Dereksmalls

Attendees are not the issue. It is exhibitors and the need to get them signed up in the Feb-April period in order to guarantee a show in October. The UK may well be in a good place vis-a-vis hospitalisations, infections and so forth, but that is not to say everywhere is in the same position and not all exhibitors come from the UK. Today's Guardian has a headline that reads: "EU to delay adding UK to travel ‘white list’ due to Covid variant". That may change, but it doesn't help in providing certainty. Very few exhibitors are prepared to put down deposits and prepare their logistics, given the situation is still quite fluid. Professional football clubs, on the other hand, have the benefit of a very sophisticated infrastructure; they have been operational (without fans) during lockdowns and they also have fairly significant amounts of cash (and the pressure of expectation that goes with it) from the broadcasters. If Cosford was being sponsored by Sky or Netflix it might well be going ahead.

Unfortunately, that wasn't possible. As I wrote earlier: "It was never intended to have a custom FMC, on the basis that the default one in X-Plane was (based on customer feedback) more than adequate - given the real aircraft didn't ship with one. However, once we announced the project and started previewing it, we received a load more (contradictory) feedback saying that a custom FMC was a necessity. So, "in response to popular demand" (as they say) we commissioned an FMC and this is in progress now. It will be finished soon (weeks, rather than months or years) and offered as a free add-on for Feedback Group 2. Meanwhile, to satisfy Feedback Group 1, we have released the '146 - As Nature Intended' version. This is finished and, as far as we are concerned, it is a very faithful representation of the aircraft. It certainly isn't 'early access', or, as seems to be the mot du jour, 'a cash grab'. It's complete and any minor bugs that appear will be addressed asap - as normal. Hopefully this approach will satisfy both groups." If the plan from Day 1 had been Default FMC => Custom FMC, then we would have handled this very differently. As Mac said "Events, dear boy, events." In contrast, feedback on our own forum and on X-Plane.org has been much more positive, in general.

@jarmstro - see earlier post.

Yes, a house that hasn't been built and a some DLC (that has been built) for a computer game is exactly the same thing. Perhaps instead of 'Custom FMC in progress' it should have been described as 'off plan'. What you're describing is crowd funding to finance development. What's being offered is not that. However, this is clearly not an argument anyone is going to win, so fair enough. You have dodged the costly bullet fired by Just Flight and Thranda, so well done.

Except it IS finished. The new car analogy is a bit off beam here, but, if you must. It comes with a standard radio. If you want an aftermarket stereo we'll fit one later FOC - just as soon as we get some stock from Sony. If it had promised a custom FMC from the off and that had not materialised at the time of release, then you may have a point. However as I (and Dan over at.org) has explained, that's not the case.

Worth clarifying the gestation of this one. It was never intended to have a custom FMC, on the basis that the default one in X-Plane was (based on customer feedback) more than adequate - given the real aircraft didn't ship with one. However, once we announced the project and started previewing it, we received a load more (contradictory) feedback saying that a custom FMC was a necessity. So, "in response to popular demand" (as they say) we commissioned an FMC and this is in progress now. It will be finished soon (weeks, rather than months or years) and offered as a free add-on for Feedback Group 2. Meanwhile, to satisfy Feedback Group 1, we have released the '146 - As Nature Intended' version. This is finished and, as far as we are concerned, it is a very faithful representation of the aircraft. It certainly isn't 'early access', or, as seems to be the mot du jour, 'a cash grab'. It's complete and any minor bugs that appear will be addressed asap - as normal. Hopefully this approach will satisfy both groups.

It depends, I guess. Is there a freeware program that adds that number of aircraft, flights, liveries and so forth in a single install that works fine for most users with no tweaking required? As Ray says above, you have to make a choice. We've been making the Traffic series for nearly twenty years now and, while it will never satisfy every demand for AI traffic, it's the most popular title we publish - latest version included. We must be getting something right, otherwise customers would vote with their wallets.

That bug was fixed some time ago. You should update to the latest version and try again.

"it's fallen well short of delivering on the big promises it was supposed to fulfil" What is it not doing that you think it should do? "it's a long way from being a close facsimile of what you really see at those airports. " It uses a real-world database, real aircraft and real liveries. It is never going to be possible to create a program that mirrors FlightRadar24, globally, in a sim. All you can do is provide a compromise that adheres as closely as possible to the real-world situation, within the limitations of the host. TG is due one more major update that will update the database and add some new aircraft, but, in terms of what it's supposed to do - adding AI traffic to FSX and P3D - it already fulfils that function.

There is more to the 'community' than OrbX.

I wonder how long this has been in development? FSW was cancelled around April 2018. If that had been a success it is interesting to speculate whether MS were in the process of building a flight sim to compete with their own licence.

Interesting to read the quote in the reply to the comparison video: "I expect that not many will want to fly over the visuals you show from 10:30 - 14:15. You would be asking a lot from our customers to expect them to accept that view from their aircraft as immersive and realistic, I'm sorry to say." The lighting settings for the first scenery shown in the video wouldn't suit the other scenery - one should really adjust the lighting to suit the product otherwise one will look unnaturally bleached out when compared to another. With the lighting set right I am sure "many would want to fly over that scenery rather... than... watch... the... immersive.... buildings.... flicking.... by....."

Try the demo? https://www.justflight.com/articles/vfr-real-scenery-nexgen-3d-vol-one-southern-england-and-south-wales-demo Use the 'download it here' link.

SRP is £24.99 per volume but existing owners of any JF VFR Real Scenery (boxed or download) get each volume for £19.99. If you haven't bought the JF version before and buy Vol 1 of NexGen, you get the £5 discount on 2, 3 and 4 as they are released. So, maximum £100, minimum £80. And Scotland comes with 5m mesh.

As you can see from some posts, AI traffic programs are a fairly subjective thing and, generally, compromises are made. It's impossible to simply replicate the World's air traffic 100% as it is in real life in any of the mainstream PC flight sims. However, in the case of an airport or an aircraft, there is much less subjectivity. People can have endless debates about flight modelling, but, otherwise, where everything is, how it works and what it looks like are pretty objective. Early Access would be no use (IMHO) for an airliner. The only option there would be maybe to release it in modular form and then fix bugs as normal. The main difference should be that in a beta the developer knows what the final product should be like and their beta candidate shouldn't require any major changes - just bug fixes. An Early Access product, on the other hand, should require some feedback from the users to help shape the final release. It may well have bugs, but the buyers are supposed to be helping with development, not just testing it. That was Valve's original concept and, although there have been some notable Mickey-takers in the EA category, I think JF seem genuine in wanting to model the product to suit the customer. Early Access is well suited to a traffic product - and to something like Air Hauler 2, which is also in Early Access. The feedback from those with a vested interest (because they've bought it) can help shape the final release and get the best compromise. One can be cynical and suggest it's simply a way of raising cash for an unfinished title, but the proof of that is how much the end product is shaped by the process or how much the user feedback is ignored. There is one very recent example of an Early Access title that didn't go so well, but I think the reasons for that prove the point. As you so rightly say, no-one is forcing us to buy it - although you'd think otherwise from some posts :-)