Aglos77

Hot start tbm900 y a220, Toliss A350, FF 787.

Hot start tbm900 y a220, Toliss A350, FF 787.

That’s why I had my doubts about the 300. I have other products from the developer, and they come with a lot of extras that don’t interest me personally, but I’m not sure what it actually simulates or how it does it, even though I’ve read the manual. I’m not saying it’s better or worse either; personally, based on what I’m reading here, this one might be closer to what I’m looking for in a simulator. In any case, I’ll wait a while to see more reviews—from experience, I know that once the hype dies down for these products, that’s when you really see the pros and cons.

I can't wait to read reviews of this plane and see how it compares to other aircraft of this type in MFS.

Thanks to this developer, I’ve started flying again from time to time in MFS2024. I still don’t understand all the praise for this simulator’s scenery, when semi-desert areas like the surroundings of LEAL look like something out of Jumanji. I don’t understand how this guy can fix the absurd size of the trees, but Asobo can’t.

I was just about to click “buy” – you saved me at the last minute...

If it works well for helicopters and general aviation, it could be a game-changer

That’s true – I hadn’t used the simulator for quite a few weeks. I’ve done two flights of about three hours each with A2A Comanche, and the drop in quality is quite noticeable. I’ve had to turn the texture detail up from high to ultra, and it doesn’t look as good as it used to.

oluto lo que se estaba diciendo. Se trata del paquete completo. Existen otros complementos, como Hotstart Challenger para XPlane, que supuestamente ofrecen una simulación de sistema más profunda. Pero como paquete completo, el Phenom ofrece más, y por eso Emi piensa que es mejor. And how can it know what else it has to offer if we don’t know the full extent of what it actually offers?

The problem is that most YouTubers aren’t honest. And it’s not just in this particular niche; it’s on YouTube in general, because, firstly, if they were, they’d have to pay for the add-ons that developers usually give them for free; if you’re critical, you can forget about receiving any more press copies; and secondly, they’re always chasing sensationalism to get more views. We all know how fanatical this scene has become lately; there are loads of people who, rather than being fans of flight sims, seem more like hooligans. For example, I don’t understand how they can objectively review this particular add-on when there isn’t actually a full list of features provided by the developer. Some, like the 330 driver, already had headlines proclaiming it the ‘best business jet’… Then, if you read the comments on the video, they’re a laugh – graphics take precedence over flight models and systems. I prefer to read people’s experiences in this thread and wait a few weeks for the hype to die down so I can really see whether it’s an add-on for me or not.

It looks great for a Hollywood film, but when it comes to scenes from a real-life simulation, my eyes would never see that in the real world.

I stopped watching flight simulation videos on YouTube a long time ago; I much prefer reading comments from ordinary people on AVSIM or from acquaintances and friends who share this hobby – my mental health has really benefited from it.

Please excuse my English – it’s not very good. I just wanted to say that you’re perfectly entitled to offer constructive criticism, as you’ve done.

I don't want to stick my nose in where it doesn't belong, but I don't think you need to go into so much detail. You're perfectly entitled to speak up if you see something wrong, and if the developer doesn't like it, well, that's their problem – after all, they all depend on us, their customers, for their livelihood.

You guys will have to summarize it for me anyway haha, English is pretty hard for me, and with how fast that YouTuber speaks, I don't think I'll understand a single thing

I wasn’t aware that WT was developing the Embraer Praetor, but from what I’ve read, it’s exactly what I’m looking for at the moment. Thank you very much for the information – it’s invaluable to me.

I’ve got nothing against the FSR, the Sting and the M500, and although I like them, I don’t think they’re what I’m looking for right now; they’re not going to make me a custom add-on, of course – there’s a very diverse market out there. I’m looking for something very specific when buying an add-on, as I’ve bought far too many that I hardly ever use, and I’ve finally realised that I only fly four or five of the ridiculous number I’ve bought across all the simulators. I still don’t know what level of system detail this aircraft achieves; I’m not interested in FBOs, passengers, or those quirky details that are typical of FSR. I’m looking for simulation fidelity, flight model, depth and realism in systems, realistic engine behaviour, fuel management, ground handling, pressurisation, faults and errors, etc. I am truly the target customer because I have been waiting a long time for a high-fidelity business jet for MFS to give the WT Longitude a bit of a rest; I want it to be on a par with, for example, the Torquesim 525 in X-Plane (I know that matching what the CL650 offers is difficult), or at least to be more in-depth than WT’s Longitude; if not, it doesn’t matter – I’ll continue to enjoy the Longitude and the rest of the add-ons I have, and that’s fine. Let’s see if we can clear things up in a few days once the hype dies down a bit and we can read comments from sensible people rather than the usual exaggerated MFS comments.

I’ve got nothing against the FSR, the Sting and the M500, and although I like them, I don’t think they’re what I’m looking for right now; they’re not going to make me a custom add-on, of course – there’s a very diverse market out there. I’m looking for something very specific when buying an add-on, as I’ve bought far too many that I hardly ever use, and I’ve finally realised that I only fly four or five of the ridiculous number I’ve bought across all the simulators. I still don’t know what level of system detail this aircraft achieves; I’m not interested in FBOs, passengers, or those quirky details that are typical of FSR. I’m looking for simulation fidelity, flight model, depth and realism in systems, realistic engine behaviour, fuel management, ground handling, pressurisation, faults and errors, etc. I am truly the target customer because I have been waiting a long time for a high-fidelity business jet for MFS to give the WT Longitude a bit of a rest; I want it to be on a par with, for example, the Torquesim 525 in X-Plane (I know that matching what the CL650 offers is difficult), or at least to be more in-depth than WT’s Longitude; if not, it doesn’t matter – I’ll continue to enjoy the Longitude and the rest of the add-ons I have, and that’s fine. Let’s see if we can clear things up in a few days once the hype dies down a bit and we can read comments from sensible people rather than the usual exaggerated MFS comments.

Unfortunately, history has shown us time and again that the presence of so-called real-life test pilots is no guarantee whatsoever.

I’m far from being an expert in air traffic control, but I’ll admit I’m a bit of an oddball—to be honest, I got fed up with early access games ages ago, so I’m still using Pilot2ATC; it’s not perfect, but it works well enough for me.

At this rate, we might as well know what they’re selling us at Christmas. I realise these are marketing tactics, but it would be nice to have a list of all the models this aircraft can simulate.

That’s what made me buy A2A, and I have to say that A2A Comanche is perhaps the add-on I’ve flown the most in recent years, alongside Torquesim’s SR-22.

I own several of your products, which is precisely why I want to know exactly what level of simulation it will offer. We all look for different things in a simulator; I’m not going to criticise anyone’s preferences, but those kinds of videos don’t really do anything for me personally. Between MFS, X-Plane and DCS, I have more add-ons than common sense would suggest I should have, which is why I’d like to know exactly what it’s going to offer in terms of flight models, systems....

This kind of marketing makes me skeptical, too; I prefer a straightforward description of what the simulator will actually simulate—whether it uses standard engine models, for example, or custom engine models like Toliss and Fénix, among others—as well as the flight model, flight tables, realistic fuel consumption, and so on.

It’s very complex software; you have to keep in mind that there are countless different hardware combinations, and the combinations of scenarios, locations, and add-ons are endless. It’s a very complex system, and we’re not going to take anything away from Asobo But having said that, it’s hard to believe they didn’t have any issues with 2020 and 2024 in the state they were released. It’s also obvious that 2024 is following the same path as 2020 when it comes to stabilizing, and it’s equally obvious that those who criticize complainers are always the same people. I honestly don’t understand what they gain from this. We are consumers, not shareholders or Microsoft employees, and complacency is hardly going to solve anything.