11 hours ago, Tengtork said:

Josh from ini said "I will be assigning these tasks to the relevant developers in the morning" in the discord to a response to this thread. My guess is that most of these issues will be fixed in the coming weeks.

That's great to hear.

11 hours ago, Georgleboui said:

I appreciate their willingness to fix these problems. But I do hope they would acknowledge the effort @Joshua757 put into testing all of this stuff - it's great work! 

Thank you for your kind words.

11 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

They should have hired Joshua757!

Haha, that would have been nice!

Even better if I had early access 😉

Basically if anyone, who had L1011 systems knowledge to a certain extent, did the cold and dark in accordance with the Delta Proceedures, they would have easily discovered it.

That's why I think it was rushed. Basic things like the stall system should be modeled on any mid tier aircraft  🙂

It has been ages since I've seen a real one in action but if my memory is correct, atleast on the -500 the beacon lights are wrong, twice:

IRL they 'flashed', not rotated and secondly IIRC they were simultaneously. Something like this:

N164AT | Lockheed L-1011-500 Tristar | ATA Airlines | Tibor Mester | JetPhotos

This may have been a retro-fit and not a original feature, I'm not sure.

Secondly, it's not a modern airliner, I haven't noted any engine smoke:
 

 @2:52 for example. However it is visible throughout the video.

32 minutes ago, Antonov22 said:

It has been ages since I've seen a real one in action but if my memory is correct, atleast on the -500 the beacon lights are wrong, twice:

IRL they 'flashed', not rotated and secondly IIRC they were simultaneously. Something like this:

N164AT | Lockheed L-1011-500 Tristar | ATA Airlines | Tibor Mester | JetPhotos

This may have been a retro-fit and not a original feature, I'm not sure.

Secondly, it's not a modern airliner, I haven't noted any engine smoke:
 

 @2:52 for example. However it is visible throughout the video.

This video is amazing

12 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

It's inibuilds...  it's not Fenix.  ini is like a slightly better Carenado, but for airliners.

Ini provides a lot more patches, and in fairness you can’t really compare the complexity of the planes that Carenado makes you the planes ini puts out. A2A and BS would be a better comparison. Compared to Fenix and PMDG i would put ini in a 2nd tier. The A350 is really good imo. Not 100% study level but very engaging. 

Carenado is abandonware.

45 minutes ago, Joshua757 said:

This video is amazing

The ex RAF Tristar guys I fly with tell me before budgetary constraints hit the armed forces they could just casually book out a tristar for an afternoon in the pattern.

I’m surprised to see it do a touch and go after the spoilers had deployed though, perhaps not so much with spoilers but certainly once reverse has been deployed you’re committed to landing, just in case the reverser doesn’t stow.

8 minutes ago, jon b said:

The ex RAF Tristar guys I fly with tell me before budgetary constraints hit the armed forces they could just casually book out a tristar for an afternoon in the pattern.

I’m surprised to see it do a touch and go after the spoilers had deployed though, perhaps not so much with spoilers but certainly once reverse has been deployed you’re committed to landing, just in case the reverser doesn’t stow.

Oh that's very cool. On the DC-8 for example there's an emergency switch that forces the reverser to stow !

14 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

It's inibuilds...  it's not Fenix.  ini is like a slightly better Carenado, but for airliners.

I agree with your sentiment, but I’d put them at least a few steps above Carenado 🤙

8 hours ago, Farlis said:

I also sometimes have the feeling that the career history of Inibuild's team might be a stumbling block in their efforts to do real in depth study simulation aircraft.

 

Their partnership with Microsoft in building many default aircraft and some of the local legends might have not trained them the right way for real full simulation of systems.

The focus of these Microsoft Partnership aircraft is default depth which means aircraft without any failure simulation. If you don't have failure simulation you also don't need to really simulate stuff like the flow of the liquids in the hydraulic system etc. It's sufficient to build something where 80% of the switches do what they are supposed to do, the correct lights light up and the flightmodel approximates what the real thing does (which might be difficult to compare in the local legends if the aircraft are no longer being flown anywhere)

As a result the team got lots of learning in 3-D modelling but not enough in systems simulation. And this is might be why this field is the one where their releases still have ground to cover before they catch up to the developers who really have that part down.

 

On the other hand, if they see themselves as targeting the mid-range market with prices that do not exceed the 30-50€ range, then that is also fine. Before Aerosoft's decline that's a publisher and developer who also targeted that market, and one got some very enjoyable 40€ products out of that.

You’ve made the mistake of forgetting that iB got their start with several very well regarded Airbus widebodies in X-Plane. 

ToLiss and FF each had very high Fi Airbuses out, and never once did I hear anyone criticizing iB as low Fi devs. 

In re their First Party addons in MSFS, well, there are clear budgetary limitations. I.e., NONE of the Defaults were released at a Study Level of fidelity, including Asobos own 737, and AFAICT, none of the other 3rd Party devs made addons that were any better, either. 

I mean, iB do a heckuva better job than Aerosoft!!

In sum, IniBuilds is clearly a business, first and foremost. And considering the breadth of their portfolio, it’s understandable that the depth of all the addons isnt at the level of the Tier 1 devs. 

8 hours ago, Farlis said:

Their partnership with Microsoft in building many default aircraft and some of the local legends might have not trained them the right way for real full simulation of systems.

That's a strange take considering iniBuilds made the A300 and A310 for X-Plane before they made the jump to MSFS.

@Joshua757 I think many of us had higher hopes for this addon than were warranted. 

and, after all, the price here clearly makes it a mid-tier addon. 

And let’s not forget that iB is (in)famous for less than stellar initial releases. 

I bet iB will keep an eye on  sales of this addon, and as one of the few (truly) classic airliners, if it’s popular they’ll keep polishing it. 

In sum, my recommendation would be to measure this against its performance and iB’s documentation & stated features. E.g., how well does it match what’s printed on the tin? Is it stable? Can flights be completed using systems and avionics? Does it handle well, or are the DLC just for show?

Anyhow, it’s great to see it back in flight sim after a couple decades, and even in its current state it’s probably at least as good as whatever the last options were. 🤙

Edited April 1Apr 1 by UrgentSiesta

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

@Joshua757 I think many of us had higher hopes for this addon than were warranted. 

and, after all, the price here clearly makes it a mid-tier addon. 

And let’s not forget that iB is (in)famous for less than stellar initial releases. 

I bet iB will keep an eye on  sales of this addon, and as one of the few (truly) classic airliners, if it’s popular they’ll keep polishing it. 

In sum, my recommendation would be to measure this against its performance and iB’s documentation & stated features. E.g., how well does it match what’s printed on the tin? Is it stable? Can flights be completed using systems and avionics? Does it handle well, or are the DLC just for show?

Anyhow, it’s great to see it back in flight sim after a couple decades, and even in its current state it’s probably at least as good as whatever the last options were. 🤙

Very true  🙂 oh and I'm live in the L1011 right now !

3 hours ago, Krakin said:

That's a strange take considering iniBuilds made the A300 and A310 for X-Plane before they made the jump to MSFS.

Then why were the same aircraft in the MSFS versions so half baked in system depth?

I'm going to buck the trend here.

While I admire the OP's unbridled enthusiasm and I know simmers have a propensity to do this under the guise of "I'm only trying to improve the product" - but it is naive and unrealistic on the release of a $50 add-on for an entertainment product to immediately compare what it can't do compared to an operating manual for a real aircraft that costs (or would have) cost hundreds of millions of dollars. 

I am not saying that we have to accept mediocrity but at the same time we must not have unrealistic expectations.

We don't truly know what the development goals of the developer are; not being a programmer, I don't what is or isn't possible, or the scope of what the developer wants to achieve.

The closer you try to get to technical data, the longer the development time - just look at the complaining that surrounds certain big-time developers of Boeings and Airbus titles regarding delays/development time. That is the price you pay for realism, and price is always another complaining point.

As a current GA pilot and instructor, of course I want to also see things as accurate as possible, but at the same time I try to maintain realistic expectations.

As a simmer who started with FS2 on a Commodore 64, I also rejoice at how far we have come.

Edited April 1Apr 1 by DavidP