Fénix was launched with far fewer critical issues than this aircraft and we are talking about a complement that I suspect Fénix is many steps above this a350 in systems depth and software complexity.

Inibuilds already has a long history of complicated launches I already had my doubts before the launch, in the end I guess they will fix it or so I hope for the sake of those who have bought it is a very expensive add-on and it is understandable the frustration of many people who can not enjoy it.

 

20 hours ago, mpo910 said:

as this caused many of my freezes

You see, this is something I cannot adhere to. If the feature is provided, then the feature must and can be used. If it's not working, then they have to fix it. I will basically do anything I can to make it crash again.

Let me give you some comparison... I work in IT, my work revolves around servers and datacenters. Many of my colleagues think it's correct to go with standard procedures of working with the servers, like use them, update them, reboot them etc., and then call it stable. But they never tested real-world scenarios, like, what happens if you simply power-off the server. Because that happens when PSU die, or disks crash, or whatever happens. So I will test the server-cluster that way, I will on purpose try to damage it (in bounds of real world scenarios), because that way, if all goes well, I can be as sure as I can be, that when such a scenario happens, the cluster will hold and data will be intact. At one of our datacenters, they went with Azure Stack HCI cluster, and they tested it like for one year... and it was "stable". I asked, OK, what did you do... well you know, it was running, we did windows updates... ok, did you do firmware updates? Did you turn off one or two nodes, simply leaving them offline for couple of days... no. What happened? 1,5years later we had a disastrous crash in that particular datacenter, losing basically all data, rebuilding it etc.

I am simply coming from a different environment, where I overclocked my PC for years, and would only call it stable, after I did some heavy testing.

So there you go, two completely different levels of importance, yet the meaning is the same.

Edited March 13, 20251 yr by Simon_C

14 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

Between "perfect" and "every button press can lead to a fatal WASM crash" there's a lot in between. Neither the Fenix nor the PMDG aircraft have been crashing left right and center after release. Not even Aerosoft or FSS have had that. That's how low one must rank iniBuilds in terms of stability, go figure.

 if it were a major issue you would  expect everyone  to have this issue, myself  havn't had any crashes at all, and Iam only  got a gtx 1080ti graphics card  which is  far  below  the mins  req  for this aircraft.

12 minutes ago, pete_auau said:

 if it were a major issue you would  expect everyone  to have this issue, myself  havn't had any crashes at all, and Iam only  got a gtx 1080ti graphics card  which is  far  below  the mins  req  for this aircraft.

Ah so if it's only 75% of the users crashing it's not a major issue, got you.

26 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Ah so if it's only 75% of the users crashing it's not a major issue, got you.

than why is it that most of us  havnt  got this issues than maybe it what we have got installed on ones pc, thats causing  the issues

Edited March 13, 20251 yr by pete_auau

4 hours ago, pete_auau said:

than why is it that most of us  havnt  got this issues than maybe it what we have got installed on ones pc, thats causing  the issues

This is why a long and wide beta testing is needed, and mostly not possible with today's funds and structure. Solution (most likely, I am not an expert): early access. And you can do it step-priced, EA for less, final pay up etc. I see many developments following that scheme, and it seems to be working well. People enter EA even at full priced product. But at least you explicitly accept that it's not a finalized product.

5 hours ago, pete_auau said:

than why is it that most of us  havnt  got this issues than maybe it what we have got installed on ones pc, thats causing  the issues

How do you know that "most of you" don't have issues? Have you spoken to everyone who owns the A350 and done a poll or are you simply assuming based on your own circumstances?

People here love to argue. I wonder if they love arguing more than flight simulation. 

20 hours ago, Aglos77 said:

Fénix was launched with far fewer critical issues than this aircraft and we are talking about a complement that I suspect Fénix is many steps above this a350 in systems depth and software complexity.

Inibuilds already has a long history of complicated launches I already had my doubts before the launch, in the end I guess they will fix it or so I hope for the sake of those who have bought it is a very expensive add-on and it is understandable the frustration of many people who can not enjoy it.

 

Fenix is based on prosim. If you check Prosim's website, you can see what they are and what their client base is. What Fenix did, is ported their work over to msfs under a license. Fenix is not a from the scratch product. ECAM and all the near real stuff in Fenix comes from prosim. So comparing a ported over enterprise level software to something written from scratch is unfair deal I think. The remarks Amir from Fenix made on ini 350, I find them very unprofessional. 

There is lots of potential for improvements in ini 350 in future ahead. 

8 minutes ago, LineDX said:

Fenix is based on prosim. If you check Prosim's website, you can see what they are and what their client base is. What Fenix did, is ported their work over to msfs under a license. Fenix is not a from the scratch product. ECAM and all the near real stuff in Fenix comes from prosim. So comparing a ported over enterprise level software to something written from scratch is unfair deal I think. The remarks Amir from Fenix made on ini 350, I find them very unprofessional. 

There is lots of potential for improvements in ini 350 in future ahead. 

Fenix's amir was planning to do a350 but discarded the project after knowing ini is doing it. That was his own decision to discard it. Now being a CEO of the company and saying bad things about ini does not make sense. 

Prosim does not have a350. for fenix to build 350 10plus years. no thank you. have ini a350 and happy with it. if fenix develops a better a350 will get that. 

Edited March 13, 20251 yr by LineDX

1 hour ago, Speedbird 217 said:

How do you know that "most of you" don't have issues? Have you spoken to everyone who owns the A350 and done a poll or are you simply assuming based on your own circumstances?

Please check the vatism network and see the numbers. 

Regards 

3 hours ago, Simon_C said:

This is why a long and wide beta testing is needed, and mostly not possible with today's funds and structure. Solution (most likely, I am not an expert): early access. And you can do it step-priced, EA for less, final pay up etc. I see many developments following that scheme, and it seems to be working well. People enter EA even at full priced product. But at least you explicitly accept that it's not a finalized product.

hey Simon,

With my publisher and developer hats on, from 44 years experience... I agree with you on beta testing in relation to costs. I am currently about to ship a title for Train Sim World and I have to say the beta testers at Dovetail and the public beta discord have been fantastic and really helped. That said, going back to my time at Microsoft, EA Games, et al, you hit the nail on the head.

In simulation the cost to return ratio is very low. It is niche. A large paid beta team would likely tip most developer balance sheets in to the red after shipping. Simulation is not top dollar earnings in most case.

Early access was always a big discussion we had at Electronic Arts. Pros and cons really. I like the idea of being upfront with the public by saying there are wrinkles there and we get some great feedback from consumers.  That openness of being clear there are still things to do, things to fix. Small devs benefit from an earlier cashflow (that is half the problem, people need things out quickly for cashflow, sometimes knowing it is far from finished, but are cornered by rising costs - not speaking inibuilds here, I don't know them personally)

The downside is  a successful early access can also hit that bottom line. People buying at discount in early access are not buying full price on release. It can hurt a developer. We have also seen early adopters bad mouth a product as many less enlightened people see early access as somehow feature complete. So we see bad press again damaging sales if there is not bells, whistles and polish in early access. So EA is very much a two edged sword.

No easy answer, but I firmly believe we should be upfront with the consumers about what to expect, what not to expect and what the forward roadmap is, so they can make an informed choice about when to join the product journey. As the CEO of one of the big flightsim publishers, regularly discussed in Avsim very positively with their releases and held in high regard, told me today it "is all about communication"

all the best

Jane

Edited March 13, 20251 yr by JaneRachel

35 minutes ago, JaneRachel said:

hey Simon,

With my publisher and developer hats on, from 44 years experience... I agree with you on beta testing in relation to costs. I am currently about to ship a title for Train Sim World and I have to say the beta testers at Dovetail and the public beta discord have been fantastic and really helped. That said, going back to my time at Microsoft, EA Games, et al, you hit the nail on the head.

In simulation the cost to return ratio is very low. It is niche. A large paid beta team would likely tip most developer balance sheets in to the red after shipping. Simulation is not top dollar earnings in most case.

Early access was always a big discussion we had at Electronic Arts. Pros and cons really. I like the idea of being upfront with the public by saying there are wrinkles there and we get some great feedback from consumers.  That openness of being clear there are still things to do, things to fix. Small devs benefit from an earlier cashflow (that is half the problem, people need things out quickly for cashflow, sometimes knowing it is far from finished, but are cornered by rising costs - not speaking inibuilds here, I don't know them personally)

The downside is  a successful early access can also hit that bottom line. People buying at discount in early access are not buying full price on release. It can hurt a developer. We have also seen early adopters bad mouth a product as many less enlightened people see early access as somehow feature complete. So we see bad press again damaging sales if there is not bells, whistles and polish in early access. So EA is very much a two edged sword.

No easy answer, but I firmly believe we should be upfront with the consumers about what to expect, what not to expect and what the forward roadmap is, so they can make an informed choice about when to join the product journey. As the CEO of one of the big flightsim publishers, regularly discussed in Avsim very positively with their releases and held in high regard, told me today it "is all about communication"

all the best

Jane

Hi Jane,

thank you for your insight. I understand the issue with EA. I have actually only seen successful projects with EA, but as I said, this is not my area, so I am just guessing. One of the highest ranking games on Steam, Subnautica, #56 in top sellers with 96% positive reviews, has been EA in the first game, EA in the 2nd, and 3rd part is also preparing an EA, as far as I know.

BATC is EA, still. And yet, due to quality, I would even re-buy it at full release.

And while you say about money flow with EA, well... isn't that just a thing of management? Why sell EA discounted? Why not require buy-out at the end of EA? I believe there are ways.

As you said... all about communication. And that is what miserably failed on the ini side.

Edited March 13, 20251 yr by Simon_C

Well...performance is not the greatest but somewhat acceptable....my issue is that Joystick "feeling" on landing in may case is terrible...I am bouncing left right and slamming runway. I have Airbus TCA but can't make it work....Otherwise not that bad. Wish I performance could be better on my system but...

52 minutes ago, Simon_C said:

Hi Jane,

thank you for your insight. I understand the issue with EA. I have actually only seen successful projects with EA, but as I said, this is not my area, so I am just guessing. One of the highest ranking games on Steam, Subnautica, #56 in top sellers with 96% positive reviews, has been EA in the first game, EA in the 2nd, and 3rd part is also preparing an EA, as far as I know.

BATC is EA, still. And yet, due to quality, I would even re-buy it at full release.

And while you say about money flow with EA, well... isn't that just a thing of management? Why sell EA discounted? Why not require buy-out at the end of EA? I believe there are ways.

As you said... all about communication. And that is what miserably failed on the ini side.

You are right Simon on the money flow. In my world of AAA titles, we pretty much sell only through Steam on PC (or console stores). Without breaching disclosures, Steam put strict commercial terms on how early access content is handled, priced etc. A whole load of hoops to go through on titles, which usually involved the lawyers on AAA early access.

A small developer, selling directly, is of course, in a whole different world where they are masters of the commercial terms and retail pricing without a Steam wanting their cut etc.