Cognita

I thought it was launched at 1.00

I think it has had several already. It was clearly rushed and hopefully they will push a substantial update soon, including better textures.

I really got the sense that they could not finish everything properly but it had to be released for that Expo thing. I decided to wait a little while and see what updates are pushed out and then return to see if I will get it. In the meantime, today I returned to the Phenom and had two great flights!

Couldn't agree more. KORD is slated to be under a series of updates to continue to at least the mid-2030s so happy to have some interim updates as we go. Now if only someone would update CYYZ!

I have come to the same conclusion, just give the developers some time to get wider feedback and make changes. I basically never buy things on the first or second day anymore as too many times I have judged wrong, made wrong decision and never used the addon again. I am pretty discerning with the aircraft I fly and if it doesn't measure up I inevitably retire it. I actually hope Raul revisits the M500 and brings it to native 2024 and maybe even adds the missing standby instruments. This has been evident for quite some time, it is the way it is and is going to remain. As you said Ryan, without a shadow of a doubt, the only reason we have this platform is because of consoles and so in the end for practical and legitimate business reasons they need to come first, I have no issue with that. It was interesting to hear Jorg during his presentation refer to how careful they are being with PlayStation so as to conform to Sony's requirements and not upset them; they are clearly putting real effort into this and developing for it. The direction of X-Box Studios is to become platform agnostic, to get their games on more and more consoles, it is the direction we are going and it is what makes this possible. I got a new rig last year, actually November 2024, and I deliberately did not get a 4090 and after debating it did not even get a 4080. I went with a 4070 Super because it was clear the additional capability was not really going to be worth it in MSFS and I do not need that kind of power for anything else I do. I run MSFS in 2K with high and ultra settings and am very happy with the look and performance. It probably saved me 1,500 dollars and I am actually quite happy about that. I think the days of purchasing very high end hardware to run flight simulation are past, it is just not worth it (well not sure about X-Plane requirements and I am sure P3D still needs a monster machine and adjustments to the infinity mask). I kind of wish they could find a way to adjust settings higher for those of us on PC but they do not seem open to that and it may not even be very practical, I don't know.

Yea, I got the impression both from the developer live stream a couple of months ago and from Jorg's comment introducing that Raul that this was a lot of intense last minute work to make the FSExpo deadline. It may be that it needs and will get some updates after the Expo. Raul must have been all out getting both this and the Phenom out the door in the past month.

You know, a few weeks ago I was walking around midtown Toronto and came across a coffee shop - Denovia Café- that had a menu of coffees in the US15 to $25 range and one with a rare blend from Panama that would cost you US$70! I could not help but think about PMDG!

Wow! I am glad I held off getting this last night. I was looking forward to flying to today but I think I will hold off for a while and see how this shakes out. Thank you for the reviews, so helpful!

Yea, completely understand and if this was a new Toronto (YYZ) scenery I probably would have done the same thing; but in general now I just refuse to pick up anything too quickly because there have been too many times I have been unhappy with the purchase. I am disappointed to say that, but it is the stance I have ended up taking. Also, I am not sure this is simply pressure from a publisher. Maybe, we have no way to know from the outside what the arrangements between Mateo and Orbx are. But the issues with the scenery, one that has been under development since prior to February 2025, are notable and important ones and from what I have read part of the issue lies in development choices -- i.e. 100,000 draw calls for an airport! That is not ORBX demanding a release date and rushing a few aspects of the scenery, it reflects design/development approach and choice, ones that fail to consider proper optimization. The poor terrain textures in areas of the airport are development choices. The fact that two patches have been released in less than a week that reportedly have improved performance points not to release pressure but development processes. It is a big project so I am also not surprised there are teething issues and hopefully additional work will improve the overall quality of the package and I hope to be able to purchase it at some point in the future.

This is why I no longer purchase on day 1, or even day 2 or 3, as a rule. The only exception I have in the scenery world is Flightbeam and for aircraft perhaps Fenix. Otherwise I just no longer trust the product is as presented. And it seems this Mateo/Orbx release of KATL further supports my approach. This one is such an important airport so hopefully the work is done to correct the issues, but it seems from the 19 pages of discussion here that there is a great deal of work to do.

Yes, but it does not appear to have a failure simulation and from all I have heard I am suspicious of the system depth and completeness. I will keep an eye open once it is released to get a sense of it. I sure hope it is a rich feature set with deep systems, proper interactions, and a solid flight model because it is exactly the kind of plane I would like to have in my hanger. But those things are a must for me, otherwise the Longitude can meet my needs. I have not had time to watch the second video but again from what I have heard they seem like rather small, normal things that are found after a release; it is the same with Fenix, PMDG, all the developers, things get missed and picked up after release and then gradually resolved. Raul is pretty dedicated so if he can fix it I am sure he will. And as Ron said, none of them are really substantial, show stopping issues. Likely did not need two full length videos.

I tend to agree here, the points raised in the video are rather minor; it is a simulated aircraft and you are going to have limitations and the developer is going to make choices about what parts to focus on, conscious to balance looks, functionality, performance and cost/price. Expecting placards inside covers strikes me as nitpicking unnecessarily but for some people maybe those things are really important. It seems for almost every aircraft release gives rise to someone walking around and picking out "poor" texturing, missing placards, etc., like it is an art exhibit. I don't like the way Raul chose to deal with the pin, but I do not think it is worth 2 minutes of video time. I also find the modeling of the latches to be very poor, it is like the fasteners are just painted on there and they do not move to give any sense of the work involved in opening the compartments, unlike A2A, Blacksquare, Flightsimware, etc. But at the end of the day I am interested in the systems, the avionics, the flight model, the possible things that can go wrong, that have to be maintained, and overall the sense of conducing a flight in that aircraft. And overall I find it a very good aircraft, especially for the price.

It is indeed difficult to land. I have managed to figure out the take off roll but landing is at best 50/50 if I can do it without basically losing control. I have hangered it until the update.

I find the same thing; but I think it was designed to be a very stable, predictable, restrained aircraft. I also agree that I hope BlackSquare will work on the flight models, something I have said for sometime. The planes are great, interesting, varied, with excellent systems and fly by book specifications. But they do not feel alive the way A2A.

I agree with all the comments here, I have been really enjoying the Black Square fleet. Even the Phenom has not pulled me away from the Caravan that is currently at 9,000 feet to CYYZ from a northern Ontario feeder hop. I really like A2A too, their flight models are still the best I have encountered in the sim and I appreciate the depth of their wear simulation that helped me learn a a lot. But, in the end, as others have said the Black Square fleet is a little more complex, more engaging, and so I fly them a lot more. Also A2A all lack ice protection which means they are basically hangered the better part of 7 months of the year for me. Yes, I could fly them somewhere warm but it is not what I do. Most of the time, I like to fly GS around where I actually live. The legacy is an interesting choice for their next aircraft. Certainly more complex and engaging but they have a pretty narrow use case and I am tiring of analogue gauges only. Many of these aircraft now have glass and the Phenom has tweaked my interest in learning how these more advanced systems and displays work and how to use them. The reason I have not been flying the Phenom so much is I am taking time to learn the G1000 but in a few more days and a few more practice flights it will become my primary aircraft for some time. I somewhat wish these developers would also offer more modern avionics in the planes.