1 minute ago, mspencer said:

I take it you were not around for the Airsimmer?

We were given a very nice, best for its time, beta, told the final version would be coming in time. 

You can still find their website out there, I was shocked it's still up after all these years. Don't worry, full version with all the bells and whistles will be out some time in 2009.

I, for one, would love to know where the people at this studio came from.

I don't know where they came from, but they already delivered several products for MSFS over two years, plus the gliders from the 40th anniversary edition that we all have istalled on our computers. 

So they're not exactly coming from nothing. I imagine if Microsoft gave them work (which they delivered) we can certainly give them at least the benefit of the doubt. 

1 minute ago, Fiorentoni said:

Did you actually watch the stream? There are hardly ANY custom systems at all! All autoflight and navigations systems - arguably the most important systems for flying - are MSFS default systems, i.e. they are not even close to the WT systems which are becoming the standard on the default planes.
Also - because of this - the plane in the stream did NOT follow the FMS. It messed up the SID, adding 14000 extra track miles in the process (yeah you read that right), and then it messed up the STAR by doubling the approach fix (which could not be deleted, changed, direct-to'd etc. because that's not possible with MSFS default navigation systems) which meant the pilot didn't even know the track miles to the airport... nowhere to be found. And that is with missing VNAV, so descent cannot even be calculated manually without any reliable distance to the airport.

Also on the Fabio stream one engine went off over and over again during the cruise. Oh and it CTD'd on landing. So not even "landing nice", sorry.

I did.  Let me be clear.   The DISPLAYS are ALL custom. Modeling all custom.  

I dont know who Fabio is and I don't use steam. The stream for "CruiseLevel" had a smooth section of hand flying and a landing that looked very nice and controllable.

Are there problems yes? The stream was awful.  I hated the host/channel, not sure why they chose him.  The route made no sense, very bland scenery no traffic etc..  The developers said all the wrong things and were dismissive and idiotic.  Definitely not a best foot forward.

but...Ouroboros haven't shown anything of substance since April.  Virtualcol E 175 is literally unflyable.

So you have 2 choices spend a measly 33 euro on something that could be great or just don't and have no Embraer 175.  If you don't really want an Embraer E175 save your money.  I want an Embraer 175 so I will support the project.

I believe that this developers approach is the best approach.  How many times do we get half cooked updates from beta testers only to have the user base going mad over a slew of issues the beta testers missed.  As long as they are dedicated to the project, that's all I care about.

14 minutes ago, Abriael said:

That's on the customer. If you don't keep yourself informed in an industry in which add-ons are provided by third-party developers, it's 100% entirely your responsibility. It's not like sources of information aren't all over the place.

I never said this is dev's fault. This is of course buyers fault.

My point is that many people, including devs, use the 'Don't like, don't buy' concept, assuming that people check products before buying, which in fact few people do.

Addons, which many people thought that no one would buy because of low quality, ended up becoming bestsellers because of this inattention of buyers in not trying to know more about what they are buying and also by being innocent in believing in nice screenshots, dubious words and false hopes of the devs. Somehow the devs take advantage of this.

3 minutes ago, Abriael said:

I don't know where they came from, but they already delivered several products for MSFS over two years, plus the gliders from the 40th anniversary edition that we all have istalled on our computers. 

So they're not exactly coming from nothing. I imagine if Microsoft gave them work (which they delivered) we can certainly give them at least the benefit of the doubt. 

With respect, developing gliders and airports, and developing a complex modern airliner, are two extremely different things. They may be wizards in flight dynamics, or modeling the wings, etc., but if they don't have the first clue how a hydraulic system works, they're going to massively struggle in getting a reasonably decent airliner out.

I'm inspired with absolutely no confidence by the fact MS gives them work. I don't think MS giving anyone work is an endorsement of their abject quality - more a reflection of what their bid price is and how empty their plate is. Microsoft probably said "Ok kiddos, gliders in 6 months" and they delivered. Then they tried to do an EJet in 12, and I think they'll learn that it's a lot harder than they give it credit.

The lead dev in that stream was crass, sarcastic, and insulting. That's not the attitude I want from a dev that's pushing an early access product. That's the attitude of a dev who fights on every suggestion, tells you real pilots don't use VNAV because he doesn't know how to code it, etc. etc.

If this generates a decent airplane, I will eat my words.

I do not have an issue with early access. As others have said, unless you are backed by someone with relatively deep pockets it would be exceptionally difficult to bring an advanced aircraft to market. The work required to program a customized VNAV is immense; I squirm just at the thought of the math involved even before the programming. Early access can allow more developers to enter the market and bring some great products. The 414, which I own, is an example of an excellently managed early access project and final product and so to blanket-reject the model seems short-sighted.

This said, as many have pointed out, early access is susceptible to abuse, in which commitments are made and subsequently broken -- the goalpost is moved or the project is essentially abandoned -- and it seems this has generated a lot of negative impressions of the funding model. Developers who do this break trust and undermine the community. That is a real risk and we can see even in this forum that people over the years have been burned but such offerings. I understand the skepticism.

In the end, my personal take is that I would support a developer with an early access purchase if it was a product I I was interested in and if I trust the developer, that implies the developer is known and I can assess that it has the likely capacity to follow through on its commitments. That requires some thought and assessment on the part of consumers. Although I do not subscribe to the extreme view of buyer beware; those selling have an equal, complementary responsibility to make me aware, or at very least not mislead me. I have no issue with early access where the developer fully, honestly and completely states the current state of the aircraft and provides a tentative roadmap of its development. 

In this case, it is a developer that has some track record, and I am pleased with what they have published so far, but this is a project two magnitudes of order more difficult than those earlier projects. I found the videos produced by Aviation Lads misled me, as did the statements on their website, as to the actual status of the aircraft at the time of early release. Maybe that is a weakness in my ability to assess things, but the result is the same, it substantially diminished my trust and confidence in the developers. Then the live stream did little to assure me of the competence and seriousness of the developers; they may be very competent and serious, which implies an awareness of the magnitude of the work they have committed to undertake, but it did not come across to me, my confidence fell further. I also find myself confused by the voting mechanism. Aircraft systems are not separate and discrete; they interact with each other. Surely there are dependencies and a solid development roadmap would be a sounder approach than trying to respond to voter requests. And finally, while the developers may not have deep pockets, it is interesting to me that Aerosoft is on the promotional material; and they, according to their own statements, do have deep pockets and do fund development. So I am left wondering why they did not financially underwrite this e-jet endeavor, to at least get it further along that it is. All of these things lead me to make the decision to hold off; I do not have the confidence I need to provide funds -- and more importantly to support -- the developer at this stage.

I hope it works out; it would be wonderful to have a high fidelity e-jet in the sim. I will keep abreast of their progress, but not with baited breath.                               

 

Edited January 6, 20233 yr by Cognita

39 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

There are hardly ANY custom systems at all! All autoflight and navigations systems - arguably the most important systems for flying - are MSFS default systems, i.e. they are not even close to the WT systems which are becoming the standard on the default planes.

This whole entire project is a mess.

Based on another developer's external model, made an attempt to use MSFS default assets, realised they weren't upto scratch and started designing custom systems, brought on several developers to the team, ran out of cash, resorted to selling an add-on that is shockingly weak after 12 months' development.

A badly managed and budgeted project that is defended by a 'journalist' who is over this topic like a rash following yesterday's car crash livestream.

Either build up a cash reserve from selling easier/simpler products before embarking on a long and expensive project, or seek commercial financing like the vast majority of businesses have to do. Using the truly crappy early access model of project financing means you do not value your customers. Makes me rate Fenix Simulations even higher than I already did.

5 hours ago, Abriael said:

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. 

True, but it's just one side and as you said, it has also produced quite a number of really bad games. You may take that chance in the wider gaming industry with a lot more to choose from if one game doesn't cut it. But you don't have that choice in flight simulation given the very scarce array of quality aircraft. Say this E-Jet ends up abandoned in a lacking state, there is no one to turn to if you want a good E-Jet. It's the huge difference in availability in the gaming industry as a whole and flight simulation addon aircraft that's bothering me with regards to early access and let's be honest, the number of very good aircraft is even smaller to the point it's just a handful, if at all.

Premature cash flow either creates incentive to keep going, or it creates incentive to call it a day before the finish line. If you release a finished product the stakes are much higher for the developer to create something that ensures decent return, because there's much more need to recoup the costs at once if you haven't made any revenue throughout development. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and I'll follow this closely because I'm interested in it, but I'd rather not take the risk when it comes to aircraft addons.

If you look at a certain developer's MSFS addons, releasing something finished (as in what it's intended to be) hasn't at all made sure it's quality, but you can be sure if that developer had received the dollars during development already, you'd be lucky to even get engines with the aircraft, so I think the risk is higher with early access than it is releasing something finished.

you need to be able to understand German

Edited January 6, 20233 yr by bigifooti

18 minutes ago, edu2703 said:

My point is that many people, including devs, use the 'Don't like, don't buy' concept, assuming that people check products before buying, which in fact few people do.

That's beside the point. The "don't like, don't buy" concept is used because it's logical and makes perfect sense. Can't do much about people being illogical.

19 minutes ago, mspencer said:

The lead dev in that stream was crass, sarcastic, and insulting.

I disagree. I've watched the whole stream and I'm seeing a lot of disinformation about what was said, like the alleged "dig at PMDG" (that simply did not happen from the developer). In any case, I'm buying an add-on (when it'll be good enough for my taste) not looking for a buddy or a pleasant conversationalist. 

The point is that they have delivered plenty of products for this simulator, so they're not as unknown and unproven as many allege. 

22 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

True, but it's just one side and as you said, it has also produced quite a number of really bad games. You may take that chance in the wider gaming industry with a lot more to choose from if one game doesn't cut it. But you don't have that choice in flight simulation given the very scarce array of quality aircraft. Say this E-Jet ends up abandoned in a lacking state, there is no one to turn to if you want a good E-Jet. It's the huge difference in availability in the gaming industry as a whole and flight simulation addon aircraft that's bothering me with regards to early access and let's be honest, the number of very good aircraft is even smaller to the point it's just a handful, if at all.

I'd say by now the flow of quality add-ons has become quite regular. The drought has ended a while ago, and it's only gonna get better. If this fails, there's still Ouroboros, and that's always been promising. And if that fails, someone'll step up at some point. Devs go where the money is. 

12 minutes ago, bigifooti said:

you need to be able to understand German

All I understood (or I think I understood) was the person very impressed and enthused by numbers hand-written on the tires? 😂

Edited January 6, 20233 yr by Abriael

20 minutes ago, mspencer said:

The lead dev in that stream was crass, sarcastic, and insulting. That's not the attitude I want from a dev that's pushing an early access product. That's the attitude of a dev who fights on every suggestion, tells you real pilots don't use VNAV because he doesn't know how to code it, etc. etc.

I wouldn't be so harsh here even if I found their comments about other devs and some people in the chat unprofessional and I'm not going to allege they don't know how to code VNAV.

I agree however about the attitude towards VNAV. VNAV doesn't play the role that many simmers believe it does in the real world, i. e. it's not always used, frequently overridden and it sometimes does a really bad job. Nevertheless, it's a basic feature in most commercial aircraft and it's not surprising that people are all over this. Which is why the developer's tenacity in constantly pointing out that they found a few pilots whose airlines don't currently use VNAV left a bad taste in my mouth. They could have just pointed that out once, maybe repeat it later in the stream when new viewers have tuned in. But they kept going on and on about it throughout the whole stream and made more arguments like repeatedly pointing out that aircraft can indeed fly without VNAV, there are formulas to calculate your TOD, you should learn how to fly without it etc. Of course, people in the chat talked a lot about it too, but constantly downplaying the need of VNAV leaves me wondering what that was all about, even if I don't want to interpret my own thoughts into their comments.

As a side note, they said that Embraer issued a bulletin advising against the usage of VNAV on certain software versions, meaning the airlines not using VNAV may just switch to using it if they update their software to a newer version.

Just now, Abriael said:

All I understood (or thought I understood) was the person very impressed and enthused by numbers hand-written on the tires? 😂

They indeed liked the modeling details and texturing ! 

Before that they talked about the investment a developer has to risk before final release. For smaller parties it is sensible to get earlier cashflow flowing by early access method. They hypothesised  with 8 full time developers one year on the project, they need to sell 50.000 copies early access to even get break even. Don't know if 8 full time developers are accurate.

7 minutes ago, Abriael said:

 

I disagree. I've watched the whole stream and I'm seeing a lot of disinformation about what was said, like the alleged "dig at PMDG" (that simply did not happen from the developer).

 

I'd say by now the flow of quality add-ons has become quite regular. The drought has ended a while ago, and it's only gonna get better. If this fails, there's still Ouroboros, and that's always been promising. And if that fails, someone'll step up at some point. Devs go where the money is. 

The dig at PMDG came from a person in the chat whose comment they picked up on and it wasn't as bad as the lash out at TFDi (even if I agree with the criticism) or at the other developer (QW?), but they had a laugh about how their EFB at least exists, even it doesn't do much, which I'd consider to be a bit on the 'better don't' side.

I'm talking about airliners specifically given the E-Jet is one and I disagree as the number of good airliners is still very low. Obviously, MSFS is far more profitable than other simulators, but we've only had few attempts at a decent E-Jet, none of which ended up being quality, and no attempts at many other aircraft types at all. It's probably more likely to change now with MSFS than it ever was in the past, but I'm not so sure that someone will step in.

21 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

I wouldn't be so harsh here even if I found their comments about other devs and some people in the chat unprofessional and I'm not going to allege they don't know how to code VNAV.

I agree however about the attitude towards VNAV. VNAV doesn't play the role that many simmers believe it does in the real world, i. e. it's not always used, frequently overridden and it sometimes does a really bad job. Nevertheless, it's a basic feature in most commercial aircraft and it's not surprising that people are all over this. Which is why the developer's tenacity in constantly pointing out that they found a few pilots whose airlines don't currently use VNAV left a bad taste in my mouth. They could have just pointed that out once, maybe repeat it later in the stream when new viewers have tuned in. But they kept going on and on about it throughout the whole stream and made more arguments like repeatedly pointing out that aircraft can indeed fly without VNAV, there are formulas to calculate your TOD, you should learn how to fly without it etc. Of course, people in the chat talked a lot about it too, but constantly downplaying the need of VNAV leaves me wondering what that was all about, even if I don't want to interpret my own thoughts into their comments.

As a side note, they said that Embraer issued a bulletin advising against the usage of VNAV on certain software versions, meaning the airlines not using VNAV may just switch to using it if they update their software to a newer version.

Having worked at a large E190 operator, my understanding was 10+ years ago (before my time), the Embraer's VNAV was pretty poor in previous software loads. 

Here's the issue though - this isn't a simple system to code. Having it released EA without, presumably, even any work on the autopilot modes, they will struggle with finding any way of implementing VNAV in a reasonable timeframe. 

It's an increasingly critical system in the sim, with so many airports going to OPD descents with all window altitudes the whole way down. Even the vertical profile page would help - most operators have that as a requirement depending on the procedure being flown.

The attitude from them seems just god awful, and smacks of the dev that gets a little too frustrated with a lack of progress and kills a project. I particularly didn't like the "well we won't survive on one project for five years" bit, because what they're showing me is an airplane that will need years of development to live up to its potential.

Having said that, they did a very good job on the model, and the interior is bang on.

2 minutes ago, mspencer said:

Having said that, they did a very good job on the model, and the interior is bang on.

They bought the model from XCrafts. So far, this seems to be their biggest accomplishment.