A350

[sonny147 586]

Can a DEV  please please do the A350 my life would be complete and i would pay top dollar ( ish) 🤞

[rick celik 1,252]

Agreed 

[Fiorentoni 4,450]

Lack of published data, not gonna happen within the next 5 — 10 years.

[Dominique_K 10,152]

12 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Lack of published data, not gonna happen within the next 5 — 10 years.

Ask Captain Sim !  

💥 shazam!💥  🛩️ !

No need for no stinkin’ data

[Ricardo41 5,959]

https://msfsaddons.com/2022/07/03/digital-flight-dynamics-shares-a350-for-msfs-development-update/

[ErichB 3,651]

35 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

https://msfsaddons.com/2022/07/03/digital-flight-dynamics-shares-a350-for-msfs-development-update/

Nice find. But reading between the lines, this seems to be at least 2 years out.

[peloto 213]

3 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

Lack of published data, not gonna happen within the next 5 — 10 years.

Yes, smart decision, because I am sure that its competitors like Boeing, terrorist intelligence agencies or China etc. etc. etc., already don´t have that necessary data about 350 technology and behaviours and much much more hidden, for release an only study level Sim version. So obviously then the problem, is an aircraft in a Sim that tells technology to those other companies, the only way that the competitors achieve that info....

If it is hidden, it is so word not allowed that they want hide it, or it is so good that they want hide it.

[Fiorentoni 4,450]

10 minutes ago, peloto said:

Yes, smart decision, because I am sure that its competitors like Boeing, terrorist intelligence agencies or China etc. etc. etc., already don´t have that necessary data about 350 technology and behaviours and much much more hidden, for release an only study level Sim version. So obviously then the problem, is an aircraft in a Sim that tells technology to those other companies, the only way that the competitors achieve that info....

If it is hidden, it is so word not allowed that they want hide it, or it is so good that they want hide it.

What?

[flyingpauls 66]

The only half baken simulation I know is the FlightFactor A350 for X-Plane 11. It was a lot of fun to fly this. But it never was completed.

[captain420 3,099]

7 minutes ago, flyingpauls said:

The only half baken simulation I know is the FlightFactor A350 for X-Plane 11. It was a lot of fun to fly this. But it never was completed.

I bought that and totally regretted my purchase. Flightfactor left a bad taste in my mouth, especially with their 777. But I do really hope to see a proper, well modeled, high quality A350 for MSFS.

[Aamir 2,909]

7 minutes ago, peloto said:

Yes, smart decision, because I am sure that its competitors like Boeing, terrorist intelligence agencies or China etc. etc. etc., already don´t have that necessary data about 350 technology and behaviours and much much more hidden, for release an only study level Sim version. So obviously then the problem, is an aircraft in a Sim that tells technology to those other companies, the only way that the competitors achieve that info....

If it is hidden, it is so word not allowed that they want hide it, or it is so good that they want hide it.

That's... not the problem.

Everything has just moved to a highly digitised platform. While it can still be gotten, it's just harder to do. It makes things easier and better for MROs and maintenance folks, and tougher for people that want to try and "build" the aircraft - because you can't just get the AMM as a PDF or something like that anymore. Wiring diagrams, etc, all the same. 

The other problem is that nowadays, there are certain documents that aren't even on these digital platforms anymore that are important to building something like an Airbus aircraft. Certain backend ECAM logic etc isn't really necessary to be distributed any longer, so they simply.. don't. Whereas for the A320, you can find this stuff on Google. This usually means you need to build things backward, and that turns it from a 3 year project, to a 6-7 year project (to do right), which just kinda makes it a little bit of a commercially poor decision - you could release two full products for the time it takes to build an A350, and with significantly less trouble/unknowns. 

Even if you had all that stuff - it's still quite a few years of effort due to the complexity of the airplane. 

Ultimately, I'm sure there'll be an A350 from somewhere eventually, but for a full-fat maximum fidelity module, I reckon you'd be waiting a little while. I'm the biggest A350 fan on the planet, and I'd love to build one at Fenix, but with what I can see in front of me, the business is just better served building other stuff. 

[abrams_tank 7,490]

38 minutes ago, Aamir said:

That's... not the problem.

Everything has just moved to a highly digitised platform. While it can still be gotten, it's just harder to do. It makes things easier and better for MROs and maintenance folks, and tougher for people that want to try and "build" the aircraft - because you can't just get the AMM as a PDF or something like that anymore. Wiring diagrams, etc, all the same. 

The other problem is that nowadays, there are certain documents that aren't even on these digital platforms anymore that are important to building something like an Airbus aircraft. Certain backend ECAM logic etc isn't really necessary to be distributed any longer, so they simply.. don't. Whereas for the A320, you can find this stuff on Google. This usually means you need to build things backward, and that turns it from a 3 year project, to a 6-7 year project (to do right), which just kinda makes it a little bit of a commercially poor decision - you could release two full products for the time it takes to build an A350, and with significantly less trouble/unknowns. 

Even if you had all that stuff - it's still quite a few years of effort due to the complexity of the airplane. 

Ultimately, I'm sure there'll be an A350 from somewhere eventually, but for a full-fat maximum fidelity module, I reckon you'd be waiting a little while. I'm the biggest A350 fan on the planet, and I'd love to build one at Fenix, but with what I can see in front of me, the business is just better served building other stuff. 

So would Airbus even consider partnering with an established 3rd party dev with a good reputation, and then share some of their documents for the A350 to this 3rd party dev? (assuming the 3rd party dev, and its employees, all have to sign a confidentiality agreement with Airbus)

I ask this because PMDG has an official relationship with Boeing. I assume Boeing gives some documentation to PMDG? (I don't know this, I am just assuming).

I wonder if Airbus would ever consider an official partnership with an established 3rd party flight sim developer, and would share their documentation with such a 3rd party developer under a confidentiality agreement, of course (or maybe Airbus wouldn't bother because they get nothing out of it and even if the 3rd party dev shared profits with Airbus, the profits would be like peanuts to Airbus).

Edited May 17, 2023 by abrams_tank

[Aamir 2,909]

5 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

So would Airbus even consider partnering with an established 3rd party dev with a good reputation, and then share some of their documents for the A350 to this 3rd party dev? (assuming the 3rd party dev, and its employees, all have to sign a confidentiality agreement with Airbus)

I ask this because PMDG has an official relationship with Boeing. I assume Boeing gives some documentation to PMDG? (I don't know this, I am just assuming).

I wonder if Airbus would ever consider an official partnership with an established 3rd party developer flight sim developer, and would share their documentation with such a 3rd party developer under a confidentiality agreement, of course (or maybe Airbus wouldn't bother because they get nothing out of it and even if the 3rd party dev shared profits with Airbus, the profits would be like peanuts to Airbus).

To this, I would posit a conundrum to you.

To do it right, you don't need some documents, you need the documents - the heart and brain of the airplane, so to speak. All the ECAM logic, etc. Along with all-access to the maintenance manuals, but that is probably a little less sensitive. Now, this can be purchased, for the price of a small apartment building in a small city, if they sell it to you. Why? To develop training applications. Now, this means there are a couple of problems:

1) There is a per license installation fee. Per license. How much? Buy a nice brand-new Benz off the lot, you're probably close. So, not £49.99. 

2) It is absolutely prohibited for anything but training. 

3) They don't just sell it to anyone that would write a cheque, they want to know what you're doing with it.

Soooooo... would they let us have it for free in exchange for a revenue share? Unfortunately, there's not much sense in them doing that for us - they risk us building something that undercuts the entire training market with the same data-access as the training market, for nothing. It won't fly. Forget about the fact that the revenue share we would bring them would be a percentage, of a morsel, of their daily revenue. In 1 year. Unless we gave them all our revenue. In which case it's just a percentage of a slightly larger morsel of their daily revenue. Not all of Airbus. Just the training department 😁

We also have an official relationship with Airbus. They have a very small percentage of our revenue for a licensing fee, allowing us to call it an "Airbus A320". This comes with some support here and there, but hardly anything near enough to build an airplane, and certainly no "detailed" documentation. No idea what PMDG's relationship is like with Boeing of course, so cannot comment on that. 

[abrams_tank 7,490]

4 minutes ago, Aamir said:

To this, I would posit a conundrum to you.

To do it right, you don't need some documents, you need the documents - the heart and brain of the airplane, so to speak. All the ECAM logic, etc. Along with all-access to the maintenance manuals, but that is probably a little less sensitive. Now, this can be purchased, for the price of a small apartment building in a small city, if they sell it to you. Why? To develop training applications. Now, this means there are a couple of problems:

1) There is a per license installation fee. Per license. How much? Buy a nice brand-new Benz off the lot, you're probably close. So, not £49.99. 

2) It is absolutely prohibited for anything but training. 

3) They don't just sell it to anyone that would write a cheque, they want to know what you're doing with it.

Soooooo... would they let us have it for free in exchange for a revenue share? Unfortunately, there's not much sense in them doing that for us - they risk us building something that undercuts the entire training market with the same data-access as the training market, for nothing. It won't fly. Forget about the fact that the revenue share we would bring them would be a percentage, of a morsel, of their daily revenue. In 1 year. Unless we gave them all our revenue. In which case it's just a percentage of a slightly larger morsel of their daily revenue. Not all of Airbus. Just the training department 😁

We also have an official relationship with Airbus. They have a very small percentage of our revenue for a licensing fee, allowing us to call it an "Airbus A320". This comes with some support here and there, but hardly anything near enough to build an airplane, and certainly no "detailed" documentation. No idea what PMDG's relationship is like with Boeing of course, so cannot comment on that. 

Thanks Aamir! Great response! This insight you gave is very fascinating!

I figured just as much. Whatever profit sharing a 3rd party developer could give to Airbus is peanuts and not worth it to Airbus 🤣.

[peloto 213]

We could make a easy and fast crowdfunding to buy an A350, take all the docs, and rent the A350 to pay the Airbus revenue fees for the MSFS A350 addon.