First "Heavy" for MSFS?

[Fiorentoni 4,234]

2 hours ago, btacon said:

...

Alright so you took the very last line from my statement, ignoring all the arguments I brought foward, just to have something to be angry about. My qualification is more than enough, believe it or not, but it doesn't matter at all because this is a factual debate and I made factual statements. If you want to go ad hominem, go somewhere else.
Also to be precise: I did not call them "delusional", I said the statement sounds delusional. If it's the wording that makes you angry, you can attribute this to my non-native speaker-ness and replace it with "unreasonable".
But I see this is leading nowhere, so I edited my post and rephrased it above, you might want to do the same and we'll move on.
 

Edited January 25, 2023 by Fiorentoni

[Fiorentoni 4,234]

2 hours ago, DeepestRed said:

Yes, it's well known that line training captains put a lot of emphasis on full motion simulators' ability to properly capture the subtleties of operating the cabin doors.

Last thing I head was that neither Fenix nor WT produce full motion simulators for line training captains, so no idea what you thought this might contribute to the discussion. Full motion simulators also have no control assignment menu or world updates, so... maybe it's not the same thing a full motion simulator used for line training and MSFS. Just maybe.

[Oldschool61 38]

On 1/13/2023 at 5:45 PM, BWBriscoe said:

Oh yea! What about modern heavies (777, A350, 787, A380 etc)?

Deluxe comes with the 787

[Oldschool61 38]

On 1/14/2023 at 5:44 AM, jbdbow1970 said:

Good to know I'm not here to argue sir. Good day but we really need something better in MSFs (long range) other than the A310.

Fly the 737 with drop tanks!!!

[MattNischan 3,778]

3 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

How about custom weight & balance

I mean, it's a bizjet, I'm not totally sure what a custom weight and balance page would bring to the table that the in-sim panel does not.

2 hours ago, btacon said:

and the Longitude and CJ4 are really great planes for free

I would argue the CJ4 could easily fit in with $25 planes, and the Longitude would be right at home with planes around double that, as far as featureset goes, I would say. But that's just my opinion, looking around at what planes with similar features and depth are going for. Something else to consider: when comparing these products, the real comparison is "how much would I pay for a bizjet with a nearly complete custom G3000 from the ground up, plus all these other systems?" Because in essence, that's what it would be, if it was not part of the sim itself. But again, I'm biased, of course!

3 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

the Longitude is still some way off of PMDG and Fenix in those regads

Perhaps true! And I certainly have my opinion as to the dev cost (and thus eventually customer cost) vs the actual pilot usage of a massive and complex failure system. But, also, these statements sorta imply that only Fenix and PMDG are "study level" aircraft, which I think is maybe where the term starts to break down.

All I was trying to get at is that if 130 pages of systems aren't enough to study, but a weight & balance menu or door animations are, then I'm not totally sure I understand the term. And, as always, our focus is to have the deepest simulations of what pilots will actually interact with on a daily basis (and I think we exceed many aircraft there), because if that stuff isn't totally perfect, then the other stuff is a bit premature. 🙂

[JBDB-MD80 1,473]

11 minutes ago, Oldschool61 said:

Fly the 737 with drop tanks!!!

I want a Quality 777, 787 or a 747 on at least Aerosoft or Just Flight level it doesn't have to be PMDG level. 

[btacon 1,806]

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

Alright so you took the very last line from my statement, ignoring all the arguments I brought foward, just to have something to be angry about. My qualification is more than enough, believe it or not, but it doesn't matter at all because this is a factual debate and I made factual statements. If you want to go ad hominem, go somewhere else.
Also to be precise: I did not call them "delusional", I said the statement sounds delusional. If it's the wording that makes you angry, you can attribute this to my non-native speaker-ness and replace it with "unreasonable".
But I see this is leading nowhere, so I edited my post and rephrased it above, you might want to do the same and we'll move on.
 

Not surprised that your preposterous characterization being rebuked is seen by you as an “ad hominem” attack. That is a tactic often used in debate when a proponent finds themself with an indefensible position. 
 

Natch.   And still outrageous.

-B