6 minutes ago, Doering said:

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.

This seems to be more of a problem with the community as a whole. Everybody always wants to be “first”, even if that means putting in the bare minimum in terms of effort…

In aviation, you better have a way to back up whatever information you’re presenting as factual. I borderline can’t watch a lot of reviews these days just based on the reviewer’s lack of experience and overall understanding of the source material. Anybody remember the old AVSIM reviews? - Well written and presented a fair bit of history combined with properly researched factual information. We could use that level of scrutiny and knowledge now more than ever with how much this hobby has grown after the release of MSFS. Some days I really miss browsing the AVSIM reviews and checking out whatever new bush strip in the PNW ORBX released… 

17 hours ago, PILOT'S said:

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

I certainly am. Very much looking forward to a comprehensive and robust first update. I have waited for her a long time… a few more weeks won’t hurt. What  is imperative is a significant first update and a clear roadmap of future development resource allocation.

This new Sim has lots going for it, but the sheer size of the market has led to some terrible development decisions, and users are understandably gun shy.

Fingers xed,… I’ll soon be taking star and Sun shots once more!

C

Edited March 15, 20233 yr by cavaricooper

15 hours ago, Doering said:

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

I fully agree. I had to cancel a subscription to a certain YT flight-sim reviewer because of the constant lack of preparedness (no names because that person posts here). However, I think Jonathan Beckett is a very valued contributor to the hobby, and while he might have been a little bit unfair to PILOTS, he has at least had the decency to pull the video.

Jerome - looking forward to seeing the first update.

On 3/12/2023 at 6:33 AM, bobcat999 said:

In the end, it is still subjective to a degree.

Beyond that, it usually only says the flight dynamics were tested by a real pilot.  It doesn't usually say anything about the real pilot's evaluation.

"Yep. I tested it. It sucks" looks exactly the same as "this is 100% accurate" when the key details are left out. 😉

 

On 3/14/2023 at 2:20 PM, PILOT'S said:

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

Jerome, I bought this add-on and will not be asking for a refund because I'm a fan of the bird and Asobo nor anyone else has gotten around to doing it (yet).  That being said you can't tell us we are not seeing what we are seeing with our own two eyes🧐:

1. The model in this sim doesn't look that much better than the FS9 add-on you released so many years ago.  When looking at quality add-ons for FS the VC in this bird just doesn't hold up.  You guys must improve on this with future updates.  The paneling around the windows in the cockpit for example shows this model didn't get modified through it's various releases (FS9/FSX/P3D life cycle). It's actually worse now as none of the doors open anymore. Nothing with a price tag over $30 USD should look in any way worse than the default aircraft at this point, both cabin and cockpit.

2. The soundset has so many lacking holes in what you hear it's amazing this is an MSFS release.  Startup sounds as the video in this thread shows is not present, no splashdown sound, no variable pitch sounds from the engines etc.  Even FSRealistic can't fill in the holes this sound set lacks.  Again this is another area that screams your FS9 release from so many years ago.  It's a good thing my old FS9 rig is still up for me to compare.

3.  The cabin is basically part of the external model and not a true cabin married to the VC.  I will say it's better than nothing but it could be a whole lot better with the technologies we have for MSFS.

4. Your documentation still states, 'P3D' proving it's a port.  With a full out rebuild of a product the last thing that would be forgotten about is the documentation.  All that hard work only to leave the previous sim's docs in the install is unbelievable to say the least.👎

I could go on and on but you guys need to hire a different 3D modeler.  Your amazing documentation actually hurts you here because you can clearly see from the old pictures of the real cockpit how lacking your rendition is.  Case in point you have shots looking from the back to the cockpit.  You can see the detail around the cockpit windows and the cockpit as a whole where by contrast your model looks like a cartoon inside.  MSFS got us away from 'Cartoon Simulator' graphics and a FS9/FSX/P3D port is just not going to cut it these days.  I hold out hope you'll get a different 3D modeler who can bring this bird up to MSFS standards.  You guys have been at it for years with this bird but in the confines of FS you can't fake it anymore.  MSFS requires a different level of development with almost picture perfect modeling of aircraft.  The B314 is so iconic I hope other developers or Asobo take on the challenge.  I usually don't like the same bird being done over and over again but if you guys can't clean this up with some significant upgrades I'd hate this to be the only game in town for this aircraft. 😕

Edited March 15, 20233 yr by Dillon

Jerome-

To add to Dillon’s post please study the DC-6 and the recent DHC-4 for MSFS VC detail level expectations. They are both quite lovely. Flat visuals are indeed sub-standard these days.

I want to like this release, I really do… but for me there are enough voiced concerns to require Pilots’ IMMEDIATE attention.

Thanks- C

On 3/14/2023 at 6:11 PM, PILOT'S said:

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

Thank you, Jerôme! As a customer and beta tester of the P3D4/5 versions I opened the documentation that came with that product and found the reference to that feathering switch there 🙂
Perhaps it would not be such a bad idea to offer those older documents on your website as support documents for the MSFS version too with the proviso that they were written for a different simulation program of course...

I do hope however, that the functionality of that switch will be available soon too 🙂

Chers;
Jürgen

4 hours ago, Paul K said:

I fully agree. I had to cancel a subscription to a certain YT flight-sim reviewer because of the constant lack of preparedness (no names because that person posts here). However, I think Jonathan Beckett is a very valued contributor to the hobby, and while he might have been a little bit unfair to PILOTS, he has at least had the decency to pull the video.

Yes, Jonathan is pretty good. But, like the vast majority of reviewers, they get caught with their hastiness once and a while. It is absolutely impossible to be continually jumping into new and complex aircraft and within an hour or two publish a video and claim aspects don’t work properly without reading POH related documentation and spending quality time in the left seat to fully understand the aircraft.

Critical appraisal is a lost art as people believe what they read and hear without a second thought. You just have to read video comments and see that the readership follow these videos as absolute Gospel without a second thought. Hats off to Beckett for deleting the video.

Staying on track, we can hope that the updates turn this classic towards a better path.

Well, I bought this and I love the look of it. My own issues are pretty much the opposite of a lot of the comments here and in the videos mentioned. I don't care about what switches or gauges are working or accurate, and I have no opinion about flight models/accuracy of flying etc.

What I would very much like to see added is not more detail in terms of piloting, but less. A nice basic totally "game-ish" control option would probably sell at least as many copies, if not more, than a supposedly fully accurate study-level version. On a quick glance throught the manual it seems like there's a lot of messing around to be done before it'll lift off the water. On my first attempt I just gave up and "teleported to altitude" at which point it was perfectly fine.

Yes, I know it's a flight sim, but I am not interested in playing at being a pilot. I have only one other aircraft in this sim that requires anything more than a quick ctrl-e and maybe some flaps to get off the ground successfully. And I don't use that one because I don't want to be bothered (and I have maybe 60-70 payware aircraft including PMDG etc as well as dozens of freeware planes). What I'd like to see is a completely basic option for start up that puts the aircraft into "ready to launch" mode.

I'm not bitching here. I suspected it might be a bit like this but I really like the aircraft itself and I can still get it off the water if only by cheating, and that means I can fly it around and grab screenies. Which is pretty much all I want to do - see the world from a good looking and interesting plane.

So @PILOT'S, Jerome, please don't push this exclusively towards complexity. It's a lovely looking beast and there are probably quite a few of us out here for whom that alone is enough. Just as long as we can get it in the air.

10 hours ago, eslader said:

Beyond that, it usually only says the flight dynamics were tested by a real pilot.  It doesn't usually say anything about the real pilot's evaluation.

Your right,  It doesn't.  Since the real b314 had its last flight in 1948 (75 years ago) I wonder who the B314 pilot is who tested these flight dynamics.  He's at least 105 years old.😄

31 minutes ago, PILOT'S said:

Your post is extremely disappointing Dillon, I think in future your should reevaluate information, especially considering that in this case you denigrate to writing absolute rubbish, what a great shame!

 

OK Jerome, if I can borrow the style of a Dragon's Den / Shark Tank investor for a second; your firstly defensive, and now offensive attitude has alienated me to the point where a purchase I had bookmarked for later will now never happen. I'm out.

Shame, I quite like the plane and can see your model could be very good with work, but my days of supporting abrasive developers are behind me.

Edited March 16, 20233 yr by scotchegg

14 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

OK Jerome, if I can borrow the style of a Dragon's Den / Shark Tank investor for a second; your firstly defensive, and now offensive attitude has alienated me to the point where a purchase I had bookmarked for later will now never happen. I'm out.

Shame, I quite like the plane and can see your model could be very good with work, but my days of supporting abrasive developers are behind me.

My posts here have been factual, if you wish to interpret them as defensive or offensive, so be it.

It is absolutely unacceptable for someone here to write utter rubbish like "Your documentation still states, 'P3D' proving it's a port.". If you think this is perfectly okay and wish to upvote this, then that is your choice. I will correct such falsehoods and I stand by our product, I know there is a lot of work to be done and I have not been shy to discuss this here.

It may not be to your liking that I provide factual information and correct falsehoods that attempt to rubbish our product. On the other hand, why would I not do so, is that such a dishonourable thing to do that makes you then decide to comment as you have done?

Jerome

 

1 hour ago, PILOT'S said:

My posts here have been factual, if you wish to interpret them as defensive or offensive, so be it.

It is absolutely unacceptable for someone here to write utter rubbish like "Your documentation still states, 'P3D' proving it's a port.". If you think this is perfectly okay and wish to upvote this, then that is your choice. I will correct such falsehoods and I stand by our product, I know there is a lot of work to be done and I have not been shy to discuss this here.

It may not be to your liking that I provide factual information and correct falsehoods that attempt to rubbish our product. On the other hand, why would I not do so, is that such a dishonourable thing to do that makes you then decide to comment as you have done?

Jerome

 

Dude, the first rule of hole digging is to stop. You’ve dug yourself and Pilots quite a crater tonight. Best to count your losses and live to see another day. 
-B

PS. I quite agree with scotchegg.  You quickly want from a developer with a point to make into a rambling and repetitive whiner. 

4 hours ago, scotchegg said:

OK Jerome, if I can borrow the style of a Dragon's Den / Shark Tank investor for a second; your firstly defensive, and now offensive attitude has alienated me to the point where a purchase I had bookmarked for later will now never happen. I'm out.

Shame, I quite like the plane and can see your model could be very good with work, but my days of supporting abrasive developers are behind me.

Agreed. I'll be spending my money elsewhere. If I'd seen some acknowledgement that the plane was less than perfect and that there would be ongoing improvements I might feel differently.

I agree also.   

I think Avsim forum members have tried to be been reasonable with their comments, and I am appalled to see decent people on here I have known for many years spoken to in such a way.

If I didn't know better I would say an account has been hacked! 

I also think everyone has had a right to reply, and the tone isn't getting any better, so I hope the moderators consider if the thread has outlived its usefulness now.

Anyway, to carry on with the Dragon's Den analogy - I'm out as well!

Edited March 16, 20233 yr by bobcat999