8 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

ToLiss charges $90 for each of their addons in XP. 

In MSFS, I expect them to charge something similar to the other Hi Fi Airbus devs. 

rgr, agreed. And then I'll pass for now. 

25 minutes ago, jcomm said:

2nd your point regarding the feel of ground physics in simulators like X-Plane and IL-2 when compared to MSFS 😕

Yes, I’ve given some consideration recently to dipping back into XP but I’m in too deep with MSFS and it will be like starting again, especially with the prices of addons like the Toliss in that sim. 

27 minutes ago, jcomm said:

I guess the "external" FM plays only while not in contact with the ground, but I might be wrong OFC...

The external flight model is also active when in contact with the ground. In interviews, Torsten has mentioned spending a significant amount of time simply on getting the information from MSFS on where the ground is, so that he could model the interaction of the landing gear with the ground.

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

I guess the "external" FM plays only while not in contact with the ground, but I might be wrong OFC...

I do recall JustFlight's externalised FM also affects ground handling so it's very possible Toliss does as-well

1 hour ago, ianb2469 said:

Yes, I’ve given some consideration recently to dipping back into XP but I’m in too deep with MSFS and it will be like starting again, especially with the prices of addons like the Toliss in that sim. 

To be fair, I just recently picked up my first ToLiss, the A340 (coincidentally), for just $45 during the last sale or two.  

Which, IIRC, is the lowest price ever offered. 

Crazy good addon for that price!

Anyhow, I generally agree that it’s hard to bite off on $90 for a single addon, (unless it’s your main ride 😎).

Roll on Thursday. I can't wait. 🙂

4 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

I do recall JustFlight's externalised FM also affects ground handling so it's very possible Toliss does as-well

JustFlight uses an external FM? When did that happen?

6 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

There’s other devs you know…

Sure but I've yet to find a MSFS airliner that feels as good on the ground as even the default A330 and MD-82 in XP though - I'm really hoping the AS/ToLiss A340 feels as good as it does in XP when it releases for MSFS because that means it is possible for it to be done.

58 minutes ago, Krakin said:

JustFlight uses an external FM? When did that happen?

It’s always been the case for their airliners. Scott discussed this a few years ago. I say externalised and not external because it still sits in WASM and not a seperate application.
 

Now there’s certain portions that are externalised whilst other portions still depend on the flight_model.cfg. IFly and Fenix (i think) are other aircraft that do this. A2A is the only one I know that’s completely externalised. 

50 minutes ago, FPVSteve said:

Sure but I've yet to find a MSFS airliner that feels as good on the ground as even the default A330 and MD-82 in XP though - I'm really hoping the AS/ToLiss A340 feels as good as it does in XP when it releases for MSFS because that means it is possible for it to be done.

I don’t disagree with you but it would really help to say which airliners you’ve flown. 

21 hours ago, Watsi said:

I prefer better systems over how/where is the specific type used. And I prefer better systems over eyecandy.

That sounds more harsh than I wanted it to be... 🙂

Yeah, the -600 is rarely used these days. I still prefer the better systems (as it seems right now with the Aero/Toliss) over the Inibuilds one. And I accept some unrealistic legs then (not flown by this type IRL)...
And yeah, the textures aren't state of the art right now (also wingflex is now present, but quite rudimentary, to say the least). And I really do like good visuals. But again, if I have to make a choice, I prefer better systems over good visuals. 

It's a tough statement - but it seems the part, Aerosoft is/was responsible for, is far behind 'state of the art'. Whereas Toliss delivered.

Well, let's wait and see the release version.

So the summary is...Aerosoft screwed up badly with their A330 - shocking decision to release it - but the visual model looked superb.

So then a year later, they decide to reign things back by using ToLiss to do the heavy lifting on systems and FM's  and then they (AS) screw up on the 'easiest' bit of all, which is the visual model.  The wing flex on this thing is shocking relative to expectation - and most other high end products.  The cockpit textures are sub-par.  Honestly...

30 minutes ago, ErichB said:

So the summary is...Aerosoft screwed up badly with their A330 - shocking decision to release it - but the visual model looked superb.

So then a year later, they decide to reign things back by using ToLiss to do the heavy lifting on systems and FM's  and then they (AS) screw up on the 'easiest' bit of all, which is the visual model.  The wing flex on this thing is shocking relative to expectation - and most other high end products.  The cockpit textures are sub-par.  Honestly...

If the A330 was their first disaster it might have been managable, but coming after the horrific mess that was the Twotter it made any pure Aerosoft project basically unsellable

29 minutes ago, ErichB said:

So the summary is...Aerosoft screwed up badly with their A330 - shocking decision to release it - but the visual model looked superb.

So then a year later, they decide to reign things back by using ToLiss to do the heavy lifting on systems and FM's  and then they (AS) screw up on the 'easiest' bit of all, which is the visual model.  The wing flex on this thing is shocking relative to expectation - and most other high end products.  The cockpit textures are sub-par.  Honestly...

So you're saying the cockpit on the A340 is significantly worse than on the A330? That's surprising given how similar the cockpits are - I'd have thought they would take the A330 cockpit and modify the (relatively few) bits that are different on the A340. Sounds like they built a completely new cockpit, which would seem to be a lot more effort, for a worse result?

9 minutes ago, weaklink said:

So you're saying the cockpit on the A340 is significantly worse than on the A330? That's surprising given how similar the cockpits are - I'd have thought they would take the A330 cockpit and modify the (relatively few) bits that are different on the A340. Sounds like they built a completely new cockpit, which would seem to be a lot more effort, for a worse result?

I'm not making comparisons with the A330 in particular.  But they are not on par with the best available.   They have the opportunity here to make the entire package one of 'the best' for the platform, but it seems the 'easy bit' will place them short of that benchmark.  (leading edge , wing flex (elasticity) and cockpit textures.)   Amateurs have done better

Edited March 11Mar 11 by ErichB

38 minutes ago, ErichB said:

Amateurs have done better

Much better.

I won't even mention the exterior textures, nor the cabin (nothing could interest me less...) – but the cockpit textures look terrible to me: They lack the crucial interplay of light and shadow – everything looks flat and lacks depth. Even the exaggerated (and rather carelessly executed) weathering doesn't help... it's reminiscent of poorly made plastic model kits. It seems the AS graphic designers were unaware of the old weathering principle: as soon as the weathering is consciously perceived visually, it's already too much of a good thing...

For me, this is also a sign of how seriously Aerosoft is taking its new project. Hopefully, it won't be like in past decades, when customers seemed to be nothing more than cash cows for Aerosoft, expected to pay up and then keep quiet.

But after the Twin Otter and the A330, I suspect that AS (like PMDG) is trying to squeeze out as much profit as possible before the old, greedy men of flight simulation are finally swept away by the better competition.

Sorry, I'm afraid I won't be contributing to their golden retirement here either.

Edited March 11Mar 11 by MrLamb