BluebirdSim Small Update 757

[threexgreen]

There will be a much larger update on the status of the aircraft next month. What's interesting though is that he says the aim for a mid-level aircraft is "out the window" and it's going to be a high fidelity aircraft for the hardcore simmers instead.

 

[F737MAX]

1 hour ago, threegreen said:

What's interesting though is that he says the aim for a mid-level aircraft is "out the window" and it's going to be a high fidelity aircraft for the hardcore simmers instead.

In the original plan, the 757 was expected to be released about now.
With the increase in complexity, it's going to be a while longer.

A highly-detailed 757 is much more appealing to a lot of us, so I'm happy to wait longer for it. 

[micstatic]

I'm happy to wait also.  Very happy to see the pivot to a higher end plane.  

[bobcat999]

I differ on this.  I think most of the 2 million (?) MSFS simmers don't always want a completely "study level" aircraft, but just a medium fidelity model that gives them a feel of immersion for flying that particular aircraft.  
Something that looks, sounds, and flies like a 757, with a decent VC and a bit of a start-up checklist, but not with all the systems and endless checklists that you have to wade through for half an hour just to get the thing started.

To please all types of simmers, the business model I would like to see more is to release the more 'basic' model first, and then a higher fidelity systems model released later for people that really want it, at an addon price of about a third of the original model price.
That way, people who aren't systems nuts can purchase at a slightly lower price anyway, and this business model helps fund the project going forward.

For me and a lot of others at the time, the old 757 in FSX was easily good enough for me.  Even the old Captain Sim 757 was good enough to enjoy (that's when they released decent stuff!).

This business model would work well for all other developments as well and hopefully suit everyone.

As one example, I still haven't bought the Fenix.  As good as it is, I really don't think I will have the time to engage in all of the deep level systems it requires to fly it.
If they offered a 'simplified' version cheaper, with that excellent visual model and sounds etc., I would dive straight in.

I am talking from my own personal perspective here, but as we know, MSFS caters for all types of simmer from gamer, casual, aircraft fanatic (probably me), and deep level systems simmers.

Edited December 22, 2023 by bobcat999

[threexgreen]

10 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

As good as it is, I really don't think I will have the time to engage in all of the deep level systems it requires to fly it.

But it doesn't even require deep level system knowledge to fly it. Especially an Airbus with its automation isn't very hard to fly. Of course you can't start the engines by pressing a keyboard button, but if you can fly, say, an iniBuilds A320 you can fly the Fenix just fine. It's enough to do the basic procedures to get it flying. The in-depth procedures, checklists, system checks, etc. aren't something you have to do.

The reason this is done IRL is because the plane (and the environment) is more complex and can actually break, and when it does people may even die. If you turn failures off in the sim nothing's going to break and you can skip a whole lot of stuff if you don't care about it. You can get a real airliner flying in, say, 10 minutes and it's not very hard either if you just did the basic procedures like punch a few numbers into the FMC, get the engines going, set flaps and off you go.

I'll just make the claim that it doesn't matter to a 'casual' simmer if this 757 is mid or high-level. You can have all the deep system simulation for the hardcore pilots to learn and monitor but as long as failures are off you may just as well do the very basics to get it running and ignore the hydraulic pressure of electrical hydraulic pump 1. It's not difficult if you just want to get it into the air.

[MarkW]

I think the sweet spot is a full simulation under normal procedures and forget about the failures.  I am sure 99.5% of people don't enable failures except maybe when they first get the aircraft just to check out what happens when you have an engine failure.  I can't remember the last time I had failures enabled on any study level aircraft, although i think there are some time based minor failures on for PMDG, not sure.

[micstatic]

The reason I prefer the higher level detailed planes is not because I like to fly with failures.  In fact I seldom do.  However in years past I've found that the attention to detail on these higher level planes manifests itself also in other areas of the aircraft.  The simpler airplanes often have very hard to predict fuel burn.  This can cause problems when flying on vatsim with simbrief flight plans.  I also like to be able to accurately calculate Vspeeds and flex temps.  I've never been satisfied just ball parking those kind of things.  

[B777ER]

Q3 2024 at the earliest.

[planechaser]

With MSFS2024 on the horizon , i don't think there will be any major aircraft releases before late summer 2024.

PMDG 777 maybe 1st quarter but nothing else.

[WestAir]

In my opinion this wasn't much of a surprise; You could easily see the passion and attention to detail in their videos from earlier this year. They were hyping up DME arcs and mm-accurate visuals, and then they went radio silent on a product that was already well past the Phoenix Sim (Now BlackBox) 757 from the FSX days. There was no way devs with this kind of passion were ever going to stop at just mid tier, in my opinion.

They remind me of Fenix-Sim who are adding compressor stalls to their sim. We're in for a treat.

[jon b]

I wasn't going to bother with the 757 due to it's advertised  middle of the road status , but in light of this new information and terms like " high fidelity " and "for  hard core simmers" I'm now on the hook like a fat trout !

[carlanthony24]

Besides the queen of the skies. The 757 you could not beat with RB211's looking forward to flying the 757 it has been a while even more so for the 767.

Edited December 22, 2023 by carlanthony24

[Konterhalbe]

4 hours ago, micstatic said:

The reason I prefer the higher level detailed planes is not because I like to fly with failures.  In fact I seldom do.  However in years past I've found that the attention to detail on these higher level planes manifests itself also in other areas of the aircraft.  The simpler airplanes often have very hard to predict fuel burn.  This can cause problems when flying on vatsim with simbrief flight plans.  I also like to be able to accurately calculate Vspeeds and flex temps.  I've never been satisfied just ball parking those kind of things.  

Well summarized!
The fuel burn issue can be easily solved by everyone individually.
Just track your fuel burn on your flights in PFPX and it'll calculate a percentage of +/- fuel burn for each airframe.

This penalty is considered on every further flight in PFPX automatically.

One of the 100 things why PFPX is still a way better flight planning solution than simbrief in my opinion.

[micstatic]

Pfpx has a limited amount of airplanes it works with though right?  Simbrief and a quick and easy for most adding and also has built on compatibility with most addons 

[Car147]

Looking forward to replicating the holiday trips we made in 757's with Air200, Flying Colours, Airtours back in the late 90's early 2000.