the_simpilot

Not sure why you quoted my post where I never made a single content about the cabin.

They are on Pacific Time, it's literally 1:11 pm there now. They technically have 11 more hours to release based on their time zone. Who knows what last minute things they are trying to sort out.

That's really why I wanted to see more of the systems and operational aspects before release. Not to judge the aircraft, but to gain a better understanding of what was being delivered. Given that the product page on Blue Bird's webpage mentions a good number of systems simulation with no real demonstration in pre-release content so far. In the end, though, you're right: time will tell. Once the aircraft is in the hands of the community, the strengths, weaknesses, bugs, and standout features will become apparent. That's always been a more reliable measure than any marketing campaign or pre-release showcase. Wait and see right now seems a better approach for my taste and expectations and I don't think I will have to wait too long.

I am really looking forward to doing a flight with Fenix V3. This is good to know, and I'll try the suggested fix myself. Thanks for posting!

I think that's a very fair and balanced take, and honestly it's probably the closest reflection of my actual position in this entire discussion. I think you raise a fair point that we don't really know what guidance, if any, was given to the content creators, so it's difficult to place responsibility on either BlueBird or the streamers. That's why I've never viewed this as criticism of the product itself. My view is simply that the available previews didn't give me the sense of depth I was hoping for, particularly regarding some of the systems simulation and operational aspects that were mentioned but not really demonstrated. Especially where the asking price is not something I can overlook. I also agree that this is more of a valid marketing and presentation critique than a product critique. The aircraft may very well be excellent. In fact, the reason I wanted to see more is because it looked interesting enough to warrant a closer look. And you're probably right that a simpler "I haven't seen enough yet, so I'll wait for post-release feedback" would have generated less debate. Then again, as you said, this is AVSIM, where a minor observation can quickly become a philosophical discussion. 😄 In any case, I appreciate the thoughtful and balanced perspective. It's refreshing to discuss the actual point rather than assumptions about what I meant.

You actually answered your own question. The pre-release content was sufficient for your expectations and your type of flying. That's perfectly fair. For me, it wasn't. Different people look for different things before purchasing an aircraft. Some saw enough to confidently buy it. I didn't quite get the level of insight I was hoping for, so I'd prefer to wait and see more. More specifically, I would have liked to see some of the system simulation demonstrated in a meaningful way such as the modeled circuit breaker, engine start logic, ECAM messages when things go wrong. Not every system and not an exhaustive review, but enough to give viewers a feel for how the aircraft behaves, how the systems interact, and what makes the simulation stand out from other offerings. That's the part I felt was missing. We were shown a lot of what the aircraft has, but very little of how it feels from a systems and operational perspective in my opinion.

The fact that multiple people disagree with me doesn't automatically mean they're accurately representing my position. What's interesting is that nearly every response has focused on "entitlement," yet nobody has been able to identify where I actually criticized the aircraft itself. I said I would have liked to see a more detailed demonstration before deciding whether to spend $80. That's not entitlement. That's called making an informed purchasing decision. Ironically, if I had simply said "I'll wait for reviews and community feedback before buying," most people would describe that as patience and common sense. Yet expressing a desire for more information before release has somehow been reframed as entitlement. We actually agree on one thing: we don't yet know whether the aircraft is any good. That's precisely why some of us would have liked to see a more substantial demonstration from people with a deeper understanding of the aircraft before release.

I think we're actually closer to agreement than disagreement. You're absolutely right that a YouTube video cannot establish the full depth, accuracy, and reliability of an aircraft. I never suggested otherwise. In fact, that's exactly why I found the repeated references to the FCOM a little strange. Reading the FCOM is part of my research process. Watching a demonstration is part of the developer's marketing process. Those are complementary things, not interchangeable ones. My point was never that a video should prove the aircraft is accurate. That's impossible. My point was that a knowledgeable demonstration can show how the aircraft operates, how the systems interact, what the user experience looks like, and what makes the product stand out. Nobody is expecting a two-hour stream to replace 357 pages of documentation. Equally, a 357-page manual doesn't replace seeing the aircraft in action. What's been amusing throughout this discussion is that several people keep responding as though I demanded a complete system review, proof of accuracy, feature-by-feature validation, and a full certification process before release. I asked for something much simpler: a deeper demonstration than what was provided. That's not criticism of the aircraft. That's not criticism of the developers. That's not a judgment on the product's quality. It's simply a statement that, for an $80 purchase, I would have enjoyed seeing more of what appears to be a very promising aircraft before release. The irony is that many of the responses have spent far more time arguing against positions I never took than addressing the point I actually made. If anything, the fact that everyone keeps explaining why a demonstration can't prove everything only reinforces my original comment: it still would have been nice to see more of one. 😉

It's fascinating how "I wish we'd seen a more detailed demonstration" keeps getting translated into "this product is bad." Those are two completely different statements. You're defending the aircraft against criticism that nobody made. I haven't reviewed it, criticized it, condemned it, or judged it. I literally said I'd like to see more of it before deciding whether to spend $80. The fact that several people keep responding as though I've attacked the product is honestly the strongest indication yet that they've run out of arguments against what I actually said. If asking for more information before a purchase is considered criticizing the product, then every consumer review, preview, hands-on impression, and product demonstration ever created was apparently unnecessary. We should all just buy first and form opinions later. What could possibly go wrong? 🙃

Ah yes, the 357-page manual. Somehow we've gone from discussing a demonstration to being told to do homework. The point wasn't that information doesn't exist. The point was that a manual is not a demonstration. If the answer to every request for a proper showcase is "go read 357 pages," then one has to wonder why previews, streams, and content creators were involved at all. It's also amusing that asking to see more of an $80 product before buying it is being framed as "entitlement." That's a fascinating standard. Apparently consumers are now expected to spend their money first and ask questions later, while anyone wanting a detailed look beforehand should be scolded for not having completed the assigned reading. I have no issue with the team's effort. In fact, the opposite is true. After five years of development and all the praise surrounding the product, I'd expect it to be showcased in a way that highlights what makes it special. That's not criticism of the aircraft. That's criticism of the decision not to demonstrate it more thoroughly. And let's be honest: calling people entitled is a convenient way to avoid addressing the actual argument. Wanting evidence before making a purchase is not entitlement. Declaring that everyone should be satisfied with the exact level of information that you personally find acceptable is a lot closer to it. But perhaps I'm old-fashioned. I tend to think "I'd like to see the aircraft demonstrated before spending $80" is a pretty reasonable position. Apparently the modern approach is, "Here's a manual, trust us, stop asking questions."

Absolutely, no developer can satisfy every individual preference, and they shouldn't be expected to. However, I think there's a difference between catering to every niche and demonstrating the capabilities of the product itself. With a release as significant as the BlueBird 757, showcasing its systems depth, flight model, operational accuracy, and overall level of simulation would go a long way toward building confidence in what they're bringing to the table. Ultimately, users can decide for themselves whether the product meets their expectations, but they need to be given enough evidence to make that judgment. It's not about pleasing everyone; it's about demonstrating what the product is capable of delivering.

Personally, I’ve held every new developer to the same standard, so I feel confident that my views have been consistent and fair. My goal has always been to provide constructive feedback, whether positive or critical, based on what I see. Not raising a concern publicly doesn’t mean I haven’t raised it at all. Throughout the years, some developers have welcomed honest feedback while others have viewed it more defensively. That’s their choice. When it comes to BlueBird, I’m applying the exact same approach. I have no issue supporting developers who are clearly passionate about their product and committed to delivering value to the community. However, after many years in this hobby, I’ve also seen examples where community excitement seemed to be leveraged primarily for sales rather than transparency and engagement. As a customer, I naturally prefer to support developers who earn trust through openness and the quality of their work. This is the reason I chose to wait and see more detailed reviews from people who know how to operate a 757 to determine if the BlueBird 757 will live up to the expectation.

Personally, I think a live demonstration would have been beneficial, particularly for a product in this price range. Showcasing the aircraft’s systems, workflows, and depth would not only build confidence in the product but also help distinguish it from other releases. The early-access content created a lot of excitement, but I came away feeling that the aircraft’s most important strengths were never fully demonstrated. Many creators appeared to focus on flying it rather than exploring the systems that enthusiasts are most interested in evaluating. Because of that, I still don’t have a clear picture of the aircraft’s true level of depth and realism. For now, I’ll wait until more detailed demonstrations become available before deciding whether to purchase. That said, I completely respect that others may reach a different conclusion, and this is simply my personal opinion.

While the aircraft certainly looks promising, I was somewhat disappointed by the preview content. The creators selected to showcase it generally focused on standard A-to-B flights, which left many questions unanswered regarding the depth of the systems simulation. One example was the repeated mention that introducing fuel too early during engine start could cause issues. Several creators brought this up, but none seemed interested in demonstrating the behavior or showing how the aircraft would react. For a product being marketed on the strength of its simulation fidelity, I would have expected to see more detailed demonstrations of system logic, failures, and operational nuances. With all due respect to the development team and the effort that has clearly gone into the project, I was also surprised that there was no developer-hosted livestream prior to release. If this aircraft had been a passion project in development for the last four years, a live demonstration showcasing the systems, design philosophy, and simulation depth would have been an excellent opportunity to build confidence in the product. Instead, the responsibility for presenting the aircraft was largely left to content creators, many of whom may not have been the best choice to evaluate or demonstrate a highly detailed airliner. Personally, I find that approach difficult to understand. If I had dedicated years to creating something I was truly proud of, I would want to demonstrate it myself or work closely with someone capable of showcasing its most impressive features. Unfortunately, I never got the sense that the aircraft's most advanced systems were meaningfully explored in any of the preview content. At an $80 price point, I'm not comfortable purchasing solely on promises, particularly from a developer that does not yet have a long track record in the market. I've learned through past experiences that it's better to wait for independent reviews, detailed demonstrations, and post-release feedback rather than buying based on expectations alone. For now, I'll wait to learn more about the planned native MSFS 2024 release and to see the aircraft's system depth demonstrated by individuals with substantial 757 knowledge. I believe that would provide a much clearer picture of what the product is truly capable of than the preview content currently available.

I guess this is the only PMDG update I don't care about at this point. I can always fire up FS2020 to fly a 737; and if I am so desperate to have one in FS2024, I own the iFly 737 Max. I recently started enjoying long haul flights and don't do much of regional flying in narrow bodies anymore. One aircraft less in my hangar is not going to be a big problem. Especially if the upgrade price is not within my expectations. If I am being honest I don't care if there is a half eaten sandwich and other clutter in the cockpit or not which was showcased for god knows why. I'd at least expect for a decent EFB with a completely new look with this paid upgrade if it's a new aircraft built from ground up like Mr. Kok and RSR mentioned in their forums and posts multiple times.