17 minutes ago, Abriael said:

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. 

Do you have any idea how the E170 works? Because I spent a solid 40 minutes with a former E170 pilot, yesterday, while he went through the myriad and incredible inaccuracies in displays, etc.

The only thing he gave them credit for was the Flight Control page appeared to be doing the tests correctly. Didn't help that the airplane allowed him to swing the elevator around like it was a trim tab. We watched the whole thing live.

So - if you're not familiar with it yourself, I would caution you against the whataboutism in questioning others.

This airplane is barely surface level deep.

Edited January 9, 20233 yr by mspencer

It really doesn't matter whether it's default or custom at this point, because it's NOT developed. You still have build/develop the plane whether it's straight SDK or not.

The bottom line is it's up to you whether or not you want to take the risk on if the plane will be completed per the road map.

Where the catch 22 for the developer is; you really can't have much of an early access for a modern'ish airliner because most, if not all the systems are intertwined.  So as a developer your only choice if you're going to have an early access is to do what they're doing now and give you the very-very basics...just the shell.  Anything after that and the whole product would be nearly complete at that point and there wouldn't be need for early access as it would be close to RC.

IMO, early access can be a good way for small or first time devs to be able to get a foothold in the business if done right.  However, it's also a double-edged sword.  It can go the opposite way just as easily,

In this case, after watching the stream, I didn't get the impression there was anything scammy about them, but what I did see, was a developer that may very well have all the good intentions in the world, but not knowing the future.  Best laid plans go south very easily and your situation as a developer can change quickly.  Why this is important is because developing complex systems like LNAV/VNAV and the like take serious skills and time.  So even the dev themselves can't really know their own future is in this regard.

For me, I'd rather wait for the completed project and see what's what.  Your mileage may vary.

 

Edited January 9, 20233 yr by Jeff Nielsen

6 minutes ago, Jeff Nielsen said:

It really doesn't matter whether it's default or custom at this point, because it's NOT developed. You still have build/develop the plane whether it's straight SDK or not.

The bottom line is it's up to you whether or not you want to take the risk on if the plane will be completed per the road map.

Where the catch 22 for the developer is; you really can't have much of an early access for a modern'ish airliner because most, if not all the systems are intertwined.  So as a developer your only choice if you're going to have an early access is to do what they're doing now and give you the very-very basics...just the shell.  Anything after that and the whole product would be nearly complete at that point and there wouldn't be need for early access as it would be close to RC.

IMO, early access can be a good way for small or first time devs to be able to get a foothold in the business if done right.  However, it's also a double-edged sword.  It can go the opposite way just as easily,

In this case, after watching the stream, I didn't get the impression there was anything scammy about them, but what I did see, was a developer that may very well have all the good intentions in the world, but not knowing the future.  Best laid plans go south very easily and your situation as a developer can change quickly.  Why this is important is because developing complex systems like LNAV/VNAV and the like take serious skills and time.  So even the dev themselves can't really know their own future is in this regard.

For me, I'd rather wait for the completed project and see what's what.  Your mileage may vary.

 

Agreed. I don't need to wait quite until the end, because there's a point in which you see pretty clearly if a developer has the competency and the committment to finish, and for me that point is when they implement custom LNAV (successfully, I hope), alongside some quality of life features that I need, but your mileage may vary. 

What deeply bothers me are the accusations of dishonesty, which really should not be flinged around willy nilly as many are doing. 

The windows open and it has an EFB, its already got more features then some fully released pay-ware airliners I can think of.... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gBbL9bDBzo&ab_channel=cgaviator

 

 

3 minutes ago, Ryanmlt1 said:

The windows open and it has an EFB, its already got more features then some fully released pay-ware airliners I can think of.... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gBbL9bDBzo&ab_channel=cgaviator

 

 

I wonder who this is aimed at.

2 hours ago, Ryanmlt1 said:

The windows open and it has an EFB, its already got more features then some fully released pay-ware airliners I 

I take it the fully released airliners also don't have properly working LNAV, no VNAV and mostly missing systems?

G

Lets just say this.   The early access fiasco doesnt bode well , mostly because of failed promises in the past.  We have quite the history.   That said,  all this extreme negativity certainly doesnt encourage a new developer to the aircraft scene. In fact its downright discouraging.  We need more aircraft, and yes we demand high fidelity without lipstick and cutting corners.   The judgement should come after this has been attempted.  Will they live up to the promise? Only then can people judge.   But if you want to lay out a reputation for further projects, I am sure they want to do all they can to make it a real decent aircraft.  

VNAV?  Yes absolutely paramount.   Is it a deal breaker?   Well if you cant fly the plane without it, you really should ask yourself if you should be flying the plane.   Requires more manual input and flying, but that makes it more challenging.  I have no problems with myself being the VNAV. Calculate your descent angles, and use V/S and descend earlier than normal.  Thats the workaround, but its not a replacement. They should by all means include the feature list that has been voted on. Looking forward to this, provided that it evolves into something as promised.  I dont expect perfection even in 1 year. They take a long time to iron out everything, but as long as we see good progress.   Anything that smells like black box and this stupid early access 330 will kill it , but only time will tell in the next few months how it will turn out. 

Encourage rather than discourage is always a benefit to everyone. 

I was stupid enough to buy the Virtualcol E175. It was literally impossible to fly on release. I was initially fooled into thinking it was better once patched up. But no. It's simply dreadful.

I will probably buy into this offering. If they stick it out and continually improve it I will enjoy the ride. Monthly patches will be enough to keep me happy.  If they don't, well, it won't be the first dud E175 I've bought!

PS I had the X-Crafts E175 when I used XP11. It was not ever really a finished product and nothing to write home about.  The one from the other developer whose name escapes me was apparently better.

Edited January 9, 20233 yr by jarmstro

They came with a statement which can be read here:

https://www.flightsim-studio.com/e-jets-statement-9th-january-2023/

They took the feedback into the consideration and updated/corrected also the description. 

Edited January 9, 20233 yr by Vali

9 minutes ago, Vali said:

They came with a statement which can be read here:

https://www.flightsim-studio.com/e-jets-statement-9th-january-2023/

They took the feedback into the consideration and updated/corrected also the description. 

With respect to this E175 project, I hate to be pessimistic because of course, the more projects being done for MSFS, the better for MSFS in the long run, even if some of these projects fail. Everything being equal, I would hope that the MSFS community generally tries to support endeavors for new projects.  But of course, money is on the line, so people also need to scrutinize projects because nobody wants to be ripped off.

Anyways, I read FSS's statement in the above link. Regarding their "WHY WE ARE OFFERING THE EARLY ACCESS" section, they do not say anything about their financial condition and/or, whether they need the funds from this early access for continued development.  While FSS did not say anything about needing the funds from this early access for continued development, it's very, very, likely, that they do need the funds from this early access, to continue developing the E175.  They are a business after all, and they need to pay salaries for their developers & artists, they need to pay bills, etc.  Of course, even if FSS does need the funds from early access for continued development of the E175, they aren't going to mention it.  But it's just common sense, this early access is so "early," and the only explanation is that they probably need the funds from early access.

25 minutes ago, Vali said:

They came with a statement which can be read here:

https://www.flightsim-studio.com/e-jets-statement-9th-january-2023/

They took the feedback into the consideration and updated/corrected also the description. 

That is what MOST REASONABLE people are looking for ... a clear ACCURATE and transparent statement as to what they are presently is on offer, what the roadmap is going to look like and how they are going to sell the product. 

Still not going to buy at this stage but at least the owners realized that they should publicly respond to the feedback as they should vs some shill on here telling me to go to their discord and ask directly as if I'm desperate for their product. 

The money is in my pocket not the other way around.

Let this negative speculation end now.  The developer is now clear on their position and product to the normal human.  All of the negative Karen's can go on to their next target while most of us hope this and other developers can and will deliver products to enhance our enjoyment of MSFS.  

I'm in. It's only money. Bring it on. But as I'm the worlds most unlucky gambler I fear the worst!😀

Edited January 9, 20233 yr by jarmstro

55 minutes ago, Vali said:

They came with a statement which can be read here:

Good move on their part, transparency and openness go a long way for a new company.

I've been reading this thread to see what is deal?  I must confess over 60% add ons  I buy (I should have known better) have some or a lot of stuff "not as advertised". Unless developer step up and fix I usually stop buying product from them. 

Now lets ask rhetorical question - wasn't MSFS initial release big misadvertising? LOL A was one of beta tester and I was shocked by Asobo decision to push MSFS for release! Here we are some years later having sim that shaping up pretty nice!

So here simple thing don't like it don't buy it. Why waste you time discussing it? Alternatively wait for release, check some reviews, opinion then decide whether you want to buy or not! What in world 25 pages is about?. Even Captain Sim didn't have so much attention! LOL