Please don't get personal or I'm afraid this will be locked in no time. There's enough facts to debate and I don't want to have this thread being removed from page one, because it's an important warning.

3 hours ago, Abriael said:

I'll ignore the silly personal attacks, because they're just silly. It's hard to be on the payroll of people I haven't ever talked to. 

The default LNAV can absolutely go from A to B. It doesn't matter how it works under the hood. Saying that it can't go from A to B is what's incredibly disingenuous and simply 100% false. Incidentally, if Aerosoft was so shocked by their logo being on the trailers, I'm sure you'll be able to explain why the trailers with that logo are still  front and center on Aerosoft's own official YouTube channel. If they were such an issue, it would take exactly 4 clicks to remove them.

And why have they been uploaded there to begin with? Do you seriously believe that someone uploaded them there without even looking at them, four times? 😂

Not silly - you've been blisteringly active on this forum thread, more than you ever have been on AVSIM, in the entire history of your account. Every post gets a reply. Optics matter, dude.

The default MSFS LNAV isn't LNAV, that's inaccurate. It's literally "GPS," point to point. This thing isn't giving you turn lines, overfly waypoints, etc., it's getting you quite literally from point A to point B, and doing it in an incredibly poor fashion. It'll blow through the route, chase a course, etc.

Working Title has fixed a lot of these issues with their avionics upgrades. FBW has produced an okay A320N, especially excellent because it's free. 

These devs have learned nothing since release. They're just lumping in default Asobo systems, gunning for the XBox sales money, and this is gonna be dropped real fast. There's no chance they're "60% done" with a MCDU... that's just a lie. If you're 60% done, why are you still using a 0 function MCDU with the MSFS default flight planning system?! Was that not in 0-59.9%?!

You can see this from the 737NG Driver video, it still has odd MSFS-unique "USR" waypoints to display altitude turns. The MCDU is incapable of entering a discontinuity. What might happen if you try to give it a direct, or, imagine, try to change the destination?

I just don't believe this guy when he says they're this far in, because the product looks like an alpha you'd release to devs who are working on systems. If it's 8 of them, and 1 of them is this pompous guy, then the other 7 will complete this extremely complex, highly automated aircraft in approximately 2355. Maybe Captain Picard can beam the final version to you.

What a morning read! Emotion, self defence, humour and fact reign supreme here at AVSim.

@mspencer Great point re “They're just lumping in default Asobo systems, gunning for the XBox sales money, and this is gonna be dropped real fast. There's no chance they're "60% done" with a MCDU... that's just a lie. If you're 60% done, why are you still using a 0 function MCDU with the MSFS default flight planning system?! Was that not in 0-59.9%?!”

… and the beat goes on!

Just bashing the guy because of what he’s saying and how active he’s being some people really need to think what they are saying. It’s funny has soon as people start protecting the developer others just jump on and say oh you must be working with them, how much you being paid?

This gets old quite quickly. Everyone has different opinions so respect what they say, don’t start attacking them. If this guy really worked for them he would have most likely done a review on his website and I would have thought he would announce if they had given him a copy. 
 

I believe someone was saying that 737ng driver was saying how Fenix is early access when it really isn’t but wouldn’t say that about PMDG a bit bias to be honest.

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by carlanthony24

1 hour ago, mspencer said:

These devs have learned nothing since release. They're just lumping in default Asobo systems, gunning for the XBox sales money, and this is gonna be dropped real fast. There's no chance they're "60% done" with a MCDU... that's just a lie. If you're 60% done, why are you still using a 0 function MCDU with the MSFS default flight planning system?! Was that not in 0-59.9%?!

 

One thing I was thinking about. Every addon consists of two main parts: 3D model and systems. The 3D model is definitely the easiest part to make. A person with moderate experience with Blender is capable of making one that really impresses with its quality. The systems are the most complicated part. Coding systems is very difficult and not for everyone. Several people underestimated this part by promising high quality aircraft for free thinking it would be a piece of cake and it turned out very badly for them.

This is where, for example, 99% of freeware projects die. They start with beautiful 3D models to build hype, then when they see the difficulty of coding systems, they look for a coder that works for free and when they don't find it, the project ends.

The case of the FSS E175 is interesting. Regarding the model, they didn't even make it. They bought the model from X-Crafts. Until then, there is no problem. By buying the ready-made model, they would essentially have 100% of their attention focused on the system.

However, in a way, it leaves an impression when seeing this Early Access that FSS has done virtually nothing so far. I don't consider it a big deal to take a ready-made model, slap default systems and put some cosmetics on it to try to look like E-Jet systems. What custom systems have they done so far? Something that impresses with quality?

Anyway, as I already said, the best thing to do is wait months and see the commitment of the FSS in improving this aircraft. Not just commitment, also knowing if they are competent enough to deliver custom systems in the promised high quality. That is, they have to work much harder than they have worked so far if they want to gain my trust and that of a lot of people.

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by edu2703

55 minutes ago, mspencer said:

These devs have learned nothing since release. They're just lumping in default Asobo systems, gunning for the XBox sales money, and this is gonna be dropped real fast. There's no chance they're "60% done" with a MCDU... that's just a lie. If you're 60% done, why are you still using a 0 function MCDU with the MSFS default flight planning system?! Was that not in 0-59.9%?!
 

To be fair, it says on their homepage that the BACKEND is 60% done. I am not a dev myself, but I guess that means there is no integration yet with MSFS but they are still doing the maths etc. You probably cannot release an FMS with 40% of the calculations missing, so that's not a lie per se. However judging by the state of the rest of the aircraft I sincerely doubt they are anywhere close to 60% of the FMS backend either. At least not if 100% means a realistic real-Embraer-like FMS.

4 minutes ago, edu2703 said:

However, in a way, it leaves an impression when seeing this Early Access that FSS has done virtually nothing so far. I don't consider it a big deal to take a ready-made model, slap default systems and put some cosmetics on it to try to look like E-Jet systems.

That's a perfect summary. That's exactly what that product is. I can't take anyone serious who early-acesses-releases an aircraft in this state, even less combined with all the "We will make a study level plane out of it, it's already perfectly fine for normal operations bla bla bla".
In a way they are even worse than CaptainSim (there, I said it), because CS didn't try to sell their Frankenstein-planes as early-access-wannabe-study-level planes. At least they were frank about the shallowness of their product.

5 hours ago, mspencer said:

it's getting you quite literally from point A to point B,

Glad we agree. It indeed is. So saying that it isn't is silly.

That's exactly the problem. This project has plenty of points to criticize while staying within the realm of civility and constructiveness, but some people aren't content with just criticizing. They need to absolutely trash stuff to the point that they fill that critcism with hyperbole and stuff that's pretty much invented. It isn't enough for them to say "the default flight planning isn't realistic," which it isn't. They have to say "this thing can't even fly from A to B!" and then proceed to trash not just the product, but also the developer.

And then they complain about false advertising. 🤔 

5 hours ago, carlanthony24 said:

Just bashing the guy because of what he’s saying and how active he’s being some people really need to think what they are saying. It’s funny has soon as people start protecting the developer others just jump on and say oh you must be working with them, how much you being paid?

Eh, we should be used to it by now. Trashing the product and the developer isn't enough. Some people also need to trash whoever they perceive as defending the villains they have manufactured for themselves. It's just how parts of the FS community works. You think developers shouldn't be viciously trashed and called funky stuff like "liars" and "traitors" (or worse, because of course some have to take it even further) just because they present a sub-par product or are bad at PR? Obviously you must be paid! You gotta be on someone's payroll to expect some civility from this community and caring enough about it that you don't back down.

Of course, they completely ignore the fact that I've mentioned multiple times that this project, as it is, isn't even close to what I enjoy from an airliner, so I'm not getting it at least until the promised custom flight plan is implemented (and of course, if it works), because that'd prove to me that this dev is committed and competent enough to deliver. But hey, I must be paid... to say this is something I'm not buying. 😂

4 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

In a way they are even worse than CaptainSim (there, I said it), because CS didn't try to sell their Frankenstein-planes as early-access-wannabe-study-level planes. At least they were frank about the shallowness of their product.

Perfect example of the hyperbole mentioned above. While this is far from great and far from what many (me included) expect, it's also far from just taking the 3D model and slapping it into MSFS with another aircraft's cockpit. Either some of you don't have a clue of what it takes to develop something like this, or you're conveniently ignoring it because it fits your narrative. Pick one. 

Aside from the fact that implementing a model into the simulator, adding all the decals, animations, hooking up to the systems, and adapting it to MSFS's technology is absolutely not zero work as some imply, there's plenty more work that FSS has done to get it to this point. Not all systems are simulated. Far from it, but if you look at the video previews and read the features that are included (while some are bent on focusing on these that aren't), that's a *lot* of work done on the aircraft.

Perhaps some people's memory is a bit short, but it took FlyByWire many, many months to get the A32NX to the point this aircraft is at, and FBW had at its disposal a much bigger team. Now, of course, it's not an apples to apples comparison, because FBW's project is open source, and that has its own challenges, but looking back at its progress around the first year of the sim's life should give you a decent idea of how much work has actually gone into this. It's very, very far from nothing. 

My problem here isn't that ya'll think the aircraft is bad. I mostly agree, at least compared to my standards. I wouldn't spend 10 bucks on it as it is now, but I'm still interested in giving the developer the benefit of the doubt and may buy when they get to the point that I can enjoy it. 

The problem is that the criticism to the project has slid into the realm of the vicious attack to its developers, which is far from OK. Liars? Betrayers? Scammers? Puh-lease. A developer interested in scamming or deceiving the community would have never sent the aircraft over for review to media like FSelite and many youtubers, because they'd obviously expose them. I can guarantee (out of personal experience) that these developers interested in obscuring the state of their projects to sell copies on the sly to unsuspecting simmers do not send out review copies. They don't even answer when you ask. 

We've seen this kind of vitriol toward Asobo and Microsoft. We've seen it toward Fenix (remember all the people saying it was all hype, they were selling smoke and all that when they announced it?), we've seen it toward FSLTL (and now tens of thousands of people use and enjoy it), and many, many more cases throughout the history of this hobby. That's always baffling to see, and quite sad. 

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by Abriael

1 hour ago, Abriael said:

Perfect example of the hyperbole mentioned above. While this is far from great and far from what many (me included) expect, it's also far from just taking the 3D model and slapping it into MSFS with another aircraft's cockpit. Either some of you don't have a clue of what it takes to develop something like this, or you're conveniently ignoring it because it fits your narrative. Pick one. 

Develop WHAT exactly? The 3d model was taken from X-Plane and the systems are MSFS default.

5 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Develop WHAT exactly? The 3d model was taken from X-Plane and the systems are MSFS default.

Geez give it a rest.

55 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Develop WHAT exactly? The 3d model was taken from X-Plane and the systems are MSFS default.

1: Try implementing a 3D model made for X-plane in MSFS, with all the animations, decals, screens, lights, and all that, then come back to me and let me know how long it took you. It's absolutely hilarious that some think that this is an elementary process. 

2: More importantly. No. They are not. Have you even taken a look at the preview videos or you're talking just out of hearsay?

Are you aware that the navigation system isn't the only system included in an airliner? The fact that the early access version uses the default navigation system doesn't mean that ALL of its systems are default, which they obviously and explicitly are not. You think all these pretty little pixels moving around on the screens in front of your face when you click the buttons do so out of magic and wishful thinking? Electrics, Hydraulics, EICAS, and all that jazz don't code themselves. Do you have the slightest idea of how much it takes to code even just the PFD of an airliner? Honestly, I'm pretty amazed that I need to explain this. 🤔

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by Abriael

1 hour ago, Abriael said:

1: Try implementing a 3D model made for X-plane in MSFS, with all the animations, decals, screens, lights, and all that, then come back to me and let me know how long it took you. It's absolutely hilarious that some think that this is an elementary process. 

2: More importantly. No. They are not. Have you even taken a look at the preview videos or you're talking just out of hearsay?

Are you aware that the navigation system isn't the only system included in an airliner? The fact that the early access version uses the default navigation system doesn't mean that ALL of its systems are default, which they obviously and explicitly are not. You think all these pretty little pixels moving around on the screens in front of your face when you click the buttons do so out of magic and wishful thinking? Electrics, Hydraulics, EICAS, and all that jazz don't code themselves. Do you have the slightest idea of how much it takes to code even just the PFD of an airliner? Honestly, I'm pretty amazed that I need to explain this. 🤔

What preview videos do you mean? Those 30 seconds ads? I watched the preview stream completely, the one that started all this.

And yes, I know there are other systems than nav, so let's talk about those:

1) Pressurization is non-existent and - in the words of the dev - "really unimportant" for flight simming.

2) Electrics well I've seen one screen that changes it's color when APU generator is online, I could code the "system" with a simple if-statement within 3 lines. Everything else that was visible, voltages eg. seemed either not working or at least not changing in any way.

3) Hydraulics to be honest I can't remember that they talked about it except for the 3a pump (or what it is called) for a short while. Now that doesn't mean anything, could be a simple boolean algorithm that says "if engines off and pump 3a off, disable flaps lever". An MSFS aircraft can also fly perfectly fine without a hydraulic system modelled, especially if no failures exist.

4) EICAS I don't know about the Embraer EICAS, so no idea what should be there. But there wasn't really much I remember from the stream.

Some screens with some pages is not a "system", so unless you can show me clear indications of a custom system of any kind in that stream, my point still stands.

You have also moved the goalposts, as you like to say: I was talking about that they didn't do anything special that gives this product any value (no custom systems, an rather ugly ported 3d model... come one, look what the Hondajet dev - one (!) person - modelled in his cockpit! That's what people expect in MSFS), you instead now are talking about how much time it takes to do stuff. Am I supposed to buy their product because they spent much time on something?

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by Fiorentoni

13 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

What preview videos do you mean? Those 30 seconds ads? I watched the preview stream completely, the one that started all this.

And yes, I know there are other systems than nav, so let's talk about those:

1) Pressurization is non-existent and - in the words of the dev - "really unimportant" for flight simming.

2) Electrics well I've seen one screen that changes it's color when APU generator is online, I could code the "system" with a simple if-statement within 3 lines. Everything else that was visible, voltages eg. seemed either not working or at least not changing in any way.

3) Hydraulics to be honest I can't remember that they talked about it except for the 3a pump (or what it is called) for a short while. Now that doesn't mean anything, could be a simple boolean algorithm that says "if engines off and pump 3a off, disable flaps lever". An MSFS aircraft can also fly perfectly fine without a hydraulic system modelled, especially if no failures exist.

4) EICAS I don't know about the Embraer EICAS, so no idea what should be there. But there wasn't really much I remember from the stream.

Some screens with some pages is not a "system", so unless you can show me clear indications of a custom system of any kind in that stream, my point still stands.

You have also moved the goalposts, as you like to say: I was talking about that they didn't do anything special that gives this product any value (no custom systems, an rather ugly ported 3d model... come one, look what the Hondajet dev - one (!) person - modelled in his cockpit! That's what people expect in MSFS), you instead now are talking about how much time it takes to do stuff. Am I supposed to buy their product because they spent much time on something?

The only one moving the goalposts here is you. You clearly stated " the systems are MSFS default." which is demonstrably false for some of the aircraft's critical systems, now you changed it to not have done anything "special," which is very debatable and pretty much irrelevant because "special" is extremely vague. 

Time = Work. In development, the two concepts are one and the same. Speaking of time spent working on the aircraft is exactly like talking about work done on the aircraft. This really isn't rocket science. 

If you actually want to educate yourself on this project, take a look at the video below, as it shows the status of the avionics rather clearly. And if you think that really takes just a few lines of code to create, I'm very sorry, but you have zero clue about what the development of an aircraft on MSFS (or any simulator) entails. You'd think the open process done by FlyByWire over two years would have taught people something by now, but it appears that for some it didn't.

Incidentally, calling the model "ugly" is just laughable. 😂

 

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by Abriael

30 minutes ago, Abriael said:

The only one moving the goalposts here is you. You clearly stated " the systems are MSFS default." which is demonstrably false for some of the aircraft's critical systems, now you changed it to not have done anything "special," which is very debatable and pretty much irrelevant because "special" is extremely vague. 

I did state the "systems" are MSFS default. I then went on showing you that there are no custom "systems" visible in the product (and no, a PFD is not a system). And therefore the product has nothing "special" that makes it worthwhile. Is that clear now?
Now please tell me which "critical systems" are non-default. Just tell me please. I'll go and watch that video of yours afterwards and check what you said.

And once again: I am talking about systems, not about fonts, PFDs, MCDUs or any other mostly visual stuff you can just pull over the MSFS default systems and be fine.

EDIT: Alright I did scan through your video, and apart from the guy in it being really cringe and annoying, what am I supposed to take away from it? He has no idea about Embraers or systems or anything and spent half the video doing a walkaround, visiting the cabin, checking out animations and night lighting and clicking on buttons. He has seemingly no idea what to look for on the system pages on the MFD (quote: "no idea if that is working or not" when he was wondering if the leading edges should have a temperature of 120 degrees celsius when the aircraft is on the ground with engines and anti-ice off...). His summary was (quote again): "sounds good, looks good, it's missing some systems, it hand flies pretty nicely"...

I regret wasting my time watching this shallow video, but if this shallowness and lacking knowledge of how to check an aircraft's systems is the point of view you have, it's understandable you consider this a solid product.

Edited January 8, 20233 yr by Fiorentoni

21 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

I did state the "systems" are MSFS default. I then went on showing you that there are no custom "systems" visible in the product (and no, a PFD is not a system). And therefore the product has nothing "special" that makes it worthwhile. Is that clear now?
Now please tell me which "critical systems" are non-default. Just tell me please. I'll go and watch that video of yours afterwards and check what you said.

And once again: I am talking about systems, not about fonts, PFDs, MCDUs or any other mostly visual stuff you can just pull over the MSFS default systems and be fine.

EDIT: Alright I did scan through your video, and apart from the guy in it being really cringe and annoying, what am I supposed to take away from it? He has no idea about Embraers or systems or anything and spent half the video doing a walkaround, visiting the cabin, checking out animations and night lighting and clicking on buttons. He has seemingly no idea what to look for on the system pages on the MFD (quote: "no idea if that is working or not" when he was wondering if the leading edges should have a temperature of 120 degrees celsius when the aircraft is on the ground with engines and anti-ice off...). His summary was (quote again): "sounds good, looks good, it's missing some systems, it hand flies pretty nicely"...

I regret wasting my time watching this shallow video, but if this shallowness and lacking knowledge of how to check an aircraft's systems is the point of view you have, it's understandable you consider this a solid product.

Do *you* know the Embraer's systems better than he does? The video is interesting because he flips quite extensively through the screens and show that they're not just static, and they can't be hooked up to "default" systems, because there's nothing "default" controlling these values in the simulator. 

Again, if you think that's "Mostly visual stuff" you simply don't know how an airliner works, nor you have any idea of what developing one for MSFS entails. One'd think that 2 years of open development by FBW would have thaught people that numbers don't just move around on screens on their own. 

The developer's website is pretty clear in defining what is default and what isn't, and there is plenty that isn't, unless of course you go back to the "Liars!" stuff, which makes zero sense.