Abriael

The relationship between natural disasters and technology is much more indirect and especially, infinitely less intentional. On top of that, and I'm amazed I have to actually say this, by firing a missile, you aim to kill someone. By flying over a wildfire to drop thousands of gallions of water, the intention is to *save* lives, and nature. Again, personally I think all aspects of aviation should be celebrated, so I'm not happy with the exclusion of weapons, but between this and hunting for fictional gotchas in ridiculous comparisons between bombs and disasters of natural cause, there's an abyss.

I'm not a fan of the lack of weapons (albeit I understand the reason), but i'm amazed that some don't seem to understand the difference between natural disasters, and technology intentionally created to kill people.

That happens if you have an adblocker active, I'm afraid.

I'd kill for an Antonov An-124

I see someone found my latest interview. Hope ya'll find it interesting.

PMDG can do pretty much whatever they want with *their* product. In this case, they provided a perfectly believable explanation on why it's done, citing rules of the marketplace that demonstrably exist (which they didn't even need to do, mind you). If one doesn't like the pricing, they always have the option not to buy. Also, I don't think I've read something as nonsensical this week as putting PMDG and Captainsim in the same sentence, and I have to read more nonsensical thing thans most for a living.

"The guilty dog barks the loudest" 😂

I may be wrong, but wasn't it a 737?

Oh don't worry. I don't "try" to earn my living. I earn my living perfectly well and have for over 20 years. I also don't certainly despise the flight simulation community as a whole (otherwise I wouldn't work on it as hard as I do). Only those that make it look bad by behaving like entitled adolescents throwing tantrums at developers. Only a blind person or someone incapable of introspection would ignore the fact that many within the flight simulation community hve a big issue with treating developers like dirt, just as bad as these "normal" gamers that they often label as inferior. There's a reason why more and more developers have stopped mincing words as of late. Also lol at "free copies." If you think after 20+ years of doing this, being given even the most expensive aircraft available for MSFS for the purpose of doing work actually impresses me in any shape or form, you really don't get how this works. Considering the time it takes to research even the most basic add-on like an airport and write a review, I'd be better off simply covering some more Call of Duty and using the money I earn to buy the add-on (approximately 8 times over and still having money to spare) and then fly it at my leisure instead of spending my nights testing it for work. But hey, thanks for being entirely predictable and proving my point. If hearing that someone thinks positively about a developer you don't like pushes you into a full fledged and completely unrelated personal attack, you've shown exactly what I'm talking about. Nope. The customer-developer relation isn't all about throwing all sorts of abuse and tantrums at developers just because you can and because you're a "customer." Incidentally, the description you make of the situation on Aerosoft's forums is much more one-sided than it actually is in reality. You don't "have" to care about the way you approach anyone, but you should, if you want to be taken seriously. One can be a respectable customer (and behave like a civil human being to another human being) or a Karen. The choice is theirs, I suppose, but they shouldn't expect approval if they behave like a Karen, at least not from me. Try going to a physical store and behave like many do on Aerosoft's forums (or the social media outlets of many other developers, including the official MSFS forums) and let me know how it works for you. Just don't be surprised if security gets involved.

I haven't flown there personally (it's in the bucket list), but friends who have flown to Lukla definitely described it as "terrifying" among other choice words. Airlines operate in some pretty sketchy places in the more remote areas of the world, often with aircraft that don't feel nearly as safe as your usual tubeliner. Of course, the video in question does oversell most of the airports featured, as YouTubers tend to do.

"Customers" nowadays tend to have this funny idea that they can be as toxic as they like to developers, but developers need to always treat them like kings no matter what. The flight simulation community in particular has a giant problem with toxicity (as it naturally encourages knowitalls), and seeing some developers fire back is absolutely refreshing. To answer your completely unrelated question, if you actually had read any of my reviews, you'd know that the answer to your question is openly disclosed in every single one of them. Review copies are work tools. If you work as a professional journalist for any media outlet that makes you buy your own review copies, you oughta find a better employer who doesn't take advantage of you.

Indeed he is. I did call the fact that he wasn't just disappearing but he was moving up. I guess those who expect to be treated with triple-layered velvet gloves will hate this, but I, for one, am glad to see that he moved to a company where he'll probably find like-minded people. Robert Randazzo isn't exactly known to mince words either.

What you call the "basics" are not basic at all. Other simulators on the market have plenty of things that by your logic would be "basics" that have never been corrected and have been around way longer. Microsoft Flight Simulator has has had the basics covered since a long time ago. You're just confusing what you personally want with an absolute sort of "basics" which it isn't. Incidentally, what you describe is simply out of touch with the reality of software development. NO software developer works as you would like it to. All sudios are made by developers specialized in different disciplines, and people working on world updates and other things have completely different specializations compared to the engineers required to fix what you (erroneously) call the "basics." A lot of them are even outsourced. And no. It isn't a matter of just buying more manpower. Anyone who has any knowledge of software development knows that there are very clear diminishing returns to throwing more and more bodies at a given issue, to the point of being detrimental. As far as we know, what can be outsourced of the "basics," already is with Working Title. This without mentioning that the continued release of new content, which in no way negatively impacts the addressing of what you call "the basics" is important to keep the wider community engaged, and plays a role in bringing in and retaining new blood that is sorely needed, as this community finds way to prove basically every day. You may not mind having no new updates, but this simulator's development isn't based on what one person or what one group of people want. It's for everyone, and thank goodness it is.

That was a joke onhow many flying boats we got so far. It's not like I actually know anything. 😂

I'm fairly sure some have lasted longer, but they may have included the Holidays.