If what sells is only fancy new type of planes, then so be it.

I would sure like to know where these numbers come from, cause I have never seen any. Would love too.

What add-on as sold more, how many people work on these projects, how much volume and money is involved, what is the profit margin.

How many people actually pay and fly add-on planes when compared to the sell of MSFS2020.

I betcha we end up being a very small group. (This part is true cause I read it on social media and they always say the truth and its always backed up with real facts.)

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

Not sure what you mean, I only do VOR flights with it, and it performs accordingly. Is there any proof to you're claim about them rewriting the logic? I can't find anything in the update logs and there's no explanation on your part to what you're claiming either.

Developer admitted it candidly in support post. If you look, you'll find it. 

Have you flown a big bird in p3d /fsx. You add as little power then almost imperceptibly you notice the ground ever so slowly start moving. 

Idle or not, inertia and ground friction are a science. 

46 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

Developer admitted it candidly in support post. If you look, you'll find it.

Guess I have to go looking for your claims rather than you just provide the sources here.. ok. You’ve yet to really explain how the VOR behaves like a GPS plane, whatever that means.

 

47 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

Have you flown a big bird in p3d /fsx. You add as little power then almost imperceptibly you notice the ground ever so slowly start moving. 

Idle or not, inertia and ground friction are a science.

Are you purposely being inert to garner attention? If an engine produces enough idle thrust where by which it produces a high enough thrust to weight ratio, an aircraft will move on idle thrust, thus overcoming ground friction. This is simple common sense.

Unless you’re insinuating the lovely manufactures over at Fokker are providing QRHs that are invalid? in which case I’m asking, what exactly should pilots of the F28 have been using? 
 

This kind of behaviour is also shown on A320 NEOs where there’s quite literally a guidance on how to taxi using the ceramic discs because conventional means of braking would cause the brakes to overheat before takeoff, due to the sheer high thrust to weight ratio of the LEAP engine even at idle thrust.

32 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

If an engine produces enough idle thrust where by which it produces a high enough thrust to weight ratio, an aircraft will move on idle thrust, thus overcoming ground friction. This is simple common sense.

I'm talking about transition from stationary to 10 kts should take longer than 3 or 4 seconds? 

I don't need to prove the other source. If you don't believe my honesty the onus is on you to investigate. 

On 8/30/2024 at 9:58 PM, F737MAX said:

I do. There's a hard limit on how many developers exist and a soft limit on what flight simmers are willing to spend their money on.

With more aircraft reaching the market, the desirability of quirky old airliners like the Comet, 1-11, and VC-10 that, combined, sold the same number as the  747-200 variant alone, the amount of people willing to buy airliners out of widespread service 30 or 40+ years ago  drops to only thos select few that have a strong affinity to them.

Agree, BUT, JustFlight seem to have figured it out for FSX/Prepar3D.

They have a large airfield's worth of niche aircraft that somehow were worth it to produce.

On one hand, yes, I think most people want to fly the aircraft with which they're familiar. On the other, there are only so many of those to go around, and certainly less as time goes by...