly can't help themselves and stop their impulsive shopping for stuff that is not finished.

If you can't help yourself, it's your responsibility, not the the business model's. Forgive me if I have a big laugh about the idea that there should be *legislation* about this. Because we don't have enough bureaucracy deciding what we can and cannot do right? 😂😂😂😂

It's an absolute and undeniable fact that the early access business model brought to gaming some absolute gems, many of which would have never been made otherwise, because it has lowered the initial investment bar for talented creatives who definitely deserved to put their product out there, and wouldn't have been able to without getting a revenue stream mid-development. 

Edited January 6, 2023 by Abriael

[F737MAX 5,557]

9 minutes ago, Abriael said:

f you think this is "lower" than what happened before MSFS, you must not have been around long.

Been around long enough to remember that CaptainSim were once an acceptable developer, rather than what they currently are.

And long enough to remember that FSX and P3D had several quality developers such as: PMDG, iFly, Majestic, QualityWings, JustFlight, and even Aerosoft, usually with multiple good airliners each to choose from.
Even Carenado delivered more than this bunch are trying to get away with.
 

11 minutes ago, Abriael said:

It's an absolute and undeniable fact that the early access business model brought to gaming some absolute gems

What's your interest in early access? Why are you pushing this as an acceptable option—are you a No Man's Sky developer?

[Abriael 952]

11 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

Been around long enough to remember that CaptainSim were once an acceptable developer, rather than what they currently are.

And yet, there have always been plenty of bad agents. In no way less than what we're having today.

11 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

And long enough to remember that FSX and P3D had several quality developers such as: PMDG, iFly, Majestic, QualityWings, JustFlight, and even Aerosoft, usually with multiple good airliners each to choose from.
Even Carenado delivered more than this bunch are trying to get away with.

We never had as many god airliners to choose from 2 years and a bit after the release of a new platform as we have with MSFS. Saying the contrary is revisionism or rose tinted glasses.

Hell, now we have a good airliner that's *default*. That's absolutely unprecedented. 

11 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

What's your interest in early access? Why are you pushing this as an acceptable option—are you a No Man's Sky developer?

This example really doesn't help your argument. Aside from the fact that NMS was not released in early access, it's currently one of the best and most fully-featured space games on the market, and not by a small margin, with tons of content and features released regularly at no additional cost. If anything, you just proved yourself wrong. 

Edited January 6, 2023 by Abriael

[regis9 4,004]

3 hours ago, micstatic said:

There's early access which I have no problem with and generally like.  But this looks like early-early access.  The VNAV thing is huge.  In fact it could be argued that there are some mature jets for flight sim that have never got the vnav thing right.

That’s where I’m at.  I have no problem with buying into early access with eyes wide open about the risks involved (though 33 euros isn’t a huge risk for me), but I’d feel better about doing it if things like VNAV were included from the get go.  That’s a poor decision on their part.

[Steve Dra 7,579]

Fabio is previewing it now on twitch.

https://www.twitch.tv/theflyingfabio

 

 

[Ricardo41 5,936]

We need to do away with early access, prologue, etc. nonsense.

Deliver the complete package, or deliver nothing.

Let me see here: I got this expensive ticket for an opera. After arriving at the illustrious music hall, I'm informed that I will only get to hear the overture. Why? The opera is "early access".

 

[Abriael 952]

1 minute ago, Ricardo41 said:

We need to do away with early access, prologue, etc. nonsense.

Deliver the complete package, or deliver nothing.

Let me see here: I got this expensive ticket for an opera. After arriving at the illustrious music hall, I'm informed that I will only get to hear the overture. Why? The opera is "early access".

You can feel free to buy the ticket for the full opera when it's no more in early access. If you cave earlier, that's on you.

Incidentally, early access is not going anywhere, exactly like it didn't in general gaming. May want to get used to it and simply learn to exercise restraint, because no one is "doing away" with it. 

[chapstick 2,757]

You're making a couple of false assumptions here. 

41 minutes ago, Abriael said:

Gonna stop you right there. You don't *have* to pay. Don't want? Don't.

If you can't help yourself, it's your responsibility, not the the business model's. Forgive me if I have a big laugh about the idea that there should be *legislation* about this. Because we don't have enough bureaucracy deciding what we can and cannot do right? 😂😂😂😂

It's an absolute and undeniable fact that the early access business model brought to gaming some absolute gems, many of which would have never been made otherwise, because it has lowered the initial investment bar for talented creatives who definitely deserved to put their product out there, and wouldn't have been able to without getting a revenue stream mid-development. 

First, you're assuming other consumers' purchasing decisions live in a vacuum and don't impact other consumers. This isn't true, and you know it (or maybe you don't and you learned something new today). 

Second, you're making a rose-colored assessment of early access business models that don't apply to this product. Fact is, the feature list doesn't even reach the early access threshold. This is basically an alpha test version from a developer with zero track record of delivering on the kind of promises they're making. Consumers need to be warned about these kind of practices and told to hold off on purchasing or simply rebuke it altogether.

[Gerwil 177]

1 hour ago, Abriael said:

Here's the trick: Don't pay. You don't have to. Those who pay will have decided it "delivers" enough for them. It's their prerogative.

If this means that the plane can be downloaded for free and then decided upon if one wants to join the early access, that's not bad at all.