38 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

Lots of hyperbole in this thread. 

... I was getting a descent rate of 10,000 feet per minute at one stage.

My impression is that VNAV (and even FL CH) still need quite a bit of work to make this a viable longhauler.

 

Umm... 10K feet/min sounds... interesting...

Hopefully they'll iron that one out before release. 

26 minutes ago, btacon said:

Day 1 release of a 1 month beta by Working Title. Their skills and ability are self evident by the work they have already accomplished. I am fully confident that the final release will meet the needs of 95% of the simmers who fly it.  Is it “Study Level”?  Of course not. Can it fly from point A to point B and reasonably simulate automated flight? Yes, even now beta 1 release it can and it will only get better with each iteration until release. Those are not just my words but they are echoing the comments made by 737 NG Driver in his full flight test drive released yesterday and can be found in this thread and his closing comments begin at 1 hour and 4 minutes  

-B

Yeah, but you compared it to the PMDG 747. 
 

No, it doesn’t remind me of that right now. I’d say it’s more or less similar to the Salty, some bits better, some bits worse. 

WT have the right idea - make normal ops bulletproof. That would be enough to get me to fly it regularly. 
 

That hasn’t been my experience this weekend. It still needs way to much monitoring and assistance, I don’t trust the vertical navigation logic to do what it needs to do without human input.

It’s day 2 of the beta, and WT have a great reputation for GA avionics. I want them to get this right, so I think it’s important to be realistic about the bugs and frank about which bits of the aircraft still need work.

 

Edited May 13, 20233 yr by OzWhitey

4 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

Yeah, but you compared it to the PMDG 747. 
 

‘No, it doesn’t remind me of that right now.

 

That's for sure. 

4 hours ago, LRBS said:

I appreciate your insightful advice.

 

Although Matt's work is appreciated, there are currently significant bugs that need to be addressed. I didn't mean to criticize his programming knowledge. I simply pointed out some bugs he may not have noticed and questioned how one can do their job with incorrect information. It's discouraging to witness individuals becoming upset simply for having discrepancies pointed out to them. 

 

And @btacon really it is not necessarily to behave like a child. I did not insult you. 

LR, have you given it a fly yet? If you’re type rated on the actual aircraft, I’d be very interested to see what you think. 

7 hours 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.

Hmm, I think we have a pretty massive miscommunication here, if that's on me I apologize. If you read back, I didn't say I thought nothing was wrong, but instead that we've seen people say "It's broken!" without telling us what actually they're seeing, which makes the beta process, a community collaborative effort, very very difficult.

5 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

This makes it look like the developer has no idea how this (or any) airplane should work… which is not good for a developer.

I would hope that folks know at this point that we have a pretty good idea of how aircraft work. The entire point of the beta process is to collect feedback. It isn't about what I as a developer think or know is wrong, it's about what you all think or know is wrong. I don't think simply asking a person, "tell me what you saw in this clip" warrants a leap to "the developer is incompetent about this type", because the process of feedback gathering is extremely diverse. Sometimes 4 people will watch one thing and have 4 totally different lists of "is that right?" and we want to capture them all. It doesn't mean we don't already know what bugs are out there.

5 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

WT are not really aircraft developers, but rather avionic system developers.

My personal opinion, while of course biased, is that the Longitude systems really show this is absolutely not true. Now, we found basically nobody uses them because you can just fly the plane in NORM, but so so many super deep quirks of the C700 aircraft systems (not talking the avionics) developed over hundreds of hours with the manufacturer engineering team themselves. Nobody cares, but the hydraulic pressure rise rate from the PTCU when you first engage the parking brake on power on is an exact match for the actual datalog.

As for the reported issues, just to qualm some concern:

Yes, we have already removed the trend vector, that was an accidental inclusion. VNAV speed band going into the overspeed area is already fixed and in the next build. VNAV chasing during flight path angle changes has also been fixed. The video isn't up anymore but I don't think we've had speed busting reported yet (nor seen it on our end), so we'll keep an eye out. The TD position and descent rates are being looked into; performance based VNAV requires running a literal complex mini-simulation of the whole flight periodically to compute integral weight changes and so while the 78 is acting reasonably for some reason the 74 is not, even with both confirmed good aero models. Will definitely be fixed before release, though.

Looking through the FCOM (where we've spent the last 10-15K hours of our lives) I'm not seeing what you mean about the FMA, so perhaps you could expand on that a bit. The MCP lights on APP are already fixed and will be in the next build.

Hope that all helps, folks!

Edited May 13, 20233 yr by MattNischan

18 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

Yeah, but you compared it to the PMDG 747.

Actually, no I didn’t. Folks like you say I did, but the most I ever said was that it flys like another functioning 747 I have in another simulator. Never once did I mention PMDG until later when I confirmed  that I own PMDG, I own all their products, FSX, P3d, MSFS so no PMDG basher here.

Besides that I agree pretty much with everything you said in the post I quoted so peace to you my brother and have a wonderful weekend. 
-B

1 hour ago, Bernard Ducret said:

This ability to communicate is something that is learnt in reputable airlines when going through cockpit crew training (CRM): you can (1) guide and rectify respectfully or (2) tell your flying partner off when a mistake is done, the resulting difference between the two attitudes can be guessed. In a distant past Captains were behaving in the second mode showing off their wealth of knowledge to the rookie sitting on the right, nowadays, the first mode is generally adopted.

It is most unfortunate that we seem to be unable to communicate in a less agressive and arrogant way at a time when communication vectors are so prevalent in our daily lives. What could be pleasant and fun rapidly becomes nasty and sour.

I see what you did there Bernard 😉 - well done! Kudos to you for a fine post.

 

My 2 cents' worth: I've never dabbled with the 787-10 before - too limited. I just completed my first flight with the AAU2 version. From start to finish, with a complete autoland. Including leaving it flying during the night while I slept.

Is it as complete, systems-wise as the Fenix A320 or the PMDG 737 I also have? No. Does it fly itself, with manual flight plan input in the FMS, then VNAV, LNAV and approach? Yes. Does it have enough "button-mashing" for the usual systems? Yes.

Is it worth the price? Absolutely yes lol. Will I fly it again? You bet.

36 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

I'm not seeing what you mean about the FMA, so perhaps you could expand on that a bit.

I acknowledge that there has been a significant miscommunication, and I apologize for any misunderstandings that may have occurred. While I am willing to provide any assistance I can based on my availability, I do not feel comfortable doing so in this toxic environment. I suggest communicating through a private message and continuing the conversation via private email if feasible.

 

Boeing 747 First Flight | Aircraft & Avionics Update 2 BETA | Real Airline Pilot - YouTube

Boeing 787 First Flight | Aircraft & Avionics Update 2 BETA | Real Airline Pilot - YouTube

On both videos the author provides various hints on what is wrong...

24 minutes ago, LRBS said:

I acknowledge that there has been a significant miscommunication, and I apologize for any misunderstandings that may have occurred. While I am willing to provide any assistance I can based on my availability, I do not feel comfortable doing so in this toxic environment. I suggest communicating through a private message and continuing the conversation via private email if feasible.

 

There's also the possibility to write a bug report in the beta test section of the official forums, or contact WT on their Discord. Both are quite friendly places in my experience. While this may not always be true on the MSFS forums, the bug report sub-forums have been pretty unemotional and focussed on the verifiable facts instead of personal attacks and toxic behaviour. 

Matt reads the official forums regularly and gives useful comments on anything WT related, especially in the bug sections for the AAU2. You can find him under the nick Bishop398.

Edited May 13, 20233 yr by pstrub

flightsim developers have the patience of saints....

59 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

My personal opinion, while of course biased, is that the Longitude systems really show this is absolutely not true.

I should have said "airliner" instead of "aircraft", that's true.
Actually this wasn't meant in a negative way, no one starts off and makes a great Airbus or Boeing plane out of nothing (well Fenix came close), it comes down to experience, and by that I do not mean coding experience (which you no doubt have), but experience with the aircraft and its "eco system" themselves. It's about having all those little custom Boeing things that make people feel immersed, and this is experience you don't gain overnight. There's a reason PMDG or Maddog, two of the greatest developers, are coding the same airplane for 20 (?) years: Once you have that deep and huge experience with that aircraft you want to capitalize from that as long as you can.
Since you and WT are more of a "general avionics and aircraft enhancer" and not a very specialized one-product team, you do not have that experience and therefore please do not interpret those who are disappointed about missing features as "you did bad work!", because no one here thinks so. You did exactly what you were supposed to do and what is perfectly fit for a default enhancement. It's just that many Avsimmers have huge expectations for their aircraft's depth and therefore are quick to point out what's missing. Of course when someone says "that's like the real 787!" a discussion starts, since after all that's Avsim and that's what we do all day long, but this happens even for the best (see PMDG's EFB, Fenix' custom engine model, Maddog's cockpit textures.

I'm interested in the 787 and use HD's mod for now.  When will we see the WT updates to the 787 if you will?

Lemme see if I get this all correctly lined up:

1) WT release a beta of a set of complex avionics

2) People start bellyaching about "bugs"

Dunno, see 1)🤔