9 minutes ago, Cognita said:

Yes, I wish there was a way to code in some weathering, like a slider that would adjust the look for factory new to something 5 years old with the usual scratches and slightly worn look. That was one of the things with the M500 is it just looked too pristine, too perfect.

Didn't he mention that in the stream with 2Tone though?  That there would be a way to control how pristine it looked?  It was late when I watched it though, maybe I was dreaming.

1 hour ago, Mace said:

Didn't he mention that in the stream with 2Tone though?  That there would be a way to control how pristine it looked?  It was late when I watched it though, maybe I was dreaming.

Raul was looking for the 6month factory look with dirty options to follow.

Raul also cited the plane cost almost 15 million so it shoukd look good when purchase it.

dd

 

Edited November 21, 2025Nov 21 by Sky_Pilot071

1 hour ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

Raul was looking for the 6month factory look with dirty options to follow.

Oh yeah.  THAT is what he said, now I remember.

@Cognita

@Georgleboui

44 minutes ago, Mace said:

Oh yeah.  THAT is what he said, now I remember.

That is a grate solution. I am very much looking forward to this.

14 hours ago, JYW said:

This is a strange assertion to me.   I completely agree that the purpose of pre-release content is to educate and help the community to understand what will be on offer.

But why does that purpose in any way require blaring library music, minor YouTube 'celebrities' or personas (whose aim is usually to draw attention away from the proposition in question, and towards themself), and all of the other style over substance ingredients that make up contemporary flight sim pre-release  and 'cInEmAtIc' videos? 

The music, presenter and other aspects that target those with an attention deficit are not inherent, required ingredients of a video that aims to introduce and build excitement for a forthcoming product.

Case in point - the recent Black Square video features.   No blaring, bland music, no loud, irritating 'persona'.   Just the staggeringly talented developer (Nick C) showcasing his work, and what it will bring to the potential customer.  Those videos (along with most feature videos from Just Flight) are the true state of the art, because they're not copying off everyone else (as 99% of 'cinematic' videos do).   

They are confident in their product and don't need all the tiresome glossy gift wrap.

  As you may just subtley be able to detect, I'm not a fan of the whole Aviation Lads style - and to be fair to those guys, it's mostly because the entire world has copied their production values and made 'cinematic' the only option we ever have for pre-release features.
 

  

If you're saying that these future showcases will have less music (covering up the product sounds), less YouTube personalities, and won't be intrinsically cinematic then that is genuinely great to hear. 

That would only be a fair comparison if the Phenom would have a single pre-release video (the trailer) and nothing more, but that clearly won’t be the case. As Raul has already stated, there will be additional videos showcasing the aircraft and its features throughout the pre-release period.

In fact, Raul spent nearly an hour on a livestream less than three days ago demonstrating the Phenom and discussing its systems and features in detail. There was nothing “cinematic” about that, it was simply a developer passionately showcasing his work.

You also bring up Black Square as a comparison, yet several of their pre-release videos are cinematic trailers as well. Here is an example of one that I personally enjoyed:

https://youtu.be/bY8jZnOi4M0?si=o30CZnQE6iVAs2Ip

I don’t understand the need to judge someone so harshly based solely on one pre-release video, especially when more content is still to come. Personally, I’m happy to appreciate what we’ve received as an initial showcase while looking forward to the more in-depth videos that will follow.

 

11 hours ago, Georgleboui said:

.....I think part of it is I like a lived-in look to a cockpit - to me it’s easier to get immersed that way. This is not a knock at all against Raul - he’s simulating a brand new airframe and that’s what it really looks like. And I bet in real life it looks spectacular.
But - and again my own preference - that clean , factory-fresh look in a video game feels more sterile especially with the giant screens that cover most of it. It’s the same reason I dislike the PMDG 737 cockpit in the way that it feels “plastic”, and the IXEG 737 in xplane was way more immersive. 
A more extreme example which I’ve used before here – to me the absolute most immersive cockpit is the DCS MiG-21. Not only is the plane itself difficult to fly, but the visuals of the cockpit feel dangerous too. Like you can smell it through the screen, and probably will need a tetanus shot afterwards. 

I can kind of understand what you mean with respect to the Phenom 300E cockpit, but the PMDG 737NG cockpit has a lovely feel to it. It is not ultra modern with massive screens and virtually no dials or gauges. It has a nice mix of both, and the displays are more comfortably sized. Even the sounds in the VC are solid and crystal clear (for the record, the Boris audio sounds of the switches in the 777 cockpit are still not as good as the PMDG switch sounds in the 737NG).

Edited November 21, 2025Nov 21 by Christopher Low

19 hours ago, JYW said:

This is a strange assertion to me.   I completely agree that the purpose of pre-release content is to educate and help the community to understand what will be on offer.

But why does that purpose in any way require blaring library music, minor YouTube 'celebrities' or personas (whose aim is usually to draw attention away from the proposition in question, and towards themself), and all of the other style over substance ingredients that make up contemporary flight sim pre-release  and 'cInEmAtIc' videos? 

The music, presenter and other aspects that target those with an attention deficit are not inherent, required ingredients of a video that aims to introduce and build excitement for a forthcoming product.

Case in point - the recent Black Square video features.   No blaring, bland music, no loud, irritating 'persona'.   Just the staggeringly talented developer (Nick C) showcasing his work, and what it will bring to the potential customer.  Those videos (along with most feature videos from Just Flight) are the true state of the art, because they're not copying off everyone else (as 99% of 'cinematic' videos do).   

They are confident in their product and don't need all the tiresome glossy gift wrap.

  As you may just subtley be able to detect, I'm not a fan of the whole Aviation Lads style - and to be fair to those guys, it's mostly because the entire world has copied their production values and made 'cinematic' the only option we ever have for pre-release features.
 

  

If you're saying that these future showcases will have less music (covering up the product sounds), less YouTube personalities, and won't be intrinsically cinematic then that is genuinely great to hear. 

I guarantee the majority of the audience from Orillia and from Durham and beyond appreciate the creativity of music editing to enhance the release of a new product. Major release trailers from successful developers in this hobby (iniBuilds, Aerosoft, PMDG and many more including Just Flight) all work to achieve excellence in their videos through the use of music tracks to elevate the visuals in release and pre-release trailers. Cinematic effects and music help build products showcased in videos.

Yes, there will be more videos with custom sound tracks balanced to hear important aircraft sounds. Your choice to watch or not watch what the future jet experience will be like in Flight Simulator 2024.

TwoToneMurphy has a large audience, so doing that stream gave a lot of exposure 

Edited November 21, 2025Nov 21 by Tuskin38

19 hours ago, SayAgain said:

Wasn’t a problem with the A2A Aerostar 600 … even made a video of it 🙂 

Okay - link to vid and flight params, please. 👍

Not a lot of fuel, but not empty either ... I think 1 passenger 180 and about 40 cargo as I recall ... no arrestor hook either.  Specs for Aerostar 600 landing distance is 1040-1230 ft ... as you can see I stopped in about half that distance.  Takeoff is 1,550 ft to 1,950 ft, ... the carrier is about 1100 ft I believe.

I'll be surprised if I can't do the same with the Phenom 300E.  Gotta take the MSFS 2024 flight physics with a grain of salt, especially ground friction.

Edited November 21, 2025Nov 21 by SayAgain

33 minutes ago, SayAgain said:

Not a lot of fuel, but not empty either ... I think 1 passenger 180 and about 40 cargo as I recall ... no arrestor hook either.  Specs for Aerostar 600 landing distance is 1040-1230 ft ... as you can see I stopped in about half that distance.  Takeoff is 1,550 ft to 1,950 ft, ... the carrier is about 1100 ft I believe.

I'll be surprised if I can't do the same with the Phenom 300E.  Gotta take the MSFS 2024 flight physics with a grain of salt, especially ground friction.

Hmm but A2A doesn't use the sim's flight and ground dynamics engine for their aircraft, it's all completely external to the sim using their Accu-Sim engine.
 

On 11/20/2025 at 1:37 PM, Mace said:

Isn't the Phenom 300E, even the 2020+ models, a G3000-equipped plane?

Not sure if G3000 has along-track offset, maybe it does.

You may be right.  I thought the Longitude had the G5000.  The Longitude looks like the same package and doesn't have ATK offset and I'd think it would be the same.  To me, it's the one big missing piece.  Love to see it.  

Just now, Gregg_Seipp said:

You may be right.  I thought the Longitude had the G5000.  The Longitude looks like the same package and doesn't have ATK offset and I'd think it would be the same.  To me, it's the one big missing piece.  Love to see it.  

Don't slow down Raul.  :}

dd

40 minutes ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

Don't slow down Raul.  :}

dd

I'd think Working Title would have to fix that.

1 hour ago, SayAgain said:

Not a lot of fuel, but not empty either ... I think 1 passenger 180 and about 40 cargo as I recall ... no arrestor hook either.  Specs for Aerostar 600 landing distance is 1040-1230 ft ... as you can see I stopped in about half that distance.  Takeoff is 1,550 ft to 1,950 ft, ... the carrier is about 1100 ft I believe.

Nicely done.

A big factor here is that the aircraft carrier is moving. This can be nicely observed in the video: When the aircraft is standing still before takeoff, the GPS still shows a ground speed of 15 knots. This is equivalent to a 15-knot headwind (it looks like the wind was essentially calm in the video). That's going to help a lot with runway performance, so it's not a surprise that you did considerably better than the book numbers.

We can try to quantify how much the carrier's movement helps. The distance required to accelerate from a stop to a given speed (on takeoff) or to brake from a given speed to a stop (on landing) is proportional to the square of the speed (assuming constant acceleration / deceleration -- I know this is only approximately true for takeoff and landing).

On the takeoff, it looks like your liftoff speed was around 90 knots. This means that you'd expect your ground roll to be (75*75)/(90*90) = 0.69, so about 70% of what it would be in a no-wind situation. I wasn't sure if the distances you quoted were ground roll or distance over a 50-foot obstacle, so I went looking for some sources. I found this article, which gives the ground roll for a 601P as 1,900 feet. This seems to indicate that your numbers are for ground roll -- I assume the range you gave is for a range of different weights? Applying the 70% factor to your range of takeoff ground rolls, we get a range of 1,085 to 1,365 feet. At the low end, that's just under the length of the Ford class's 1,100 foot deck. Your takeoff didn't appear to be quite that close, but I'd say it's still pretty believable.

On landing, the speed at which you touched down was around 80 knots. This means you'd expect the ground roll to be (65 * 65)/(80 * 80) = 0.66, i.e. 66% of what it would be in a no-wind situation. Applying the 66% factor to the numbers you quoted, we get a range of 690 to 810 feet. The ground roll in your video definitely looked to me to be shorter than that -- like you, I'd estimate it at closer to 500 feet. Still, this doesn't look like an egregious discrepancy.

Still, I think it's going to be really hard to pull this off in the Phenom. Landing, sure, but takeoff will be hairy. With just the pilot and a minimal amount of fuel on board, it might just work out. Or, set a 20-knot wind. The carrier will always steam into the wind, so you'll have the equivalent of a 35-knot headwind on takeoff. That should just about halve your takeoff ground roll, so I think you'll be good.

In any case, looking forward to the video!