MSFS will have two decent fidelity A380s soon. Crazy, right?

[FormulaJet 32]

10 hours ago, Tierborn said:

Most A380 flights in the sim will be 1hr to 1.5hrs, so unrealistic.

Are you being stubborn on purpose or are you just trolling around? The only unrealistic thing here is what you think is unrealistic.. We have all posted links, that you choose to ignore, proving the short routes operated by the A380 in the world.. 

 

But here is a list in addition to the already mentioned ones:

Singapore to Kuala Lumpur, 184 miles (296km), Singapore Airlines 

Paris CDG to London Heathrow, 216 miles (348km), Air France 

Dubai to Muscat, 217 miles (349km), Emirates 

Dubai to Doha, 235 miles (378km), Emirates 

Dubai to Bahrain, 303 miles (488km), Emirates 

London Heathrow to Frankfurt, 408 miles (657km), British Airways 

Dubai to Kuwait, 530 miles (853km), Emirates 

Seoul Incheon to Osaka Kansai, 535 miles (862km), Asiana 

Dubai to Riyadh, 543 miles (874km), Emirates 

Seoul Incheon to Tokyo Narita, 783 miles, Asiana

Beijing Capital to Shanghai Pudong, 681 miles (1,096km), China Southern

 

[lwt1971 7,456]

Anyways... 🙂 One benefit out of this pointless discussion with a certain someone is that I've learned about all these IRL short-haul routes for the A380. I guess as long as there's passenger demand to fill up the aircraft it makes business sense for certain airliners to run these routes with their high capacity birds (also why the A380 is on a comeback these days). I remember flying a South African Airways A340 between Joburg and Cape Town years ago and was surprised such an aircraft was being used for that short route, but then it was full.
 

Edited January 25 by lwt1971

[fluffyflops 1,861]

1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

Anyways... 🙂 One benefit out of this pointless discussion with a certain someone is that I've learned about all these IRL short-haul routes for the A380. I guess as long as there's passenger demand to fill up the aircraft it makes business sense for certain airliners to run these routes with their high capacity birds (also why the A380 is on a comeback these days). I remember flying a South African Airways A340 between Joburg and Cape Town years ago and was surprised such an aircraft was being used for that short route, but then it was full.
 

theres pros and cons to the 380.  they fill a ton of people, you can charge a fortune for first and business and again fill that up quite nicely.  but they go tech alot,  they are quite old. 

[fluffyflops 1,861]

On 1/24/2024 at 12:52 AM, FormulaJet said:

London Heathrow to Frankfurt, 408 miles (657km), British Airways

im pretty sure they used that for line training and pilot recency issues.  

[abrams_tank 7,464]

8 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

@abrams_tank,

would you say the horzon 787 is a "decent fidelity"  787 ?

a simple yes or no will do here.

First of all, I won't simply answer "yes" or "no" because I am not a real life 787 pilot. IMO, a person that can answer "yes" or "no" without explaining more would be a real life certified 787 pilot. Anyways, the Horizon 787 is based on the Working Title 787. So probably, the question is, is the Working Title 787 a "decent" fidelity 787.  Before we go any further, I think it's fair to say that the Working Title 787 is not "study level," so it may not even be considered "high fidelity" by much of the MSFS community.  The question is, whether it's a "decent" fidelity 787.

However, everyone has a different definition of "decent."  I am not a real life pilot so I am definitely not a real life 787 pilot.  I generally like to read the reviews from real life airline pilots, preferably real life 787 pilots. From the few reviews and feedback comments I have seen from real life airline pilots, I think they said the Working Title 787 was decent.  They said it still needs more work, but the fidelity was not bad, and it was much better than the original 787.  I have also read that the Working Title 787 is better than the Heavy Division 787.  So yeah, I would probably classify the Working Title 787 as "decent" fidelity.  Probably not "high fidelity" and certainly not "study level," but from the feedback I read from real life airline pilots, they are describing the Working Title 787 as "decent" fidelity.

Edit: I remembered some of the reviews I read or listened to from real life airline pilots. Flightdeck2sim asked a real life 787 pilot to come onto his stream and the real life 787 pilot said it was worth upgrading from the Standard version of MSFS to the Deluxe version of MSFS just for the Working Title 787. Flightdeck2sim, while not a real life 787 pilot, seemed to enjoy the Working Title 787:

 

Here is 737Driver, who formerly flew 737s but now flies an A330. 737Driver also likes the Working Title 737 and his words seem to describe it as "decent" fidelity:

Finally, sometimes I watch Blackbox711. Blackbox711 is a real life A320 pilot, if my memory is correct. In general Blackbox711 does not fly poor fidelity planes over and over. He may try it once, but if the plane is poor, he probably won't fly it again. I have watched Blackbox711 fly the Working Title 787, or Horizon 787, multiple times. I think he enjoys it. I would say that Blackbox711, 737Driver, Flightdeck2sim, and Flightdeck2sim's real life 787 pilot guest do not classify the Working Title as "study level."

Edited January 25 by abrams_tank

[lwt1971 7,456]

FWIW, our resident IRL 787 captain @jon b is a good source to get feedback/thoughts on the default Working Title 787 🙂 ... these were his detailed thoughts from October. Personally I'd say it's definitely of "decent fidelity", and when it comes to avionics/etc even more so, and regardless certainly surpasses what used to be the standard of fidelity for default aircraft in any sim (thanks to WT our standards have raised now given the various fine default birds we get). If the WT 787's systems were made more deep then it'd certainly contend for overall high fidelity .. I'm sure Asobo/WT don't plan to sit back and hopefully they keep amping up the fidelity of this bird and others in the default fleet for MSFS 2024!
 

 

 

Edited January 25 by lwt1971

[abrams_tank 7,464]

3 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

FWIW, our resident IRL 787 captain @jon b is a good source to get feedback/thoughts on the default Working Title 787 🙂 ... these were his detailed thoughts from October: 
 

 

 

Thank you!  I didn't know Job B was a real life 787 pilot!  From Jon B's words in that link, he generally likes it so that's another data point I will consider.  Jon B's comment there seems to fit my definition of a "decent" fidelity 787.

[jon b 2,051]

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

I didn't know Job B was a real life 787 pilot! 

Regrettably nowadays yes, my 747-400 got taken away.

Decent ? Yes, that’s a good description. It’s neither bad, nor outstanding, for general everyday flying it’s just what you need.

The bits that WT have worked own are very nice, the MFDs look, and I believe I read actually are, pixel perfect. The HUD is again very good, with just the FPV and guidance cue  being a bit more lively and undamped compared to the real thing.

I spend most of my simulator time flying visual circuits , different approaches , and general handling exercises, rather than sat down doing long hauls. For me it’s getting to do the realistic yet unusual things with the aircraft that appeals most.

The WT 787 will do 3D IAN and LNAV/VNAV approaches very well, everything including the navigation performance scales work how I’d expect.

For normal A to B airline flights there’s enough in there for most people. There is however lots to the 787 FMC with many different  functions available compared to the previous generation 747, and sadly as these are mainly ancillary functions they aren’t simulated.

Personally I’d like to see engine out performance in VNAV giving the opportunity to simulate engine out drift downs over high terrain like the Himalayas, but thats just me. I’m waiting for the PMDG 777 to practice that accurately.

There are certainly a few issues , as I’ve mentioned before FLCH can behave in a dangerous reversed manner with full power being applied in a descent and the A/T entering HOLD mode during a climb.

There’s certainly a lot more to the modded 787 than first meets the eye. I’ve occasionally spotted the odd interesting EICAS message pop up which shows a much deeper, complicated level of system simulation going off in the background than I appreciated.

WT have  done a good job and have I believe reached the levels they were tasked to achieve.

On a slightly negative note I just hope this hasn’t sidetracked future higher fidelity 787 simulations.

What we have so far is a very robust high performance chassis , but then with rather run of the mill bodywork bolted on: missing FMC functions and lack of in depth systems, and a rather over enthusiastic flight model.

My only hope is that with this product now being elevated from the quite honestly irrelevant initial default 787 up to something we can now justifiably describe as “decent”, developers will not think that the current 787 is good enough for most, and not peruse a high fidelity 787 simulation.

I believe there’s definitely a market for a very high end 787, and with this aircraft being extremely software driven, more so than even the airbuses ( I’m surmising ) I believe it would lend itself very well to an in depth flight simulation.

 

 

Edited January 25 by jon b

[abrams_tank 7,464]

2 hours ago, jon b said:

Regrettably nowadays yes, my 747-400 got taken away.

Decent ? Yes, that’s a good description. It’s neither bad, nor outstanding, for general everyday flying it’s just what you need.

The bits that WT have worked own are very nice, the MFDs look, and I believe I read actually are, pixel perfect. The HUD is again very good, with just the FPV and guidance cue  being a bit more lively and undamped compared to the real thing.

I spend most of my simulator time flying visual circuits , different approaches , and general handling exercises, rather than sat down doing long hauls. For me it’s getting to do the realistic yet unusual things with the aircraft that appeals most.

The WT 787 will do 3D IAN and LNAV/VNAV approaches very well, everything including the navigation performance scales work how I’d expect.

For normal A to B airline flights there’s enough in there for most people. There is however lots to the 787 FMC with many different  functions available compared to the previous generation 747, and sadly as these are mainly ancillary functions they aren’t simulated.

Personally I’d like to see engine out performance in VNAV giving the opportunity to simulate engine out drift downs over high terrain like the Himalayas, but thats just me. I’m waiting for the PMDG 777 to practice that accurately.

There are certainly a few issues , as I’ve mentioned before FLCH can behave in a dangerous reversed manner with full power being applied in a descent and the A/T entering HOLD mode during a climb.

There’s certainly a lot more to the modded 787 than first meets the eye. I’ve occasionally spotted the odd interesting EICAS message pop up which shows a much deeper, complicated level of system simulation going off in the background than I appreciated.

WT have  done a good job and have I believe reached the levels they were tasked to achieve.

On a slightly negative note I just hope this hasn’t sidetracked future higher fidelity 787 simulations.

What we have so far is a very robust high performance chassis , but then with rather run of the mill bodywork bolted on: missing FMC functions and lack of in depth systems, and a rather over enthusiastic flight model.

My only hope is that with this product now being elevated from the quite honestly irrelevant initial default 787 up to something we can now justifiably describe as “decent”, developers will not think that the current 787 is good enough for most, and not peruse a high fidelity 787 simulation.

I believe there’s definitely a market for a very high end 787, and with this aircraft being extremely software driven, more so than even the airbuses ( I’m surmising ) I believe it would lend itself very well to an in depth flight simulation.

 

 

Great writeup by a real life 787 pilot!

As for a “study level” 787, assuming MSFS 2024 is backwards compatible with MSFS 2020 aircraft add-ons, I think in due time, when the other profitable airliners have been completed, probably someone, perhaps PMDG, may attempt a “study level” 787. But it will take several more years before that happens because there is probably more profitable airliner projects at the moment, such as A340, A220, Boeing 727, etc. Once those other profitable airliner projects are completed, someone may attempt a study level 787. This is assuming the MSFS team doesn’t enhance the Working a Title 787 further.

As for PMDG, their priorities after the 777 are the 747 and 737 Max, as they will probably make good money from them. But after PMDG finishes the 747 and 737 Max, I could see them considering the 787. Unless Randazzo said PMDG won’t make a 787, I can see them considering it one day. But I do remember Randazzo saying the 757 was interesting, but I think Bluebird Simulations was doing a more complete 757 so depending on how Bluebird Simulation’s 757 is, it could impact PMDG’s decision making.

Edited January 25 by abrams_tank

[fluffyflops 1,861]

3 hours ago, fsiscool said:

I challenge you to suggest one single default addon, which 10 years ago had a higher standard and would "rip you off" less than the MSFS 787 does. There is none. I feel sorry for people who feel ripped of by something like the WT 787.

Every aircraft has stronger and weaker spots, but there are important areas, in which PMDG and others can learn something from the WT avionics.

The truth is, that the WT planes far excel above and beyond any other aircraft, which ever shipped in any desktop sim.

And, as they are default aircraft, the term addon actually is wrong.

it was released unfinished, and still to this day is still unfinished.  they might as well not bothered.

[Tuskin38 6,635]

5 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

it was released unfinished, and still to this day is still unfinished.  they might as well not bothered.

It isn't unfinished. They've done exactly what they intended to do with it.

The plane flies, it gets you from A to B, follows most procedures, it doesn't fall out of the air.

It is a well made aircraft.

Edited January 26 by Tuskin38

[carlanthony24 578]

On 1/25/2024 at 4:48 PM, abrams_tank said:

Finally, sometimes I watch Blackbox711. Blackbox711 is a real life A320 pilot, if my memory is correct. In general Blackbox711 does not fly poor fidelity planes over and over. He may try it once, but if the plane is poor, he probably won't fly it again. I have watched Blackbox711 fly the Working Title 787, or Horizon 787, multiple times. I think he enjoys it. I would say that Blackbox711, 737Driver, Flightdeck2sim, and Flightdeck2sim's real life 787 pilot guest do not classify the Working Title as "study level."

BlackBox711 is now a Captain on the 787 he did a stream the other day and says the good and bad parts but seems to enjoy it. 

[fsiscool 252]

On 1/26/2024 at 3:23 PM, fluffyflops said:

it was released unfinished, and still to this day is still unfinished.

"Finished" is a nonsensical criteria to describe the state of an addon. There is a infinite number of feature scopes which could be considered as "finished". In essence, an addon is finished, when the producer says so (because it matches the intended feature scope).