Guys don’t forget, is created by Hans Hartman, the same creator of the “bug free” CRJ 😁. Well at least this time he’s not doing it for Aerosoft otherwise we will be blocked from the forums.

10 minutes ago, superspud said:

Legit failures and damage probably excites more prospective pilots and there isn't enough of those.

The best thing the industry could do to combat the low amount of pilots is to address the paywall. (Although maybe I'm just bitter at the $75k loans I've taken out for some hours and certs)

6 hours ago, superspud said:

If my airline CEO summoned a meeting and said 'guys, we're gonna have to let go of our fleet of ATRs. I tried to land one on the Statue of LIberty on my Xbox and really didn't like how it turned out' I'd chuck him out of the next available aircraft.

This is not even remotely the scenario in question for aircraft manufacturers.

The real scenario is airplane has a minor incident, makes the news, media has plane "expert" on some news segment flying the plane with the failure active saying, "see, here's how these can break, isn't that dangerous", public doesn't understand routine failures, public doesn't want to fly on said plane, analysis shows ticket sales down for said plane amid controversy, airline CEO cancels orders.

The fact that any commercial aircraft gets licensed at all always strikes me as extremely magnanimous on the part of manufacturers. There's almost zero upside, simmers don't buy ATRs nor do they control who buys them. Brand awareness is not nothing, certainly, but I don't think it's so strange for manufacturers not to want to highlight failures if that's their prerogative.

15 hours ago, gpbob said:

I have not followed the development news on this so closely. Isn't this essentially an Aerosoft development and therefore shouldn't we expect a similar fidelity / quality product as the CRJ series?

Aerosoft is not involved, but it is done by the same developer who was the main, if not only developer for the CRJ. So I think it is not unreasonable to expect similar quality for the system fidelity. 

For me personally that means that I am likely not going to purchase this until it has had a few patches. 

17 hours ago, Bigbluss said:

Good thing the same approach isn't taken in DCS World or we'd have an incredibly boring sim!

DCS world stuff is fake none of their aircraft are certified by Boeing, Airbus etc. Military stuff is fake too good luck trying to get real reference to the real thing from the U.S. or any other government but have a good at it if you think you will become Gi Joe using DCS but hey I can blow up things, wow.

As far as this ATR I think it will be fun for most of the Island hoppers, but I think I will skip this one. Fix the darn 787 MS and Asobo

 

Edited April 25, 20233 yr by jbdbow1970

Can't wait for other people to try it for me and then decide. 

1 hour ago, jbdbow1970 said:

DCS world stuff is fake none of their aircraft are certified by Boeing, Airbus etc. Military stuff is fake too good luck trying to get real reference to the real thing from the U.S. or any other government but have a good at it if you think you will become Gi Joe using DCS but hey I can blow up things, wow.

As far as this ATR I think it will be fun for most of the Island hoppers, but I think I will skip this one. Fix the darn 787 MS and Asobo

 

This isn't really accurate - the A10C was used by the US National Guard for training. And the DCS M2000 is used by the French Air Force. Afaik, the top tier DCS aircraft are as close to reality as you can get on a home sim. 

29 minutes ago, Bigbluss said:

This isn't really accurate - the A10C was used by the US National Guard for training. And the DCS M2000 is used by the French Air Force. Afaik, the top tier DCS aircraft are as close to reality as you can get on a home sim. 

If I am not mistaken, DCS modules are licensed by companies to use the Name and can only replicate systems allowed by those companies.

1 minute ago, jimcarrel said:

If I am not mistaken, DCS modules are licensed by companies to use the Name and can only replicate systems allowed by those companies.

There's a good podcast with Wags from ED on this - one of 'The Fighter Pilot Podcast' episodes (great podcast btw!).

Essentially he said they'll work with the manufacturer if they can, and they'll use any and all publicly available information. If information is leaked, they won't use it. This is why we tend to see older aircraft, like older block F-16, the Charlie Hornet, F-14B but not D. It's also the (disappointing) reason we don't have any full fidelity Russian jets. 

1 hour ago, Jeeeno said:

Can't wait for other people to try it for me and then decide. 

If only more people did this, it would save a lot of disappointment.  Just wait for a youtube video review and decide from there.  

3 minutes ago, tgsweat said:

Just wait for a youtube video review and decide from there.  

This would be by far the last method I would use to decide.

The vast majority of YouTube content these days are heavily influenced by paid content creators.

I'm not going to name names but there are plenty in the MS2020 Flight Sim video category doing this.

One should be able to get a pretty good idea on this forum and other flight sim forums.

 

 

15 hours ago, WestAir said:

It's interesting how Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers, along with weapons systems manufacturers, have never come out swinging against DCS and ARMA for using their products. It's only civil flight sims that seem to be under this restriction.

Not directly comparable to the ATR situation, but from what I understand the Russian manufacturers actually have similar issues, not so much with damage modeling but systems modeling. The NATO based companies are pretty ok with even mid-2000's F/A-18's & F-16's aircraft being made in high fidelity. Meanwhile it's a battle just to convince the Russia to allow a 80's era MiG-29 to be developed, which is why that doesn't exist yet, and why there will probably never be the likes of the Su-34 done at a higher definition. I also believe that's why the Ka-50 actually received some elements from the Ka-52, because Russia likely will not allow the 52 to be made due to it being too new.

Again, maybe not directly comparable, but I bring that up to note that DCS does have these issues, at least in some capacity.

It will be interesting to see how liveries are handled.  The A310 didn’t “include” real work ones but inibuilds had them available on their website from day 1.  I know MS/Asobo was trying to get licenses with various airlines for AI aircraft I wonder if any of that will carry over to the ATR?

At the end of the day PC users will likely be able to download a plethora of liveries from flightsim.to in short order but that’s not an option for Xbox users, which was mentioned on the official forums and isn’t something I had thought of.

Just watching a few flight sim streams on Twitch now, and everyone is pumped about this ATR release. A lot of hype for this ATR on the Twitch flight sim streams now.

Edited April 25, 20233 yr by abrams_tank

Not much.