ckyliu

Last I heard the AS CRJ still had quite a few unfixed bugs on the systems side, despite having been released several years ago? I believe Hans Hartmann programmed it (he also did the Digital Aviation Fokker 100 and Flight1 ATR72 back on FS2004, and the current Asobo ATR) and my understanding is there's a bit of a reputation for him leaving some longstanding bugs or incomplete features? Having said that, he's responsible for some of my favourite addons.

So I took a look; are developers not allowed to have a laugh with innocent little Easter eggs any more? 🤦‍♂️ jeez

IIRC you have to use the default weight and balance menu, not the EFB/tablets. This should then render in passenger into models that support it.

It still points to the default G36, it is only standalone in the sense of appearing as an additional aircraft in the simulator and not affecting the default version, but it is still dependent on the default model and sounds that it references.

@Spike54 Aww thanks, you're most welcome 🙂 I responded at the same level as the opening post (its tone wasn't seeking advice or trying to gain understanding, it was venting). Well done on making a saving anyway. Also I'm off Pringles, the fat content is mildly alarming 🤣

Such a charming little aircraft 🙂 Mr Garwood made some great stuff over the years

Ah so entitled; aside from the fact JF pay more in fees on MFS Marketplace and have to set their pricing within the structures it permits, it's common to pay different prices on different sales platforms. Pringles are £2.20 in Tesco, only £1.50 in Asda, I am not cussing out Pringles I just go buy from the cheaper shop, that's pre-purchase due diligence. I've got some games for free that would've cost double figures elsewhere, but I'm not shouting "money-grubbing" at the developers, retailers put their margins on (even if developers sometimes get to set the final selling price), go moan at Microsoft about their in-game marketplace if you're so incensed.

Just because it's not certified, doesn't mean it's impossible - just no one had the need to pay out for that certification. Flap 40 is very draggy so I'm not surprised and it is likely possible IRL albeit maybe not within certification criteria, as being certified for the 5.5 deg glidepath means actually being capable of a steeper descent to counteract deviations from the glidepath. Use of wing speedbrakes/spoilers during approach is a big no-no unless the aircraft is suitably certified - the A318 deploys them during steep approach through use of a special switch that changes the flight control logic and EGPWS, and retracts the spoilers automatically. Same goes for the E-jets. Both typres required some minor adaptions to earn certification.

It's a simple observation: lots of the userbase want/need a moving map and VNAV to feel comfortable because of how/when they learnt, and they won't buy products that don't have those - that is not a slight on such users; for the record the argument goes both ways, there's old schoolers who avoid technology to their detriment, and aren't going to buy any addon with a glass cockpit. And then you get those users who take offence for others where there was none... 🙃 Will someone old please now be outraged for those I said were too young to remember these types in service. And perhaps someone who's never lived in the UK would like to express their disgust on behalf of the British, because I said many of their airliners didn't sell well?

I think the issue with all of those is a lack of demand relative to the investment required; our best hopes are the EFIS generation where they have a moving map (e.g. Boeing's 737-300/-400 and 757). That's because many users are now too young to remember pre-1980s types in service, and another large cohort are "children of the magenta" who need a moving map and VNAV to feel comfortable. That's compounded by the British types in particular not selling well, and I say that as someone with a lot of love for the super VC10 (kudos if you get the pun); I don't see the 737-200 Adv or 727-200 getting mentioned much on sim forums despite them being the biggest sellers of the 1960s. I personally would love a detailed Jetstream 41 or Saab 340B but I just don't see it happening, regional airliners are very much my thing and I suppose we're fortunate to have the ATR. I do wonder how well the Maddog X MSFS (MD80/82/88) ports have sold. We might get some classics covered by Aeroplane Heaven as they were in P3D, but is the fidelity where we'd want it to be?

You missed out the JustFlight BAe 146 Professional, that's all steam with the option of an FMS. And their Avro RJ should be out soon for those prefer more of a hybrid EFIS and FADEC setup.

It's not numbers. The Garmin G1000 and G3000 are already done to a high standard by WT and usable by all developers without charge. To code an entirely new avionic suite in WASM would be more work than the entire rest of the aircraft, it'd be akin to developing an airliner from the ground up.

No, I said it was barely useable on a PC based on you struggling with your high specs; perhaps it would've been clearer if I'd added "barely usable on a typical simmer's PC"? i.e. most of us aren't in the position of owing a 4090 paired with an i9 so what hope have we got of having a nice experience with the product? Unless FSL do something transformational with the port to MFS of Concorde (is that confirmed?) it's going to catch a lot of flak for performance that will hurt sales of an already niche product. And I would imagine FSL really need the sales revenue now since the P3D market has shrunk so much, maybe they'll focus on getting some Airbus A320 derivative out the door the first to try and get more cash in?

If you've struggled with your high specs (4090 and i9-13900K) I'd say FSL Concorde is barely useable on a PC, no mind an Xbox! Rather than any limitation of hardware it sounds like hideously inefficient code or graphics (both from FSL and LM) because there's no reason having 13 fuel tanks (or other system complexity) should make it run that poorly when Concorde doesn't do FMS computations and draw a multitude of in-cockpit displays with moving maps. Fenix A320 is running possibly the most in-depth system simulation on any addon ever (e.g. heat from the generators affecting fuel temperature when at low thrust settings or fuel sloshing about in the tanks causing pumps to briefly starve) and graphically demanding too with a full cabin, and whilst it wasn't playable on my i5-2500k and GTX980, it's buttery smooth on my new system that's far behind Ray's. Having said that, it's still by far the heaviest addon I run and it'll never make Xbox as it's so externalised (Prosim base). I'm still a bit gobsmacked how FSL had such a headstart on FSL and yet they've still not got a single product out on MFS, even with their decisions to continue some P3Dv5 development.

Not really anything interesting imo, FSL say they are "working on MFS stuff", aka "playing catchup". We know what their timelines are like and they're already committed to Concorde and probably their A320/A321 in MFS (big whoop when we've got Fenix, the product is top drawer, the developers are nice people, the price is reasonable, it doesn't contain hidden malware); FSL getting anything out beyond those two products or derivatives thereof will be many years in the future. As for FSL being able to make Xbox sales as mentioned by others, I doubt their architecture will be compatible. And even if it is, MS may keep a company with that history away from their in-game marketplace anyway given the negative PR storm from FSL's previous shenanigans.