Nice feedback. And it’s something we just see again and again and is easy to spot: there are those who care more about the texture-resolution than anything else and there are the « true aviation-fans » who understand the main goal of a sim. It just makes me smile to see some users blowing the textures-part out of proportion and even come to the conclusion that it would better not having it at all.

And who would these "true aviation enthusiasts" be?
Are they perhaps all those (i.e. at least 90%) who threw XP11 in the trash because it didn't have the "realistic graphics" of XP12?
To believe in the theory that all those who switched from XP11 to XP12 did so exclusively because they were only interested in flight dynamics is pure fantasy. 
In these 2 years the "true aviation enthusiasts" (i.e. XP fans) have talked almost exclusively about graphics, opening dozens of topics in which they continually praised the graphics of this simulation (even denying the bugs), and woe betide anyone who dared to contradict them.
Now starting to act like moralists in reverse, theatrically pretending that the much-publicized realistic graphics of XP12 and its addons no longer matter to you is not at all credible. 

1 hour ago, efis007 said:

graphics of XP12 and its addons no longer matter to you

Only that much 🤏

3 hours ago, efis007 said:

And who would these "true aviation enthusiasts" be?
Are they perhaps all those (i.e. at least 90%) who threw XP11 in the trash because it didn't have the "realistic graphics" of XP12?
To believe in the theory that all those who switched from XP11 to XP12 did so exclusively because they were only interested in flight dynamics is pure fantasy. 
In these 2 years the "true aviation enthusiasts" (i.e. XP fans) have talked almost exclusively about graphics, opening dozens of topics in which they continually praised the graphics of this simulation (even denying the bugs), and woe betide anyone who dared to contradict them.
Now starting to act like moralists in reverse, theatrically pretending that the much-publicized realistic graphics of XP12 and its addons no longer matter to you is not at all credible. 

You didn't get my point. I was talking about those who value texture-resolutions of an addon that otherwise simulates systems very good and also behaves (flight dynamic) close to the real thing WAY above that last point and even find it "unusable" just because of that. A "true aviation enthusiast" will never value that above systems, this is a typical gamer-mentality.

The simmer vs. gamer debate really needs to be put to rest. A well-designed virtual cockpit, quality textures, and realistic sounds dramatically enhance overall immersion.

For me, graphics, sounds, and systems fidelity are equally important.

Even on X-Plane, it’s entirely possible to achieve both high-quality textures and in-depth system simulation—great examples being the CL650, FF777v2, and Rotate MD-11.

2 hours ago, GCBraun said:

Even on X-Plane, it’s entirely possible to achieve both high-quality textures and in-depth system simulation—great examples being the CL650, FF777v2, and Rotate MD-11.

I hate to say this but, to be honest,  FF777v2 and MD-11 are not good examples when you compare their systems with the release of AKD GLF650 and the Toliss A330 which has demonstrated that all their system are functionally complete. FF777v2 most critical system VNAV while implemented for beta is still a work in progress with calculated fuel prediction and other dependencies related to VNAV still are not finish. On the other hand Rotate had their worst first release of their MD-11 for X-plane 12 that nearly sunk their reputation (and that kept me from getting this aircraft) before many of the issue after several updates where they able to get iron out in short order. From the link below are the list of issue that were corrected after its release, that show the challenge developers have while maintaining visual appearance texture wise that many care so much about.

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/287194-rotate-md-11-v107-released/&

CL650 maybe the the exception but it's not alway easy to get all your systems in without missing something, possibly in the texture category, that can easy get fix upon subsequent releases which comes a lot sooner with improvements shown in Toliss example than they are system wise in FF777v2 or Rotate case. 

5 minutes ago, BobFS88 said:

I hate to say this but, to be honest,  FF777v2 and MD-11 are not good examples when you compare their systems with the release of AKD GLF650 and the Toliss A330 which has demonstrated that all their system are functionally complete. FF777v2 most critical system VNAV while implemented for beta is still a work in progress with calculated fuel prediction and other dependencies related to VNAV still are not finish. On the other hand Rotate had their worst first release of their MD-11 for X-plane 12 that nearly sunk their reputation (and that kept me from getting this aircraft) before many of the issue after several updates where they able to get iron out in short order. From the link below are the list of issue that were corrected after its release, that show the challenge developers have while maintaining visual appearance texture wise that many care so much about.

https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/287194-rotate-md-11-v107-released/&

CL650 maybe the the exception but it's not alway easy to get all your systems in without missing something, possibly in the texture category, that can easy get fix upon subsequent releases which comes a lot sooner with improvements shown in Toliss example than they are system wise in FF777v2 or Rotate case. 

I agree that the MD11 and the 777v2 still have to improve system-wise. The CL650 is indeed pretty much flawless. Of course I am just listing XP add-ons, but there are many other examples in DCS/MSFS. 

On 10/28/2024 at 10:54 AM, Bjoern said:

I mean, I get it. Everybody wants their money worth of a product in some way and it's a bit disappointing when something is not quite up to par, but to outright ridicule what, after all, amounts to hundreds of hours of work is another level. No wonder nobody wants to make add-ons anymore.

I wouldn't say I'm ridiculing it, simply that it doesn't measure up in the graphics department relative to most of the other payware available.

For e.g., I still fly some old add-ons that aren't graphically up to date, but when I purchased them, either they did look good, or they were priced accordingly/on sale.

For $45 these days, I simply expect a well balanced addon and I'm not so desperate for any specific aircraft that I'm willing to give up on that.

We see a few positive comments here on how the addon actually works, and that's great.

If there's a good Black Friday sale on it, or the 550, I might go ahead and get it.

3 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

I wouldn't say I'm ridiculing it, simply that it doesn't measure up in the graphics department relative to most of the other payware available.

For e.g., I still fly some old add-ons that aren't graphically up to date, but when I purchased them, either they did look good, or they were priced accordingly/on sale.

For $45 these days, I simply expect a well balanced addon and I'm not so desperate for any specific aircraft that I'm willing to give up on that.

We see a few positive comments here on how the addon actually works, and that's great.

If there's a good Black Friday sale on it, or the 550, I might go ahead and get it.

I seriously doubt you would be happy if you got $45 worth of pretty and $5 worth of sytems, its the flight modelling and system depth, the part you vpcant see that takes up time money and effort, but because it cznt be seeing, well the saga continues. Should go back to fs9 systems and xp12 graphics than everyone woll be happy.

1 hour ago, mjrhealth said:

I seriously doubt you would be happy if you got $45 worth of pretty and $5 worth of sytems

It seems to me lately that the argument in this forum is that if a plane has good flight/system simulation, then we should be willing to accept bad/subpar graphics.

Do you guys know that it does not have to be one or the other? They are not mutually exclusive. For new addons, I expect both. This is the reason I invested in a 4090.

In 2024, if a developer cannot achieve one or both then the plane needs to be priced appropriately.

Edited November 3, 20241 yr by brinx

56 minutes ago, brinx said:

In 2024, if a developer cannot achieve one or both then the plane needs to be priced appropriately

So how long you willing to wait and how much are you willing to pay. So lets upset all the developers so they quit, im sure there are a lot sitting on the fence right now, I guess some dont care if the developers eat.

 

On 10/28/2024 at 9:54 PM, Bjoern said:

No wonder nobody wants to make add-ons anymore.

no wonder nobody wants to purchase ugly fsx/xplane9 flintstone style cockpits in 2024 anymore when there are better alternatives around.  same applies to the pre-historic Justflight Duchess 76 by Thranda. first and last that I bought from them. that is not why I  upgraded to 4K displays and 4090s costing 1.000s of $$. 

Edited November 3, 20241 yr by turbomax

7 hours ago, brinx said:

It seems to me lately that the argument in this forum is that if a plane has good flight/system simulation, then we should be willing to accept bad/subpar graphics.

No that’s not the argument. The argument is that for us systems and flight behaviour are by far the most important in a simulation. That doesn’t mean that we wouldn’t want to have very good (or better) textures as well but it just looks like some overvalue that aspect compared to what matters the most in my opinion. I respect that (still find it weird) but then I would recommand them to simply switch over to MSFS because they will have the eye-goodies they are searching for. 
 

I saw comments from people who won’t get the Toliss A330 only because of the cockpit-textures (for an otherwise almost perfect addon - even the cockpit textures are good enough after the update). And that’s that’s the folks I was talking about. Again: doesn’t mean we shouldn’t want better textures (what already happened).

16 hours ago, Franz007 said:

No that’s not the argument. The argument is that for us systems and flight behaviour are by far the most important in a simulation. That doesn’t mean that we wouldn’t want to have very good (or better) textures as well but it just looks like some overvalue that aspect compared to what matters the most in my opinion. I respect that (still find it weird) but then I would recommand them to simply switch over to MSFS because they will have the eye-goodies they are searching for. 
 

I saw comments from people who won’t get the Toliss A330 only because of the cockpit-textures (for an otherwise almost perfect addon - even the cockpit textures are good enough after the update). And that’s that’s the folks I was talking about. Again: doesn’t mean we shouldn’t want better textures (what already happened).

I agree. I prefer that the systems and flight model are taken into account first and the technical support that the developer can provide second.

I am interested in good quality textures. But it is useless to have a nice plane when the plane lacks flight dynamics and complex development in systems. And a combination of good price and good quality is very difficult. A good addon at a cheap price is impossible.

I bought the AKD a few days ago and it works very well. Just a small detail to polish in the VNAV. But if we make a balance in comparison with the quality and the price and the support they provide, it is fair to pay 34 dollars on sale for this plane. For that price one cannot ask for too much.

On 11/2/2024 at 4:29 PM, mjrhealth said:

I seriously doubt you would be happy if you got $45 worth of pretty and $5 worth of sytems, its the flight modelling and system depth, the part you vpcant see that takes up time money and effort, but because it cznt be seeing, well the saga continues. Should go back to fs9 systems and xp12 graphics than everyone woll be happy.

You missed this part of my post:

"For $45 these days, I simply expect a well balanced addon"

And yes, I'm well aware of what takes the most time in developing an addon.

That's still no excuse for lackluster graphics, or the inverse.