2 hours ago, JBDB-MD80 said:

What are you even talking about that Ini A380 will sell like hotcakes on the Marketplace and for XBOX if its at a reasonable price. What are people forgetting here? Ini is not in no rush to release a A380 at this time as people on PC can simply enjoy the FBW at the monent.

 

It really depends on how much the FBW A380 improves to at the time iniBuilds releases their A380.  On the PC marketplace, I am skeptical if the iniBuilds A380 will sell that well, if it's not a vast improvement over the FBW A380.  On the XBox marketplace, I agree with you, that the iniBuilds A380 will sell very well because there is no decent A380 for XBox.

I personally think the FBW A380 will depress a lot of the iniBuilds A380 sales for the PC market though, if the iniBuilds A380 is at a comparable level of fidelity to their other MSFS airliners. IMO, the iniBuilds A380 would probably have to be at Fenix level, for it to sell a substantial number of copies in the PC market.

Edited November 4, 20241 yr by abrams_tank

3 hours ago, eslader said:

I bought the Fenix A320. It's better than the FBW, and I don't regret the purchase, but I don't think I'll see the need to spend that kind of money again for the quality jump, because while it is better, it's not *tons* better. It's not like we're talking PMDG vs Carenado here.

I'll be a little surprised if the Inibuilds A380 is a hot seller given how good the FBW 380 already is.

 

Yeah, I think for the PC market, the iniBuilds A380 would have to be at Fenix level, for it to sell well for PC users.  The main reason why the Fenix sold so well was because it was that much better than the FBW A320 when it was released, back in the spring of 2022.

21 hours ago, JBDB-MD80 said:

How they compete?. Inibuilds will be available for the marketplace and XBOX and FBW will not if that counts for something. Ini should focus on the A350 for now as its the most popular lounger in the future airliner for now. Ini should not also rely on sales from a A380 as they make plenty of money in the MSFS market and don't really rely on that (A380) product to stay in business.

 

 

Microsoft (Jörg) announced in their recent SDK stream that they work on allowing GPL3 in the marketplace. So the Xbox and Marketplace thing might diminish.

19 hours ago, micstatic said:

FBW has done a great job on the A380.  Especially for a plane that is in alpha and has a long road ahead of it.  But are you kidding?  It's most certainly not on fenix standards yet.  

He wrote: „for the parts that have been done“ and not the whole plane. That’s a small but important point. 

In the latest dev stream Jorg was talking about changes to the MSFS Marketplace, maybe it's possible that we could see FBW returning to MS MP, allowing for Xbox owners to get FBW products in the future?

 

Even if it was allowed, I doubt the A380 will be on there right away because of how often it’s updating, being an alpha and all that. Also the performance hit would probably be too high for the xbox

The A320N, maybe as stable updates aren’t that often anymore 

Edited November 4, 20241 yr by Tuskin38

2 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

I doubt the A380 will be on there right away because of how often it’s updating, being an alpha and all that

Eventually there will be a Stable and development version, similiar to the A32NX where you see Stable updated a lot less often. I imagine that's what would be submitted to the marketplace.

 

3 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

Also the performance hit would probably be too high for the xbox

Yeah I imagine we'd be denied until we get around to doing LODs

On 11/3/2024 at 4:52 AM, Tuskin38 said:

Study Level is silly nonsense term, how do you even define it?

Study Level isnt problematic.

The fact that it's over used and in-accurately applied doesn't make it an undefinable term.

It's the silly nonsense people who misuse it who do.

 

6 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

Eventually there will be a Stable and development version, similiar to the A32NX where you see Stable updated a lot less often. I imagine that's what would be submitted to the marketplace.

 

Yeah I imagine we'd be denied until we get around to doing LODs

Hey Lucky. Did the FBW team use an external process like Fenix for the A320 or A380 in the end? I read some rumors that the FBW team was considering using an external process for the A320 like Fenix did but I don't know if that happened. I'm asking because the Fenix will never work on the XBox because XBox doesn't allow extermal processes to be run because of the sandbox for XBox. Does that mean the FBW A320 and A380 can work on XBox because it's not using an external process like Fenix?

Edited November 4, 20241 yr by abrams_tank

5 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Hey Lucky. Did the FBW team use an external process like Fenix for the A320 or A380 in the end? I read some rumors that the FBW team was considering using an external process for the A320 like Fenix did but I don't know if that happened. I'm asking because the Fenix will never work on the XBox because XBox doesn't allow extermal processes to be run because of the sandbox for XBox. Does that mean the FBW A320 and A380 can work on XBox because it's not using an external process like Fenix?

No I don't think it does. It uses SimBridge for the terrain radar, but that's it as far as I can tell.

3 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Hey Lucky. Did the FBW team use an external process like Fenix for the A320 or A380 in the end? I read some rumors that the FBW team was considering using an external process for the A320 like Fenix did but I don't know if that happened. I'm asking because the Fenix will never work on the XBox because XBox doesn't allow extermal processes to be run because of the sandbox for XBox. Does that mean the FBW A320 and A380 can work on XBox because it's not using an external process like Fenix?

Along with Tom said, both aircraft are entirely written in-process.

There’s a possibility of bringing the terrain display in-process as well. No one has just gotten around to it due to a lack of need.

11 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

Along with Tom said, both aircraft are entirely written in-process.

There’s a possibility of bringing the terrain display in-process as well. No one has just gotten around to it due to a lack of need.

Hey, that's very interesting. If FBW is able to get the A380 onto XBox, that means a whole new ballgame for iniBuilds.

I think if the FBW A380 gets onto XBox before iniBuilds gets their A380 on XBox, iniBuilds could potentially lose money on their A380 project. I would guess when UBaid made the iniBuilds A380 announcement, he always knew that FBW could release their A380 at any time for PC, but that the XBox market would remain untouched.  Now if FBW gets their A380 onto XBox, that could result in iniBuilds simply making a loss on their A380 project, I don't think the iniBuilds A380 would sell well on XBox with the FBW A380 there for free.

Have flown 6 legs with the A380 FBW, learned a lot by watching the very good tutorial videos by the Airbus pilot Emanuel. It seems stable, and none of the usual VNAV problems (that so many other struggles with) and it feels good flying as well.

But what makes me abandon this product is the max simrate. It varies between 1-4 X. 4X can be kept during short periods and then the sim returns it to 2X automatically (or from 2X to 1X) and you have to turn it back again manually, probably because of the current FPS (50-90 in my case). Using the 8K or the 4K version makes no difference.

This might be ok for those who wish to spend a whole day for one single flight from A to B. For me this is not ok, and far from the long haul standard 8X+ delivered by PMDG and others.

The problem is that you can’t override the simrate, as was the case with A320 when yourself could change the parameters. A320 makes 4X. Also saving a flight and load it again, a basic Flight sim functionality is left out by FBW.

Could this be an alpha release problem? No, most probably not. The attitude from FBW’s side regarding simrate and loading saved flights has been ice cold for years as I’ve confronted them with these 2 matters many times.

I’m running on a GTX 4090 and 12900 processor, 32 GB mem (50% occupied), managing 50-90 Fps and still the sim can’t manage 4X, sorry to say but this is a lack of functionality and design. And to improve this would probably mean a basic reconstructuring of their codebase, which they won’t care for.

I now put my hope in a potential iniBuild A380 version but agree with some here that an A350 might be more important to focus on.

PMDG's 777 is still the king among long haulers.

44 minutes ago, mseder said:

I now put my hope in a potential iniBuild A380 version but agree with some here that an A350 might be more important to focus on.

the A380 is coming after the A350 yes.

They're considering adding an auto-simrate feature like the PMDG 777 has but no promises. IIRC it has something to do with framerate and stability, so if they decide to add it, it won't be until near the end of the development.

Edited November 5, 20241 yr by Tuskin38

1 hour ago, mseder said:

saving a flight and load it again, a basic Flight sim functionality is left out by FBW.

Load/save is far from a basic functionality. It requires ensuring all systems save and load a consistent state that can occur in the real aircraft (made challenging by the fact that many of the IRL plane systems we design around are not made to spawn in flight - this is a problem that has to be designed around even in real full motion sims). At an alpha stage on both aircraft it simply does not make sense to spent so much time designing support for this around systems that are constantly changing and being improved.

1 hour ago, mseder said:

Could this be an alpha release problem? No, most probably not. The attitude from FBW’s side regarding simrate and loading saved flights has been ice cold for years as I’ve confronted them with these 2 matters many times.

But it is an alpha release problem. In the past 4 years we have moved systems between different programming languages, rewritten them dozens of times, changed the architecture of the avionics along the way, all while having to take into account extensive future system development, performance considerations and feasability while running entirely in-process. Adding yet another level of complexity that has to span multiple technologies and frameworks while we already have to address bugs and performance concerns early in the release cycle is not a good idea.

1 hour ago, mseder said:

And to improve this would probably mean a basic reconstructuring of their codebase, which they won’t care for.

I'm curious to know on which information you base this claim. If you have identified a basic restructuring we could do to implement load/save, we'd love to hear about it. Furthermore, with all the code being freely available to use and modifiy, contributions to it would be very welcome.

To be clear - we would definitely like this functionality to exist. But it's not as simple as it seems, especially during alpha.