8 hours ago, Geoffery said:

I think Aerowinx takes the crown. 

Not technically an add on for a flight sim, but instead a flight sim in its own right. But with a scenery generator like Xplane or MSFS for eye candy it, in my opinion, stands alone for flight simulators. If you are into flight sims for the absolute most realistic experience Aerowinx sets the standard. 
 

Unfortunately I always ended up using either PS1 or PSX standalone because the results with external scenery generators weren't the best 😕

Controlling the aircraft during a tricky windy / gusting / turbulent approach is only possible for me  standalone...

Agreed...I've considered buying PSX and using MSFS for scenery generation, but the aircraft doesn't seem to fully interact with the ground 100% of the time

I think it makes sense for a full simulator (like www.simfest.co.uk) but not for a desktop sim for me, where I like the aircraft fully interacting with the world, 3d cockpit, cabin etc

You can drive the pushback tug yourself! If that exists elsewhere, I've not seen it.

If I do ever get this, these stunning system models will be largely lost on me as the stick-and-rudder of touch-and-gos is where I generally spend sim time.

42 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

You can drive the pushback tug yourself! If that exists elsewhere, I've not seen it

I just purchased AEROFLY FS4... Those guys do really nicelly some details, including the pusback simulation for any airliners, with all the bells and whistles...

Edited May 31, 20242 yr by jcomm

Couldn’t care less about pushback simulation. I do care about dataref availability and the possibility of mapping my hardware to important aircraft functions. I own a bunch of FF aircraft and always had the issue, for instance, to map important OH switches and knobs. This time it seems that even the FMC is not fully mapped into datarefs, so utilities such as WebFMC can’t work their magic. 

Looks interesting, but... I would probably go nuts (and not in the good way) if I had to interact with this crew simulation, every-single-time I had to do a flight... I mean, it's probably fun the first couple of times and it's probably good for marketing and writing in the 'features' on their sales page... but I quickly imagine it would become an annoyance. Especially since it doesn't sound especially realistic.

It may very well be 'the most comprehensive and detailed' simulation of any airliner to date (or whatever the hyperbole statement that was made), but would you actually use 1000+ simulated failures? Do you actually think it's fun or immerseful to have to talk to the crew for closing/opening the doors? For my part: no. But then again, I'm probably not the target customers. I have maybe once used the failure system. But to be honest, I usually just turn them off.

Sorry for the negativity, but does this simulate any features, which are used in a day-to-day scenario, better than it's competitors? Or is it 'the most complete and comprehenisve airliner every developed for any sim' because it includes a set of features, which - at best - are being used once or twice?

4 hours ago, anden145 said:

Looks interesting, but... I would probably go nuts (and not in the good way) if I had to interact with this crew simulation, every-single-time I had to do a flight... I mean, it's probably fun the first couple of times and it's probably good for marketing and writing in the 'features' on their sales page... but I quickly imagine it would become an annoyance. Especially since it doesn't sound especially realistic.

It may very well be 'the most comprehensive and detailed' simulation of any airliner to date (or whatever the hyperbole statement that was made), but would you actually use 1000+ simulated failures? Do you actually think it's fun or immerseful to have to talk to the crew for closing/opening the doors? For my part: no. But then again, I'm probably not the target customers. I have maybe once used the failure system. But to be honest, I usually just turn them off.

Sorry for the negativity, but does this simulate any features, which are used in a day-to-day scenario, better than it's competitors? Or is it 'the most complete and comprehenisve airliner every developed for any sim' because it includes a set of features, which - at best - are being used once or twice?

You can simply switch them off if you don‘t like to go through every detail of the crew interactions. I like both: sometimes seting up a quick flight and sometimes taking my time to go in depth and simulate failures etc. That‘s how we learn to understand some systems better. And the whole maintenance-stuff with all ground-vehicles adds a lot to the immersion when you have to apply maintenance or refill the water after a longhaul. It adds to the realism. As simple as that. That’s what simulators are for: simulating the real world as close as possible. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that addons like GSX are so popular nowadays (similar in some ways). For what you want to do, you would be happy with the 15 years old v1 of that plane...The fact that not everyone will use everything doesn‘t change the fact that it has an insane system-depth and sets a new standard for „study-level“-planes. Similar to what the CL650 or Comanche did in the business- or GA-category. And yes they are extremely popular. Another advantage is that with „normal“ addons doing longhauls becomes boring pretty fast. Here you have some nice features to „play with“ or monitor during those long flights. For me and for the whole group of „advanced simers“ more than a win. Funny that no one complains about the Fenix simulating all CB‘s and all failures but it triggers those same to complain when it‘s in another sim. No more comment needed lol.

Edited May 31, 20242 yr by Franz007

I have mixed experience with FF and for 777v2 I'll put in optimistic suspicion IMO.

Implant tons of features is different from implant them right, and in some case for their 757/767, they didn't even get some of the basic normal operation stuff right, that get quite annoying very fast.

AFAIK some of their "immersive" part is not optional on 757/767, for example I have to be in loading config to change fuel/load, I can't use the XP default one and can't set it quickly with engine running, it's extremely annoying when I try to do some test flight, or pick up a flight after CTD.

Their 764 is a disaster. When I point out some of their data is different from FCOM, they react like "So you got a FCOM? Can you send us a copy?"...So yeah... how they have done that....

26 minutes ago, C2615 said:

Implant tons of features is different from implant them right, and in some case for their 757/767, they didn't even get some of the basic normal operation stuff right, that get quite annoying very fast.

AFAIK some of their "immersive" part is not optional on 757/767, for example I have to be in loading config to change fuel/load, I can't use the XP default one and can't set it quickly with engine running, it's extremely annoying when I try to do some test flight, or pick up a flight after CTD.

The 777v2 is design built from the ground up using a build philosophy that is different from Ramezzess previous rendition of the 777v1, 757/767 after training and receiving his type rating for the 777 aircraft. In other words, he has learn new information that would allow the him to build the v2 with deep system simulation to closely function as the real thing, at lease from my observation. The 777v1 and the 757/767 are extension of his original design going back to XP 10 and should not be use as baseline to measure the quality for what is going into his work on the 777v2. The 757/767 are usually regarded as fun aircraft the fly and does go above and beyond to fill the niche nicely where others have not have. For now, FF focus has been on the V2, later 787 and A350. Maybe he might circle back to getting the 767/757 on the same level, (which I hope does), if he cares to do so. We will have to wait and see.  

its a no from me, they never finshed the a320 or a350 why would anyone think they would finish this ?

Edited June 4, 20242 yr by fluffyflops

3 hours ago, fluffyflops said:

its a no from me, they never finshed the a320 or a350 why would anyone think they would finish this ?

They will finish this, "this time" which is why it is still in alpha and not in beta.

They wanted to release it but was persuaded by the community that it would be in their best interest to finish all the basics including the most critical feature "Vnav" before going to beta, in spite of those who are too impatient, calling for an immediate release. Plus this aircraft is a total departure in design and its principle mission from their past aircrafts and the attention it has garnered over the weeks it has been showcase on streams, are that too important for them to just leave unfinished.

Edited June 4, 20242 yr by BobFS88

1 hour ago, BobFS88 said:

the basics including the most critical feature "Vnav" before going to beta

if/when they get that to spec, it will "set a new standard", because afaik no one has a to spec Boeing VNAV system simulated in Xplane yet. In fact it could possibly be only PSX has managed it of any of the simulators.

Its pain enough even without XPlane making it harder than it should (which it does), there is also reams of documentation on how often the real one "tricks" pilots 

so not sure I would class it as a "basic".

Edited June 4, 20242 yr by mSparks

5 hours ago, mSparks said:

so not sure I would class it as a "basic".

When I was speaking in term "basic" it is only use to describe what one generally would expect to find from any typical aircraft of that type that have those functions that actually works (like any other function e.g. AP, LNav, etc) and nothing to do with description of the complexity of Vnav system. 

Edited June 4, 20242 yr by BobFS88

why cant devs just stop this pay to beta addiction and release a properly finished polished addon like they used to.

I absolutely despise this pay to beta nonsense, its ruined this community and lower the standards, all because of inpatient teenagers.

 

Edited June 4, 20242 yr by fluffyflops

2 hours ago, BobFS88 said:

When I was speaking in term "basic" it is only use to describe what one generally would expect to find from any typical aircraft of that type that have those functions that actually works (like any other function e.g. AP, LNav, etc) and nothing to do with description of the complexity of Vnav system. 

right, I kinda got that, but they all have "basic" VNAV afaik,

VNAV itself is a royal pain

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Sample-of-issues-with-VNAV-function-reported-in-a-survey-of-203-pilot-at-major-US_tbl1_24322201