16 minutes ago, PILOT'S said:

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

Jerome, once again, I really do understand your opinion in the defence of your product, but a little bit more humility towards the reviewers, even if they are mistaken, and a simple explanation of the points they have raised, would go down a lot better. 

I know it can become emotive when you put hard work into a product and the reviews aren't as you would expect, but taking a breath and answering the points raised and correcting them would be a much better policy than attacking the reviewers.  That would certainly have a better look, whether you take the reviewers seriously or not. 

There will be plenty taking notice of the tone of the responses, and the tone needs to be right from any developer, as this tends to reflect in the product and the chance of getting it improved / updated over time.

I watched second video. Certainly Clipper  is interesting aircraft but I totally agree with Bob. Video tutorial explaining all working features and work in progress would be better for potential customers and would  avoid tons of misunderstandings.  

 

26 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

Jerome, once again, I really do understand your opinion in the defence of your product, but a little bit more humility towards the reviewers, even if they are mistaken, and a simple explanation of the points they have raised, would go down a lot better. 

I know it can become emotive when you put hard work into a product and the reviews aren't as you would expect, but taking a breath and answering the points raised and correcting them would be a much better policy than attacking the reviewers.  That would certainly have a better look, whether you take the reviewers seriously or not. 

There will be plenty taking notice of the tone of the responses, and the tone needs to be right from any developer, as this tends to reflect in the product and the chance of getting it improved / updated over time.

Rob, what attack where? I've been factual, not emotive, and as I wrote, someone who purchases the B-314 and requests a return within less than 90 mins. from purchase without ever bothering to look at any of the included documentation is hardly a serious reviewer, at least not of our B-314 in this case. The video is completely biased to support a refund request, which is matched by the clickbait heading to get attention to the YT channel.

I sincerely hope that plenty are taking notice, as I wrote before, we are working on a first update with a release window of Friday.

Jerome

21 hours ago, Scorpio47 said:

I would still be interested to learn what the function of this red knob was in the original plane.... Can you tell me, please? 😉

Jürgen, that switch selects a particular engine for prop feathering.

The B-314 was quite unique in that it allowed an engine to have maintenance done to it during flight. This was achieved by turning the engine off and feathering the propeller, the walkway inside the wing then allowed a maintenance engineer to crawl up to the engine in question and perform whatever maintenance was deemed necessary.

Jerome

3 hours ago, PILOT'S said:

that certain features are not yet fully implemented, and that there will be added functionality in the future too

The real question is when will the missing functionality be added and what  is the explanation for never having implemented it in the prior (P3D) model where it was also promised for "later"

3 minutes ago, TASCHMANN said:

The real question is when will the missing functionality be added and what  is the explanation for never having implemented it in the prior (P3D) model where it was also promised for "later"

Could you elaborate on the it in "never having implemented it in the prior"?

Jerome

9 minutes ago, PILOT'S said:

Could you elaborate on the it in "never having implemented it in the prior"?

Jerome

A review of the B314 for P3D forum at avsim https://www.avsim.com/forums/forum/890-pilot’s-boeing-b314-–-the-clipper/ indicates that the "final patch" wasn't released until more than two years after initial release of the plane.  The post indicates several issues that could not be fixed and is locked against any further comment from users. 

It seems that we are asked to purchase a car and a promise that "the wheels will be along later."  This is hardly acceptable from any seller but when you have a history like that of the b314 and are asking for $30, the value of that promise is a valid question for the community to consider.   As has been stated there are several first rate addons (completed) that sell for this amount.  This seems like an unfinished portover of a product that is, itself, unfinished many years after it was first announced.

 

11 minutes ago, TASCHMANN said:

A review of the B314 for P3D forum at avsim https://www.avsim.com/forums/forum/890-pilot’s-boeing-b314-–-the-clipper/ indicates that the "final patch" wasn't released until more than two years after initial release of the plane.  The post indicates several issues that could not be fixed and is locked against any further comment from users. 

It seems that we are asked to purchase a car and a promise that "the wheels will be along later."  This is hardly acceptable from any seller but when you have a history like that of the b314 and are asking for $30, the value of that promise is a valid question for the community to consider.   As has been stated there are several first rate addons (completed) that sell for this amount.  This seems like an unfinished portover of a product that is, itself, unfinished many years after it was first announced.

 

I do not see any of that, could you kindly point out where exactly you are seeing this in particular - The post indicates several issues that could not be fixed?

It would seem that the general community here finds it acceptable for simulators like MSFS and XP12 to be released in an unfinished state, with plenty of work to be done. Just look at the list of what is still being worked on for MSFS, it is huge! DCS too has a stable version and then a Beta version. 

The PILOT'S B-314 for MSFS is brand new, there is absolutely nothing that was ported over in any way! The entire 3D model was created from scratch by SimWorks Studios, along with the texturing and implementation of avionics and gauges.

It's a hard argument to win you know, on the left side you have the crowd shouting - release it already, we're tired of waiting. On the other side are those that want a 100% complete and finished product. If for now we are only able to please the crowd on the left side, so be it, pleasing everybody in any case seems dare near impossible.

Jerome

14 minutes ago, PILOT'S said:

...pleasing everybody in any case seems dare near impossible.

Jerome

Of course it is Jerome - You know this!  There will always be a few who will moan if the model doesn't have a flushing toilet! 

But you have to at least take a sizable majority with you, or you will be playing to a tough crowd.  At the moment, as you can see yourself, for right or for wrong, the vibes arent feeling too good. 

It is purely down to the judgement of the developer when to release a product, and you should not give in to the crowd calling for it when it is not fully ready, otherwise responses like you are seeing tend to happen.  It is not unusual or unexpected.

Hard work and continued improvement of the product are the only way forward now.  Most of the conversation in here is useless in delivering this, and will only lead to bad feelings.

57 minutes ago, PILOT'S said:

It's a hard argument to win you know, on the left side you have the crowd shouting - release it already, we're tired of waiting. On the other side are those that want a 100% complete and finished product. If for now we are only able to please the crowd on the left side, so be it, pleasing everybody in any case seems dare near impossible.

Jerome

It's hardly an argument, it is just the case that you have released an aircraft where all 4 engines can run vigorously when all fuel supply to the engines is shut off.  Perhaps you could tell us how something like this can happen.  Secondly if ever there was a plane designed for long range flying it is the B314 and yet it is released without a fully working gyropilot.   The P3D model took over two years before it was sufficiently patched to be usable.

Yes, there are many "Early Access" releases out there and there are some companies that have a history of following through...and some that don't.

Edited March 14, 20233 yr by TASCHMANN

this kind of Aircraft is no must have for me,but yesterday i think about to buy it,wait for video to hear and see it before buy...

reading all this,i lost interrest in that one...not spend 30$ as is now or more $ later.......

also at the shop,i read nothing about a "Early Access",and to read buy now and save Money later,nice Yoke

Thank You

 

Edited March 14, 20233 yr by banjoman1960

For a variety of reasons this will be a pass for me as well. As you see by my avatar I do love flying boats. But it's more then just the product and it always has been. And there's just not enough here for me to justify the price.

7 hours ago, PILOT'S said:

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

Aha, thanks Jerome.  I was missing the second lever on the RIGHT side of the CA seat!

8 hours ago, bobcat999 said:

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?

To be fair, this guy really did get about as much wrong as he got right.  That review does look much more like an effort to be "first" than anything that was really intended to convey useful info.

His mooring error has been beat to death.  He's simply wrong about the master mixture - it spawns at full lean (where it would be during taxi) but can be moved further to cutoff, which will kill the engines correctly.  The fuel valves things is just a simple loading error - they're in the wrong positions when loaded but then work correctly when operated.  An easy fix, I'd think.

FYI The video by Jonathan Beckett on his YT channel is not there and presumably he pulled it.

Reviewers are doing no favours for anyone trying to convey accurate product information without doing the homework and studying the product adequately.