Spoken to a few people and they all say the same. If you are going to slate the product and not offer assistance then the developer has every right to get rid of their access. Obviously have been given access to hopefully gain more sales the least you can do is talk and help them out.

1 minute ago, Abriael said:

I think I've developed a pretty good feel for the market in over two decades observing it from a professional standpoint. This is gonna sell *very* well with or without the help of this or that influencer. 

Not sure it's useful to continue, we start to get in a loop here.

My position is, I think they completely missed their launch, by previewing ultra cool video, then announced EA with more missing features than implemented features, then they sent a preview version to streamer, that was not the best to showcase your product, in a market where top notch addons are quite inexpensive.

With your two decades of experience, you have a very different view, ok, so let's see what will happen in a couple of month, half a year.

2 minutes ago, bendead said:

With your two decades of experience, you have a very different view, ok, so let's see what will happen in a couple of month, half a year.

That's impossible to predict, as it depends a lot more on the quality and updates they'll be able to produce, than on whether some streamer is appeased.

If they produce quality, consistent updates, word of mouth will be *much* more powerful than the reach any influencer has.

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by Abriael

5 hours ago, carlanthony24 said:

Spoken to a few people and they all say the same. If you are going to slate the product and not offer assistance then the developer has every right to get rid of their access. Obviously have been given access to hopefully gain more sales the least you can do is talk and help them out.

The dev does have every right to revoke access from a "free" copy but I don't think this is what has happened here. I think anyone who was given access to said product all has the same expiry date. As the whole expiry date didn't just come from 1 person. 

Anyway, we will just have to see if they do actually do what they have said and are able to make it into a decent addon. 

The comments on the FSElite article are interesting to read and share the thoughts of many people on here as well: FlightSim Studio Releasing eJets on Jan 10th as Early Access Product - FSElite

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by Zangoose

But getting back to some facts about their business model:

- model (which looks quite good) bought from an external

- use default MSFS stuff and then complain about Microsoft and Asobo

- ask 30 USD for something put together and then make a list of important features to reach the study level based on a questionnaire (including that aural warning as someone has here also mentioned).. I mean, real professional development plan, right?

- price will be increased based on future features implementations... clearly transparent and visible where the price will get, right? Well, no. Just payment for developers, so it looks.

- using Aviation Lads for some great videos when they know that their product needs at least 12 months more to be developed (I read about 12 months on FSElite).

Sorry, but that is far from professional.

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by Vali

My two cents on this product from what I have seen from the various videos/streams (I am type rated on the Ejets family):

Flightdeck looks good in both proportions and modelling

MCP is correct except for the green led lights on the autopilot selector buttons: they do not work on the real plane as Embraer wants pilots to look at the FMA not the MCP.

Avionics: fonts are wrong, symbology is overall acceptable (EICAS ok and PFD ok). Navigation display on the MFD looks wrong. 

MCDU: the pages I have seen looks mostly incomplete or wrong. 

They claim to have used the LOAD 27 of the EPIC SUITE (the "operating system" of the EJets) on the plane that I fly usually we havethe LOAD25.7 so not the same system but I highly doubt there are such diffrences on the mcdu. 

Don't know about the flight model obviously...so I won't comment about that.

https://youtu.be/xapMsYU2--4

 

 

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by regis9

3 hours ago, Vali said:

But getting back to some facts about their business model:

- model (which looks quite good) bought from an external 

This probably caused out of pockets and this needs to be funded somehow. Either with their own money of finding an investors. So this is probably how they came up with utilising early access money as a way to do so. 

 

3 hours ago, Vali said:

- ask 30 USD for something put together and then make a list of important features to reach the study level based on a questionnaire (including that aural warning as someone has here also mentioned).. I mean, real professional development plan, right?

It is actually the same as an kick starter. If you want (it is not a requirement) to support a developer you can provide them with some financial support. This comes with a risk of that it might not fully materialise. If you don't believe it will succeed or you don't want to take that risk than you're free to not do it. 

Making a list and allowing people to vote to tackle issues is a trendy way (~scrum) of developing. MSFS/Asobo does the same. I don't see your conclusion it therefor is not a professional development plan. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Vali said:

- price will be increased based on future features implementations... clearly transparent and visible where the price will get, right? Well, no. Just payment for developers, so it looks.

I don't get your point. As an early access i think it is logical that you don't pay the full price as it is missing feature/bug etc. So the final price will indeed be higher. That is also the trade off you can make. Already buy it now for 30USD for a product that in 12 months will cost maybe double. Whatever price they ask is a payment to the developers (and their supply chain). They are free to set the price. 

If these developers somehow wan't to exit this development and recoup their costs by this early access, it would be a bit malicious. I don't see any signs for this (although 737NG vid points some signs out), but if it would be the case it will be the last development these guys have ever done because they traded the public trust. 

 

3 hours ago, Vali said:

- using Aviation Lads for some great videos when they know that their product needs at least 12 months more to be developed (I read about 12 months on FSElite).

Sorry, but that is far from professional.

Again, it might actually be professional to ask/pay someone else to do something which you are not good at yourselves. 

 

I've seen in this whole thread, and also in the preview streams, a lot of not constructive critics/bashing. This doesn't help anyone. The developers will probably not be motivated much by all of this. Before someone says that this is their own fault for releasing this with the current quality vs. price, you're probably right, but it still doesn't aid anyone. Hearing/reading all this about something you worked on wouldn't be much motivated to pick up work again to complete this development. And the MSFS community would than miss out on potentially nice addon. 

 

I think they still have alot of work to do, but the basis is there. There are already system depth features in there, that should form the basis for an in depth airplane. If they succeed it would be a lovely new plane! 

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by bigifooti

10 minutes ago, bigifooti said:

The developers will probably not be motivated much by all of this. 

And poor widdle Aerosoft won't recoup their investment 😞 😞 😞 😞

2 minutes ago, Chapstick said:

And poor widdle Aerosoft won't recoup their investment 😞 😞 😞 😞

What investment would that be? Mathijs Kok commented on a Youtube video the following:

Quote

Please note that though Aerosoft is shown with it's logo, we are not the publisher, nor the developer, in fact, we will just be one of the resellers.

 

 

 

Honestly, FSS is partly to blame for the 'hate' they are getting.

Through the AviationLads videos, they created a very high expectation about this aircraft. The videos are somewhat misleading and show an aircraft different from what it really is, especially as they don't go deep into the systems and don't need to as they are propaganda videos.

If they made it clear from the beginning that the aircraft would be released on early access with large number of missing features, expectations would not be created and 'hate' would be much less. The 'hate' itself is largely for broken expectations.

Am I the only one who thought the High quality pics we saw prior in the Virtual Cockpit looked much lower quality in the actual video stream?

7 minutes ago, micstatic said:

Am I the only one who thought the High quality pics we saw prior in the Virtual Cockpit looked much lower quality in the actual video stream?

The stream looked absolutely terrible. Truly reminded me of p3d days. I had to go back and look at the AviationLabs videos and they look considerably better than what we saw in that stream....

1 hour ago, regis9 said:

https://youtu.be/xapMsYU2--4

 

 

He’s right, the product as its now is scam, early access with almost no proper systems being implemented, not sure what should I say. Though he’s right, they can just release it as “basic” version and later as “Pro” version later when all they systems being implemented, something similar to FSRealistic 

1 hour ago, bigifooti said:

This probably caused out of pockets and this needs to be funded somehow. Either with their own money of finding an investors. So this is probably how they came up with utilising early access money as a way to do so.

Then they have already a management problem. And a honesty problem too as some have noticed it. These can be concerning.

1 hour ago, bigifooti said:

It is actually the same as an kick starter. If you want (it is not a requirement) to support a developer you can provide them with some financial support. This comes with a risk of that it might not fully materialise. If you don't believe it will succeed or you don't want to take that risk than you're free to not do it. 

Making a list and allowing people to vote to tackle issues is a trendy way (~scrum) of developing. MSFS/Asobo does the same. I don't see your conclusion it therefor is not a professional development plan. 

I am doing project management since more than 16 years now, I also know scrum. When you have a project, you a have a budget, you have a timing, you have a feature release plan and so on. Here you can easily hit the button "Feature request", which for now, at their development stage is more like a nice to have.

What is Phase 1 and what is Phase 2 more exactly and where we are now?

And how the mentioned and planned Phase 1 and Phase 2 will match with what the people are now voting? The plan will be re-planned.

1 hour ago, bigifooti said:

I don't get your point. As an early access i think it is logical that you don't pay the full price as it is missing feature/bug etc. So the final price will indeed be higher. That is also the trade off you can make. Already buy it now for 30USD for a product that in 12 months will cost maybe double. Whatever price they ask is a payment to the developers (and their supply chain). They are free to set the price. 

Of course they are free. They start with 30 USD. Let's see where it will end up and if for the early adopters will remain 30 USD (or ~33 EUR).

2 hours ago, bigifooti said:

I've seen in this whole thread, and also in the preview streams, a lot of not constructive critics/bashing. This doesn't help anyone.

They have created the hype, not us, with most probably at least 12 months in advance of a complete release. And a negative feedback can be taken also as a constructive critic for them.

Everyone can decide of course what to do with their own money, me personally, even if I would like an E-jet in MSFS (the 190/195 more), I will fly meanwhile the proper released add-ons and wait for the FSS proper release. The difference will cost me probably less than to be a beta tester 😄