B727 FSS B727-200F Pre release review

[mspencer]

59 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

They posted a pretty in-depth video and blog post on their upcoming FMS including VNAV a few weeks ago. The constraint here is time that a number of people struggle to understand for something as complex as VNAV, particularly one that needs to deal with complex RNAV leg types of modern day.

Yeah, but all the dev diaries feel a lot less like someone explaining the process, and a lot more like a student coming back with all the cool stuff they studied this semester.
 

I’m not saying they *can’t* do it, but it was clearly outside their expertise, and I don’t think any of us knew we were signing up for a 2-3 year development cycle while they learn how to program an FMS lol

Another supporting example - GNS is delayed on the 727. I wonder why? Probably because it’s the same LNAV code under the hood and they still haven’t figured it out 🤣

Edited August 1, 2024 by mspencer

[chapstick]

1 hour ago, Lucky38i said:

They posted a pretty in-depth video and blog post on their upcoming FMS including VNAV a few weeks ago. The constraint here is time that a number of people struggle to understand for something as complex as VNAV, particularly one that needs to deal with complex RNAV leg types of modern day.

Maybe developers shouldn't launch early access campaigns when they have no clue how difficult VNAV is to code. Just a thought. 

[JustanotherPilot]

I am so over FSS and the time it's taking to finish their E-Jet series, instead of offering ongoing excuses  they should just be honest and say that VNAV implementation is beyond their coding capabilities. Instead of releasing new aircraft, finish those started.

[Bigmack]

1 hour ago, JustanotherPilot said:

I am so over FSS and the time it's taking to finish their E-Jet series, instead of offering ongoing excuses  they should just be honest and say that VNAV implementation is beyond their coding capabilities. Instead of releasing new aircraft, finish those started.

I'm glad FSS is taking their time to release vnav to get it right. I just completed a flight in the E175 and just using step down decent according to approach chart was a blast. I'll be definitely taking a look at the new 727 release. I haven't flown one since the FS9 version from dream fleet. And that model didn't have vnav

[Krakin]

 

[UrgentSiesta]

@Lord Farringdon I'm looking forward to your review. 👍

[Lucky38i]

9 hours ago, mspencer said:

but it was clearly outside their expertise

Why? What stipulates it was out of their expertise? cause it took long?

 

9 hours ago, mspencer said:

and I don’t think any of us knew we were signing up for a 2-3 year development cycle while they learn how to program an FMS lol

I understand Early Access might seem as a foreign concept to simmers who don't expand beyond the simming world but games in general on the Early Access model can be in EA for a number of years. Its how some of the best indie games out there started out, Rimworld, Factorio, Project Zomboid, Baldur's Gate 3 were all on the EA model. I guess everyone thought that all those developers were figuring out how to make a game?

 

9 hours ago, chapstick said:

Maybe developers shouldn't launch early access campaigns when they have no clue how difficult VNAV is to code

I would like to stress to you, to please read up on what exactly an early access campaign is. Cause I looks as if a number of simmers really don't understand this concept. Is there anything that would showcase FSS didn't understand the difficulties of implementing a VNAV, or is it just taking too long for you?

EA campaigns are a risk, it's a double-edged sword for gamers to be a part of the development process whilst developers can gain insight from customers on various areas of the product that could do with development focus throughout the EA campaign. An EA Campaign doesn't stipulate a developer lacks the knowledge to make X, Y or Z as EA models will come with a roadmap, which can be internal or external but don't doubt that a roadmap does exist. It is essentially being a part of PMDG, Fenix or really any other dev as they create the aircraft for you to purchase. It's going to be ugly, it's going to be missing a lot of features but that's what EA is, early access. If you don't want to be a part of that experience, then don't. That's the great thing with choice. Though don't make assumptions about the developers just because you got given the opportunity to be there at the start.

I can guarantee if Fenix (being new developers) offered everyone the opportunity to see how things were at the start, everyone would be screaming bloody murder that they were incapable devs. Yet, look what we have now.

[Lucky38i]

8 hours ago, JustanotherPilot said:

Instead of releasing new aircraft, finish those started.

As stated this was developed by a seperate team and has been in development for 2 years now.

Though I'll ponder an example to you. I have a team of 10 developers, most programming tasks logarithmically scale to the amount of people you assign to it, say VNAV. So far I've assigned 5 of them to working on this task. Due to the codebase size, if I assign another he'll essentially be stomping over the 5 developers, trying to write some piece of code. For version control this is a nightmare and the result is we're no quicker to getting VNAV out, we've word not allowed of half my development crew and that still leaves 4 developers, scrolling on tiktok with nothing to do.

What do I do?

FSS was smart, they sent those other 5 developers to work on the 727 and the modellers that have nothing to do for the E-jet, they sent them to thje 727 project too. This is all just an example, to demonstrate that companies, can achieve projects in parallel without affecting the progress or effeciency or pre-existing projects all the while making every bit of use of their resources.

[Lucky38i]

10 hours ago, mspencer said:

Probably because it’s the same LNAV code under the hood and they still haven’t figured it out 🤣

I do hope you keep this same energy for any of the legacy devs when they delay a product.

I also wish I could bring you in to the FBW QA team that had to work on the QA for our new cFMSV2. So many duplicate routing done over months, then bugfixing, then repeating the same thing. Just hopeful to find any kind of regressions. I guess you'd probably think we're imcomptent too, if you had the choice to be there.

[Nuno Pinto]

14 hours ago, Paul K said:

Nice! The 200F is the only 727 I'm interested in.

Yeah same. It looks ok from what i've seen in the video, enough to grant a purchase.

[sloppysmusic]

19 hours ago, Lord Farringdon said:

But of course there is a modern nav system option available for those who need it if it all seems too scary

This apparently compromised the JF F28 which ruined a perfectly tuned VOR nav system. I still enjoy the look, sound and feel of that plane but I learned my lesson: never buy another add on with unrealistic default gps shoved in. It's immersion killing to see your VOR intercept behave exactly like LNAV would, calculating behind the scenes a smooth intercept instead of actually turning the plane once radial is being tracked. Causes some horrible weaving too. 

I've been missing my triple action so much I've been diving deep into windows 11 hidden power plan settings to make my pc stable AND fast just so I can fly my beloved pmdg Md11 in fsx again. What a plane! 

 

[chapstick]

1 hour ago, Lucky38i said:

I would like to stress to you, to please read up on what exactly an early access campaign is

I know what it is, so you don't need to be quite this condescending. 

1 hour ago, Lucky38i said:

Is there anything that would showcase FSS didn't understand the difficulties of implementing a VNAV.

Yes. Every blogpost in which they've admitted they tried using the default MSFS autopilot first and then said whoopsies, that's actually not going to work for us. Anyone could have seen that coming. I've kept up with the development updates and there seems to be a real lack of foresight on their team. 

[Lucky38i]

7 minutes ago, chapstick said:

Yes. Every blogpost in which they've admitted they tried using the default MSFS autopilot first and then said whoopsies, that's actually not going to work for us. Anyone could have seen that coming

Yeah, very easy to say this, considering FSS has provided that internal insight. Like I said, I do wonder if you'd keep the same energy if you had this internal insight for any of the legacy devs, I'm guessing you'd also call them lacking in forsight for making choices that are deemed after the fact, poor choices?

[chapstick]

4 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

 I do wonder if you'd keep the same energy if you had this internal insight for any of the legacy devs, I'm guessing you'd also call them lacking in forsight for making choices that are deemed after the fact, poor choices?

Why would I express the same level of negativity toward a developer that I haven't yet paid money to compared to a developer that I have in early access? If developer X announces they've delayed a not-yet-released product because they've had to go back to the drawing board, I'd be disappointed but that would be tempered by the fact that I haven't yet handed them any money. 

[Lucky38i]

13 minutes ago, chapstick said:

that I have in early access

You're upset to have insight knowledge as defined by the EA model, and get to see developers go back to the drawing board?

I mean you said you understand the model, yet get upset about what comes with it, why did you even sign up? What gave you the idea that the process would simply consist of progress? We scrap and go back to the drawing board a number of times because intentions don't always pan out.

I'm genuinely curious what you were hoping to get out of this.