Please Develop A Study Level A340 Family

[Coolieboy]

 

I will pay £70 for a study level A342 and A343

I will pay another £70 for a study level A345 and A346. 

We have never been given one and I am jealous of X-Plane's community with their A340s. Meanwhile, here at MS's version...we have not had a single decent A340 throughout the history of Flight Simulator; Sorry Aerosoft but your version on FSX was below par and the main bogeys would slide sideways so I quickly disregarded it.

 

It boggles the mind how every dev and their grandma wants to give us their version of the A339 with inaccurate flight models and bulky wings, not to mention RR only A333 all at the same time, yet in 20 years, not once have we had one of the most common commercial heavy airliners and the most iconic Airbus aircraft family ever built in the Flightsim world.

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2023 by Coolieboy

[kingm56]

I will take the opposite approach; please don't waste resources developing a plane that ceased production more than a decade ago, is being phased out by many operators, and failed to gain commercial success when in full production.  Instead, I believe a A350 and/or A220 would be FAR more profitable than an A340 model.  

Also, Aerosoft never modeled the A340; they distributed an A340 modeled by other developers.  For FSX/P3D, I believe BlackBird (formally PSS) 'developed' an 'advanced' A340 for FSX/P3D, along with some other 'lite' versions (e.g. JustFlight).  I suspect this aircraft won't make it to MSFS. 

Edited June 18, 2023 by kingm56

[BobFS88]

9 hours ago, Coolieboy said:

I will pay another £70 for a study level A345 and A346. 

We have never been given one and I am jealous of X-Plane's community with their A340s

Well instead of being jealous, why not concern yourself into joining it instead. You can try it for free and if you don't like, of course you can alway deleted.

What you have to do is consider what's more important to you is what really should matter.

 

Edited June 18, 2023 by BobFS88

[Bob Scott]

About 18 months ago I decided not to keep waiting for some of my favorite aircraft on my preferred platform (P3D v4/v5)...I waited for years for a decent 767, 747-200, 727, MD-11, A300, A340 and medium modern business jet to materialize in P3D, and I finally gave up and started looking around.  I found nice options existed for all of those in XPlane.  If I want a plane with a well-developed Garmin 3000/5000 glass panel, I can go fly one of the WT-enhanced birds in MSFS.

Same thing for scenery--if I want to fly in Alaska, P3D with Orbx enhancements beats MSFS with its patches of fluorescent lime-green terrain where it's apparently trying to render snow and grass simultaneously.  If I want to fly into a smaller airport for which there is no decent commercial add-on scenery, it depends on if it's covered by one of hundreds of vetted add-ons in the XP scenery gateway or if there's an enhanced airport out there for MSFS.  If I want to do VFR pilotage via ground references, it's MSFS.

Same x 2 for seasons and weather--if I want to fly with historical weather or with visibility set to near minimums, it has to be P3D or XPlane with ActiveSky.  Same-o if I want to fly a snowy winter leg in April or see fall foliage on a flight during autumn.

And then there's flight profiles--I can condense a long international flight to a couple hours in P3D by leaping ahead, whereas it's very difficult (impossible in some acft) to teleport ahead in XP.  It's also possible in MSFS, but extremely limited by lack of high-fidelity heavy aircraft options.  If I want to fly cargo with appropriate loading and ground-handling, it's P3D aided by GSX. 

So I pick and choose between platforms depending on what I'm trying to accomplish on a particular leg.  None of the platforms together with their associated ecosystems answers the mail on everything, so I use whichever is the best fit today instead of pining away for options that do not (and may never) exist.

[Nuno Pinto]

11 hours ago, kingm56 said:

I will take the opposite approach; please don't waste resources developing a plane that ceased production more than a decade ago (...)

Why on earth would this even be an argument? People like what people like. I would much rather see an A340 than an A350 or a 787, boring new planes.

[CapnOz]

7 hours ago, Nuno Pinto said:

Why on earth would this even be an argument? People like what people like. I would much rather see an A340 than an A350 or a 787, boring new planes.

A340 is pretty boring indeed. Set it and 11 hours come back and fly the last two minutes. Personally, a A350 is going to be the same, but at least we have the latest technology to play around with. Not to mention the larger diplays that display ALOT more useful info than the A340 ever could

Edited June 19, 2023 by CapnOz

[Christopher Low]

Developing an accurate simulation of the A340 family may not be all that profitable, but that is not really the issue here. For a large number of flight simmers, whether or not the plane was a massive hit in the real world/ceased production a decade ago/has modern FBW technology/large screens etc is irrelevant. There is a market for classic airliners, so I am betting that there is a market for the A340. Of course, how large that market is is open to speculation, but the world of flight simulation would be rather boring to a lot of people if payware and freeware developers restricted themselves to current real world operations only.

[C2615]

We don't even have a nice A330 to start with... which is more popular IRL....

Rather the Toliss A346 is the best widebody FBW bus we have for now.

I don't know, but I'm somehow quite like A340 for no reason, especially -300

BlackBox widebody is somewhat...flyable? NO, DON'T BUY IT. I bought it knowing it's not been update for ages and think at least it work as it is and should be at least better than old Wilco bus V2 in FS9? No it can't be flare manually.....

I came (back) to XP few years ago because the FF350, and then it opens the door for 727,732,742, A306, MD11 and A340 etc.....a good win for me, and I have no problem switch between P3D and XP daily. I didn't even try to match the keyboard config

[Nuno Pinto]

5 hours ago, CapnOz said:

A340 is pretty boring indeed. Set it and 11 hours come back and fly the last two minutes. Personally, a A350 is going to be the same, but at least we have the latest technology to play around with. Not to mention the larger diplays that display ALOT more useful info than the A340 ever could

You wrote the exact same thing i wrote. To each his own, thus arguments like this are useless.

[Paul K]

On 6/18/2023 at 10:20 AM, kingm56 said:

I will take the opposite approach; please don't waste resources developing a plane that ceased production more than a decade ago, is being phased out by many operators, and failed to gain commercial success when in full production.  Instead, I believe a A350 and/or A220 would be FAR more profitable than an A340 model.   I

 

I've read similar comments before, and I've never understood this viewpoint. Does it matter that the A340 is going out of service in the real world ? The DC-3, DC-6, BAe146 and others are also going out of service, but they sell well here.  Ditto the Spitfire and Corsair, Caribou and Concorde.

You, quote " believe a A350 and/or A220 would be FAR more profitable than an A340 model" ? What profit ?? There is no profit - this is a flight simulator, not the actual real-world airline industry. How bizarre.

 

[kingm56]

6 hours ago, Paul K said:

I've read similar comments before, and I've never understood this viewpoint. Does it matter that the A340 is going out of service in the real world ? The DC-3, DC-6, BAe146 and others are also going out of service, but they sell well here.  Ditto the Spitfire and Corsair, Caribou and Concorde.

You, quote " believe a A350 and/or A220 would be FAR more profitable than an A340 model" ? What profit ?? There is no profit - this is a flight simulator, not the actual real-world airline industry. How bizarre.

 

The viewpoint is predicated on explicit comments made by SEVERAL developers; for example, PMDG stated they lost money developing and selling the renowned MD-11.   They unequivocally stated simmers are less apt to purchase aircraft they cannot see at thier home airports, which is why they explicitly chose not to port the MD11 to P3D.  Also, you have no idea how well the aircraft you listed are selling...that's pure speculation on your end.  If the DC-6 was a commercial success, why doesn't PMDG develop other aircraft from the same era?  Instead, they seem fixated on developing commercially successful modern aircraft.  The same is true for Aerosoft and Fenix.  For the former two, they've been in this business for multiple decades and have copious amounts of market data.  Obviously, they're going to chose to develop aircraft to achieve the highest profit margins.  So, while the DC-6 may have sold well, there's no way it approached the PMDG 737 profit margins.  I suspect the same is true for the BAe146 relative to the Fenix A320. Ditto FSL A320 vs Concord. 

Clearly there is no profit associated with flying simulated aircraft; what's odd is that you came to that conclusion...how bizarre.  Profit, in this context, is clearly related to the topic and refers to the developers ability to model, market and sell thier aircraft to simmers; in that regard, the A320 and A350 are likely to be more profitable than the A340, based on explicit comments from PMDG, Aerosoft, etc.  To my point, it's not about 'selling well', it's about profit margins.   History has shown simulating a modern, commercially successful aircraft is going to outsell an aircraft that's considered a commercial failure, which is why the industry giants focus on the former.   

Edited June 21, 2023 by kingm56

[anden145]

6 hours ago, Paul K said:

You, quote " believe a A350 and/or A220 would be FAR more profitable than an A340 model" ? What profit ?? There is no profit - this is a flight simulator, not the actual real-world airline industry. How bizarre.

 

You do realise, that someone would need to make money of off such an addon, right? Hence profit. While I can understand, that some niche planes would be developed, any company undertaking developing an addon, would have to assess whether or not is financially viable - or even makes sense. Is there a real market for it, which deems it profitable in the end. When it comes to addon developing, this issue is more than "a simulation". 

[fluffyflops]

On 6/18/2023 at 10:20 AM, kingm56 said:

I will take the opposite approach; please don't waste resources developing a plane that ceased production more than a decade ago, is being phased out by many operators, and failed to gain commercial success when in full production.  Instead, I believe a A350 and/or A220 would be FAR more profitable than an A340 model.  

Also, Aerosoft never modeled the A340; they distributed an A340 modeled by other developers.  For FSX/P3D, I believe BlackBird (formally PSS) 'developed' an 'advanced' A340 for FSX/P3D, along with some other 'lite' versions (e.g. JustFlight).  I suspect this aircraft won't make it to MSFS. 

couldnt agree more.

[Coolieboy]

On 6/18/2023 at 10:20 AM, kingm56 said:

I will take the opposite approach; please don't waste resources developing a plane that ceased production more than a decade ago, is being phased out by many operators, and failed to gain commercial success when in full production.  Instead, I believe a A350 and/or A220 would be FAR more profitable than an A340 model.  

Also, Aerosoft never modeled the A340; they distributed an A340 modeled by other developers.  For FSX/P3D, I believe BlackBird (formally PSS) 'developed' an 'advanced' A340 for FSX/P3D, along with some other 'lite' versions (e.g. JustFlight).  I suspect this aircraft won't make it to MSFS. 

1. I made a mistake. I meant JustFlight, not Aerosoft.

 

2. Here we go again. How many posts and people stating they want vintage planes yet here comes the "it no longer flies or isn't popular so scrap that idea" folk.

 

Buddy...explain the PMDG DC6. Explain. Why are we getting TWO A300's being developed by two separate companies then? 

 

There were quite a lot of A340 operators and the plane was in production for over 15 years and built a lot of a340 variants so you are incorrect. I am not going to get into specifics as i dont care to but...although it came at a difficult time, just prior to the release of the 777, it was indeed a popular aircraft.

 

The big question is, am I right to assume you also DONT want a 744, 748, 757, 767 and A380? 748 was a failure yet it is still being flown today by many cargo airlines and some commercial passenger airlines.

 

The A380 was a failure too yet it had made a return.

 

The 757 and 767 are also a rarity now but just like the A340s in their era, both were very common.

 

I'm sorry, you're argument does not justify this "no a340 should be modelled for MSFS" stance and I really do not understand why we should listen to someone that says no one should have their favourite aircraft all because THEY don't care for it. Really...it is not cool at all. But please answer my questions.

[Coolieboy]

On 6/18/2023 at 3:51 PM, BobFS88 said:

Well instead of being jealous, why not concern yourself into joining it instead. You can try it for free and if you don't like, of course you can alway deleted.

What you have to do is consider what's more important to you is what really should matter.

 

1. I am already making that transition as I've just bought a new SSD and will delve into it before the month is over.

 

2. I am beginning to think certain devs make anonymous accounts just to shoot down the A340 idea. You don't have any other input that may be helpful? Nothing? Just...that I should go if I don't have it in MSFS? 

 

Ofc I prefer the graphics within MSFD and all I am saying is that we have never had a proper A340...your only contribu is, well...go to X Plane then?

 

Can I have someone within this community who can share some appreciation and love for one of the most beloved heaby airliners please aside from killjoys? Pls?