Georgleboui

You might be thinking of the CL-415 which indeed is firefighting. Historically Albatrosses were used for a lot of search and rescue operations and transport for Coast Guard and the Navy. Interestingly also used for covert operations by special forces during Vietnam. But in civilian form everything from private ownership as basically a flying RV to airline services in the pacific. It's a versatile platform with a bit of power and sizeable capacity. They are also being brought back into production as G-111s which is what the glass version is.

I’m going to throw something a bit different as a suggestion - the default Grumman HU-16 Albatross. Has a modern version with glass. Lots of carrying capacity, can land on water or land, and can transition between both under its own power. Quality wise I reckon it’s one of the more detailed default planes and clearly one made with a lot of passion. It’s received a lot of updates and more in the pipeline too.

I appreciate if you're coming into this from the point of view of seeking out content on the new plane and unfamiliar with V1. It's easy to then have totally different expectations and misunderstand what kind of content V1 does. And I think in any case people, especially older generations, generally have this misunderstanding about the different content you get out there on youtube these days. Like back in the old days (and I'd say those are my days) everything was a review and geared for informative content - you had long articles on Flightsim.com, videos were all factual impressions and well prepared, etc. And you get that stuff now - you have Into The Blue, Q8 Pilot, etc all doing this sort of stuff. However, there are also different kind of streamers, and that's what V1 does. It's more of a hang out, basically more geared to entertainment. Hey let's see what sort of thing we can get into today sort of thing. He'll go and check out SayIntentions, or Black Square Commander 114, or the Falcon and usually the devs will pop up and offer help. Sure, he does separate videos on specific topics, and stuff he's familiar with like A320 and 737s will be more in depth. But his live streams generally are more about community and just having fun with it. Not everyone's cup of tea I'm sure. Like I said, I'm only bringing this up because I see totally different expectations that are applied to all the flight sim content out there and it's just not the reality.

To be fair, I can't think of any case where a mod for a paid addon was necessary. Like majorly necessary, beyond just basic cosmetics? And as a counter argument – pretty sure the default DC-3 is encrypted, as is the Beech 18 and Boeing 307 and yet all have really substantial flight model and functionality mods. Personally, I'm all for MP. In fact even more so recently after doing a tour of my old add ons to see which are still holding up after all these years. Trying to figure out what version I have installed, going to each developer, trying to remember my login details, then downloading everything separately is such a pain. Just Flight is particularly bad with that. I'd much rather it all just gets updated on its own without me even thinking about it.

Details are great but how about fundamentals. We haven't really seen how you would tackle the actual ATC part. Personally I'd love to hear how you would approach ATC differently to the likes of SayIntentions and BATC. That's not meant to be confrontational at all – I'm genuinely curious and it would go a long way to generate interest. I purchased every single ATC tool since XP10 came out, it's a big part of the flight sim experience for me. And hey, it's great that the once forgotten genre of flight sim tools has this many new competitors and so much innovation. But you know, is it voice based or button? Will you support both IFR and VFR from launch or only one of those? Will you support the entire world or just US? Would it support failures? Is it built around simbrief or works independently? Does it work off a flight plan or is it more ambient (like MSFS ATC)? Are you relying on AFCAD data for taxiways or your own solution? Would you handle historic weather or only real time? Is some sort of multiplayer planned? Or is it player only? What sort of features could we expect from the very first release?

It just feels like you're a bit too early. A bit like those slightly naive posts where a brand new development team announces an ambitious new airliner with a grey box render of some landing gear. Ultimately, what are we supposed to react to here? It is not final UI - you're not showing any. It is not final voice - you're not showing any. It is not final traffic density - guess what? It is not the full product - very clearly not. There's a very lofty original post full of promises but as anyone with development experience and those keeping an eye on the monumental work done by SI and BATC teams – big words are the easy part. I'm not dunking on you by any means, I think it's great that there may be a new player in the ATC space. It's just obvious why you're getting the reaction you're getting. You talk about wanting to build an AI ATC that's really flexible, knows aviation and feels like you're talking to real people. That's great, and if you would have come in with a short video – a vertical slice of some interaction that demonstrates what you're talking about – the reaction would have been different. Hell, it could have even just been a mockup to demonstrate what the vision is. Something for people to react to. Instead just looks like you got the equivalent of a grey box landing gear and lofty promises.

Ultimately it's gameplay – challenge, whatever you want to call it. Whatever sim you use, it's all just entertainment at the end of the day. And sure, glass is fantastic if you're doing real world flying, absolutely. But it just sucks out the fun in a sim. An NDB approach with no visibility with terrain around you is exciting. Takes skill, thought, attention. Trying out celestial navigation while flying over the ocean where there's a real chance you'll get lost – really fun. The Dark Souls of navigation. Following a magenta line for six hours - might as well look at Reddit on your phone or go watch a YouTube video. Or worse – flying a screen by way of synthetic vision. As soon as I see that big G1000 monstrosity in a plane it puts me to sleep. Couldn't care less about VORs in real life, except maybe to bore my wife to death as I explain what that round thing is when we drive by the airport.

No contradictions here. I disagree with the mildness of his criticism and the overall sentiment that "it's not quite all that bad" and "people have been overly harsh". The shellacking this thing gets is rightfully deserved, and anything less than that is letting the dev off the hook. It's a $60 add-on that pretends to have depth (while misspelling switch labels) but is really just MScenery quality, and a developer who has pretty much completely abandoned it.

@Joshua757 Are you the guy spamming Reddit about this? I hadn't commented there because you've been rightfully called out and downvoted for this AI slop multiple times. It's a shockingly bad plane. Almost on the level of MScenery - and I say this for the audacity to charge such a huge amount for such low quality. I had hopes for the last patch but it barely fixed anything even though it was promising a lot. The worst money I ever spent on the sim, and I'm the only one to blame as I like the plane itself.

I know it's not to everyone's budget or appeal, but honestly this is where I'm glad for SayIntentions. The injector works the same way as FSLTL (ie set and forget) but you have the added benefit of it all being controlled in VFR and IFR. And there's pop-up IFR as well which is something I've been wanting for ages. I do wish there was a more accessible solution - can't beat free - but anything else just feels clunky to use.

This is an absolutely iconic helicopter if you're from the Northern Caucasus thanks to one of the best soviet aviation movies ever made: Bonus fact - my parents called me Mimino growing up because I was 1) obsessed with the movie and the little helicopter, and 2) looked like a miniature version of the main character (sans the amazing moustache).

I agree with your sentiment but I can also see it from the devs perspective. The first thread is about inaccurate depiction of METARs - that's fine but not what we're actually asking for. The second thread is all the way from 2020 and covers a wide variety of issues, some of which have been improved since. I feel like what would be more effective is starting a new thread that's calling for an overhaul of weather in 2024. Just simple as that and straight to the point. Get that upvoted into the sort of numbers Asobo can't ignore.

It's really fascinating how toxic this community can be. People are calling it a scam - nobody has asked for your money yet. There's nothing to buy. How is it a scam? I can't recall, did Fenix get the same sort of treatment initially? I wish we supported new devs better.

I totally agree - I want this to be the best possible version of a cool plane you could possibly get. In an ideal world everything should be Fenix-level quality. But at the end of the day I'm just happy we get a solid, lovely representation of a historic jet. I can see it being a bit of a risky undertaking to take on and I'm glad someone is willing to take that risk. Same with Just Flight, and other devs like Red Wing that are willing to preserve history.

But then he'd be JoshuaL1011 - doesn't have the same ring to it.

I appreciate their willingness to fix these problems. But I do hope they would acknowledge the effort @Joshua757 put into testing all of this stuff - it's great work!

I don't think you'd be bending reality that much. An L1011 operating today would likely have a GNS530 unit like this installed – in fact the one modelled is based on a real aircraft. I'd like to know the answer to your question too actually – I believe you can set /A (or similar code) in aircraft profile for equipment capabilities within Simbrief but all my attempts to do that never actually worked.

That's part of the technique of flying IFR. It's not just about manipulating controls, but also looking at conditions and anticipating what's coming up. It's a good idea to do a pre-brief before coming to TOD - looking at expected arrival, likely approach, runway configurations, parking, etc. Create a plan of action in your mind based on all these options. In other words - like okay we might be landing either runway 18 or 36. The former means I'll need to slow down early and be on the ball, the other might mean terrain could be a factor. How do I anticipate either one and make my life easier? From there, you look at wind direction or listen to ATIS if you can to get active runways. If those aren't available you can usually look at broad ground wind data on Navigraph or Meteoblue - not accurate but enough to atleast give a general idea. TL;DR: Beyond the fact Simbrief sometimes assigns likely approach / arrival, you can always tell what arrival you'll be on based on the last waypoint. From there, look at the wind direction or listen to ATIS. Basically, try and plan for all options - that's part of the fun of it.

Yeah but it's a King Air. The Duke is a totally different kind of aircraft. I'm also waiting for Blacksquare – own all of Nick's amazing releases – but let's face it that one is quite a bit away. For the price Carenado are charging, I'm happy to at least get some representation of a B200 for a while even if its default quality.

I think every airliner should be judged on the following criteria in order to be deemed cool: ✔️ Does it have a flight engineer? ✔️ Does it feature wood panelling in the cockpit? ✔️ Does it come with a lounge? With those in mind, the L1011 is clearly the best possible airliner.

I think different people have different ideas on what a "dirty" or "factory fresh" cockpit looks like, whether they like the idea of one or not. I'd argue most people have the same preference – they want to be immersed in the environment and feel like there's detail there. Personally I always prefer a "worn" cockpit, but to me that doesn't mean it looks like a bear got loose in it. What I don't like is poor texturing, or rather one that's not utilised to its potential. PMDG 737 is one example – sure it's brand new, but just doesn't feel like it has a soul to it. Even in their promo shots it looks like an illustration of the environment, one lacking detail, rather than the genuine thing. The newer version is an improvement but overall that's my one bugbear with an otherwise great product. Fenix is the perfect example of what I consider factory-fresh done right. Sure, it's clean, but it also feels authentic. There's so much nuance to every surface that it feels real. One example I give of my ideal "worn" cockpit is the JF A300. I'd say it's overall clean but represents its age, definitely has soul to it. Again, I think it's about detail and the way each material is treated with nuance. What I'm trying to say, I think we are all saying the same thing in a way. It's more about authenticity, quality, detail rather than levels of damage. Clean does not mean flat, just like worn does not mean trashed.

Early April I believe Jorg said, but you're right there's no specific ETA.

Appreciate everyone has their preferences and set ups, but that's the absolute reason I can't fly without any head tracking. These sort of issues just don't exist and it feels that much more immersive. Someone was saying the F27 is hard to fly because the DME indicator is obstructed by the gear lever when it's in the up position. But again, that's probably something you'd have to deal with in RW by just moving your head to look at it.

It's been one of my favourites the last month or so. Definitely issues, but good to see they are working through them.

Yours is a great post. I just wanted to point out the weird time warp that is the early 2000s - It does feel recent doesn't it? 2007 felt like yesterday. But that was almost 20 years ago! That's an equivalent of saying "as recently as 1987" in 2007. In my head that just doesn't match up. Anyway, this is one my most anticipated releases next to the ini L1011. Because only the coolest airplanes have flight engineers.