This is the nasty side of Microsoft and big business and (sorry) the American way of doing things: dressed-up as a good thing, it’s actually a head-on assault on the freeware side of things: they cannot tolerate FBW because it shows the high standard that hobbyists can achieve, so they need to demonstrate that it’s pointless for people to do stuff for free. 
 

Very, very cynical move. 

The default a320neo is not good. Also, the FBW is not on Xbox.  It is also missing a lot of things and the devs have admitted it is still in alpha state. 
 

My guess is Asimov is tackling the neo with this effort because that is the plane they have licensing for.  They don’t have licensing for the a321neo I imagine.  

1 hour ago, tfm said:

This is the nasty side of Microsoft and big business and (sorry) the American way of doing things: dressed-up as a good thing, it’s actually a head-on assault on the freeware side of things: they cannot tolerate FBW because it shows the high standard that hobbyists can achieve, so they need to demonstrate that it’s pointless for people to do stuff for free. 
 

Very, very cynical move. 

Not at all. They've done it because the default is nowhere near the quality they are trying to have in the defaults, and as good as the FBW is, it isn't on XBOX.

Working Title were hardly punished for making the CJ4 worth it were they?

 

G

A350 or A380 would be fantastic. 
Very impressed with the Inibuilds A310.

If Jorg wants to make all the default planes high quality then let the man cook. This will make the sim more appealing to simmers on both platforms, thus bringing more people into the MSFS ecosystem. It's also really good bragging rights lol

11 minutes ago, Krakin said:

If Jorg wants to make all the default planes high quality then let the man cook. This will make the sim more appealing to simmers on both platforms, thus bringing more people into the MSFS ecosystem. It's also really good bragging rights lol

They won't be high quality though. All it does is deter third party devs from developing add-ons that will be more complete and higher quality. We already saw this with the ATR. That "Expert Series" plane is anything but and it killed Milviz's ATR. Now we have one bad ATR. Congrats to us? 

1 minute ago, chapstick said:

They won't be high quality though

Inibuilds is doing this. They have a good track record so far. Hans (the ATR dev) already had a reputation based off previous planes. 
 

The inibuilds a310 is very good. I expect this to be similar quality. 

2 hours ago, BrammyH said:

The default a320neo is not good. Also, the FBW is not on Xbox.

... so WT could have improved the default A320 neo the same way they drastically improved the Longitude, the CJ4, the 748, the 78X.. and that would have been cleaner and clearer than adding yet another A320 neo in the face of FBW which have done a fantastic job in three years!

3 minutes ago, Bernard Ducret said:

yet another A320 neo in the face of FBW which have done a fantastic job in three years!

As I mentioned earlier: the FBW is not on Xbox and MS already has a license for the neo so they don’t need to get lawyers involved. 
 

Also, WT only worked on the avionics. The default neo had drastic 3d model issues. 

Edited October 7, 20232 yr by BrammyH

18 minutes ago, BrammyH said:

Inibuilds is doing this. They have a good track record so far. Hans (the ATR dev) already had a reputation based off previous planes. 
 

The inibuilds a310 is very good. I expect this to be similar quality. 

Sure, it could be good, but chances are that Asobo gave ini a limited scope of work in a particular timeframe. It takes years to build a truly good airliner sim, and I doubt that's the kind of time ini was given. 

For those who did not catch the last live Q/A just fast forward to 1:01:40 it explains the reasoning behind a new separate Neo by Ini as to redoing the current default Neo.

video posted is already timestamped. 

Edited October 7, 20232 yr by JBDB-MD80

52 minutes ago, chapstick said:

Sure, it could be good, but chances are that Asobo gave ini a limited scope of work in a particular timeframe. It takes years to build a truly good airliner sim, and I doubt that's the kind of time ini was given.

I mean, sure every project in the existance of project management has limited scope and timeframe. I work in project management and these constraints (along with budget) are my life.

Ini, especially with aircraft, have a good track record. A good likely comparison  is the A310. I think it's more probable the ini A320n will be closer to that than the default. They have said, "on par or better than the A310" so I think we will be in good shape.

We don't know the timeframes. This likely was in play for quite a while. I don't think it's correct to say this annoucement is when ini started working on it. Instead, it has reached the point where they can commit to a release timeline.

3 minutes ago, BrammyH said:

. I don't think it's correct to say this annoucement is when ini started working on it. Instead, it has reached the point where they can commit to a release timeline.

I didn't say that they started work with the announcement, of course they started before that. Point is, even as big as ini is with their ability to handle multiple projects, I'm skeptical that Asobo gave them the time to make this as good as ini could probably do. The A320 is a whole different ballgame compared to the A310.

Just now, chapstick said:

I'm skeptical that Asobo gave them the time to make this as good as ini could probably do. The A320 is a whole different ballgame compared to the A310.

Well, Jorg said "as good as the A310 or better" so we will see in 2 months or so.

1 hour ago, chapstick said:

Now we have one bad ATR. Congrats to us? 

So you're just regurgitating things you've heard people say, then. The ATR is far from bad. I'd say it is very good. The main thing it is lacking when it comes to features is failures and that was at the request of ATR. Hans has shown that he is committed to keeping the plane up to date (probably a contractual obligation) and it has already gotten more updates than his CRJ. At $13 it is an amazing value. I've watched flywithmagnar's tutorials on the Asobo ATR and not once did he ever say it was bad. If you want to beef with someone because Blackbird dropped the ATR, beef with Blackbird because considering how low the cost of the Asobo ATR is, a lot of people would have been willing to pay more to get some more, including me. It is a very popular aircraft so it would have been worth their while. While we're at it, them pulling out is actually proof that the Asobo ATR isn't bad. If this was some Captain Sim level pos, Blackbird would not have been phased and would have forged ahead with the development of their ATR.