Having looked at the cockpit again, I notice that the textures on the side pillars and window surrounds are rather low resolution. I would want those to be improved significantly before I consider a purchase. I think that the modelling around some of the dials/knobs is also a bit questionable.

Edited March 11Mar 11 by Christopher Low

21 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I notice that the textures on the side pillars and window surrounds are rather low resolution

Oh, even the YouTube preview videos show tons of sloppy oversights that would get any freeware designer thrown in their face...seriously, I don't want to see anything like that in a flight simulator in 2026. Who do the guys at AS think they are? Are they living under a rock?

Edited March 11Mar 11 by MrLamb

2 hours ago, MrLamb said:

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...

The odd thing is that the texture design is done by Atarium. 

His liveries and cabin packs are among the best in the freeware community. 

 

It seems making flightdeck textures demands another skillset.

4 minutes ago, Farlis said:

The odd thing is that the texture design is done by Atarium. 

His liveries and cabin packs are among the best in the freeware community. 

I know...seriously, I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the latest preview videos. Presumably, what I saw there is the final version. Ouch.

release date confirmed for tomorrow, 12MAR26

https://fselite.net/content/aerosoft-confirms-a340-600-pro-release-date/

1 hour ago, Farlis said:

The odd thing is that the texture design is done by Atarium. 

His liveries and cabin packs are among the best in the freeware community. 

 

It seems making flightdeck textures demands another skillset.

It depends on how much Aerosoft did pay Atarium. The lower the payment, the lower the work hours. It seems, that it isn't the cockpit only. Overall the visuals of the 340-600 are mediocre.

OR: they have a performance issue, hence they are trying to preserve performance by sacrificing visuals.

Edited March 11Mar 11 by Watsi

Seems tomorrow Aerosoft gets a total overrun 🤣

cheers 😉

15 minutes ago, Watsi said:

OR: they have a performance issue, hence they are trying to preserve performance by sacrificing visuals

Given that Aerosoft is supposed to regain lost trust, this would be a rather disadvantageous business decision in the medium term.

(At least) a cockpit on a 'pro' product should look like a 'pro' product.

Others are already demonstrating how it's done with a 'pro' product, even without any annoying marketing hype.

In short, low resolution textures have no place in a next generation flight simulator in 2026. I have been saying this for years (and that was when I had a 2015 specification PC), so we certainly do not need them now.

Personally I disagree, given a choice between cockpit visuals or systems or flight modelling, I’d personally prefer development budget to be spent on the systems and flying.

 

17 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

Personally I disagree, given a choice between cockpit visuals or systems or flight modelling, I’d personally prefer development budget to be spent on the systems and flying.

 

Yes, but when the product is classed as a Pro product, those who have a PC that can handle all the eye candy and the systems should have them all.

34 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

Personally I disagree, given a choice between cockpit visuals or systems or flight modelling, I’d personally prefer development budget to be spent on the systems and flying.

 

Why is this black and white argument always made, especially given that Aerosoft is a relatively large company? This entire venture was because we knew Aerosoft had a pedigree to make fairly good aircraft visuals and toliss has a pedigree to make good systems and flight modelling. 

There's a fair assumption that we'd essentially be having the best of both worlds here. This aircraft looks to have a worse visual fidelity than Aerosoft's previous releases and it's rather curious as to why.

Edited March 11Mar 11 by Lucky38i

13 minutes ago, Amon1973 said:

Yes, but when the product is classed as a Pro product, those who have a PC that can handle all the eye candy and the systems should have them all.

That’s a valid opinion but not one I share.

Eye candy is just dressing to me, I want systems depth and a sophisticated flight model from a “Pro” product.

If it can deliver that and great visuals that’s lovely but if something had to give then it’s graphics every time for me. But other people will feel differently.

12 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

Why is this black and white argument always made, especially given that Aerosoft is a relatively large company? This entire venture was because we knew Aerosoft had a pedigree to make fairly good aircraft visuals and toliss has a pedigree to make good systems and flight modelling. 

There's a fair assumption that we'd essentially be having the best of both worlds here. This aircraft looks to have a worse visual fidelity than Aerosoft's previous releases and it's rather curious as to why.

I’m not sure there’s really anything quite so black and white here.

Every development project  has to balance the resources put into different areas and I don’t believe there’s a single right answer.

For example we’ve seen previous Aerosoft MSFS aircraft projects look good but fail fundamentally in other areas.

Maybe this time they’ve tried a different balance ?
(though I certainly can’t rule out they simply didn’t have the time/money to spend on visuals)

 

 

Edited March 11Mar 11 by Matchstick

Assuming that the product will cost more than 50 USD, I expect both high standard visuals and working systems. And I can't stand companies overpromising and underdelivering. 

To me, it appears to be again the AS publishing pattern I'm familiar with. But let's wait and see.