Simon_C

Yeah, latest MS2024 beta, 1.0.7 update of A350 and also latest Fenix.

Haven't been flying for a while now, been busy playing one other game, but now back, and checking out the status of ini A350 and Fenix A320, as couple of weeks ago, they were all crashing for me. Now, all seems to be stable, I am on beta SU2, I have been interchanging the aircraft from the menu, starting up flights, what used to 100% crash the whole sim, now is stable. HOWEVER: am I seeing correctly? I have 120fps with Fenix at RWY 29 LOWW, and barely 70fps with A350? Of course, FG is on. If there were a difference of say 10fps, I would take it. But 40-50fps!!??

Last time I tried, I wasn't able to load Fenix, as soon as I choose the aircraft, the sim would CTD. I uninstalled it for now. A350 seems to work fine.

My sim is constantly crashing if I attempt to change livery on either ini A350 or Fenix A320.

Mind clarify what you mean?

One report is enough for me...

Maybe I mixed up something, but he said couple of times that his comments were done as a customer, and not as CEO of Fenix. He bought it and gave his honest opinion. I don't see a fault here.

I can also disable it. But does it remain disabled after you restart your sim? Because my doesn't...

Hi Jane, thank you for your insight. I understand the issue with EA. I have actually only seen successful projects with EA, but as I said, this is not my area, so I am just guessing. One of the highest ranking games on Steam, Subnautica, #56 in top sellers with 96% positive reviews, has been EA in the first game, EA in the 2nd, and 3rd part is also preparing an EA, as far as I know. BATC is EA, still. And yet, due to quality, I would even re-buy it at full release. And while you say about money flow with EA, well... isn't that just a thing of management? Why sell EA discounted? Why not require buy-out at the end of EA? I believe there are ways. As you said... all about communication. And that is what miserably failed on the ini side.

This is why a long and wide beta testing is needed, and mostly not possible with today's funds and structure. Solution (most likely, I am not an expert): early access. And you can do it step-priced, EA for less, final pay up etc. I see many developments following that scheme, and it seems to be working well. People enter EA even at full priced product. But at least you explicitly accept that it's not a finalized product.

You see, this is something I cannot adhere to. If the feature is provided, then the feature must and can be used. If it's not working, then they have to fix it. I will basically do anything I can to make it crash again. Let me give you some comparison... I work in IT, my work revolves around servers and datacenters. Many of my colleagues think it's correct to go with standard procedures of working with the servers, like use them, update them, reboot them etc., and then call it stable. But they never tested real-world scenarios, like, what happens if you simply power-off the server. Because that happens when PSU die, or disks crash, or whatever happens. So I will test the server-cluster that way, I will on purpose try to damage it (in bounds of real world scenarios), because that way, if all goes well, I can be as sure as I can be, that when such a scenario happens, the cluster will hold and data will be intact. At one of our datacenters, they went with Azure Stack HCI cluster, and they tested it like for one year... and it was "stable". I asked, OK, what did you do... well you know, it was running, we did windows updates... ok, did you do firmware updates? Did you turn off one or two nodes, simply leaving them offline for couple of days... no. What happened? 1,5years later we had a disastrous crash in that particular datacenter, losing basically all data, rebuilding it etc. I am simply coming from a different environment, where I overclocked my PC for years, and would only call it stable, after I did some heavy testing. So there you go, two completely different levels of importance, yet the meaning is the same.

Very weak patch for the number of issues.

But that doesn't really work. It disables only some. Here, for instance, I can't disable SR22, but I was able to disable C-17.

I see the marketplace came live... maybe missed it before... But, is it actually possible to disable all default aircraft and leave only the ones I want?

Never watched it like this. This is terrible. Straight terrible. What issue exactly?