Flying the WT AAU2 747-8

[btacon 1,808]

1 hour ago, LRBS said:

It is obvious that you have the PMDG 748. I think that you might have some issues with the PMDG installation or you are not quite up to speed with what the airplane should do.

I have noticed several issues with the MSFS (beta version) while watching the short clip. It does not seem to function like another 748.

It is our hope that the major issues will be addressed, but we cannot be certain of the outcome. We remain optimistic for a positive resolution.

 

There is nothing wrong with my PMDG installation(s) but thanks for your concern.  

Also your use of the third person in this discussion implies that others are in agreement with your position. That’s a big assumption from where I’m sitting, especially when considering the PMDG QOTS platform is over 20 years old, while this release is two days old. 

Oh, and I forgot..you can’t fly the PMDG 748 in MSFS right now. When you can, look me up and we can compare notes.

-B

[David Mills 4,774]

4 hours ago, MattNischan said:

Hopefully folks enjoy the value that they're getting for the price.

As someone who is visually impaired, I especially appreciate the high-resolution clarity of the new instrument panels. They are easy even for me to read! That makes a huge difference to my flying experience. Thank you!

[polosim 852]

4 hours ago, edpatino said:

the final release (out of beta) for this AAU2 is when?, end May?, June?.

Asobo Studio and Working Title’s AAU2 beta update (1.33.3.0) for Microsoft Flight Simulator is now available for download with the full release currently scheduled for June 23rd.

[Greazer 1,326]

6 hours ago, Ponymetzger said:

It does not even come close to the PMDG. 

Of course, with the range it's a lot More.

[F1Fan 121]

WOW, it sound like it going to be an excellent upgrade.  I am easy to please, I am no hardcore simmer so I will truly enjoy it.  All the hard work the WT team is doing is very much appreciated..Thank You very much.   I am really looking forward to the release.

[Ricardo41 5,955]

7 hours ago, Ponymetzger said:

It does not even come close to the PMDG. 

Thanks for sharing!

🙃

[MattNischan 3,780]

3 hours ago, LRBS said:

It does not seem to function like another 748

I see folks post these things but not the actual list of things they're seeing that they feel is wrong, which makes it hard for us to do our jobs as developers and see if there's an expectations mismatch or legitimate bugs.

I hope folks are using the multiple feedback venues available to help us better the product, for you.

[MattNischan 3,780]

3 hours ago, LRBS said:

It does not seem to function like another 748

I see folks post these things but not the actual list of things they're seeing that they feel is wrong, which makes it hard for us to do our jobs as developers and see if there's an expectations mismatch or legitimate bugs.

I hope folks are using the multiple feedback venues available to help us better the product, for you.

[pmplayer 9,497]

6 hours ago, MattNischan said:

Well, seems we did our job then, as that certainly wasn't the intention to. 🙂 Thankfully, it's not a competition, and we love all the other devs.

The intention behind these aircraft was to provide the best possible sim-included-aircraft level long haul experience. So, just as with the CJ4, the focus is on deep, accurate avionics and rock-solid LNAV and VNAV, so folks would feel confident and comfortable flying these without running into flight breaking issues. And then, on top, we want to provide reasonable systems interactions so that pilots can follow the normal checklists and do most or all of the things you'd expect. Failures, non-normal configurations, what happens when I power down just one hydraulic system, etc is not really the depth that was intended. This is why we said for systems, a bit above the CJ4 (as there are more of them), but under the Longitude (which has deep physical simulations of air systems, hydraulics, electrical, fuel, etc). I'm sure there will be third party project to bring things to that level.

But the vast majority of normal pilot interactions should be crisp, solid, with a super authentic avionics experience, a good flight model adhering extremely closely to book numbers; the stuff our actual long haul pilot testers cared and care most about. And, don't be fooled! There still is plenty of depth: TCAS is completely to the TCAS II spec, LNAV does all the crazy procedures you want with RF, we have our full GPS satellite simulation, RNAV and Boeing IAN, autoland, a nearly 1 for 1 HUD, pixel peeper accurate glass visuals (our guys are nerds too), a ton of the FMC, lots and lots of CAS messages, the list goes on and on. It's definitely still highly highly advanced.

But, just want to keep expectations in the reality zone. Hopefully folks enjoy the value that they're getting for the price.

Well done here, what you guys doeing for MSFS is amazing,outstanding and much more !

Gets this Microsoft Flightsimulator further foreward to the best Flightsimulator we probably ever get, so thank you for your hard work to this Sim, fantastic..

And let me say some words to PMDG:

This developer is totally overrated in my opinion !

And it shouldn't be a direct comparison at all .

cheers 😉

[Greazer 1,326]

How does this compare to Salty?

[LRBS 948]

1 hour ago, MattNischan said:

I see folks post these things but not the actual list of things they're seeing that they feel is wrong, which makes it hard for us to do our jobs as developers and see if there's an expectations mismatch or legitimate bugs.

I hope folks are using the multiple feedback venues available to help us better the product, for you.

Ok, as a developer if you feel that is nothing wrong with this early beta version I think that you actually have a bigger problem than you can think and the guidance provided is totally wrong.

As a real 748 driver allow me to give you some quick points just noticed from this short video:

 

In the real airplane, there is no trend vector for altitude on PFD.

 

VNAV speed band is showing incorrect data.

 

Very high ROD (in excess of 5,000 FT/MIN) in VNAV PATH. From what I see from the video it is more likely an emergency descend.

 

And that brings to another issue, TD is not correct.

 

Very high pitch and abrupt angle changes during descend.

 

In VNAV path during descend aircraft is busting 250 KTS below 10K.

 

Incorrect FMAs.

 

When he pushed APP mode he got incorrect info on MCP and after full intercept wrong info on MCP as well.

 

Unfortunately, you are correct that as a developer it is impossible to do your job with the info you have right now.

[btacon 1,808]

12 minutes ago, LRBS said:

Ok, as a developer if you feel that is nothing wrong with this early beta version I think that you actually have a bigger problem than you can think and the guidance provided is totally wrong.

As a real 748 driver allow me to give you some quick points just noticed from this short video:

Wow.  What a completely disingenuous and ridiculous reflection of  Matt’s words.  He clearly stated that folks need to give specifics so they can be addressed.  He never said or implied there “is nothing wrong with this early beta version”.  Your suggestion that he did is completely over the top.   

Oh, and I was an ATC for 15 years and I can clearly see you must be a real driver.  Your pompous and smug attitude tells it all.

-B

[DAD 2,653]

57 minutes ago, LRBS said:

Unfortunately, you are correct that as a developer it is impossible to do your job with the info you have right now.

Ouch. Indeed a misunderstanding. I hope. Since you gave the info and details what is wrong literally *right now*. And only *now* they can be worked against.

[Pastaiolo 1,688]

Very glad of what Matt and the team did, for free! We are very lucky to have this opportunity.

[Fiorentoni 4,253]

He has a point. It comes across a bit „strange“ when the developer comes on here asking „What‘s wrong with the aircraft?“ when it literally dives down with 5000 FPM on VNAV. This makes it look like the developer has no idea how this (or any) airplane should work… which is not good for a developer.
Whether it‘s free or not has nothing to do with it, the topic is about how good a 747 simulation this is, not how much it costs.

EDIT: WT are not really aircraft developers, but rather avionic system developers. This shows on the 747 and 787 obviously much more than on the Longitude. I wasn‘t expecting anything else, but some people obviously were which is why we have this weird kind of discussion here.

Edited May 13, 2023 by Fiorentoni