Cognita

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.

I have to agree, and I am so pleased it is a modern jet with modern avionics for truth be told I have grown tired of only flying analog gauges and been wanting to learn more about more modern arrangements. The fact that I have made 1 short test flight in 3 days is a testament to the depth and engagement of the aircraft, I have had to spend most of my time reading the manual, watching the really helpful videos and practicing the flows. The one flight, CYYZ to CYXU went very nicely, but I will need to practice my landings more. This will be a very enjoyable aircraft over the summer.

I am also struggling to start it. I just finished my third try using the checklists.

ok, it took a couple of days to find the settings and set things up. Having done that things are looking and working much better, actually better than the older version. The dark mode in particularly looks and is easier on my eyes. I know these kinds of upgrades can take a lot of effort so thank you to those who undertook the work.

Where is the setting to collapse post so I just see the topic heading, the condensed mode? I really do not like the expanded view that shows the first lines of each post.

Yea, this is really hard to follow and to read. The font is too small, especially for the titles as the don't stand out and it look like a wall of text. Also is it just me or there missing elements like pictures. I hope this can be modified or I will be spending a lot less time on Avsim forms.

I agree, I find this view terrible. I hope there is some compact view avaialbe.

Yes, and I will purchase this as soon as I can after release but I would be more interested and excited to use it if there was some actual description, that is all I am saying.

Yes, I agree, but I also agree that it would be nice to have a video that takes some time to walk us through what has been simulated, to what depth, what design choices were made, etc., maybe a sense of how the systems work and interact, if there are failures and to what extent and depth. I have watched three videos now and no virtually nothing more than I did when I watched the fist one.

No, it is a great plane, but I switched to the cargo variant. Really those avatars just turn me off. Maybe because I have been simming for so long I am able to use my imagination to place passengers in the plane. I am so tired of seeing the same women in the blue checkered shirt at every airport I go to; it is like she is stalking me!

I really hope we can deselect or somehow not have to see the fake passengers on the plane; without this I am actually pass on this one. I understand for some people seeing the passengers brings a sense of realism and immersion but for me they just look so fake and zombie like it kills it for me. Also if I am going to role play a corporate pilot, I want to fly for the same client and would want control over what specific avatar is on the plan for which flight, not a random assortment of people every time. It is the reason I do not fly the Lear 35A very often even though I really enjoy the plane.

I think this is the real question, with all this time it takes to ingest and review, how did something so obviously misleading get on the official Marketplace. I completely avoid the Marketplace for aircraft, for scenery I prefer it as it makes installation so much simpler and quicker.

Yea, I fly both, and tend to go through phases of flying only airliners and then only GA, but I have noticed that the GA phase has become longer and longer as the years go by. I don't enjoy airline flying as much as I used to.

That is good to know, and good for our hobby! Comparing video games across genres is not very insightful, they really are very different beasts and the development studios know this and how to approach them. The dynamics are different, as is the investment and expected return. As just one metric, people thought it was impressible that Joge would report that 100 or 300 people are working on MSFS: the current in development version of Grand Theft Auto (VI) is reported to have over 7,500 developers working on it across 11 studios on three continents. It's development budget -- not marketing -- is over 1 billion dollars.

My first thought is that it has never been so inexpensive. Gone are the days of needing a $4,000 to 5,000 PC to load up P3D and begin adjusting the affinity mask and spending a few days adjusting settings to see if you could get with sufficient frames for a rough impression of a smooth flight. I bought a middle of the road PC for 2,800 dollars and it runs MSFS very well for me. And really you can buy an x-box for far less money and be on your way! Gone are the days of spending US$200.00 on each version of P3D! Gone are the days of airports costing $35 to $50 dollars, many are now 25 to 35 for good quality pay ware. I am sure I was paying well over $100 for many of the PMDG and FSLabs planes that I purchased back in those days. Gone are the days of purchasing Global, Vector, HD Trees, HD Buildings, Landcass Regions, to try to get the world to look believable. Be thoughtful and disciplined-think through the addons you will really use and choose carefully and MSFS has made it the least expensive platform I have used. I am getting more enjoyment for less investment than ever.

Thank you sharing, nice site! As I suspected they are very different than PMDG's layout. They have beds, and couches that convert to beds.

Yea, it was better than FSX but it was nothing special and far below what could have been done. To this day I find the layout they choose very strange, is actually modeled after a BBJ or did they just make the interior layout up?

Yea, I have come to the same conclusion and when I reinstalled MSFS a while ago did not install AS. I am just kind of ok with the default weather and have stopped obsessing over it.

I think this is very, very true. And we should be grateful that Asobo has put all the work into making that possible, not only for x-box but now for PlayStation. Without this work there would be no MSFS period and we will all be on X-Plane or P3D, struggling to figure out how to set the affinity mask! Yes, visual fidelity is not as high as it could be if everything was designed for people with leading edge hardware, but it is a lot better than P3D and X-Plane, visually and functionally. If the franchise can keep going hopefully over time it will increase. For now, at least for me, it is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable compromise. Yea, so true. I just kind of leaned into fact last year when I bought my new PC and deliberately choose a less capable and much cheaper machine knowing that a 9800 and 5090 would not make such a dramatic difference. I saved in the vicinity of 2,000 dollars and am very happy with MSFS performance to quality relationship. For me this has been a benefit of MSFS, I have saved a fortune over the old P3D days when the latest hardware mattered much more.