TASCHMANN

It is one thing to criticize the asking of questions. It is something quite different to venture an answer.

We have seen this so many times before...the hype campaign about the "huge performance enhancement” which is just another in the long line of graphics downgrades that try to present that illusion. We have seen the broken features which we are advised simply not to use e.g. AI traffic, multiplayer. We are advised which files to dig out and edit so that our changes in settings will actually be saved. We are told that for best results while flying, try not to look too quickly to the left or right so as to accommodate the shortcuts that were taken to squeeze out a few more fps (in some cases) After almost a year or so it is now clear, to me at least, that this will never be the sim I had hoped for. It is, was and remains...a "toy plane game" that actually works some of the time …for a few minutes at a time… at a level that struggles to approach FS2000 in terms of reliability. It has been little else than a year long study in frustration. For those who remain optimistic, I have a question: How is it possible to create a full featured sim where the planes can be controlled with an Xbox controller? How can the future be bright for a “sim” that continually downgrades the ONLY thing that makes it worth considering (graphics) in an effort to some day get the basic features found in every other serious sim (P3D, XP11, DCS) to work? One of those features has never been present in this “game” because it clearly doesn’t seem to be a priority these developers…reliability. With no reliability at all, the best we can hope for is a vehicle to test our patience. Are more of those needed in the world?

"High Praise Indeed" I think you've found the key to satisfaction with MSFS---Just keep any and all expectations as low as you can. What would any of us have thought, last August, if we knew that the quoted statement would be offered as a compliment eleven months after release.

Absolutely! Your opinion is shared by many, many others.

Really?--from which planet? Just kidding. Welcome to the forums!

Last year I promised to keep the community informed about the progress of this so-called "early access" addon for which many paid over $40.00. This is the explanation offered at Vitus's own Wing42 website: In other words, its far more profitable for me to work on something new than to deliver what I promised over three years ago. The community needs to be aware of the business ethics of "fly-by-night" developers like this in order to avoid them in the future.

I always appreciate advice that can save loads of money by not making the wrong decision. For me it is one of the best uses of the forums. Thanks Bob

I wonder if, by "year 9" or so, they will have located someone who can code a simple autopilot for GA planes. I just consider that sort of a benchmark in deciding what is a flight simulator versus what is a groping attempt to impersonate one. If you can't even get the basics right, you'll never have much to work with -- no matter how pretty it becomes.

To suggest a question like: "How strong an edifice can be built on a foundation of shifting sand?'" is not ridiculous negativity. It is a legitimate topic for discussion on a forum such as this. To deny that the sand is shifting in light of the events of the past nine months--now that is ridiculous. To insist that all will be well in a few months or years just because we want it to be is naive.

Take a look at the pre-release videos--then try to recreate them in the sim in its present state. As to what we will or will not get--you have no better idea than anyone else. What we're talking about is what we have.

No, that's not what is being suggested. Just suspend the wishful thinking and the frenzied expectations and take a look at what's actually there at any given time. Then take an honest look at what was promised. It serves no one's interest to keep saying, "Of course it's shoddy and unfinished--everything is shoddy and unfinished." Neither does berating those of us who are deeply disappointed in this "sim"

Like several other developers who pepper the landscape with empty promises, Asobo spends half its time creating expectations and the other half pretending to explain why it hasn't met them.

Great, Thanks for the info and I do stand corrected.

Actually, I've been using the "ai Carriers 2" addon for some time in P3D v4.5 and it works very well. It enables the carriers to be positioned in the water and their speed set. Your pictures are very well done. Are you using TacPack here or something else?

Do you own the plane and have you personally done an arrested landing in it with AI Carrier 2 and without Tacpack? Can you vouch for the working ADF and VOR based on direct experience ? If so on both issues, I will stand corrected. Please let us know. Thanks

That isn't what the product page says: Was Corsair from a period when ADF"s were installed but inoperative? That's the case in the p3d Corsair.

It seems the hook doesn't function unless you purchase Tacpack.. Also do the ADF and Nav radios work? They don't in the Corsair. I think I'll pass.

deleted

Reader, If you like dealing with this company, please feel free to do so. I have chosen not to for the reasons I've given.

Right...here's a fact: The price on Milviz's website is $79.99 usd. Of course if you arbitrarily increase that to $90..out of thin air... then what you say makes sense. Otherwise, I'm afraid not. There's a world of difference between "salesmanship" and purposefully inaccurate statements. The question is whether the "muddling" was intentional. I can't believe that inflating the real price for the purpose of misstating the actual discount percentage was not. This together with the other things I mention in my previous post suggest to me a pattern of obfuscation.

Although the Orbx page says there is a 30% discount--it actually works out to 20% in USD [63.45/79.99=80%] It's little things like this that make me suspicious of Milviz. They make nice looking [but IMHO grossly overpriced] planes but their disclaimers about the things that do not work are often quite inconspicuous--e.g. the radios in both the P3D and the MSFS Corsairs. What could have been so difficult about making a working ADF for those planes? According to their website, the forthcoming Skyraider will not have a working arresting hook--unless you also purchase TacPac. It is these things along with their intial attitude about charging for v5 updates when none of the other companies did that make me very cautious in dealing with this company.

Nice pictures--not much info: Which Sim? Available now? or is it WLYKSTIFW ["We'll-let-you-know-some-time-in-the-future-ware?"] If the latter, we've got more than enough of that already.

FSUIPC7 has a very large number of potential bindings for twin and multi-engine planes. I have found it to be quite useful for this purpose.

Gentlemen, With respect and without any intention to give offense, I ask: Which is it --that they have delivered on the three points promised or that they never promised them to begin with? When I have to re-purchase the Waco (shown in your picture), It doesn't seem to meet any definition of "backward compatibility" that makes sense to me. Chock, you have recently created a most interesting and informative review of the new Corsair by Milviz. But, like the Waco, the fundamental file structure and content does not seem so different from the (admittedly excellent) P3D model as to justify a full price repurchase. It is the additional Byzantine file structure added by Asobo that make this necessary. There is a case to be made that I lack the patience that many have been given, yet for me the questions remain.

Nor, it would seem, for several months after release. You may be right--I just don't remember watching the trailers every week and then being informed that the real product would not look anything like them. No it wasn't. As many may recall, it was an express and unequivocal statement. Seriously, as long as there are those who are willing to attempt these kinds of excuses for these developers, to apologize on their behalf and to point out how foolish we were to believe them, what hope do we have that they will find the necessary motivation to deliver what they promised?