24 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

No, not really. Unless you are kind enough to answer my question.

I don't understand why you would involve yourself in these accusations. Is it necessary for me to share my work history, both past and present? What is the motive behind this unfounded attack? This is why I call this toxic environment. 

@LRBS. Attack? I was not attacking you and if you read it that way, I apologise. ( I simply asked the question, why do you want MSFS to enable you to pretend that you are back at work?) Its for entertainment purposes only and WT have certainly added to that.

Edited May 13, 20233 yr by jarmstro

3 hours 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.

 

I think this is the best way to go forward. Just send a private message to Matt then, if you don't feel comfortable discussing the technical issues further publicly.  I'm sure Matt will be interested to hear from you, especially if you are a real life type rated 747-8 pilot.

I definitely hope that more real life type rates 747 and 787 pilots can give constructive feedback to the Working Title team. Cheers.

Edited May 13, 20233 yr by abrams_tank

3 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

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.

I super appreciate the kind words, honestly, and it's always so heartwarming and massively humbling to hear good things about us.

But I do want to take some exception, and this is just my personal opinion, but this sort of thing really propagates and continues the mythos that certainly I have trying to tear down over the past few years as MSFS has come on to the scene, which is that there is something mythical, special, very secret-sauce you-only-know-if-you-know about developing a complex airliner. There's nothing mythical or otherworldly or requiring one to study in the Tao of Boeing or Airbus for decades in order to create an accurate tubeliner systems simulation. These are just airplanes, with half of them reusing the same parts from the same manufacturers following the same identical physical electrical, hydrodynamic, aerodynamic, and pneumatic principles just arranged in a different order with a slightly different set of automation. If you clear the bar for a team that understands those things and are talented programmers, then there are really no other secrets. If you've got the FCOM, maybe a maintenance doc or two, a few pilots to chat with, you're not going to have go into meditation for 10 years to digest that, and it isn't going to unearth a trove of special behaviors you never knew existed. It's the same stuff that's on the regionals, which is the same stuff that's on the bizjets, etc etc. Half this stuff is 40 year old designs that ran on simple relays, or 30 year old glass cockpit software that ran on 68000s brought forward a thousand times with a few tweaks to things here and there or slapped on bigger screens. I mean, the Boeing FMC at heart is basically a hot-rodded ProLine 4 Collins built for them that they've kept using forever, and the 787 is that same decades old software playing on a touchscreen.

As always, it isn't about magic team-exclusive dust, it's really only about two things: time and cost. What's the price point for the product, can you spend enough time to get the detail you want. With infinite of each, any dev team that meets the bar can make the studiest level aircraft they want. It isn't that, to give an example, we haven't been immersed in a vat of Boeing juice for long enough to know how the 787 electrical load shedding works, it's that it's complex automation and thus both time-consuming and costly to program with limited to zero pilot value during normal operations. And so different teams will have to balance those types of things with their goals and objectives.

I'm being a bit hyperbolic of course for humous effect, and I'm certainly not trying to pick on you, at all! Just a myth that needs to be put to rest so the hobby can move more healthily forward in life.

Edited May 13, 20233 yr by MattNischan

Hmmm. I've been a professional aviator for a long and used to think that all in the real and sim world had class and that professional mindset. I often think of people conforming to a technical/ethical standard or people exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner. Whether sitting at my computer, hauling cargo or taking some rich principal to a far off vacation destination, I keep that mindset. But anyway.

I have been active in this community for a long time and always aimed at giving those who don't experience aviation real world realistic insight. I have worked with developers a lot and have always contacted them directly to pass on my opinion of their simulations being polite and sincere. I'd like to thank those who work hard at developing our add-ons and trying to deliver a realistic experience. I also advise those who have real world experience to contact the developers directly instead of trying to bash products openly. When you contact them, do as I do. I pass on my advice and support it with information straight from the manual and facts. This adds validity and will demonstrate that you know what you are talking about. This is why I have worked with many teams in this community.

5 minutes ago, G550flyer said:

Hmmm. I've been a professional aviator for a long and used to think that all in the real and sim world had class and that professional mindset. I often think of people conforming to a technical/ethical standard or people exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner. Whether sitting at my computer, hauling cargo or taking some rich principal to a far off vacation destination, I keep that mindset. But anyway.

I have been active in this community for a long time and always aimed at giving those who don't experience aviation real world realistic insight. I have worked with developers a lot and have always contacted them directly to pass on my opinion of their simulations being polite and sincere. I'd like to thank those who work hard at developing our add-ons and trying to deliver a realistic experience. I also advise those who have real world experience to contact the developers directly instead of trying to bash products openly. When you contact them, do as I do. I pass on my advice and support it with information straight from the manual and facts. This adds validity and will demonstrate that you know what you are talking about. This is why I have worked with many teams in this community.

I don’t really think anyone, including our 747 pilot colleague, “bashed” the product. There are some people who like the new 747, and some who are less impressed. 

I would 100% want professional pilots commenting here so that we can all benefit from their insight.

It’s a thread on a 2-day-old beta product, there’s going to be some problems with it (I suspect more with the the 747 than the 787), absolutely nothing wrong with talking about what we see.

I’m sure Matt doesn’t mind consumer input, if he did there wouldn’t be an open beta! WT have done some amazing work to date, anyone who has been paying attention knows that, but robust feedback is necessary if you’re going to make a great product.

7 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

I don’t really think anyone, including our 747 pilot colleague, “bashed” the product. There are some people who like the new 747, and some who are less impressed. 

I would 100% want professional pilots commenting here so that we can all benefit from their insight.

It’s a thread on a 2-day-old beta product, there’s going to be some problems with it (I suspect more with the the 747 than the 787), absolutely nothing wrong with talking about what we see.

I’m sure Matt doesn’t mind consumer input, if he did there wouldn’t be an open beta! WT have done some amazing work to date, anyone who has been paying attention knows that, but robust feedback is necessary if you’re going to make a great product.

I don't disregard that at all. I just find it easier now days to reach out to them directly. Otherwise you end up in back and forth challenges with some who have no experience or nothing constructive to add. I won't do that anymore unless I am in the developer's own forum. I feel if you have something to add, do it in their forum where it might get noticed or do it directly. But, if it's just real world information, techniques or pure aviation insight, I still speak on those anywhere if I see its needed.

35 minutes ago, MattNischan said:

I super appreciate the kind words, honestly, and it's always so heartwarming and massively humbling to hear good things about us.

But I do want to take some exception, and this is just my personal opinion, but this sort of thing really propagates and continues the mythos that certainly I have trying to tear down over the past few years as MSFS has come on to the scene, which is that there is something mythical, special, very secret-sauce you-only-know-if-you-know about developing a complex airliner. There's nothing mythical or otherworldly or requiring one to study in the Tao of Boeing or Airbus for decades in order to create an accurate tubeliner systems simulation. These are just airplanes, with half of them reusing the same parts from the same manufacturers following the same identical physical electrical, hydrodynamic, aerodynamic, and pneumatic principles just arranged in a different order with a slightly different set of automation. If you clear the bar for a team that understands those things and are talented programmers, then there are really no other secrets. If you've got the FCOM, maybe a maintenance doc or two, a few pilots to chat with, you're not going to have go into meditation for 10 years to digest that, and it isn't going to unearth a trove of special behaviors you never knew existed. It's the same stuff that's on the regionals, which is the same stuff that's on the bizjets, etc etc. Half this stuff is 40 year old designs that ran on simple relays, or 30 year old glass cockpit software that ran on 68000s brought forward a thousand times with a few tweaks to things here and there or slapped on bigger screens. I mean, the Boeing FMC at heart is basically a hot-rodded ProLine 4 Collins built for them that they've kept using forever, and the 787 is that same decades old software playing on a touchscreen.

As always, it isn't about magic team-exclusive dust, it's really only about two things: time and cost. What's the price point for the product, can you spend enough time to get the detail you want. With infinite of each, any dev team that meets the bar can make the studiest level aircraft they want. It isn't that, to give an example, we haven't been immersed in a vat of Boeing juice for long enough to know how the 787 electrical load shedding works, it's that it's complex automation and thus both time-consuming and costly to program with limited to zero pilot value during normal operations. And so different teams will have to balance those types of things with their goals and objectives.

I'm being a bit hyperbolic of course for humous effect, and I'm certainly not trying to pick on you, at all! Just a myth that needs to be put to rest so the hobby can move more healthily forward in life.

No worries, and you certainly have a very good point here. Maybe we can agree on the following: Time and cost is the limiting factor, but having experience how to code e.g. specific Boeing systems reduces time and cost and therefore makes deeper / higher fidelity development much more viable. For example it would be very viable to create a 757 for PMDG, because they can build upon their previous experience and framework for the 737/747/777 and therefore save time and cost, while it's not as viable for the Fenix team, because they have no experience on creating any Boeing aircraft (this is a bit of an simplification because it ignores the individual coder's experience). Or another example, Hans Hartmann was able to create the ATR for MSFS within an acceptable time frame because he already did that on the Flight1 ATR years ago, while he probably would not have been able to create the Q400 within a reasonable amount of time.

5 hours ago, MattNischan said:

Half this stuff is 40 year old designs that ran on simple relays, or 30 year old glass cockpit software that ran on 68000s brought forward a thousand times with a few tweaks to things here and there or slapped on bigger screens.

The Proline 4 autopilot found in every Bombardier CRJ flying today in 2023 has two CPUs: An Intel 8086 (that powered the original IBM PC XT), and a MOS Technology 6502 (that powered the original Apple II and Commodore 64)!