Virtualcol stop A220 developemt for MSFS

[environmental_ice 238]

5 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

You didn't even provide a source for this whole thread topic, that Virualcol have stopped developing the A220 for MSFS. I can't even find an article or source that says Virtualcol even started development of the A220 for MSFS. When I Google "Virtualcol a220 msfs" in Google, I also get no results: https://www.google.com/search?q=Virtualcol+A220+msfs

Where is your source for this? How come you can't post your source?

A source that it has been canceled? Its on their website that its canceled. That is what the topic is about. 

[Maxis 1,857]

Ok so after reading this thread the synopsis is 

Dev with a record of sub par products cancels a  product "in development"  Exactly one solitary person is up in arms about it and everyone else either falls in the don't care or disagree buckets? 

Guess the op was either looking for people to commiserate with or was hoping to influence the dev to reverse course and found none ?

[mspencer 422]

13 hours ago, environmental_ice said:

With the FlightSim Studio E175 out and with a roadmap for future development why would any freeware work be done to the Virtuacol Ejet? 

 

 

That's true if you just completely ignore timeline, or do this in a vacuum.

Virtualcol EJet came out over a year prior to the FSS EJet, and the FSS EJet is not only unfinished, but currently looks like it will never be finished. Been several months now and they just now got a custom AT system in, but it still doesn't have thrust ratings? There would be a very good argument for an enhancement pack, just like there would have been for the last year with no other payware Embraers announced.

Yet - no devs decided to work on it? Wonder why... could be that the aircraft was a pile of trash.

[abrams_tank 7,394]

46 minutes ago, environmental_ice said:

A source that it has been canceled? Its on their website that its canceled. That is what the topic is about. 

I went to the Virualcol website, the homepage: https://www.virtualcol.com/front/. I did not see anything about the A220 being cancelled for MSFS. I did not see anything about them declaring would make the A220 for MSFS.

I also sorted by the MSFS tag: https://www.virtualcol.com/front/tag/msfs2020/. I still don't see any news about the A220 for MSFS at the Virtualcol website.

Can you just post the exact link where they mention the A220 was cancelled for MSFS?

Edited June 1, 2023 by abrams_tank

[environmental_ice 238]

12 minutes ago, Maxis said:

Ok so after reading this thread the synopsis is 

Dev with a record of sub par products cancels a  product "in development"  Exactly one solitary person is up in arms about it and everyone else either falls in the don't care or disagree buckets? 

Guess the op was either looking for people to commiserate with or was hoping to influence the dev to reverse course and found none ?

No this place is pretty typical in agreement. I didnt expect anyone to agree. I liked Imaginesim sceneries too and pretty much most would say they didnt. I just appreciate choices. But ill reiterate from a business standpoint for Vcol it really doesnt make a ton of sense to cancel the project. Even someone like me who will probably never buy the FSS175 I would certainly look their way before I bought Virtualcols 175 so it is strange to see them still developing a CRJ and E190. People can talk all they want but the plane would have sold

[environmental_ice 238]

2 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I went to the Virualcol website, the homepage: https://www.virtualcol.com/front/. I did not see anything about the A220 being cancelled for MSFS. I did not see anything about them declaring would make the A220 for MSFS.

I also sorted by the MSFS tag: https://www.virtualcol.com/front/tag/msfs2020/. I still don't see any news about the A220 for MSFS at the Virtualcol website.

Can you just post the exact link where they mention the A220 was cancelled for MSFS?

If you go to development tab on their website its right there in bold letters

 

https://www.virtualcol.com/front/development/

Edited June 1, 2023 by environmental_ice

[jarmstro 2,402]

5 minutes ago, mspencer said:

That's true if you just completely ignore timeline, or do this in a vacuum.

Virtualcol EJet came out over a year prior to the FSS EJet, and the FSS EJet is not only unfinished, but currently looks like it will never be finished. Been several months now and they just now got a custom AT system in, but it still doesn't have thrust ratings? There would be a very good argument for an enhancement pack, just like there would have been for the last year with no other payware Embraers announced.

Yet - no devs decided to work on it? Wonder why... could be that the aircraft was a pile of trash.

To compare the Virtualcol EJet to the FFS plane, even in its unfinished state, is ridiculous. Have you actually tried the ghastly Virtualcol offering? The FFS plane is now in a reasonable state and is perfectly flyable. 

Edited June 1, 2023 by jarmstro

[mspencer 422]

1 minute ago, jarmstro said:

To compare the Virtualcol EJet to the FFS plane, even in its unfinished state, is ridiculous. Have you actually tried the ghastly Virtualcol offering?

I'm not comparing the two. I don't think you got the point. 

FSS is nowhere near finished. It's basically pre-alpha in its current state. Entire feature sets that would have been understood as standard for P3D (and were featured in the Feelthere Embraer going back... over ten years ago now) were just entirely left out, with the devs even claiming that VNAV just wasn't used in the real world. Absurd to say the least, and a cash grab.

With that in mind, why wouldn't someone go work on an avionics enhancement for the Virtualcol Embraer? Easy, because it is pure trash.

[mspencer 422]

6 minutes ago, environmental_ice said:

No this place is pretty typical in agreement. I didnt expect anyone to agree. I liked Imaginesim sceneries too and pretty much most would say they didnt. I just appreciate choices. But ill reiterate from a business standpoint for Vcol it really doesnt make a ton of sense to cancel the project. Even someone like me who will probably never buy the FSS175 I would certainly look their way before I bought Virtualcols 175 so it is strange to see them still developing a CRJ and E190. People can talk all they want but the plane would have sold

So wait... you don't buy their products, but you're upset this notoriously very low quality company that has been selling the same FS9 quality level models for the past ten years, and is a well known commodity in the community, is not producing an MS Paint fidelity level model of an aircraft with the most complicated avionics package in commercial aviation today?

Is this whole thread just flamebait? It seems like flamebait.

[jarmstro 2,402]

18 minutes ago, mspencer said:

I'm not comparing the two. I don't think you got the point. 

FSS is nowhere near finished. It's basically pre-alpha in its current state. Entire feature sets that would have been understood as standard for P3D (and were featured in the Feelthere Embraer going back... over ten years ago now) were just entirely left out, with the devs even claiming that VNAV just wasn't used in the real world. Absurd to say the least, and a cash grab.

With that in mind, why wouldn't someone go work on an avionics enhancement for the Virtualcol Embraer? Easy, because it is pure trash.

Don't buy the FFS plane then. For my part I'm more than happy with the progress that has been made so far. If I can't twiddle a circuit breaker so be it because I never would anyway. Nor any other system I wouldn't use getting from A to B in the simplest way possible,

EDIT What would you regard as the plane being 'finished'?

Edited June 1, 2023 by jarmstro

[environmental_ice 238]

11 minutes ago, mspencer said:

So wait... you don't buy their products, but you're upset this notoriously very low quality company that has been selling the same FS9 quality level models for the past ten years, and is a well known commodity in the community, is not producing an MS Paint fidelity level model of an aircraft with the most complicated avionics package in commercial aviation today?

Is this whole thread just flamebait? It seems like flamebait.

Where did I say I dont buy their products? And where id I say I was upset about them selling lower level models? Like what the actual? lmao Get a life. But sure i guess it does come off as flamebait to all the armchair captains that need everyplane to be studylevel like yourself lurking the forums

Edited June 1, 2023 by environmental_ice

[abrams_tank 7,394]

16 minutes ago, environmental_ice said:

If you go to development tab on their website its right there in bold letters

 

https://www.virtualcol.com/front/development/

Thank you! That's all I was looking for, a source.

 

[The Flight Level 2,112]

Airliners are the best for creating “Hot Topics” on AVSim! Thank’s for the great read guys! Hope everyone gets sorted!

[mspencer 422]

18 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Don't buy the FFS plane then. For my part I'm more than happy with the progress that has been made so far. If I can't twiddle a circuit breaker so be it because I never would anyway. Nor any other system I wouldn't use getting from A to B in the simplest way possible,

EDIT What would you regard as the plane being 'finished'?

Some basic fidelity on the avionics. Thrust modes, VNAV doesn't even have to be perfect, just okay. And rip out the Asobo LNAV module, because it's trash and the only improvements have come from WT/FBW - the default LNAV code is still hopelessly broken. I'd love to have working autotune, What-If mode would be nice but again, it's fine if it's not in their scope.

I don't need circuitbreakers, service based failures, or any of the feature creep that say, Fenix, gets involved with all the time. I'm just looking for a decent airplane.

These are not absurd requests. This would be absolutely standard in any addon for $30 released for P3D, especially when they were transparent in their marketing that they'll be charging more. "It's the simplest plane I've ever flown" is not a selling point, because the airplane itself is not simple.

Edited June 1, 2023 by mspencer

[jarmstro 2,402]

1 minute ago, mspencer said:

Some basic fidelity on the avionics. Thrust modes, VNAV doesn't even have to be perfect, just okay. And rip out the Asobo LNAV module, because it's trash and the only improvements have come from WT/FBW - the default LNAV code is still hopelessly broken. I'd love to have working autotune, What-If mode would be nice but again, it's fine if it's not in their scope.

I don't need circuitbreakers, service based failures, or any of the feature creep that say, Fenix, gets involved with all the time. I'm just looking for a decent airplane.

These are not absurd requests. This would be absolutely standard in any addon for $30 released for P3D, especially when they were transparent in their marketing that they'll be charging more. "It's the simplest plane I've ever flown" is not a selling point, because the airplane itself is not simple.

Yes but all you ask for are coming. I don't disagree that the plane was released prematurely though. But patience is virtue!😀