2 hours ago, Zangoose said:

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

 

 

 

 

I stand corrected but on the other hand not sure what else I'm supposed to conclude when they have Aerosoft's logo on their site and the only clarification is a YouTube comment. 

5 minutes ago, Chapstick said:

I stand corrected but on the other hand not sure what else I'm supposed to conclude when they have Aerosoft's logo on their site and the only clarification is a YouTube comment. 

It adds to the sketchiness of this that their website claims Aerosoft is their ”client” then Aerosoft says they’re just a reseller.  Big difference.

5 minutes ago, regis9 said:

It adds to the sketchiness of this that their website claims Aerosoft is their ”client” then Aerosoft says they’re just a reseller.  Big difference.

Definitely, big difference there.

For me though, the massive list of missing systems, along with the fact it's using the default flight planner is a massive red flag.

 

G

I'll say this and its probably already been said, but AVSIM type who wants most of the, what we consider important systems for daily operation, to be model is small compared to the mass MSFS crowd.  This developer knows this.  10 million users and most of them won't care when they see a shiny new aircraft to purchase.  We are a small group and they are reaching to grab the money of most of the 10 million unfortunately.  The flight sim community is very diverse now because of xbox and MSFS.  That being said, from a business stand point, i get it.  They will have many early access buyers.  

My hope is they will finally have a complete aircraft at some point.  Until then, I will wait to purchase, even if i have to pay double the price.  

3 minutes ago, tgsweat said:

I'll say this and its probably already been said, but AVSIM type who wants most of the, what we consider important systems for daily operation, to be model is small compared to the mass MSFS crowd.  This developer knows this.  10 million users and most of them won't care when they see a shiny new aircraft to purchase.  We are a small group and they are reaching to grab the money of most of the 10 million unfortunately.  The flight sim community is very diverse now because of xbox and MSFS.  That being said, from a business stand point, i get it.  They will have many early access buyers.  

My hope is they will finally have a complete aircraft at some point.  Until then, I will wait to purchase, even if i have to pay double the price.  

If someone is in it for the model and some sort of flyable object.. Great for them.

For the rest of us who actually wants to know exactly "whats presently in the box" and whats left to be delivered .. the so called avsim types.. yeah ... this isn't passing the sniff test and thats ok with me. The devs can market accordingly because most of the "avsim types" are not going to put up with stuff like this and most of us have absolutlely no problem expressing when something looks like BS and why it looks like BS.

You wouldn't get nary a complaint if the dev was 100% clear and upfront and keep expectations well within check. See LatinVFR on how this is done.

19 minutes ago, tgsweat said:

I'll say this and its probably already been said, but AVSIM type who wants most of the, what we consider important systems for daily operation, to be model is small compared to the mass MSFS crowd.  This developer knows this.  10 million users and most of them won't care when they see a shiny new aircraft to purchase.  We are a small group and they are reaching to grab the money of most of the 10 million unfortunately.  The flight sim community is very diverse now because of xbox and MSFS.  That being said, from a business stand point, i get it.  They will have many early access buyers.  

My hope is they will finally have a complete aircraft at some point.  Until then, I will wait to purchase, even if i have to pay double the price.  

In no way do I disagree with your point.  However, I'm not sure the "Non Avsim" type you allude to feels it's necessary to add an Embraer Ejet to their hangar.  In fact they probably have never even heard of one.  

 

3 hours ago, regis9 said:

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

 

 

Wow, I have a lot of respect for 737NG Driver.  If 737NG Driver says this about the product, that is not good at all.

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by abrams_tank

2 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Wow, I have

 

Wow, I have a lot of respect for 737NG Driver.  If 737NG Driver says this about the product, that is not good at all.

His video (the initial eval) was already giving warning signs. The last video  was just confirmation. He picks apart the counter arguments very clearly as well and i agree with them.

Like i said.. Sell your AC as is and market it at the level it is at. Do not try to dupe people with features you claim are in the product and then in the demo we find that its not what was advertised. You will get negative feedback and that's exactly whats happening.

29 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

 

Wow, I have a lot of respect for 737NG Driver.  If 737NG Driver says this about the product, that is not good at all.

That was my thought too, he’s one of my go to YouTubers 

First of all, Aerosoft is solely responsible for the use of its logo. Obviously there was an agreement about it because the videos with the logo were published (and still are) on their own official channel. Incidentally, they *are* FSS's publishers for other products. For this, it appears they're their exclusive sales partners outside of the official MSFS marketplace, hence the logo.

Secondly, the vnav issue. There are pilots who use vnav all the time, and there are pilots who don't. Here's an example from the developer's discord.

Obviosuly, there are different operational instructions depending on airline and on individual pilots, but Marten isn't a pilot. He's a developer, so he went by what he was told by his consultants and mentioned a condensed version of it. It's kind of sad (and misleading, not to mention pretty toxic) to see this presented as some sort of attempt on his part to be dishonest. 

There's a massive difference between criticism, some of it is justified, wanting to hold off on a product because it's not (yet or at all) providing what you want, and outright toxicity and hostility. Videos that use hyperbolic terms like "betrayal" don't help anyone besides trying to paint bad guys and amplify the controversy where there's simply a developer who isn't great at communicating (like most developers). 

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by Abriael

I agree that there are likely a lot of people who do not care too much if the systems are authentic to the real aircraft. They will be pleased if the package installs and works: the model looks basically similar to real life and at the screens light up and give basic information; a lot of them will not even know what Vnav is.

I know this because two decades ago I was one of them. I can remember buying some ABASCUS creations that I am sure were not particularly accurate but I enjoyed them for a while. People like me at that time that were interested but did knot know a lot and did not really care at that point in their engagement. I can recall that I used to just take off and set the heading in the direction of the city I wanted to fly to and adjusted it little by little until I got there; and would then fly around looking for the actual airport :)  I remember decidedly not buying PMDG because of all the reports that it was complicated to get started and that you had to go methodologically through many steps; I did not want that level of depth as I was not ready for that and it would not have been enjoyable.

So, I think there is a market for this and I think there is nothing wrong with providing that, it is just clearly not for those of us who are at a stage of our engagement with the hobby that we want high fidelity, authentic systems and behavior. The issue is that the videos by Aviation Lads and the initial marketing on their website suggested to many of us who have some specialized knowledge something quite different from what this aircraft actually is. Looking at it as a high-fidelity aircraft no longer makes sense and I have no interest in this aircraft; but that is because of what I know and what I am looking for. I agree that it might have been better to have marketed this as a basic aircraft -- like other developers have done -- with an indication that it may become more in the future.

In the end it seems like a bit of of a tempest in a teapot.

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by Cognita

Please tell me the cockpit doesn't look as horrible as it does in that first video and it's just the content creator's poor graphics that aren't helping the plane visuals shine?😒

 

I would love an Embraer eJet in the sim but this is not it. It's a scam.

 

"In the end it seems like a bit of of a tempest in a teapot.

Edited 4 minutes ago by Cognita"

Not really, if it goes for sale like this, without matching the description with what a buyer really get and what not. They really need to correct the descriptions, status and so on.

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by Vali

10 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I would love an Embraer eJet in the sim but this is not it. It's a scam.

 

Wonder how many times this utterly toxic and openly hostile video will be posted. 

Instead, I'll post a video that's actually detailed and informative (and a lot more fair). It's a lot more useful than one trying so very hard to ride the controversy. From what I'm seeing, it does a great job at giving a good overview of what the product is at the moment, and what it isn't. 

 

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by Abriael