7 hours ago, ATRguy said:

2020 is not the current sim anymore, and most developers aren't actively doing anything for it anymore.

In that case the P3D platform was 15 year old ancient fossil when they decided to release that flop of a Concorde product for V5 anyway.

Charging $80 for FS9 textures at that...

At this point does it matter if releases as both MSFS 2020 and 2024 compatible product?

Edited April 1Apr 1 by blueshark747

2 hours ago, Reader said:

So many contradictions in just one sentence.

 

As always... the loose claim is made.. with no detail to actually make a point.

What were his contradictions?

A post like the one above, is about as weighty as just saying "You're wrong".

3 hours ago, blueshark747 said:

In that case the P3D platform was 15 year old ancient fossil when they decided to release that flop of a Concorde product for V5 anyway.

Charging $80 for FS9 textures at that...

At this point does it matter if releases as both MSFS 2020 and 2024 compatible product?

Yes that’s absolutely the case, I can’t believe they even bothered to release it for P3D.  

50 minutes ago, ATRguy said:

Yes that’s absolutely the case, I can’t believe they even bothered to release it for P3D.  

Sunk costs, undoubtedly. 

Id be curious to see behind the curtain on how their A320neo is performing (considering all the competition) vs having focused on converting the Concorde to MSFS. 

Where is Senior Randazzzo?

I'm still waiting on a Q400. Maybe this year????

6 hours ago, JYW said:

What were his contradictions?

Quote

They are simply out of touch with the consumer's demand timeline, arrogant and uncommunicative for ZERO reason at this point.

 

Since you asked:
Uncommunicative means saying nothing.
The presence of arrogance cannot therefore be determined, nor can the reason
for the lack of communication.
Nevertheless, the post contains assertions on both subjects.
Possibly, there is a historical personal reason for such a bitter post.

Edited April 2Apr 2 by Reader

15 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

We're also missing Hi Fi versions of quite a few light GA aircraft like the C172 or Piper Cherokee (à la A2A).

The Piper Cherokee is apparently on A2A Simulations list for 2027.

Just bought the A340 - 600, the Just Flight Fokker F70/100 is at the top of the shopping list, and the TFDi MD-11 keeps nagging at me. Then there is the DC Designs Concorde to consider, once it's all done up for FS24. Do I get time to fully learn them and fly them extensively? Absolutely not - but I just have to buy all the new shiny toys. Add-on addiction; something I was determined to avoid coming from P3D to MSFS...😐

6 hours ago, Reader said:

 

Since you asked:
Uncommunicative means saying nothing.
The presence of arrogance cannot therefore be determined, nor can the reason
for the lack of communication.
Nevertheless, the post contains assertions on both subjects.
Possibly, there is a historical personal reason for such a bitter post.

So just more "You're wrong" extra word salad without proving any contradictions!

Got it!🤣😂

Edited April 2Apr 2 by blueshark747

On 4/1/2026 at 11:12 AM, Ray Proudfoot said:

The P3D version doesn’t have that option so it would be strange if the MSFS one did. You have control with some switches. But you’re more of an observer than a FE.

Yep, I'm aware. The issue for me is that IRL, a FE was a full time job.  Sitting there monitoring a fuel transfer means you're not looking at primary instruments making sure you don't transfer too much fuel, upsetting your CG.  On a subsonic like the 742 or L1011, the tank configuration is less complex and the time to react to an issue up front is greater. 

Having the option would be nice.

6 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

The Piper Cherokee is apparently on A2A Simulations list for 2027.

I’m still holding that A2A post as an April Fools joke 🤞

6 hours ago, blueshark747 said:

Got it!🤣😂

You're welcome.

On 4/1/2026 at 2:31 PM, abrams_tank said:

I noticed that MSFS is acquiring a lot of "good" airliners quickly.  By "good," I mean at least medium fidelity and above, so at least the fidelity of some iniBuilds airliners . ...

I also suspect that once all the modern airliners for Boeing + Airbus are covered in MSFS, developers will probably start to work on version 2.0 of their current airliners, ...

 

We are mega spoilt for choice and it only seems to be getting better and better day by day 🙂 Once a good A330 and B747 arrive then I feel the son has a good airliner base to further build on.

The likes of iniBuilds do seem to be improving their aircraft as they iterate thru fixpacks and also new aircraft. Their upcoming A380 might be their best Airbus yet.

As for Boeings, good to see PMDG making recent improvements like the 777's handling, etc. Hopefully their 747 will be a showcase of all what they've learned on the MSFS platform so far. Also hoping that new devs like Vector will do for Boeings what Fenix did for Airbuses.

15 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

I’m still holding that A2A post as an April Fools joke 🤞

It's real, the Cessna 172 is coming to MSFS from A2A!

From Lewis in the A2A forum:

Quote

Roadmap Follow-Up & Clarifications

We’ve been reading through all the reactions and questions following the roadmap and yes, it is real. It reflects where things are heading right now, though as always, plans can evolve as development progresses.

For those who prefer it in text form, here is the current roadmap:

2026 Q2
• Accu-Sim Legacy RG550

2026 Q4
• Accu-Sim C172

2026 (Timing TBC)
• Accu-Sim Aerostar Turbo (under feasibility review)

2027
• Accu-Sim Cherokee
• Accu-Sim C182

It’s worth noting that this roadmap focuses on new projects. Alongside this, we will continue to develop and improve our existing aircraft with ongoing updates — including plans such as ground-up G5 retrofits for the Accu-Sim Comanche 250 and Aerostar 600, as well as other improvements currently in development.

A few of the common questions we’ve seen across the socials:

Is this for real?
Yes, this is our current roadmap.

Why no warbirds?
Historically, both in the FS2004 and FSX days and now in MSFS, warbirds and classics tend to be more niche compared to the aircraft most people fly day to day. Our approach is to build a strong foundation with these aircraft first. Each project helps fund the next, and that foundation is what allows us to take on more specialised aircraft like Mustangs, Spitfires, or classic airliners later on.

That said, there is always a chance something more retro or unexpected could appear along the way. This roadmap is subject to change.

Another Aerostar?
Yes, we’re exploring a new standalone variant. The current Accu-Sim Aerostar 600, much like our Accu-Sim Comanche 250, champions realistic GA flying for the majority in real life. This new version would go in a different direction, bringing more of the modern systems and bells and whistles that many flight simmers are used to seeing in the simulated skies.

Why not [insert aircraft]?
Everyone has their favourite aircraft, and we completely understand that. This roadmap is about building a solid foundation that will allow us to expand into a wider variety of aircraft in the future. Once that foundation is in place, it opens the door to more variety and potentially some more unexpected choices along the way.

Every purchase helps fund what comes next, and we truly appreciate the continued support that makes all of this possible.

We’ll share more details as each project develops.