Cognita

I am not an expert. However, there are whole modern systems on an A350 that simply do not exist, period, on an B737NG. Brake to vacate is one of those, as an example. Now in the sim, the developer could just not include that system, but if they try to get close to the real world counterpart, they would model it and the underlying logic. That takes more development effort and time. That is all I was getting at.

I was only trying to say that the complexity of an A350 or A220 in real life is significantly higher than the NG series of aircraft, and iniBuilds has tried to simulate some of those advances. I did not mean it as an excuse, just a recognition of the reality of the situation -- but I could have said it better.

I thought of this, but I think the underlying point holds up that it is a mindset and approach, and I am not judging one or the other good or bad necessarily. Yes, an A220 is far more complex than a Comanche but that reality is well known prior to the start of development so the question comes down to how much time and effort, and let's be honest money, the developer wants to and is able to front-load, that is work out fully before launch, and how much after launch. It is a legitimate development question that depends on real factors like cash flow, there is no wrong or right answer in my mind, and there are a continuum of responses. Some, like A2A and I would argue PMDG work pretty darn hard to be sure the product is basically feature complete and stable across a host of installation configurations before release, the work is front-loaded so to speak. Things can still go wrong that you genuinely did not anticipate but a lot of effort is put in before wide release. PMDG did not release the 737-800 and then say later we will add a freighter and a BBJ version, or later we will add the HUD, they were there and working from the start. When they released the 777-200ER it came with all three engine variants ready to go. Now, they still continue to address bugs afterwards and refine the experience, but their development is quite advanced at release. Their mindset is one of, when we release the product it is complete. There may be some issues we will fix, and we will still try to make the product better if we can, but what we offer at launch is the complete aircraft. iniBuilds seems to be much more toward the other end of that continuum, saying we will release the aircraft when it reaches a certain level of functionality and stability and planning for development to continue well post launch. Product launch then is just another developmental milestone. So, consider the A220 that launches without the moving map, without the HUD, which by the way is a critical part of that aircraft and not an afterthought, without a weather radar and with some obvious incorrect operations and stability issues on a range of users' systems. But their mindset is the product is not complete, it has just reached a state where we are comfortable releasing it, providing support and continuing the development path. Neither approach is wrong, they have different strengths -- A2A has released 2 aircraft and PMDG 2 aircraft families and a DC6, that they had already fully developed before, after 6 years. iniBuilds has grappled with and released quite a number of aircraft, also much more modern ones that are far more complex than the 1960s 737. There are also challenges -- customers are often not happy when something is launched that they perceive was not complete and not optimized and there is still a lot of work to do post launch But there are real pressures behind that decision that none of us know about, development is very expensive and at some point cash is needed. I think TDI demonstrated that with the MD11. I think we all need to step back and consider each developer on their own terms and how to support and encourage all of them.

It is helpful I think to acknowledge this. Sometimes on this forum the old "boxed software" era seems to be dominant, but the time of the waterfall development model is long gone, conceptually and practically. We no longer live in a world where software is finished, burned to a CD and sent off to the world rarely if ever to be updated. Beta tests today are not really about finding all the bugs and eliminating them, it is to find catastrophic bugs, carry out compatibility testing and to an extent feature validation and refinement. Whenever I hear these statements of "how did the beta testing not find these bugs" it calls back to the romantic notion of the waterfall. The answer is simply that that is not what they are looking for. Beta testing today is mainly to measure stability and prepare for continuous updates. This being said it is also clear that the overall quality mindset of the developer has a significant impact on the overall product and experience. Blacksquare and A2A both release aircraft that are or are nearly feature complete, stable, well performing and generally conform to expectations, right from the start. iniBuilds tend to release aircraft with much more work to do after release. I am not sure that either is wrong or bad, it is a question of approach. Many people are now really enjoying the A350, for example. As users we need to be conscious of the approach developers take and engage with them accordingly. For example, I have no hesitation about purchasing an A2A aircraft on release day, and the same with Blacksquare. I would never purchase an iniBuilds aircraft on the first day, week or even month. It is better to wait and see how it works out. It is not a criticism of iniBuilds, I have come to understand better how they operate and have adjusted my response accordingly. I think it is more constructive and helpful to work with developers, and part of that involves recognizing their development "style" and accepting it. I will assess the A220 in October or November when I think I can get a better picture of how the aircraft has really shaped up, for example, I see no benefit in criticizing it now.

My policy of never buying aircraft immediately after release has paid off this week, I avoided the poor 220 debut and now this. We all have different things that break realism for us, different things we are more easily able to accept compromise on, but this one would have really bothered me, especially because A2A has it correct. So I will hold off until this is corrected -- but there go my long-weekend, civic holiday plans! This said, the aircraft has rightfully received nothing but positive comments all around and is a stellar addition to our hobby. Every aircraft we fly has things that are not fully correct -- just look at virtually every PMDG post and someone will chirp in with how some things are not modeled correctly like the real thing -- the aim is a convincing illusion of aircraft operations and flight and here Blacksquare has certainly hit the ball out of the park. And my, likely unreasonable, compunction about something like realistic starting aside. It is kind of the consequence of modeling things with so much fidelity, small things begin to stand out even more.

Ahh! You are all starting to convince me to get this.... I have successfully diffused any inclination to get the 220, but this one is still lingering around my mind and I keep going to check out the videos on Just Flights website.

For me, if I am going to invest, in this case what will be near C$100 in an aircraft I want it to have failures so I can eventually learn the aircraft well enough to perform and practice abnormal procedures. If you just want to fly from A to B and always have a completely predictable flight then, yea, failures really don't matter. But I over time want to learn all the aspects of the plane and that is how I see value in it.

No failures... something I would expect in an aircraft at this price point. This is now definitely on my hold list.

Compared to the dark ages of P3D, when quality addons were so few and far between, this era is unlike anything I have experienced in flight sim in 35 years, there is such a flow of aircraft, even more than the FSX days. And some days it makes deciding what to fly quite challenging and I admit a few times I have lost enough time trying to make a decision that I end up not flying at all. And I tend to concentrate on high-fidelity, commonly in service aircraft so it is not like I have dozens and dozens of them. It really is at the point now where I am just not interested in buying many aircraft; there has to be something different and engaging about them. I do not sim for variety. My motivation comes from flying realistic, modern operations and there need to be a believable underlying narrative, at least for a period of time. So, right now I am a corporate pilot and spending a good deal of time in the new Sovereign and the Phenom. That will keep me occupied for the next while. I do not jump around from aircraft to aircraft or place to place and that has kept me motivated and engaged for all these years. I will skip the Commander, while it has some unique features is it is just another single engine piston of which I have several high quality, high fidelity ones to choose from. I will hold off on the 757 until it is 2024 native and then consider it but even then I am on the fence as it is a plane heading out of service and for the operations I do I would prefer a 777 or 787. I am interested in the 220 because there is a lot of operations I could do with it -- Air Canada has nearly 50 of them in service now -- and it is an interesting new plane that looks like it will give me a good number of hours of learning, and that is something I appreciate in an aircraft. But again I will hold off for a while to see how the aircraft is received and read and watch a good set of reviews - unfortunately, I have felt burned by a number of releases that initially hyped up only to be quite a let down. I am careful and deliberate in my choices now. For scenery I do not buy much anymore. That said I have around 200 pay ware airports acquired over the pat 6 years, mostly in eastern North America but a good number around the world and virtually any operation I would want to do I have a pay ware airport for it now. Sometimes something like Chicago pops up but otherwise there is very little I feel I need. I am happy now that I feel I have a good set up with the aircraft, airports and tools that I want and am focused on flying and carrying out missions.

Pretty good chance they will invest a good deal of effort to support it. It has become clear that success, at least financial but also reputational success, comes from having titles across platforms. The days of walled off platforms each trying to have a few blockbuster titles to draw people to purchase the hardware definitely seems to be over. Pretty much every decision in X-Box Studios including the last round of lay-offs are influenced by this change of strategy. Look at how carefully Jorg has been in trying to ensure MSFS works well on PS2, you could feel the sensitivity when he was talking about it at that Expo thing last month. It is an important move for them and necessary if MSFS is going to continue. Perhaps much to the chagrin of PC gamers, the way forward is consoles and more of them.

Yea, me too. And I also agree that if you have a stable approach at the proper speed, proper flap configuration, it lands well in the Pro Flight model, you just can't be lazy with this one, it takes discipline. I have landed both ways and the lazy way always leads to bouncing or shifting around. It is a great plane.

I landed at ORD this morning on 9C in the 777F and had no issues, performance was fine all the way down and during the taxi and I have only a 4070 Super.

I have to say I have downloaded content and found it no faster or better than when I was streaming it. I just leave everything streamed now and am quite happy with the performance of MSFS. Maybe it could theoretically be better to download but from my experience it is not with the effort. I think all our setups and expectations and perceptions are different though.

I agree. I held off on ATL for a month after all the initial issues but then picked it up and have done a dozen or so flights in and out and it is spectaculars. One of the few airports that does not seem artificially flat. I have really enjoyed fling in and out and will soon do some heavies in there to the cargo ramp to see how it is.

Well, yes and no. It is true that thunderstorms do not pose a threat in the sim, and I doubt they ever will in 2024. But weather radar is still useful to me, and its absence here is another reason I will hold off purchasing the 220 for a while. I avoid thunderstorms, just like I would in real life. Whether they can substantially impact my aircraft in the sim is not relevant to me, I just assume, or more accurately I suppose, pretend, that they can and so I move around them. I plan my flight around them and I will alter my route around them, so I for one would like a working radar.