Before buying I would suggest looking on the  forums for the P3D version of the b314 by Pilot's.  Many problems still unresolved after two years.  I bought that addon and I'm still waiting for a gyropilot to work as it should as well as many unfinished "features"

 

The switches for the propeller control remind me of how the Hercules is set up. It's a synchronizer system with the pilot having main control and individual momentary switches for fine tuning at the FE panel. I have NO idea if that's how it works but it appears it may be a similar system.

As a correction to the video above, this plane actually was originally developed for FS9 (maybe FS2k2 before that).  It's been around on the FS scene for awhile.  I'm still waiting for some download issues from the site to be resolved with my account but I'm hoping they get some of these issues resolved.  This was such a classic bird in real world aviation that it's a must have for me.  When you think of the golden age of aviation and flying to exotic destinations like Tahiti, Hawaii, and/or the Caribbean from the mainland US this bird comes to mind.  Such a classic aircraft.  Too bad many in the time didn't realize how iconic this bird would be and kept a few around to either fly or placed in a museum.  Maybe Asobo will give us a version with their historic flying series.  This would play much better than the odd ball aircraft they've been giving us so far.😐

So far I like it, but there's definitely some functionally left to fill out.  Doesn't seem like you can feather a prop, the regular -314 (vs the -314A) has some takeoff issues.  But the main problem is that the gyropilot seems entirely non-functional yet? This really is kind of important, seeing as how the fun of this kind of airplane is flight planning, navigation, and engine management.  Without some kind of autopilot, by the time you've taken 3 sextant shots, reduced them, and plotted your LOPs... It really doesn't matter anymore where you crashed 😁.

They were honest that this is an initial release and there's work to be done, so obviously they know and I'm assuming they'll get to it.  Honestly, I think the plane needs a less realistic but more functional solution yet than the Sperry though; maybe a toolbar panel to control heading and altitude hold.  There's a limit to what these old Sperrys can do; while I appreciate the historical accuracy, some nod must be given to usability by a single pilot.  The thing was operated by a crew of 6 after all ;).

Along those lines, does anyone know of some sort of tool that will allow you to control basic autopilot modes in any plane?  The in-sim key commands have always been unreliable for me at that.

Thanks!  I really am glad we have this thing in MSFS; it deserves to live on somehow.

In light of the reviews, I'll hold fire on this purchase. I really hope it's developed and polished, because it could be a great success for PILOTS.

12 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

YouTube Video

Jonathan, since you posted this video here, I'm going to take the opportunity to respond here too.

We received your email where you request a refund. Before we even had the chance to respond, you decided, and it's a complete mystery to us what motivates such behaviour, to shame us on YouTube and here at AVSIM, like we have purposely tricked you and committed some massive fraud. We have made it quite clear that the B-314 in its initial release state is far from perfect, and that we are committed to fixing reported issues and making improvements, also adding functionality not available upon release. On top of this, we also made it crystal clear that we welcome all constructive criticism! 

The fact that you purchased the B-314 and sent an email with a refund request less than 90 mins. after your purchase would allude to the fact that you likely had no intention of keeping the B-314 in the first place.

Your video is full of inaccuracies. You start off by saying that you don't think it's finished. Well, the very place where you purchased the B-314 already states that it isn't finished:

      .) Study level concept, some features under construction
      .) Sperry Type A Gyropilot (partly implemented, will be updated)

Next you mention that the texture modelling isn't great, without any actual proof! You simply zoom around the outside of the aircraft showing our great looking custom PBR textures, then state "the material modelling or rather bump mapping and things like that are not great". We use the modern PBR workflow, so there is no bump mapping. Bump mapping was used before PBR came along, the PBR workflow uses "Normals" and of course we make use of these.

Despite the manual stating that the mooring feature should only be used with all engines off, you proceed to turn on the mooring feature with all engines running, then seem surprised at the resultant effect, what a daft endeavour!

The simulator itself currently has a rather poor implementation of water physics, as your video shows, there is also very little water surface friction etc., this is all beyond our control!

We are more than happy to issue a refund. It's a great pity to see very many months of hard work shamed by a 5 mins. video that is full of inaccuracies coupled with snide commentary. Perhaps you fail to understand the many hours of extreme hard work that have gone into this project from a dedicated and hard working group of developers. SimWork Studios spent many months producing the 3D model, texturing the aircraft and programming the gauges. PILOT'S have added functionality to what SimWork Studios delivered, added a custom sound package from ArezOne Studios, and generally tweaked the aircraft and some of the pilot interfaces.

We made a decision to release the B-314 in its current state, as we deem it flyable, enjoyable, a unique and fun flying boat experience for the general simmer. This is also reflected in the current low pricing. We are committed to adding and implementing functionality over time, as well as fixes and improvements to the B-314 wherever we can via updates. This will also make the B-314 more complex and it will likely also move the price up. What we presently offer is the unique chance to get a state of the art flying boat at a very low entry cost and be part of its evolution.

As I have mentioned here already this past weekend, we welcome all constructive feedback to make corrections and improvements where they are deemed necessary, on top of fixing already known issues and improvements we have planned.

We are currently planning to release a first update this week, ideally on Friday if feasible.

Perhaps we have now opened your eyes a bit to see your own misconceptions, if you still wish to have a refund, please contact us again via email.

Jerome

Edited March 14, 20233 yr by PILOT'S

@PILOT'S  Jerome. 

Jonathan Beckett did not post this video here.  He does not attend Avsim as far as I know.  Your comments would be better directed towards his email or YouTube channel. 

It seems to me there is no wrong or right here, just subjective opinion, and of course I would expect you to defend your product.
However, I will tell you that Jonathan is a well liked and respected reviewer, and your comments towards him do not reflect in a good way towards your own position.

I believe his comments are generally correct and do raise some valid questions about the completeness of the product.
For instance, from his video, could you comment at least on why one version of the plane struggles to take off, and why the engines continue to run when the fuel valves are closed?

I have mentioned the textures myself, and still stand by the remarks.

A lot of us would really like a good 314 in the sim, so I hope this product can be worked on and finished to the standards we all want, including yourself.

Edited March 14, 20233 yr by bobcat999

10 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

So far I like it, but there's definitely some functionally left to fill out.  Doesn't seem like you can feather a prop, the regular -314 (vs the -314A) has some takeoff issues.  But the main problem is that the gyropilot seems entirely non-functional yet? This really is kind of important, seeing as how the fun of this kind of airplane is flight planning, navigation, and engine management.  Without some kind of autopilot, by the time you've taken 3 sextant shots, reduced them, and plotted your LOPs... It really doesn't matter anymore where you crashed 😁.

They were honest that this is an initial release and there's work to be done, so obviously they know and I'm assuming they'll get to it.  Honestly, I think the plane needs a less realistic but more functional solution yet than the Sperry though; maybe a toolbar panel to control heading and altitude hold.  There's a limit to what these old Sperrys can do; while I appreciate the historical accuracy, some nod must be given to usability by a single pilot.  The thing was operated by a crew of 6 after all ;).

Along those lines, does anyone know of some sort of tool that will allow you to control basic autopilot modes in any plane?  The in-sim key commands have always been unreliable for me at that.

Thanks!  I really am glad we have this thing in MSFS; it deserves to live on somehow.

Andrew, basic Sperry Gyropilot functionality is available, I coded this, tested this, and I know it works. There is a procedure though that needs to be followed for it to operate correctly.

If you are in the left-hand Captain's seat, you need to pressurize the Gyropilot servos by moving the small white lever forward:

Once the Gyropilot servos have been pressurized, you will see that the Gyropilot pressure gauges showing this too:

Now you can move to the left side, click on the armrest to make the Gyropilot master switch visible, it should show as being disengaged:

Clicking on that switch will move it forward and the Gyropilot will now be engaged and active:

With the Gyropilot being engaged, the altitude and heading at the time of engagement will be held. We plan to add more Gyropilot functionality in the future, in its present implementation it offers altitude and heading hold.

Jerome

 

Edited March 14, 20233 yr by PILOT'S

44 minutes ago, PILOT'S said:

Jonathan, since you posted this video here, I'm going to take the opportunity to respond here too.

 

Just to be clear I'm not Johnatan and it's not my video. I posted YouTube link here because people were asking for any video of the Clipper. 

19 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

@PILOT'S  Jerome. 

Jonathan Beckett did not post this video here.  He does not attend Avsim as far as I know.  Your comments would be better directed towards his email or YouTube channel. 

It seems to me there is no wrong or right here, just subjective opinion, and of course I would expect you to defend your product.
However, I will tell you that Jonathan is a well liked and respected reviewer, and your comments towards him do not reflect in a good way towards your own position.

I believe his comments are generally correct and do raise some valid questions about the completeness of the product.
For instance, could you comment at least on why one version of the plane struggles to take off, and why the engines continue to run when the fuel valves are closed?

I have mentioned the textures myself, and still stand by the remarks.

A lot of us would really like a good 314 in the sim, so I hope this product can be worked on and finished to the standards we all want, including yourself.

Rob, thanks for the clarification, I was under the impression that sd_flyer is Jonathan.

He may be well liked and respected, but I question the motivation of a purchase that is followed by a refund request within 90 minutes. The refund request is based upon the fact that the aircraft is unfinished, yet our product description page makes it perfectly clear that certain features are not yet fully implemented, and that there will be added functionality in the future too. This translates into unfinished, if one wishes to classify the product as finished or unfinished.

His video is full of baseless statements, such as the bump mapping on the textures. This is not only inaccurate, since bump mapping is not in any way associated with today's modern PBR workflow, it shows to me that he lacks a basic understanding of PBR and texturing, yet he proceeds to offer critique as if he is some kind of expert in this field, which he is clearly not.

He then activates the mooring procedure with all 4 engines running and makes it appear as if our aircraft is at fault for the resultant bizarre water spiking effect! The water physics in the sim are poorly implemented, and I take offence to someone showing this in a way that makes it look like our product is at fault.

The fuel valve issue is just a simple bug and we are working towards including a fix for this in the update coming out later this week.

Jerome

 

 

ITB has reviewed the aircraft.

 

 

 

 

I am old enough to remember the Zenith TV commercials and their moto stuck with me “The quality goes in before the name goes on”.

For the life of me, why developers do not hold off with a product to avoid bad press, I will never grasp. I understand the concept, we’ll make it better, enjoy it now … but you end up with extreme rights and wrongs. Granted, many misconceptions about a new model arise from the reviewer not doing their homework. You do not have to dig too deep to uncover wrong info, especially in this hobby.

This tends to be a growing trend in this hobby, but I think the boundaries are being pushed too far. Given the market size, probably good for someone who just wants to see the model in the air on their computer, but not good for the crowds who frequent forums wanting “As Real As It Gets”.

A flagship product like this deserves better.

OK.  Well two similar reviews from two respected reviewers.  A lot of it replicates my thoughts as well from what I have seen.  

I understand the defensiveness behind the product by the developers, but PILOT'S really need to be more receptive to the comments as well, not just point to the obvious mistake made by the reviewer when tethered, which he made light of himself and is not important in the big scheme of things.  That is just a distraction from the more important issues.

Expectations of the standards have definitely been raised in MSFS now, including the pricing for what you get, and to me it did initially look like a port from the P3D model, with a bit of extra work done for MSFS, but without the P3D models complexity! 

Of course, there is nothing wrong with porting over, as you can't keep reinventing the wheel without a lot of work, but this product just doesn't seem to hang together very well at the moment.

I know converting all of the systems over is not easy work, and will take time, but at the moment, this is definitely early release material at best, and I can't see why that would be seen as an unfair comment.

PILOT'S need to take the comments on the chin and just get on with improving it, but the level of defensiveness from the developer does worry me.  
They do openly admit features need to be added and improved going forward, but there is potentially a mismatch between that and customers expectations on a reasonably working saleable product.

30 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

OK.  Well two similar reviews from two respected reviewers.  A lot of it replicates my thoughts as well from what I have seen.  

I understand the defensiveness behind the product by the developers, but PILOT'S really need to be more receptive to the comments as well, not just point to the obvious mistake made by the reviewer when tethered, which he made light of himself and is not important in the big scheme of things.  That is just a distraction from the more important issues.

Expectations of the standards have definitely been raised in MSFS now, including the pricing for what you get, and to me it did initially look like a port from the P3D model, with a bit of extra work done for MSFS, but without the P3D models complexity! 

Of course, there is nothing wrong with porting over, as you can't keep reinventing the wheel without a lot of work, but this product just doesn't seem to hang together very well at the moment.

I know converting all of the systems over is not easy work, and will take time, but at the moment, this is definitely early release material at best, and I can't see why that would be seen as an unfair comment.

PILOT'S need to take the comments on the chin and just get on with improving it, but the level of defensiveness from the developer does worry me.  
They do openly admit features need to be added and improved going forward, but there is potentially a mismatch between that and customers expectations on a reasonably working saleable product.

Rob, a 5 mins. video with a clickbait heading of - Why I'm asking for a refund for the Boeing 314 Clipper in Microsoft Flight Simulator - is hardly a review!

And then we have the 2nd review with “I’m not sure that the 314 has a water rudder”, when it clearly does, and “apparently we should be fine to take-off with the flaps up”, which would allude to the fact that likely none of the vast included documentation was ever looked at prior to making the video, which is a great shame.

I'm sorry, I cannot take such apparent reviews seriously, as there clearly is little or no preparation involved, and to me it just comes across as material to satisfy a subscriber base.

Jerome