I am not too fussy over exterior and cabin textures. However, if the flight deck doesn't have good visuals it is tough to get past.

My hangar is full of eye candy that I barely touch because since they have no depth, I get bored of them in two days. Eye candy only goes so far. What keeps me going back again and again and again are these addons that have depth to them, consecuences for bad flying, chances of something going wrong, systems full of depth.

As far as I can see, this one seems to deliver. Its easier to update the textures than to add complexity and systems depth. You cant turn a Carenado into an A2A without redoing the whole stuff from scratch, but you can improve the visuals with a few patches here and there.

Hopefully by this time tomorrow I will be in the middle of the atlantic with it

Btw, did they said at what time it will release?

Edited March 11Mar 11 by xender

41 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

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)

 

 

There's no "balance" between visuals and systems. Those are done by 2 separate teams even in a normal company, let alone in this case (where it's two companies with a clear separation). It's just a matter of how much you want to invest (money-wise, hours and number of devs) into the visuals team and obviously Aerosoft hasn't paid much.
But it's not like "if you do deep systems, your visuals have to become bad by balance". I mean ... Fenix?

24 minutes ago, xender said:

but you can improve the visuals with a few patches here and there.

No.. no you can't if we want to make a fair comparison. People really need to stop putting down visual fidelity as if it doesn't come with it's own set of complexities. This is demonstrated by TFDI's re-do of their exterior model as-well Leonnardo Maddog's own rendition. Both of them required being re-done from scratch. This is also a growing concern with CSS's upcoming V2 model for the 737. This rendered existing paintkits and liveries useless.

It's also why a number of developers fear doing proper re-models of their aircraft because of it renders all livery work done by countless members of the community useless.

Edited March 11Mar 11 by Lucky38i

47 minutes ago, Matchstick said:

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)

 

 

Blacksquare has managed to make incredible renditions of aircraft with a near unprecedented level of systems detail all while looking fantastic. All while being essentially a one-man team (With the exception of Boris making sounds). 

I genuinely struggle to understand what's Aerosoft's excuse here.

9 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

what's Aerosoft's excuse here.

'Sorry, we missed something; we had to rest on the supposed laurels of bygone eras for far too long'?

Edited March 11Mar 11 by MrLamb

7 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

No.. no you can't if we want to make a fair comparison. People really need to stop putting down visual fidelity as if it doesn't come with it's own set of complexities. This is demonstrated by TFDI's re-do of their exterior model as-well Leonnardo Maddog's own rendition. Both of them required being re-done from scratch. This is also a growing concern with CSS's upcoming V2 model for the 737. This rendered existing paintkits and liveries useless.

It's also why a number of developers fear doing proper re-models of their aircraft because of it renders all livery work done by countless members of the community useless.

Sure, it comes with its own set of complexities as you say. But its easier to improve the textures (Even unnoficial painters can do that) than it is to improve the systems. You can download improved pmdg/maddog cockpit textures, but good luck trying to get a mod that improves carenado's systems.

I can’t fly on my sim until Monday anyway so I’ll enjoy reading the reactions over the weekend before I decide whether to get this or not.   As I said earlier in the thread, keen mostly to know what the flight dynamics are like.  If it was a 330 I’d probably be less patient. 

31 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

No.. no you can't if we want to make a fair comparison. People really need to stop putting down visual fidelity as if it doesn't come with it's own set of complexities. This is demonstrated by TFDI's re-do of their exterior model as-well Leonnardo Maddog's own rendition. Both of them required being re-done from scratch. This is also a growing concern with CSS's upcoming V2 model for the 737. This rendered existing paintkits and liveries useless.

It's also why a number of developers fear doing proper re-models of their aircraft because of it renders all livery work done by countless members of the community useless.

Liveries should NEVER affect a devs decisions on moving towards higher fidelity. 

2 hours 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.

My point is that there is no need to choose. Top end PCs have the power to do it all.

1 hour ago, Matchstick said:

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.

If they had some options so that simmers that have systems that can handle everything, then set them options to ultra, but for those that require focus more on the systems on the aircraft, well they could drop the graphics settings until the correct performance is achieved for each individual simmers requirements.

34 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Liveries should NEVER affect a devs decisions on moving towards higher fidelity. 

I agree but unless you’re a dev like Fenix or TFDi who can hire someone like HUES to make a huge roaster of liveries for your new model its an effective way to kill the popularity of an aircraft. 
 

there’s a reasonably large roster of liveries now rendered ineffective with the new maddog update. Leonnardo seems to be barely getting an ROI so it made sense they didn’t hire a bunch of livery makers to make the transition easier.

Im still very much happy with the maddog happy but saddened by the reduced livery availability.

I have always used the PMDG house scheme for the Boeings, so additional paint jobs are irrelevant to me. All of my flights are test flights, so no passengers are allowed, and no cargo is transported. I just burn fuel for fun 

3 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

There's no "balance" between visuals and systems. Those are done by 2 separate teams even in a normal company, let alone in this case (where it's two companies with a clear separation). It's just a matter of how much you want to invest (money-wise, hours and number of devs) into the visuals team and obviously Aerosoft hasn't paid much.
But it's not like "if you do deep systems, your visuals have to become bad by balance". I mean ... Fenix?

Those teams cost money and potentially other resources so even if they are entirely separate there’s no way to avoid having to make decisions on how to balance your budget between them.