Super excited for the upcoming Airliners in the next 6 month

[JYW 2,984]

6 hours ago, Noel said:

That they've taken this long to release a previously well-developed model as the Crash 8 was is hard to fathom

Not really hard to fathom.

Majestic is not a team of full time developers.  They are a team of skilled and talented professionals who work on FS products on a part-time basis.  Within that sphere, I'd guess it's possible that 'life could get in the way' for months or longer at a time.

I don't agree that the only (or even the main) reason the Majestic Q400 was popular was because of good performance. That's a very limited viewpoint and I think few who used the Q400 versions would agree with it.

[Noel 4,503]

29 minutes ago, JYW said:

Not really hard to fathom.

Majestic is not a team of full time developers.  They are a team of skilled and talented professionals who work on FS products on a part-time basis.  Within that sphere, I'd guess it's possible that 'life could get in the way' for months or longer at a time.

I don't agree that the only (or even the main) reason the Majestic Q400 was popular was because of good performance. That's a very limited viewpoint and I think few who used the Q400 versions would agree with it.

They labored over that plane forever and knew it inside and out.  They knew MSFS was coming and we have many small developers coming out with all sorts of addons for MSFS, some with little history to work from unlike the Majestic Q400.  We're not talking about a new plane that the dev doesn't know well.  Others have their opinions but that's mine and the other way of putting that was if it did not have the performance:complexity that it did it would not nearly have had so many fans.  They always sounded VERY lukewarm for developing for MSFS platform.  It certainly wasn't nearly as complex as PMDG 777 or other.  I enjoyed it quite a bit, but again a lot of that was that I could run it well.

[micstatic 4,319]

9 minutes ago, Noel said:

They labored over that plane forever and knew it inside and out.  They knew MSFS was coming and we have many small developers coming out with all sorts of addons for MSFS, some with little history to work from unlike the Majestic Q400.  We're not talking about a new plane that the dev doesn't know well.  Others have their opinions but that's mine and the other way of putting that was if it did not have the performance:complexity that it did it would not nearly have had so many fans.  They always sounded VERY lukewarm for developing for MSFS platform.  It certainly wasn't nearly as complex as PMDG 777 or other.  I enjoyed it quite a bit, but again a lot of that was that I could run it well.

I think you are really far off on this Noel. It was liked because it was perhaps the most complex plane made. It was way further along than the 777. I mean working circuit breakers?  On what possible metric could you say it wasn’t as complex as the 777  

 

[Noel 4,503]

2 minutes ago, micstatic said:

I think you are really far off on this Noel. It was liked because it was perhaps the most complex plane made. It was way further along than the 777. I mean working circuit breakers?  On what possible metric could you say it wasn’t as complex as the 777  

Which is much more difficult to program a fully functional integrated checklist system, or circuit breakers?  We all have reasons for why we like this or that plane and again I think if that uber complex plane IYO had poor performance I don't think you would give it the accolades you do.  Just my opinion, is all.

[micstatic 4,319]

A checklist is way easier to program when they don’t actually impact systems. You are doubling down on a point that is important to you but not others. The majestic was like the Maddog md-80. One of the most complete planes we’ve ever had in flight sim. 
also I think as long as the right hardware was thrown in. None of the popular planes were that bad on performance. I have always tried to maintain a fairly cutting edge rig and always could manage. Whether it was frame rate caps or whatever. I just think it’s nuts to say the q400 was only popular because it had good performance. If that were true everybody would love the 172 most. 

[carlanthony24 576]

FSLabs have been flying the A321 around in MSFS which has been confirmed from sources showing Volanta history.

Fenix have said they will not be holding products back because like other developers they have no idea what 2024 will be like to port over products.

Q400 I do miss flying same with the 747. Really looking forward to BBS 757/767 though.

[Noel 4,503]

13 minutes ago, micstatic said:

A checklist is way easier to program when they don’t actually impact systems.

How so?  Explain exactly why a circuit breaker is more difficult to program.  It's part of the entire system just like every other button, lever, axis, FMC, in it and every other plane modeling various systems.  Some planes are modeled more deeply than others of course. I'm not much interested in every system being simulated which is probably why I'm more than happy w/ FBW 320n over Fenix which I never bought.  PMDG 777's checklist is a live, integrated one in the PMDG 777, it's not just outputting what's next it's tracking what's been checked.  Tell me, what does live circuit breakers do for you in your use of the sim?  And yes, absolutely doubling down on what matters to me and always will.  I didn't say it was only popular because of its sterling performance but I said and maintain that played a substantial role in its success.  It was clearly in a class by itself in my experience, meaning relative to all the other planes in MY hangar.  We all have various perspectives, and I just shared my honest opinion about the Q400.  I hope, for your sake, they someday release it 🤞.   

[micstatic 4,319]

12 minutes ago, Noel said:

How so?  Explain exactly why a circuit breaker is more difficult to program.  It's part of the entire system just like every other button, lever, axis, FMC, in it and every other plane modeling various systems.  Some planes are modeled more deeply than others of course. I'm not much interested in every system being simulated which is probably why I'm more than happy w/ FBW 320n over Fenix which I never bought.  PMDG 777's checklist is a live, integrated one in the PMDG 777, it's not just outputting what's next it's tracking what's been checked.  Tell me, what does live circuit breakers do for you in your use of the sim?  And yes, absolutely doubling down on what matters to me and always will.  I didn't say it was only popular because of its sterling performance but I said and maintain that played a substantial role in its success.  It was clearly in a class by itself in my experience, meaning relative to all the other planes in MY hangar.  We all have various perspectives, and I just shared my honest opinion about the Q400.  I hope, for your sake, they someday release it 🤞.   

Nothing wrong with checklists.  I like them a lot.  Honda jet is one of my favorites.  But the complexity of a circuit breaker is a total different matter.  It looks into failing systems then considers how that fault will impact other systems.  I mean real life Q400 pilots use majestic software in certain commercial sims (NOT FULL MOTION) for their training.  There is a reason for that.  Nothing wrong with the FBW and other planes like that.  I'm not faulting them.  But your original point was that the Q400 was mainly popular because it was good on performance.  I think that's false. 

[Noel 4,503]

1 hour ago, micstatic said:

I think that's false. 

Could be, or not 😉

 

[Sonosusto 681]

16 hours ago, ark4diusz said:

Don't you all think, we are approaching the best "time" for MSFS in terms of incoming Airliners that should be released in the near future? I mean: 

Do not know if I forgot something? Anyways, great times ahead in the next 3-6 months

Yes, I am sure Captain Sim will come up with something

[Matt Webb 171]

Been buying PMDG products since their early days, but never got the 777.   However,  I'm really excited to get the MSFS 777 when it comes out.  😀

 

Hope the Majestic Q400 will be this year too,  then I will be complete.  😜  

 

[Ron Lefebvre 112]

Just Flight BAE Avro RJ is the one I wanted.

They made it sound before Christmas that is was just around the corner.

I hate that. Might just stick with the BAE-146.

 

[Petraeus 147]

On 3/20/2024 at 10:57 AM, ark4diusz said:

Don't you all think, we are approaching the best "time" for MSFS in terms of incoming Airliners that should be released in the near future? I mean: 

• iniBuilds A320 Neo this month
• PMDG 777 ~up to 2 months
• TFDi MD-11 ~2-3 months
• iniBuilds A350 ~I guess up to 6 months
• Bluebird 757 somewhere in 2024
• FlyByWire A380 somwehere in 2024
• Just Flight BAE Avro RJ
• Just Flight Fokker 70/100
• Aerosoft A330

Do not know if I forgot something? Anyways, great times ahead in the next 3-6 months

I'm hugely anticipating one or two of these, but for me the big gap is a decent, flyable, short-range regional jet, especially the A220 or B717. The current offerings (ERJ, CRJ) just don't meet current expectations.

[jon b 2,050]

20 hours ago, Ron Lefebvre said:

Just Flight BAE Avro RJ is the one I wanted.

They made it sound before Christmas that is was just around the corner.

I hate that. Might just stick with the BAE-146.

 

I got that impression too.

A lot of these new aircraft will be too late for me as my flight simulation season is drawing to a close now spring is here, time to get the motorbikes out instead.

I’ll pick them all up in October when my sim season starts again, or on a rainy summer’s day, of which we get plenty in the uk, by that time all the hotfixes will be sorted too so I’m happy.

[Aamir 2,907]

On 3/21/2024 at 12:02 AM, Noel said:

How so?  Explain exactly why a circuit breaker is more difficult to program.   

I can tell ya this much - circuit breakers are infinitely more complex to add than an interactive checklist. The latter can be accomplished in about a week. The former, probably 3-6 months depending on how much inherent complexity the aircraft already has. If background system logic is "simplified" then add rewriting all that code on top so it actually functions correctly, which takes you into the "years" side of things.