50 minutes ago, SKEWR said:

perhaps ini can update a released plane. (I believe their track record shows they rarely come back to their released aircraft for major updates)

It's already been confirmed there will be a free update in Q2 which will add the ULR and new features to the aircraft.

Edited February 28, 20251 yr by Tuskin38

I'll echo what others have said. Fenix A320 is 60 EUR and the PMDG 777 is 75 EUR, this is 90 EUR and I feel like it's at least 20 EUR too expensive, even if we get two variants + the ULR later.

I can only hope that inibuilds will want this to be known as the best they can do and actually keep patching the aircraft. I don't need study-level, but I'd like to know that basic stupid things I do cause the aircraft to behave appropriately, beyond at least expecting the aircraft to behave and sound appropriately when doing what I'm supposed to be doing. I can tell that e.g. the engine spool up animation needs more work and right now just feels scripted. That's not ok from a 90 euro aircraft.

All good, next time, I wait 🙂 fool me once kinda thing.

3 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

It's already been confirmed there will be a free update in Q2 which will add the ULR and new features to the aircraft.

Sir... "track record" as in already happened...

I see you're kinda into defending certain topics, but please relax a bit... I would LOVE to be wrong on this. Get at me when its released and I'll take it like a champ. Until then, I'm thinking of what's happened to this point...

Edited February 28, 20251 yr by SKEWR

5 minutes ago, SAS274 said:

I can tell that e.g. the engine spool up animation needs more work and right now just feels scripted.

Aren't all simulator aircraft scripted? What does this even mean?

  

3 minutes ago, SKEWR said:

I would LOVE to be wrong on this

The A300 also got a couple major updates.

Edited February 28, 20251 yr by Tuskin38

1 minute ago, Tuskin38 said:

Aren't all simulator aircraft scripted? What does this even mean?

Yea, these are the kinds of things I don't get. Every simulated plane is scripted, completely scripted. Sure, you could put a randomizer in the code so there is some variation but that too is scripted. These are digital planes.

Some people can't go above 2x sim rate between central India and Japan for some reason.

I haven't tested it myself yet, but I've seen reports.

Edit: Doing WSSS to YPPH now, yeah it does not go above 2X

Edited February 28, 20251 yr by Tuskin38

1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

Thinking some more about what Aamir said... it seems like if a dev A wants to spend the time to develop a deeply simulated aircraft X, and if some other dev B comes to market first with aircraft X but at medium fidelity, then dev A feels there is no business sense for them? Since they would have lost out on the business of customers who only ever really wanted aircraft X at medium fidelity and would've bought your high fidelity product because it was the only option (and the dev relies on these customers to recoup their investment).

I would hope even if dev A is second to market but with something of higher fidelity, they can raise the price accordingly to not have to rely on a wider customer base (i.e. to not have to rely on always being "first").

But perhaps that's easier said than done, and if so then it means if an aircraft is first to market (and of medium fidelity) then we would likely not see another dev doing a high fidelity version of that bird?? Hehe hope not.

iFly went head to head with PMDG with their 737 offerings in P3D despite PMDG being the clear incumbent and then beat them to market with the Max

FSLabs brought the 320 despite multiple offerings already available.  

No one blocked Fenix from doing anything in any way, others have taken on existing products and incumbent developers.

 

Thank you to everyone for testing the airplane out for me.  As I expected, the airplane needs some patches before I'll consider it.

3 hours ago, EGLD said:

Have been looking out for this on all the streams I've been suffering through, and there seems to be little to no compression of the nose gear on landing

Based on what I see. I think no matter how hard you land the plane, It'll be stiff. It'll then slowly compress to visually simulates the suspension settling as the lift is dumped from the wings. The only way it will look right, is if you butter the plane so that the gear suspension would never have any impact to absorb. The landing gear from what I see has zero shock absorption. So you cant bottom out the gear suspension on impact. As for the lack of nose gear compression? Yeah, thats on all Ini planes as well. It has slight compression though. If you slam on the brakes to come to a stop you can see it. The problem? The whole plane reacts like a tiny little RC plane rather than a big heavy jet.

Horrible. MSFS generally has really bad gear suspension physics for large heavy jets. But this takes the cake.  I don't think Ini deserves my money for that alone hah.

 

Edited February 28, 20251 yr by FedDriver

1 hour ago, FedDriver said:

Based on what I see. I think no matter how hard you land the plane, It'll be stiff. It'll then slowly compress to visually simulates the suspension settling as the lift is dumped from the wings. The only way it will look right, is if you butter the plane so that the gear suspension would never have any impact to absorb. The landing gear from what I see has zero shock absorption. So you cant bottom out the gear suspension on impact. As for the lack of nose gear compression? Yeah, thats on all Ini planes as well. It has slight compression though. If you slam on the brakes to come to a stop you can see it. The problem? The whole plane reacts like a tiny little RC plane rather than a big heavy jet.

Horrible. MSFS generally has really bad gear suspension physics for large heavy jets. But this takes the cake.  I don't think Ini deserves my money for that alone hah.

 

How do you feel gear suspension  during  landing? When nose gear collapse? When you bounce? Or when your gear  struts go through the wing? 

 

 

3 hours ago, Cognita said:

Every simulated plane is scripted, completely scripted. Sure, you could put a randomizer in the code so there is some variation but that too is scripted. These are digital planes.

I guess it depends on what "scripted" means. I use PSX (with MSFS for visuals), and it takes into consideration the duct pressure (i.e. whether you are using compressed air from the ground, or the APU, or a cross-bleed start from a running engine), and each scenario gives different results. The start sequence also varies by temperature and by the density altitude of the airport--and whether the fan blades have ice on them. On manual engine starts, the engines behave differently based on what the N2 is when you introduce the fuel. Also, for windmilling starts in flight, the start sequence varies by altitude and airspeed. At some combinations of altitude and airspeed, inflight restart isn't even possible. Based on all these variables, sometimes the starts take longer, sometimes they are faster, sometimes they are hotter, sometimes they are not possible, and sometimes limits are exceeded.

"Scripted" to me means that the same parameters change in the same way every time, from the start of the script to the end of it. And that's not the case in every simulation.

Edited February 28, 20251 yr by prolixindec

Great product. Just finished my first flight in it, and based on what type rated pilots have said about the A350, this thing handles just as it should. It's very responsive and can be quite sensitive, yet you still feel its weight. If you fly it as you should, it's a very smooth and stable flying experience. 

iniBuilds have done a good job.

Edited February 28, 20251 yr by RNAVV19R

Sorry, late to comment but I totally do not condemn the comments made by Amir from Fenix on the ini A350 (whether right or wrong). Amir you're better than that and just focus on your own projects. This is from a Fenix supporter.

Edited February 28, 20251 yr by JBDB-MD80

2 minutes ago, prolixindec said:

guess it depends on what "scripted" means.

That is a valid point. For sure some simulations are much deeper and strive to represent interactivity between systems and the environment. For me, at the end of the day, however, all that is scripted. The model is deeper, but it is still coded to behave in a certain way deepening on a certain limited set of variables. But I do appreciate what you are saying, I found it a very helpful way of articulating a high-fidelity simulation and distinguishing it.

It is funny (in a pathetic and maybe a new low for this site) that people are talking about a DEV who DIDN'T make this airplane in the form about the DEV who DID...and an OK one at that.  Fenix stole ini thunder and didn't even have to release a product, just a quick post somewhere.