5 hours ago, simbol said:

It is how the real aircraft is inside.. I understand if it is not apealing for you, everyone has different taste, etc. but honeslty, we did it exaclty as the airplane is, this shots are from real M500 ...

Precisely. Thanks for posting those.

Oh look, a black glare shield. And you missed my point entirely re budget-basement; refer back to the glare shield (and other subtleties about the interior). And FWIW I don't disagree: the flight dynamics are excellent and pushing the envelope in other areas is to be applauded. For me it simply falls short of what I would consider One of the Best. Others think it's perfect, I'm happy for them.

3 hours ago, lupedelupe said:

Precisely. Thanks for posting those.

Oh look, a black glare shield. And you missed my point entirely re budget-basement; refer back to the glare shield (and other subtleties about the interior). And FWIW I don't disagree: the flight dynamics are excellent and pushing the envelope in other areas is to be applauded. For me it simply falls short of what I would consider One of the Best. Others think it's perfect, I'm happy for them.

I used the piper layout configurator back in 2021 when I started the aircraft development (the layout still exist today in 2025), the interior on this aircraft comes with multiple choices of glare shields, all of them looking clean, modern and sleek, I decided to use the Geneva layout because I liked it:

So is not a missed detail that the glare shield should be black, is just a choice I made. There are plenty of MODs in flightsim.to where you can change it to black and other creative options texture artists came with.. m500 - Explore - Flightsim.to

And yes, perhaps I missed your point entirely because the way you phrased things, is not what people say, it is how people say it sometimes, calling someone project basement like budget and a developer egocentric is not perhaps the best way to start an interaction to convey feedback. 

This is one of the reasons most 3rd party developers are starting to cut off their public relationships with customers and their interactions, a lot of users tent to forget we are humans like they are, and just fail to express their feedback in a positive manner where both parties can exchange ideas and reach understandings regarding products development, limitations and many other subjects, instead everything leads to a Mexican stand off because we are all failing to communicate effectively.

I hope one day you meet me in person and I can change your view that I am egocentric, I must admit, that comment really hurt me.

Best of day to you,

Raul

11 hours ago, Cognita said:

It is quite well done and as Ryan said its flight model for a single engine turbine is very good, as good or better than the Blacksquare. What I can't stand about the aircraft is its interior texturing -- the plane looks sterile, beyond factory new to the point it loses its realism and I have a hard time sitting in it. It is not just that it does not look used, it just looks unreal to my eye, and so I very seldom fly it as it breaks my immersion, which is sad as it is an excellent aircraft.

Are factory new planes not real planes then?

8 hours ago, Eclex said:

Now is a good time to mention that I found a solution to removing those white seat covers in the M500.  It comes from our forum contributor ryanbatc as a livery mod available on flightsim.to  . Looks great : named 'Ocean Blue Metallic livery and Interior for FSR500' .

That is nice. Sadly I have fallen for the N281DD livery. That red was out of this world.

3 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

Are factory new planes not real planes then?

I see my comments stirred some responses! First, Simbol, I was not in any way contributing to a notion of "budget basement", the aircraft  is excellent in so many ways, I have had some very enjoyable flights and landings in it; The flight model and system representations are really well done. I consider it an excellent purchase.

I have two issues that tend to keep it out of my rotation. The first, and more serious one, is the lack of proper and adequate back-up instruments. I really think the GI-275 should have been there;  I know there is other redundancy in the M500 but I like sometimes to practice a range of failures and I can't in this aircraft with the absence of required backup systems; it also just takes away from it being a complete aircraft. I thought I read at some point that this would be added but that never came to be.

The other is the texturing. It is not that it is factory new; it is, what I tried to say, beyond factory new. It feels sterile, like a short from a Star Trek movie. I think the choice to use white seats, a white rug and a white glare shield contributes to this impression and following the advice here I have been trying out some of the liveries on flightsim.to and they do indeed help. 

I really do like this plane so please see these as relatively small issues; just why it is not in my top 3 list.

1 hour ago, Cognita said:

I have two issues that tend to keep it out of my rotation. The first, and more serious one, is the lack of proper and adequate back-up instruments. I really think the GI-275 should have been there;  I know there is other redundancy in the M500 but I like sometimes to practice a range of failures and I can't in this aircraft with the absence of required backup systems; it also just takes away from it being a complete aircraft. I thought I read at some point that this would be added but that never came to be.

Yes, I know about the standby.. I faced some difficulties with this:

A) MSFS 2020 did not have any documentation in avionics framework at the time of development, remember this started back in 2021, not now or few months back. So back then it was very hard to make avionics for MSFS, at the same time, the G1000 from WT was just coming out, also not supporting plugins or anything like these days.. this forced me to FORK the G1000 unit to implement the EIS and code everything manually (there was not even documentation of how to use NODE.JS or React for this!).

When I started FSR500, the standby instrument was actually an Aspen unit, I started developing this and found how difficult doing avionics is for MSFS without proper documentation and framework in place was, I had to abandon it due two how 1st, how difficult it would be to do the full aspen unit, then I found memory issues (see B) and then Piper abandon the use of the Aspen unit in favour of the GI-275.

It is important to explain that to write a full Aspen unit or GI-275 from scratch, would have taken me years.. something I could not afford for a GA Project, as opposed to what most people think, GA Aircraft projects don't sell in massive numbers, like airliners do, the number of copies we sell from small aircrafts are quite low in relation to something like an 737, etc. It is the reason you see most of GA  3rd party Aircraft developers being a team of 1 person, we cannot just afford to have 3 to 5 developers in a GA Project as it means, nobody will be able to have a reasonable profit at all. You will notice also, GA aircraft developers that are conformed by larger teams, became 1st party devs instead.. this is probably what helps then to grow. So

B) MSFS 2020 memory management by the time of release (SU8) was pretty bad, and when memory runs out, all the avionics go BLACK, this is called ABOs( Avionics Black Outs) Due to MSFS Shutting down all the HTML / JS Gauges in order to free memory and avoid a CTD. This meant, if I put yet another instrument to this aircraft (PFD, MFD, PFD, EFB and Standby) The ram will starve faster, causing all avionics to cease to function, including the EFB.

For this reason, I decided to put it on hold, and release 1st focusing since we has deep system simulations which compensate, in my view (right or wrong) the standby instrument is there just for really emergencies and since you had 2xPFD + 1 MFD the trade off for all the problems describe above was not justifiable at that time.

Now with MSFS 2024 and MSFS 2020 new GDU updates and new MSFS Framework for avionics, things are different, but this is now almost 4 years later since the technology has moved on, quite frankly, I suspect Microsoft is developing more instruments and a WT GI-275 avionic might come soon into the space, so I am waiting instead of wasting resources, and as soon as it is available, then I will push the update and implement it, most likely with the schedule FREE upgrade to MSFS 2024 native after phenom 300E is released.

We developers face challenges with technology sometimes, and we have to take decisions to make the project successful and move forward, You start doing an aircraft and as time moves forward, your entire space changes, SU1, SU2, SU3, SUx, etc. gets released and you have to re-write the code many times while providing support also for other things you released, so bottom line, sometimes we have to draw a line and set a limit to what has to be developed in order to push out a product out of the front door.

I would suggest to some of you to apply to be beta testers for some 3rd party devs, it would give you all an insight of what goes behind the scenes, it will change the way you review products, in both ways, as you will be more demanding with your reviews but also, more understanding in regards to what limitations exist within each flight simulation platform.

I thank you for posting your feedback in a positive manner and for supporting my products these years.

Best,
Raul

 

Edited August 14, 2025Aug 14 by simbol

Raul, thank you for taking the time to provide such a comprehensive answer. I forget just how difficult those few years were at the start and recall now how advanced the M500 was and remains. Yes, hopefully WT comes through with a GI-275 and you could circle back and add it. But this is also not a huge issue, I do not mean to magnify it. It is an excellent plane and I am just now planning a short flight!

On 8/1/2025 at 2:24 PM, kevinfirth said:

There is NOTHING about the FSR500 that is budget basement (apart from the price!).  The attention to detail that has gone into making this accurate to real-life is astonishing, and I've witnessed it in real time as it was built. Just saying... And what ego? @simbol is a stand out guy who lives to build authentic experiences for people.  I don't see any ego there, just a burning desire to make products the absolute best they can be...

Are there plans to make the keypad in the center console functional?

I find the FlightSimStudios FSS E190 in FS2024 to have improved alot.  The sounds are better and the VC looks to be improved with the lighting engine in FS2024.  They are heavily working on the new FMC logic and VNAV.  I enjoy flying it.

iFly Max 8, A2A Aerostar, CAS J-3 Cub (in no particular order).

On 8/14/2025 at 4:50 AM, simbol said:

I hope one day you meet me in person

I have met you in person (more than once), and I can confirm that you are the most dedicated, enthusiastic and professional developer I've ever met...and all of your products are top-tier IMO.  The Phenom will be another stunning release for you, and I can't wait to add her to my overcrowded virtual hangar (I may have to push the TBM on to the ramp, or get a bigger hangar, LOL...the C750 just took up the last sq foot of space in there. 🤣

 

On 8/14/2025 at 9:25 AM, simbol said:

I would suggest to some of you to apply to be beta testers for some 3rd party devs, it would give you all an insight of what goes behind the scenes, it will change the way you review products, in both ways, as you will be more demanding with your reviews but also, more understanding in regards to what limitations exist within each flight simulation platform.

I've been on your beta team (way back in the AI lights days...hehe...and still have the FSReborn Polo shirt you gave me at the Expo in Vegas....the 1st year it was in Vegas).  Being fortunate enough to be on several beta teams, I can confirm that it completely changes any preconceived notions you may have had regarding that developer, or the development/testing cycles each employs to create a new product for us crazy simmers to enjoy, and/or praise/criticize to no end. 😁

If you are invited to join a beta team and take the position as more than just a way to get early access to a cool new sim product, you'll find it's a lot of serious work...and if you learn nothing else about the whole addon creation process, you'll learn how to uninstall/reinstall/reconfigure that product in your sleep... as you'll be doing it more times than you'll care to remember, LOL.
You'll quickly realize what's involved in pushing an update to users, and the expected feedback afterwards...and above all, why Devs can seem a bit grouchy after a long development/test/release cycle...most are functioning on a few hours sleep per night for months, if not years...and have to endure many, flippant/disrespectful comments (most coming from those who have not had the experience of developing a Flight Sim product themselves.) 🤪
All devs welcome negative comments as long as they are constructive and properly researched (i.e. "I can't start the APU on the M500...you must fix this bug ASAP!  What a bad developer!").
As the saying goes: "Walk a mile in my shoes"....I'd bet just about all of us would die of exhaustion if we applied that to @simbol ' shoes. 😉

On 8/13/2025 at 6:53 PM, lupedelupe said:

Precisely. Thanks for posting those.

Oh look, a black glare shield. And you missed my point entirely re budget-basement; refer back to the glare shield (and other subtleties about the interior). And FWIW I don't disagree: the flight dynamics are excellent and pushing the envelope in other areas is to be applauded. For me it simply falls short of what I would consider One of the Best. Others think it's perfect, I'm happy for them.

Once again, a weird take.

When you say "budget basement" or bargain basement, it implies a product of inferior quality or fidelity. IDK, perhaps you're ESL and don't understand the subtleties of the phrase nor it's derogatory connotation...?

What you're describing so far is like a fashion disagreement with an Interior Decorator. I.e., just because you're fixated on a non-standard color of the glareshield and such...? IDK, I ride in plenty of cars where the glare shield isn't black. Most of them are luxury brands...

What I care most about with the addon is that it's one of the best handling in MSFS, and certainly the best of those with Garmin glass. And that it's been a seamless simulation experience for me ever since I bought it - including the transition from '20 to '24, where it was one of the VERY few 3rd party addons to "just work" in the new sim.

I could give more weight to the missing backup instruments, or the lack of prop drag. But hey, it's flight sim, where NOTHING is "perfect".

On 8/1/2025 at 1:35 AM, lupedelupe said:

I've agreed with most of what most have said here but just cannot get my head around the followers of the FSR500. Yes I agree Raul has pushed the envelope in many respects, but (for my liking) there is far too much of it that feels like a budget-basement add-on, and that ego ... 🤔 [insert shrug emoji]

Don't start back tracking playing word context salad now. Just stand on how you feel as it was pretty apparent in this post.

Doesn't negate the fact it was certainly one weird passive aggressive take and that's fine.

You're entitled to an opinion and it isn't gonna stop us from asking for legit justification of such a take.🙃

Edited August 16, 2025Aug 16 by blueshark747

The suggestion that Raul has an ego is about as far removed from reality as you can possibly get. He is totally dedicated to providing the best possible simulation experience, whilst offering the best customer service at the same time. That combination is very difficult to criticise.

1. PMDG 737 / 777
2. Fenix
3. ATR 72 / 42 — currently the only aircraft in the regional turboprop category