15 minutes ago, Keirtt said:

This is exactly how I felt! These videos didn't at all cover what I thought they would which was very unfortunate. I also suspect (unfortunately) that the vnav will be missing from this.

A "MCDU preview" shouldn't be 2 minutes of model shots, showing the door close animation.

I worked on the E-Jet series as a crewmember and can tell you, for sure, the model is excellent. Even the door closes properly. But if the thing can't even do a vertical path... I'm a no for sure, despite my extensive affection for the airplane (it was the best plane we flew at JetBlue).

I'd be pretty shocked, however, if Aerosoft and Mathijs put their imprimatur on an aircraft lacking such a standard feature though, so there's hope?

It's pretty obvious that they went with a teasing marketing scheme instead of providing actual info, which I'm sure works to draw attention. But until we read an actual feature list that breaks down exactly what we can expect, these videos (albeit visually appealing) say basically zero.

We'll see. 

I recall reading or hearing that they plan to do an 'early adopters' release which, hypotheicaly speaking, may include a base of systems (such as the YT videos) to appeal to the wider MSFS marketplace, make some development cost money, and than have updates or releases with more system depth for those who want that.  They can't loose with that kind of marketing plan as they will gain the wider market players as well as people who want as much system depth eventually.  From a 3D modelling perspective and texture perceptive they have achieved a great deal already.  I will buy day one as we need aircraft and they are awesome airliners.

29 minutes ago, simon747 said:

They can't loose with that kind of marketing plan as they will gain the wider market players as well as people who want as much system depth eventually.

It's an interesting, if risky strategy.

Better to charge, say $25-$30 for a simpler 'First Officer edition' for the masses, then another, $30-$35 for a more systems detailed 'Captain edition' that appeals to the study level crowd.

'Early adopter' won't appeal to the masses, plus it's a time limited offer. It's also less likely to appeal to those of us who want the systems depth. Flight simmers have been burned far too many times to trust a relatively new developer with promises of future features.

Then again, what do I know? TFDi found 1,000 people willing to pay $80 for something that won't release (provisionally) for another 9 months.

Looking again at video, most certainly uses the default MSFS flight plan. However, if they would use WT flight plan Module, maybe it won’t be bad.

8 hours ago, mspencer said:

I'd be pretty shocked, however, if Aerosoft and Mathijs put their imprimatur on an aircraft lacking such a standard feature though, so there's hope?

Aerosoft have some decent stuff but I'm frankly not shocked at all if this ends up having no VNAV if Aerosoft is publishing it. Not exactly the best track record for aircraft, especially when it comes to systems depth.

I'm hoping this was shot earlier in development when VNAV wasn't fully functional yet, otherwise I'd be pretty miffed since I was hoping for a good, complex E-Jet and not for another lite MSFS-appeal-to-the-crowd-plane.

2 hours ago, F737MAX said:

'Early adopter' won't appeal to the masses, plus it's a time limited offer. It's also less likely to appeal to those of us who want the systems depth. Flight simmers have been burned far too many times to trust a relatively new developer with promises of future features.

Then again, what do I know? TFDi found 1,000 people willing to pay $80 for something that won't release (provisionally) for another 9 months.

Unfortunately, it seems to appeal to the masses if you just look at all the early access mainstream games being pumped out. There's no shortage of people paying $70 upfront for something not released for another couple of months only to find a buggy and lacking game at release (see BF 2042). TFDi just proved it works in flight simming too.

They can stay away from flight simming with this as far as I'm concerned, especially when it comes to aircraft as I don't think it's reassuring for things like proper systems depth.

Edited December 24, 20223 yr by Nixoq

1 hour ago, Nixoq said:

TFDi just proved it works in flight simming too.

Probably should wait and see what the MD11 launch is like before accusing it of being "buggy and lacking"

Edited December 24, 20223 yr by Matchstick

4 hours ago, Matchstick said:

Probably should wait and see what the MD11 launch is like before accusing it of being "buggy and lacking"

Offtopic, but if their only other aircraft release is any indication, he has great reasons to be suspicious.

6 hours ago, omarsmak30 said:

Looking again at video, most certainly uses the default MSFS flight plan. However, if they would use WT flight plan Module, maybe it won’t be bad.

Alarm bells go up pretty immediately in that case for me. So far WT are the only ones who have used the default flight plan in any way that's not ham-handed and gross.

I guess it's no surprise that their only credit was a very basic plane...

33 minutes ago, mspencer said:

Offtopic, but if their only other aircraft release is any indication, he has great reasons to be suspicious.

Sure you can be suspicious of how the MD11 will turn out (I am) BUT presenting those suspicions as if they were already proven fact - not so much

1 hour ago, mspencer said:

Alarm bells go up pretty immediately in that case for me. So far WT are the only ones who have used the default flight plan in any way that's not ham-handed and gross.

I guess it's no surprise that their only credit was a very basic plane...

They actually rewrote the whole flight plan module that’s used in the avionics update. That’s why I said, if they use what WT has written in the avionics update, it will be pretty good. But if they use default Asobo one, well, avoid it.

9 hours ago, Matchstick said:

Probably should wait and see what the MD11 launch is like before accusing it of being "buggy and lacking"

 

3 hours ago, Matchstick said:

Sure you can be suspicious of how the MD11 will turn out (I am) BUT presenting those suspicions as if they were already proven fact - not so much

I'm not accusing them of anything and I'm not presenting anything as proven fact (other than that flight simmers are willing to take a risk). No idea where you got that from.

Paying upfront for something you have never seen is a risk because you don't know how it turns out. TFDi have proven that there are plenty of people in flight simming that are willing to take that risk. That's all.

2 hours ago, omarsmak30 said:

They actually rewrote the whole flight plan module that’s used in the avionics update. That’s why I said, if they use what WT has written in the avionics update, it will be pretty good. But if they use default Asobo one, well, avoid it.

What does a flight plan module do for a third-party aircraft?

Edited December 24, 20223 yr by Nixoq

25 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

 

I'm not accusing them of anything and I'm not presenting anything as proven fact (other than that flight simmers are willing to take a risk). No idea where you got that from.

Paying upfront for something you have never seen is a risk because you don't know how it turns out. TFDi have proven that there are plenty of people in flight simming that are willing to take that risk. That's all.

As did HPG before well before them with the H145.

But as was pointed out i this is getting very off topic...

33 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

What does a flight plan module do for a third-party aircraft?

Because depending on how the flight plan works in the sim, it's basically trying to read data from that stupid flight planner, and working with the flight plan becomes clunky at best based on other implementations I've seen.

The G3000 from the AAU was the first flight plan I've seen that seems to use the engine's default flight plan, but still gives you less rigidness in the way the FP is structured (you can go to nowhere, for example, whereas before, it always had to end at the airport listed as the destination).

If they use extensively the default flight plan mechanic, I'm out.