LVFRicardo

I don't think anyone was working 'polishing or fixing' things was something we ever asked of anyone. They decided on their own accord to do this, without any request from us to do this. They were using the FBW code which is to improve the planes, we are grateful because many people enjoy them better, however; Its unfortunate they decided to punish not us, but their fan base with their decision, because frankly our Airbus A330neo has been the most sold product we have ever had, and that's despite no FBW mod that exists, and also the existent free Headwind version which is great. Also we have never been proud of releasing products that require mods so they work properly. We have been upfront and transparent about our products from day one. With our A340 we have allowed raw unedited live-streams with hours of the plane flying, with its issues or not, its with the intention that no one ever feels we are selling you something that appears to be something different than what really is. We love transparency, and if by being transparent we lose customers, so be it. In the end of the day, liveries, mods, etc can be done by anyone, as long as our files are not distributed. We are committed to our customers and we don't punish them for doing legal things with our addons. What they do with our addons is up to them. And we won't be against that. Lots of work was devoted to the A340, and lots of it was under the hood, despite not having our own avionics, believe me we are working hard to get it done soon.

None, vanilla MSFS. Only using Active Sky to test my aircraft in extreme conditions.

Hi, no, we are LatinVFR (LVFR) and this was tried on the A330-900. I assume if reports are similar with the Fenix, that then it happens to all my other aircraft and others as well. Will try to see what can be done. In any case on our flightmodel.cfg perhaps an entry can be done? will PM

@Damian Clark, Hi, flying on active Air Effects, and encountered a significant issue flying the plane starting pitching up to a stall when I entered a storm cloud around PHNL. The plane was pitching up despite command for down, and there was no way to stop the pitch up, it eventually stalled, with or without Autopilot engaged. I noticed something smaller when flying into another sort of cloud on takeoff, the plane was pitching up when the FD was actually commanding down with autopilot on. This was on our A330-900. I am posting this because I tried the same thing with default MSFS weather and did not encounter this.

We haven't forbidden any 3rd parties to mod the aircraft. We just said that we will stop direct collaboration in the meantime, as we are building the plane ourselves. Liveries uploads, mods etc are not forbidden by us by any means.

We will very soon, and also videos (showcases, tutorials) before release showing this.

They have been modified as part of the avionics upgrade (not released yet),. The A340 on release will have all of that completely modified. And then the rest of our airbus.

Thanks no we haven't shut down the doors with them. We gonna leave open the possibility. The main issue we got a team working nonstop in improving the systems, working on and investing heavily, we can't collaborate with another group that already has everything that we are now working on. Like you said we are starting from scratch. We aren't closing the doors on Horizons, we gonna keep it open, but our development team can't count on Horizons nor FBW for what we are doing, and we can't have our customers depend on them when we are actively working on making things better. We might have said things that sounded wrong but we are open to collaborating later on, in anything the A340/330 doesn't have and they can help

Holds, missed approaches etc for aircraft navigation.

We apologized to Horizons if anything we said was taken out of context or wrongly intended. We are open to keep helping them mod our A32x family in the meantime, and leaving open the possibility of doing something with the A330/A340 in the future. But the plan is to have the A330/A340 family to be vatsim level at least. Later on we can see what if anything, Horizons wants to do or can do.

The A330-neo on release won't be vatsim level. The A340-300 will be, and at that same time the A330neo will get the update. The A330neo as it will be on release will have VNAV and TOD. We are finishing up the Navigation side and it will be ready for vatsim.

We are not going to send 'cease and desist'. We are trying to build these planes from scratch with our own code. Its about our future and long term commitment. Horizon people are good people and we helped them out in the past with our files before being released. We are just stopping cooperation now for the A330/A340.

Yes, thats how the A340-300 will be released. It will be ready for vatsim on day one. And the same thing will happen with the A330-900. And eventually with the A330-200CEO which will also have a Cargo version. We are working and will continue to improve these planes over time. Our A32x family will also get avionics and systems upgrades. And about the mods, we appreciate Horizons and others doing that, but we never encouraged nor told our customers do use mods for our planes. We allowed it for the A32x family because when the A321neo was released it was default, but it won't be permitted for the A330/A340 family. But we have worked our way up, and we are continuing to work it up. We have a team now assembled working on these planes and the idea is not high fidelity or study level but middle of the market types, for now.

I know this is off topic, but can't say enough about this guy. I very rarely see someone so passionate so dedicated so much loving his work like Raul. We can all be motivated about what we do, but Raul is way past that. This is his passion. This guy is the best of the best, and anything he touches he does magic. I known him for quite some time now, from the rough P3D era, he is always there to help out. Thanks Raul!

I have seen some mention of LVFR and comparison with this product. I wanted to clarify a bit. Truth we did release the A321-neo with the default A320 cockpit. As the cockpit on the A320neo is very similar to the A321neo. However, we have invested in improving significantly the systems, and continue to do so to this very day. Our system implementation is not like the other offerings from Fenix or FBW, however we are working upwards from being the default to something entry level, without thinking we can reach the levels of those developers yet. We only basically have less than a year doing this and having developers who know how to work systems was hard to do, and thankfully this has changed in the past months. We hired very talented individuals that are helping us with the 'under the hood' implementation of things We understand the criticism and we have dealt with it, understandably we know people are expecting more, and we respect that. Our goal now is improving things and working them from the base/default code. We have released dozens of updates to the A321neo and other variants. We have just finished an update where we allow for the simbrief flight plan to be downloaded into the CDU, worked on many other system things. Developing planes takes time, and in these past months we learned a lot, and in the coming weeks you all will see some of the things we have been improving. We won't be the next fenix or FBW or PMDG, but we are gearing towards that middle ground type user. But we won't be doing any of what we did initially of just using default cockpit. These past months have shown we have moved away from that. Thank you

We competed well and have been selling our airports at a higher rate than we ever did in the FSX and P3D era. Our KMIA sold 3X more than it sold anytime during that same era. MSFS opened up new markets, and what we did is to not overly depend on one line of products. The same way Orbx, Aerosoft, FSDT and many have done. ORBX started doing GA airports in Australia and look at them now for example. The MSFS market is so big it can have so many different kind of products geared to many different kind of users. When MSFS was launched, months before we sat down with Jorg and the people in Asobo and Microsoft and they were very honest when they said they would do airports too. We just saw the writing on the wall and did not want to have free airports as our competition. Thus we began doing things other than airports, AREX, Static aircrat etc. Last year we did our first plane. And now, the 320ceo which is our next, its a major improvement to the default 320neo systems. Which we know that others such as Fenix and FBW already do, but the difference is we are gearing towards the XBOX and marketplace market, and also to those simmers that don't have enough time to actually study manuals, and spend 30 or 40 minutes preparing for a flight, and also don't want to simulate failures. We understand people don't like it, but for now new airports are on hold, and we are focusing on planes and maintaining our current airport lineup which is huge. That we may one day do an airport again, yes it may happen. But for that to happen many things will have to change, and right now we don't see that.

We did speak with FBW. They allowed us to use their code from a previous version of the A320, but that code wasn't compatible with the current version of the sim. Therefore we couldn't use it. Their current code uses WASM and it causes huge issues with XBOX, and also it wasn't available for licensing. Like we have mentioned in many other posts, the idea is not to compete with other 'study level' products, rather this is a representation of the aircraft to be used on the ingame marketplace and XBOX. Presently its very hard to get very detailed system wise aircraft into XBOX. The rest of us, myself included, we have access to the game via PC and we may purchase addons outside the MP for better systems, such as FENIX and PMDG. I like this plane we made, to just do a short flight without too much preparation and effort and get it going, flies well, and looks good. That's the main idea behind this concept for now. We will certainly look forward to improving it in the future. We knew the release of this product was going to be full of expectation and comments, and we thank those who know exactly what is our goal here. Thanks!

There is. However, most of the important airports left, require more livery work, for example Angola Airways in Angola etc. Many secondary hubs or smaller types are going to be added. The rest of the world airports don't feature a static aircraft parked 24/7 in the same place. So its a matter of perhaps adding General aviation aircraft to them, but adding those will also imply a lot of development time. And for the sake of adding one airport to the list we are not just gonna add a Cessna and call it a day. We are looking into getting into 500 number in the coming weeks.

Before actual unbiased users chime in. After months of being released, no support tickets, no comments absolutely no feedback complaining about performance. The objects are placed and created in a way it won't impact significantly performance. In other words, with it or without it you won't notice any impact, no matter the system.

Thanks for the feedback, will take this into consideration for the next round of updates.

We don't actually make any changes other than replacing the models. Making any changes to the engine and the way it works may break the code somewhere , and these vehicles can cause problems with performance if we get creative in that regard. Therefore its strictly adhering to the SDK as it stands. They have for many months now. Like I mentioned above, making any changes to the way it is presently may cause issues. Best solution is for Asobo to fix this accordingly. TBH, I don't know if its possible with the current SDK to change that. I think its not. Only replacing the models for now.

The regions are automatic by the SDK, using a livingworld configuration file. Different sets for different continents. As for New Zealand, there is a problem within MSFS, for some unknown reason it can't be properly configured, therefore it won't be seen. Yes that problem happens with our AREX Asia package too. Hello, its negligible, no noticeable difference compared to default.

This is a good question. As for right now there isn't the possibility of having specific GSE for specific airports. Don't know exactly this should work, but I am eager to see it soon. Considering AREX is a very widely used addon, I hope they take that into account, because if they do it the way some developers mistakenly done, it may impact all airports in a region, a region which might have hundreds if not thousands of airports.

Thank you all. I know many will want more airports, and we will certainly add more. One important point though. Only a few hundred out of the 30 or 40 thousand of airport receive active commercial service. Probably less than a 1,000. So we will give priority to those and then, we just might add small airfields that have a Cessna or a piper parked in the most popular areas, typically North America, Europe and Asia. Will see about that. Thanks!

Well thank you very much for your words. This package does not conflict with AI in the way that AI will not work. You might just have an AI parked where a static is, but it will never affect the way they work. We placed aircraft in 300 airports. Most of the important airports in the world, if not at least the top 100 in the world are depicted here. It was quite a difficult and tedious job placing by hand thousands of aircraft according to real world type/airline and location of gate. As you said location is based on the default, we don't want to assume anyone has a 3rd party airport for it to work. And the location is based on the default satellite imagery. We are certainly looking forward to add more airports in the future, so lets see. Thanks!