Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/12/21 in Posts

  1. Abusing my moderator rights to post a comment: 1) Yes, there have been three other issues that were found during the testing at Microsoft. Two in the CRJ, which have been there since day 1, but never showed until Sim Update 5 (dark instruments after loading and HUD constantly flipped down) and one in the Marketplace ingestion process which wasn't directly related to the CRJ, but caused a delay anyway. 2) Everything has been fixed and as of 18:47 CEST yesterday evening, the ingestion process has been completed and the CRJ was sent to Microsoft's testing team. When it will be available? I don't know. Will Microsoft find another issue that needs fixing first? I don't know. I will have to wait - just like you.
    49 points
  2. Hi all, This will be a long post diving deep into what has caused the delay with the latest update. Here is TL;DR: We are extremely sorry for the long break between updates and can understand the frustration with no real progress updates what is going on with the product. We have been working on the next CRJ update since the start of this year. With this update we have reworked some core areas in the backend code which led into taking a step back and stripping down the product into a “unflyable” state for a while. We had the first beta version in testing already in late March but got into a cycle where each beta version would reveal new issues that had to be addressed before we could think of releasing the update. Earlier this week however we made some very promising progress. We anticipate to finally get the next update out by the end of this month unless something extremely drastic comes up. And then to the actual post that dives much deeper into details about this. Over the past few months the question about the next CRJ update has risen on the forum with people growing more and more anxious about this over time. And we can understand the frustration. The last CRJ update dates to last year and this has begged the question whether Aerosoft has simply abandoned the CRJ. We have failed your trust by not being able to provide an update sooner. So, I think we (I) owe you an explanation what has caused this large gap between updates and why the update is still not out. It is time for some real talk, and I will try to address this subject openly to the best of my ability. First, I want to address the question if Aerosoft has simply abandoned the CRJ and has no intentions to release any further updates. This could not be further from the truth, and we do have long term plan to support the product long until the future. I am aware that our communications to the outside should have been better as it has been rather quiet on the forum, but in this case, it has mostly meant that we have been extremely heads down in the development work itself working on the next update. The real planning process for this update started after Twin Otter release as a lot of our resources were tied with the Twin Otter until then. We had kept a close watch over the forum reports to have a good idea of issues that users were noticing with the product so that we could address these to the best of our ability in the update. Here are few that I have picked up here as few main areas (not limited to, there are plenty of other fixes as well included): VHF2 RX being unusable Terrain radar added Adjustments in flight model to calm down especially the pitch axis control MFD DATA fuel predictions being completely off DIR TO functions (including DIR INTC) LEGS waypoint sequencing Especially the last two mentioned on that list have turned out to be more troublesome than we ever anticipated them to be. When we originally started work on these areas, we had no idea how deep into the code we would have to eventually dive to get these things right. Basically, the way departure and approach procedures are handled had to be completely rethought and therefore also recoded. Depending on the airport location there can be a lot of local variation how the procedures are published. For example, in the US most STARs share the same name but can have completely different routing depending on the runway. Rest of the world mostly follows the scheme where each runway has individually named procedures. Some procedures end into a vector leg during the SID or at the end of the STAR, some have transitions that connect everything together nicely and some don’t. On a code logic level even the selection order of STAR & RWY matters and must be considered. So there simply was a lot more local variance and different cases to go through that caused us trouble than we originally thought. This is also the reason why we have not been able to push an update in the meantime with other fixes while sorting out the issues on the LEGS sequencing. Many things connect and as we were rebuilding the backend code for correct waypoint sequencing, it also meant that the product was in a state where pushing an update would have just made things worse than better. And during that stage it is extremely hard to really give any real progress updates either as there is nothing visual to show in terms of sexy preview screenshots of the new features or fixes and everything would just seem completely buggy and broken. In late March we believed we got most of it fixed and pushed the first beta version out. Ever since this initial beta version as we fixed something and pushed a new beta version something new came up that we had either missed before or that the fix simply broke some other area we had to then investigate. This is also the reason why it was mentioned few times on the forum that we had update in the works and that a beta version has been pushed to the testers but have not been able to release. Earlier this week however we made one of the furthest steps so far with almost all the issues with the new code fixed and so far, have not seen any new issues on the latest beta version either. There are still few items we want to get looked, but things are starting to look very promising and unless something extremely drastic comes up, we will have the update released by the end of this month latest. Even if this means leaving some very minor things still open for the next update. In the hindsight, looking back to some of the decisions that were made and knowing how much trouble some of the areas we have fixed would cause, it would be easy to say that things could have been done differently. And for sure we will (and have already) internally review what went wrong so that we can avoid making such mistakes again and improve for the future. I can also say that getting this now finally fixed is also a big step forward for the product overall and fixes some extremely major issues we were monitoring in this area. I hope this now reveals the curtain a little what has been going behind the scenes and why it has taken so long for us to work on this update. As I promised to be as open as possible, I am afraid to reveal here that there will not be any LNAV related fixes on this update, which I know some of you are eagerly waiting for. We are aware of these issues and plan to work them out eventually. But they require deep dive into the code as well changing some of the fundamentals, and we did not want to delay this update any further. I am sure you have lots of comments, opinions, and questions about the current situation. I am happy to answer any questions you have but please keep the discussion civilised. Jouka Ahponen CRJ Lead Tester I will leave you with some preview pictures from areas that we have been working on. First one to spot all fixes gets eternal glory and honour! FMS Legs sequence is as is after procedure selection. No manual cleanup is done/required anymore as long as the last enroute waypoint and the first STAR waypoint match. If they don't it will of course create a discontinuity Since this is still a beta there are some minor issues still also present that we are trying to get fixed. This picture includes two of them if you can spot them. But the main thing is that MFD fuel predictions are more sensible now and (VECT) leg is followed by discontinuity not connecting the last waypoint before (VECT) with the next waypoint after (VECT) anymore by default.
    36 points
  3. What's reflected and how it's reflected is in general handled by the graphics engine itself, simply speaking for a texture we just define if a part should be shiny and if so how shiny it should be MSFS already reflects dynamic objects such as the user aircraft, however due to the way reflection maps are generated it's only visible when looking at the windows from a sharp angle. Speaking of windows! Something that hasn't really been showcased yet is the parallax texture mapping used to generate fake building interiors around the airport. (No extra geometry, just smoke and mirrors.)
    28 points
  4. As promised, images: Wing details, JaeEon works on those. Cargo hold (Anne works on that): EFB (Robert is in charge of that): The fuel tanks are still missing from this image. And that ends up something looking like this:
    28 points
  5. Here's a couple of gifs showing some of the custom ambient ramp traffic at Brussels,
    28 points
  6. Yes, we will keep updating as we do for most of our products. And we have ordered a full new sound recording as well because the sounds that we had can simply not be tweaked more then that they has been done. And while we of course worry about the remaining issues, we are very happy because this one has sold extremely well.
    27 points
  7. Dispite this sad news, I will still continue to provide the RAD Restrictions and Directs for each AIRAC in the Download area. Best regards David
    25 points
  8. VC images. Keep in mind you can ONLY see the modeling, it still lacks a lot of the texture layers, reflectiveness etc.
    24 points
  9. But that's good, you should always think if you want a product or not. We made it very clear that this one will use mainly default systems and we had good reasons for that, as I explained a few times. The simple fact is that there will not be a lot of real complex aircraft that run fully inside the sim for some time to come. What we did in FSX and P3D for the Twin Otter Extended would likely be possible but it would be mighty complex and would result in a more expensive product. The Twin Otter Extended started out as a product that was 10 euro/dollar more expensive this one, had less models, a far less extended manual and did not look nearly as good. It simply is a different product, different project definitions. If you take inflation in mind, the new Twin Otter is 13 euro/dollar cheaper. Let me give a bit more background. FSX addons stopped selling around 2015 (the release of FSX Steam did boost it and to our surprise, COVID did as well). But we stopped doing FSX add-ons around 2014 because there was simply no market. P3D add-ons replaced that to a certain degree. But the amount of potential customers was fraction of those we had for FSX. At the best of times there were possible 20.000 users willing to pay for add-onsm on P3D. Now these are rather special customer, they are very much into systems. An only English manual was okay. Support was limited because these customers are pretty educated. This led to add-on around and over 100 dollar/euro. If one of those 20.000 customers wanted your product it did not matter a lot what it cost. But P3D add-on stopped selling in 2019, commercially it is dead as a dodo. Just checked what has been released in 2021. If somebody released a expensive product it came with guaranteed discount for the MSFS version. MSFS add-on sell like it is 2005 (the previous heyday of FS add-ons). Instead of 20k customers you have 2 million. Sales numbers are simply incomparable. BUT, a big but.... you are dealing with a very different kind of customer. Around 20% of CRJ customers did not understand why the flightplan would not be activated (you need to copy if to the active FP). Around the same percentage had problems starting the engines. Around 5% said they wanted their money back because 'it did not work' (of course after telling them to check the tutorials that was sorted out). Not a problem at all because sales were so good we were happy to hire more support staff. So what we end up with is a very different market. A very small high end, who for the largest part is not even considering moving to MSFS (and I think that is a correct decision) from P3D. And a huge market that is just getting into Flightsim and does not have the experience most people on this forum have. The middle bit seems totally missing at this moment and is very hard to get to. That is why most not released DLC you see discussed is either very complex or rather simple. Inside the sim (marketplace / Xbox) or done in a way that makes it impossible to get on the marketplace and Xbox. Now, clearly some things went wrong in this release and we are evaluating that to make sure it is not repeated. We have fixed (or at least to some big degree) all the known issues that are in our control and that update will be around soon. But the simple fact is that the MSFS Twin Otter is darned close to selling more copy in 5 days than the Twin Otter Extended did in 5 years. That is why every add-on developer dropped P3D. That is why so many decided not to go for complex products but for things customers wanted. Nobody has released a seriously complex add-on for MSFS, nobody knows if there is even a market. Looks at my friends at PMDG, would you have believed four years ago they would release an add-on that uses default gauges? I would not. But I sure understand why they did! So if people say we go for the money, I would counter that we go for the flight simmers that actually buy our products right now. And yes, we love to sell tens of thousands of products instead of thousands. Do we leave the high end simmers behind in that? I think so. But Aerosoft does not create the market, we make what we believe people will buy. I think there will be super high end add-ons for MSFS at some point. I think there is a market for >100 euro/dollar add-ons when the products are good enough to ask for that price. It is not Aerosofts market (PMDG always provided those products for us) but right now, without access to the massive sales on the marketplace? I would hate to invest half a million in that. Just read Robert Randazzo's comments in the last few weeks and you see why we decided not to go there. Also read why he decided not to go for high end prices. Where we deliver many variants of an aircraft, PMDG products will be highly focused and you will have to buy other variants (and thus the same systems, base modeling etc). A different way of managing the same problem, high end, high priced products are simply extremely hard at this moment. While it is clear that as project manager I really want the update that solves most of the issues out, I am super happy about the product. It sells seriously well, I did on release and it did today. The whole team has been working 16 hour days to solve and tests the issues we know about. Should they have been attacked before release? Probably. The issue is that when you are dealing with over a dozen of shops, marketing campaigns, Microsoft Marketplace who has been super kind to give us preferential treatment, ect, planning is not only about bugs that need flattened. Delaying a release at a late moment means very serious consequences. If you are a developer with one product and few sale channels that is simply not an issue. I fondly remember when, I as project manager, could decide on a release date. Now I set one and the moment I do, it is set in concrete. As said, the update we are testing at this very moment fix most of the open issue we have. The sound set is worked on for four days, autopilot issue has been found etc.
    24 points
  10. Here's some screenshots from last week, with the way it's shaping up and unless a lot of things goes sideways testing should start for full next month.
    24 points
  11. As some of the more seasoned forum visitors will know, I sometimes try to sort out the many things in my head by writing about them with a glass of wine in my hand and some jazz in the background. Art Blakey in this instance. My wife asked me to put on my headphones. And in case you think I am snotty and pretentious, this is what I am drinking my wine from right now. Yes Mulan. Sue me.... Simple Traffic was special. From the moment Jeff showed it to me I knew it had everything one of those rare super selling products need. It just needed to be 'packaged'. We needed to make sure people understood it does not make AI traffic in MSFS better, it just makes it look better. Sounds simply but it is not. Forum comments show that some customers expect the product to more then we know it could do. That is why we spend many weeks introducing it. Sharing the strengths and limitations. Simple Traffic adds paint to the AI aircraft, as geographically correct as possible. Nothing more. That is why it is called Simple Traffic and that is why it costs just €12.50. That is what it is worth. Asking double would be incorrect. Skipping over SU5, months of problems, we come to Nov 15. Release day. All the previewers (expect two that seem to preview AI traffic and not Simple Traffic) were positive, the shop was ready, the files were ready. So we set the product free. For the developer(s) and project manager this is always a hugely stressful moment. What you worked on for months is now in the hands of the customers. It is my experience you know in the first 30 minutes how a product will do. If you sell a lot you have momentum and resources to solve issues. If sales are slow everybody (devs, our staff, customers, reviewers) look for the next high. Note the word 'high'. Because believe me, when you got a winner, it is a high. Everybody involved feeds of the energy, we share sales data shout at each other at the first 500, 1000. 1500 sales. For Aerosoft it means we make solid money, for the developer it can mean very serious money. So everybody is hyped and working flat out helping customers, solving issues. And Simple Traffic was a winner. Still is. Sells like hot buns on cold morning. Will be in the top three of our best selling products this year. Even it was released in week 46 (thanks Jonas). But with selling large numbers you get a large amount of problems. Very soon we noticed there was an issue with serials send to external shops. we worked on that and around 20:00 we though we had it licked. Wrong, took till 09:00 this morning. A major issue of poop happening. An embarrassment to our partners and their customers. Solved. We also had customers (84 people we are in contact with but we know it is a lot more) who could not load the sim with Simple Traffic loaded. Now skipping over many hours of experimenting, customers calling us very nasty words, many emails and calls to people who know about this stuff, we have a solid idea on what happens. We also have a plan to solve it. That plan could mean we do nothing and wait 48 hours. Hint hint. A very good question is why did was not detected in the tests. I honestly do not know. It is something Jouka (my test lead) and I will look at next week. What I can say is that have been using Simple Traffic for a few months and simply never had ANY problem. That might have lured me into feeling secure. And in software development that is a mistake. I (we) also had the 'deal' with the very nasty comments from AIG users. I honestly do not understand that. We have been saying along we like that product, we have no problems with it and think many people should use it and not buy Simple Traffic. By now now my Blake playlist is out and I am on Thelonious Monk. Trading up according many jazz lovers. So where are we now? Well, both Jeff and Aerosoft are very happy to have one of those rare super sellers. With the CRJ you simply knew we would sell a lot, with this one all stars had to be aligned. They did. The plan is to sort out the not loading issue first of all, of course. If that is by us fixing the add-on or the sim fixing the add-on, same thing. Same result. Of course that will not solve every issue, but we will be able to proof that on a clean OS, clean MSFS the add-on will work. After a release the first thing you want to do is stabilize. When that is done Jeff got some files that adds coverage to more airports ready. At the same time we will send the product to Microsoft to be included in the Marketplace. Because that is where this product will REALLY take-off. Miles, take if away... I need some Ascenseur pour l'échafaud. Did you know he recorded that fully improvised while looking at the movie? He literally was on a recording stage without any score, watching the movie and 'invented' the music?
    24 points
  12. Another new feature is that the VDGS are running on an external module created by Aerosoft. This allows for a highly functional VDGS with airport specific custom stopping points based on aircraft types. It is still in active development, currently 3 different system types has been created and the module is highly flexible and expandable. Activation or changing which VDGS is active is done through a UI menu. This feature is not only limited to Brussels, but is also planed for upcoming Aerosoft airports.
    24 points
  13. One more modeler has been moved from the Twin Otter project to the A330 one. So soon we should have some images to show.
    24 points
  14. Ahhhh, right April first. No, this is not a april first joke. The North Sea is not a stretch of water. It is an incredibly productive fishery where over 2,5 million metric tons of fish are caught every year. Close to 7000 fishing vessels, ranging from small trawlers to absolutely massive factory ships, provide food for millions of Europeans. Because of the climate, geographical conditions, and current demands make it a prime location for wind farms. The average depth is around 60 meters meaning it is relatively cheap to place wind turbines, and as any seamen can tell you, the wind is a constant in the North Sea. Around 25% of the total North Sea is now scheduled to be used for wind farms. Many tens of thousands of turbines will provide the countries around the North Sea with renewable energy. Many wind farms are being built at this moment. If all reserved areas of the North Sea are used, there will be close to 100.000 wind turbines. These will be able to provide 80% of the electricity needs of the countries bordering the North Sea. Underneath the North Sea is another treasure. Oil and gas. In huge quantities, not as easy to get to as in the Middle East, but due to the depth of the sea, technically very feasible with current energy prices. Close to 200 oil structures, often made up of multiple platforms, are placed on the most productive fields. In between these structures, tens of thousands of vessels have to find their way. The absolutely massive oil tankers, container ships and bulk carriers seek the load and unload their goods in the harbours of Rotterdam and dozens of others. Huge ships lay cables and pipelines. Ferries link countries (I long back to the big hoovercrafts!). While the number of people working on the North Sea is limited (estimated at around 8000 people), the money involved is staggering. Billions of euros are invested every year. Even a small oil platform will run into the 500 millions of euros. A modern support vessel can easily cost 100 million. The North Sea is not a stretch of water. It is the largest industrial park in Europe. Every square mile has been dedicated to some use. That is why we decided to create a scenery product covering this area. If you only fly over the North Sea at FL380, don’t bother. If you fly lower and slower, perhaps even in a helicopter, there is a lot to explore or see enroute to your destination. Because framerates are never an issue at sea, we can use incredibly complex objects. Some ships are as complex as a complete major airport in the sim. Construction sites consist of millions of polygons. If you see a helipad, you can land on it and use the drone cam to explore the structure. This DLC can be merged with any of the other add-ons covering shipping or other offshore elements. So what can you see? Let me make a list; it is not complete. Fishing Industry Trawlers Factory Ships Seiners Shipping Industry Container ships Bulk carriers LNG tankers Oil tankers Chemical tankers Fruit juice tankers (I did not even know these existed) Life stock carriers Other ships Ferries Cruise ships Wind Industry Monopile wind turbines Jacket wind turbines Floating structure wind turbines Fast crew boats Substations Wind Industry Construction Survey vessels Heavy lift vessels Offshore support vessels Crane vessels Crane platforms Floatels Tug boats Oil/Gas Industry Production rigs (spar, jack-up, compliant) Normally Unmanned Installations (NUI) Conductor Support Systems (satellite stations) Toadstools Fast crew boats Support vessels Anchor vessels Patrol vessels Floating production systems ships Floating production systems monocolumn Floatels Single buoy mooring stations Fast Resque Boats Oil/Gas Construction Drilling rigs Seismic survey vessels Crane vessels Tug boats Anchor vessels This product is intended to be released in late summer at between 10 and 15 Euro. It will be sold in our store (duh…), our affiliate stores and the Microsoft Marketplace. It will run on PC and Xbox. We have a team of veteran experts assisting us to make sure what we show is realistic. These images show some of our first trials we needed to do to make sure the highly complex objects would compile into the sim. They will all need work (made more dirty as a starter) but I think you understand why our team was enthusiastic. As we will be adding objects almost daily we will be able to show a lot of screenshots.
    20 points
  15. How large is the font I can use in this forum? Can I make it bold, blinking and red? These images show you the base modeling of the VC. So all 3D is done. the base layers of textures are done. It still needs a bit of detail using decals (all in the sub centimeter scale) and it still needs all the weathering. So it is as if it was just delivered from Toulouse. No pilot has eaten a Big Mac in it yet and got ketchup on all the switches.
    20 points
  16. It is not up to us to comment on other companies products. But this project will have next to no default systems. There are many days I regret that decision. Update from our weekly dev meeting: Stefan completed a lot of the cockpit modeling and animations but as texturing is not done, nothing that looks cool. Uray is working hard on the navigation and has completed a internal tool that mimics the planning of navigation. Serious amount of time but it will pay off very well in the long term Robert (erroneously called Thomas due to a total brainfart from me last week) is moving very fast on the EFB. Also connection to Simbrief is progressing. Anne is completing the cargo holds this week and will move to the wheel wells. JaeEon is close to finishing the wings. There is so much detail there: The flight model was updated to SU8 and tweaked for low altitude thrust. As the FADEC module is close to being delivered we will start the thousand of hours need to test that real soon. All in all a good week.
    20 points
  17. As I told, I really like the plane. But the Sound of Version 1.0 , was a disappointment. I really had nothing to do with all this Sound Stuff before, was reading about Wwise and the old Legacy Sound Configs. Was testing around, converted the Wwise into mp3´s to get a Idea of all the 300 Sounds out of the Soundbank. The Sounds are awesome and well recorded, so It was or is just a thing how they work together in the Wwise Config. So I did a small Mod of using the Wwise Sounds and also Twotter Legacy Sounds. It´s not perfect, I´m not a Dev. But here we have a improvement of RPM Stages and Turbine Stages . Did a small demo, no proceeds just focus on Sound. Hope that we will have some kind like this soon.
    20 points
  18. We had our weekly dev meeting and I am happy to share some images that show what our modelers are currently working on. Of course it is hard to relate this to a MSFS product, but at least you know they are creating a lot of lines on a screen. And please accept my assurance it is very very high-end. No prices but if you know what the second and third image show....
    20 points
  19. Friends, I now have been informed there have been rumors about the A330 release on more channels. I have no idea where that comes from, probably some date in some document. But here is a promise. I will let you know when we got a feature ready dataset when that is handed to our internal test department when they hand that to our core testers (all real pilots) when they hand it to our external testers when the test department hands it to the installer/marketing team when I sign off on the project when you can buy it on our shop when you can buy it on our affiliated shops when you can buy it on the Marketplace Okay?
    19 points
  20. Anne, who is involved with the external model, just send these images. At 21:30 so I told her to get a life. Now I need to get a life myself.
    19 points
  21. A while ago there was a question regarding hangar interiors, how many that's gonna be included is still not decided, but here's a preview of one of them. Hangar doors automatically open when you approach (and close when you leave), these hangars are also scripted to "wake up" and trigger animations at random, helping to bring some more life and busyness to the airport.
    19 points
  22. I am seriously sorry were were not able to provide more detailed information about what was planned for the CRJ's. Things were simply complex in every possible way. Let me assure you that the CRJ is and remains a majorly important project that will not be discarded. Hans (Digital Aviation), our partner for the systems in this project, just send new files to testers with this information: Fixed inserting enroute transition if destination point is already in flightplan Fixed inserting route discontinuity if waypoint before and after have the same name Fixed inserting whole STAR before runway is selected (only for US-style STAR-ApprTrans-Transitions without an actual STAR in the nav data) Fixed no route discontinuity inserted when SID is changed Fixed terrain display for P3D Fixed TOD indication Fixed re-arranged VNAV window positioning Terrain radar in MSFS is working but it's quite heavy on the framerate. This is will remain this way until the ability to draw to bitmaps has been added to WASM. Testing should determine if this will be added or not. Until testing is completed we are unwilling to put any date on an update.
    18 points
  23. Robert managed to get the Simbrief integration running this week and added more information. Anne started with the decals of the gear bay.
    18 points
  24. This weekend or Monday, should fix 90% of the known issues.
    18 points
  25. TL;DR: the "Wwise sound set with close to 300 spatially placed sounds" advertised on the product page is incompletely implemented. In addition to the previously discovered issues, per my own testing the vast majority of sounds are apparently not "spatially placed" at all. First of all, I just want to say that overall I've been enjoying this plane so far, and even if there are some specific areas that aren't quite up to par yet, I think it's got great potential. It's encouraging that you responded so quickly to the criticism about the engine sample transitions and will look into it. But as you do, I'm afraid you'll need to widen the scope of your diagnosis regarding the Wwise implementation, because in just my first 20 minutes playing around with the aircraft I've already discovered another significant sound problem... To experience the issue for yourself: 1. Load up a plane cold and dark - just for the sake of making my larger point I would suggest loading either the stock msfs 172, or the Twotter's direct competitor at the moment, the Kodiak... 2. Flick some switches in the cockpit, move some levers. Notice how the sound of each control has a distinct spatial position both relative to the cockpit AND in relation to the camera as you move around, e.g. when a switch is on the left side of the screen you will hear it on the left, and then when you move the camera so the switch is on the right side of the screen, you will hear it coming from the right (or if you have a good spatial sound implementation, you can hear a switch in front of you vs. behind you, and even kind of above/below!) 3. Now load up the Twotter, again cold and dark. 4. Flick some switches and move some levers. Notice how they ALL seem to come from exactly the same spot, which is inside your head, and they don't move with the camera, or at all for that matter. Note that it doesn't just break immersion (particularly in VR), but that the samples blend in with the other ambient sounds and are not as distinct as when they are properly placed spatially. 5. Just for completeness' sake, start the Twotter's engines, and notice that the engine and propeller sounds ARE in fact properly spatially placed. Just not anything else. 6. Brace yourself, load up the Aerosoft CRJ and realize that in all likelihood every Aerosoft plane currently under development has the same problem. So, just a thought on this, please don't shoot the messenger, but I'm just gonna say it. There's a commonality with this spatial issue and the crossfading issue. First of all, we don't need to be real life Twin Otter pilots to easily detect the problems and be turned off by them within a few moments of loading up the plane for the first time. They stick out like a sore thumb simply because we... play games and... enjoy sound. I think you'd agree not just that ideally someone on your end really should've found and fixed these problems before consumers ever had the chance to, but also that it's genuinely odd that no one did, given that presumably the Twotter team has tested the plane in msfs, has multiple sets of ears, and cares about the product they're making; and that there should be some reflection internally about how these issues got through. My point is that this is about more than inevitably having to polish a few rough edges after any release- for whatever reason, you have some sort of problem with the Wwise process that's been keeping these beautiful samples you've recorded from being experienced in the sim as they were meant to be. Bluntly, someone either doesn't understand how to employ Wwise competently or is unable to do it for other reasons. If you were some giant company like Microsoft pushing a minimum viable product out the door, this would all make perfect sense, but it seems like there's actually a genuine misunderstanding somewhere in the sound production pipeline in this case and I really hope you're able to resolve it, for the sake of making the best planes possible. One final thing, regarding what I said about using real pilots for feedback. Don't get me wrong, It's great that you do that, and you should keep doing it. It's important to remember, though, that real pilots have been checking out flight sims and giving them the "Oh WOW! It's SO realistic!" endorsement for decades now, and it was never exactly untrue per se, even when they were talking about 8-bit sound and vector drawing. One day we'll be having the same arguments about super hi-fi VR and spatial audio implementations that make what we have now look just as primitive. In the present, we hear the problems easily because as simmers we have more nuanced expectations for a sim sound engine than a pilot does (unless that pilot is also a sim/audio nerd). It's just two distinct things and you need both. They hear other problems better, and give relevant feedback, but it's all for naught if you don't have someone effectively articulating these problems related to the game engine.
    18 points
  26. And from my side.... What went wrong on communications is that I inserted Jouka as technical project lead and test lead and Joonatan as internal tester and did not ask them to communicate about it. My bad. Now clearly communicating to customers is not their prime task. That would be me or Vanessa as out marketing lead. But handling many projects it is hard to stay on top of all in the technical details of an update. I simply should have asked Jouka to explain things many week ago. As said, my mistake. The MSFS CRJ is one of the best selling projects we ever did. Knowing a bit about the market in the last two decades I dare say it is it one of the best selling FS add-ons in the last decade. Part of that is because of the timing of the release and the fact we had some serious help from Microsoft. Part of it is because it is simply a very solid product that sells extremely well to this day. Fact however, is that time is valuable and we got to assign resources to projects. Aerosoft runs 30 projects at any given moment, unlike other smaller companies that basically are able to focus on two or three projects. Sometime that helps, sometimes it bites you in the behind. It is not forgotten. Both Hans and Aerosoft stand fully behind the project.
    17 points
  27. Here's some screenshots from the latest beta, things are starting to shape up and as Mathijs said above Q1 is still the plan!
    17 points
  28. And your two cents are seriously appreciated. Honestly. The simple fact however is that the sounds we got delivered simply do not cover the complete range of sound we need. It is not a matter of skill or knowledge. The source we need is simply not there. You will see so with the A330, same people, different input, We have hundreds of source files for that project. From the engines at full power, to every single switch on the flight deck. In the Twin Otter project we had to work with the material we could get from Turbine. While I asked several times to get (and pay) for the original recordings, they were simply not willing to part with them. If we had those recordings the problems would all be solved in three weeks. Note I do not blame them for not parting with original material (yet I wonder who else they can sell the derivatives to). The simple fact is that the only sounds we could get were the same sounds we used in the P3D version. There are simply no other sources available. Now if it was a question of skill, heck I would be willing to pay a small fortune to have somebody work on them. But these files are in the sound pack and many people HAVE tried to make them 'better'. In our opinion none of the tweaks actually makes a lot of sense. Most flatten the sounds to get the problematic steps less obvious. But while doing so the highly characteristic sound is gone. Personally I rather hear a few steps and get the right sound... extremely loud if you do not wear a NC headset. But it is clear many customers, very very few actually flew in a Twin Otter and can testify it is not a sound but an assault on your ears, believe it should sound different. Not to say the construct is good (again, we simply do not enough data), but most tweaks change the sound into that of a King Air (that has a lot of sound dampening and the engines in front of the pilots) or a Piper Cheyenne (again with the engines in front of the pilots) that use the same engine but serve totally different purpose. In those aircraft the designers tried to isolate the engines from the passengers. Look at this screenshot. The red area is where the props (they make 75% of the noise) send the majority of the sound waves. That is what the crew hears. So if people say the sound is not realistic in cruise (so not while changing power settings) I kindly ask them how much experience they have listening to the Twin Otter on the flight deck. It is totally an utterly different from what you hear from the last row of seats. And while in an aircraft most of our customers have flown in there will be sound isolation and dampening, in the Twin Otter there is 6 mm of aluminum plate and some cardboard. Here is a Cheyenne: No crew or passengers there. Or a King: No crew or passengers there. And that, combined with the fact a Twin Otter is designed with zero thought of the passengers or crew, makes HUGE difference. And no, I am not saying our sound set is perfect. The sounds we have are damned good, the people, we ask for advice, the real pilots, confirm that. The problem is we do not have enough sound files to make the transitions smooth. That is why we are looking for an opportunity to do a full recording! Now, if you have some serious hours as a pilot on the Twin Otter and you feel you could add some data, by all means contact me on mathijs.kok@aerosoft.com. If you think a Twin Otter sounds like a Quest Kodiak, Pilatus PC-6, Texan II, Super, Shorts 360, Starship, Tucano or an Embraer, I actually prefer you not contacting me. All of these MSFS DLC have been suggested to us as examples on how it should sound and none of these are even close to how a Twin Otter sounds on the flight deck.
    16 points
  29. I have to say im very dissapointed with the sounds in the update. Its still alot of problems that i cant understand developers didnt notice! 1.Still no smooth changes in rpm (Something that we expect in a 30euro addon in 2022) 2.Still abrupt changes in the sampes (The sounds go quiet before the next sample kicks in) 3.No difference in the sound when the engine goes from feathered to unfeathered. 4.The starters and shutdown are way to loud now compared to the other sounds of the engines. 5.Badly spatial sound difference.
    16 points
  30. I have no words for this answer. I am more and more regretting my invest. Dumbing down a product to make it run on console, if that's the way AS goes, I'm out. Sorry. You cannot animate a prop in 2022? Rediculous. And that for the full price of the P3D version that was more feature rich. A shame.
    16 points
  31. Standby friends, resque parties are on the way!
    16 points
  32. And finally for today, the last images of the cockpit, all work in progress! Again, work in progress, things will change.
    15 points
  33. Some more images. Note the decals here, fully sharp text that is only 1,2 cm high. Again, work in progress, things will change.
    15 points
  34. Nine minutes to pushback, time to get the flight deck organized.
    15 points
  35. Friends, like probably almost all of you, we are abhorred by the events in Eastern Europe. Our forums however are not a social media, but part of our marketing and support. Just not the place for discussions about the war.
    15 points
  36. I find it sad if Xbox is the defining item. I think most would expect a new Flight Simulator to be a step forward and not a step back. If Xbox is restricted, then there should be seperate Xbox and PC versions, otherwise MSFS2020 wil become a parantesis in Flight simulator history. While I do understand that getting Xbox customers would be great, it shouldn´t be forgotten that most PC Flight simmers are people who had this as their hobby for many years and are the loyal customers. These people bought addons back FS98 (My fist Aerosoft addon was the Airbus package for FS98), and also will be those buying addons for MSFS2030. Not to put customers in boxes, but I guess - and I have no prove for that, Xbox customers might not be as Loyal. I would be very sorry if Xbox is the defining factor and not what the simulator actually is capable of. Should that be the way we will see MSFS2020 addons are going, then I will feel tempted to look closer on what the upcomming XP12 has to offer - sorry to say. Also the purcase page does not mention that animations had to be restraint due to Xbox compability, quite the contrary... Quote: Features: Full new development using all options of the platform Highly optimized modelling, prepared for use on PC and Xbox Only a vague "... PC and Xbox".
    15 points
  37. We have seen AIG has been released and like to take this opportunity to say it is simply good freeware. Now I hear many of you starting to snicker, wishing your 'competitor' all the best, right..... But it is true. At Aerosoft we love freeware projects and are well known to to support them. Ask the guys behind FlyByWire and others. And yes we will do an A320 so they will be competitors. Does not matter, we feel there is room for freeware and commercial products next to each other. Now clearly the two products are not the same in build, we base it on the standard AI traffic and try to keep things as simple as possible. Traffic add-on traditionally are complex and costly in support. The smallest issue with a livery can cause the sim to crash so quality control is super important. AIG software downloads older FS models, repaints, and traffic schedules from various AI forums, and then injects these as AI objects into the sim via a secondary program running externally. In contrast, Simple Traffic only reuses components that are already present within MSFS, and simply adds realistic liveries and schedules. This ensures minimal impact on system resources, loading times, and disk space, all inside the sim. Now you see why we called it 'Simple Traffic'? Because it is, run the installer and forget about it. Enjoy your sim. Updates are inserted automatic. No exe files that need to talk to the sim. So AIG aims for a totally different customer. We know we will sell the majority of Simple Traffic copies via the Microsoft Marketplace and that Xbox users will probably the biggest market. The Xbox market is massive and not being able to reach those will limit any DLC. So while we will have to compete on features for a part of the market, it does not affect us a lot. I have AIG running on one of my systems and I like it. I needed some time to get it running (Windows 11 caused a weird issue that is almost 99% sure not related) and while otherwise reported the fact models not created for MSFS do not cause more load, the simple fact they are more complex was noticeable on larger airports. But it is good freeware. No question about that.
    15 points
  38. You can enter your estimated departure time in the flightplan section of the VDGS ui menu (along with the destination as Mathijs mentioned above). So the EDT countdown is based on whatever time you've added there and isn't a predefined value.
    14 points
  39. First renderings with MSFS lighting for the VC. Still needs many layers of dirt, grime and wear, but the modeling is one of the cleanest you will have seen in the sim. The decals fore the gear bay are also progressing very nicely.
    14 points
  40. Hello everyone. I'm almost done CRJ mod, and now i want to ask permission from Aerosoft to make it public available. For the modification to work, an official purchased aircraft is required. Modification is free and does not require additional purchase. The modification does not affect the original files and exists as a separate addon. About the same way liveries work. The list of changes that I have added/changed/fixed is below. - Added: INGAME Assisted checklist. The implementation is incomplete due to the impossibility of controlling some things on the plane. I am waiting for feedback on what to change or add. - Added: Switchable pilot/copilot (click airspeed sign over PFD). - Added: APU heat effect (for temporary Asobo Afterburner Heat FX, custom newone is planed). - Added: Cockpit displays ambient lights. - Added: Interactive cursors for all (more than 2pos) switches and knobs. - Added: Sync lights switches with LAND/TAXI/NAV/BEACON/STROBE ON/OFF keybind (Sometimes it doesn't work as expected or doesn't work at all. Still experimenting. I recommend using ON / OFF binds only. Also, if you turn on the switch with the mouse, then the binds are not synchronized). - Added: Sync SPEED/ALT/VS knobs with keybinds (Some problems are possible, need to test additionally). - Changed: Taxi/Landing Lights (brighter). - Changed: Cockpit panel lights (brighter). - Changed: All default cockpit cameras (more usable). - Changed: All swithches/knobs animation now smooth. - Changed: Sounds for some switches/buttons. - Changed: Mouse wheel switch behavior. WheelDown - only decrease value, WhelUp - only increase value. LeftButtonClick - toggle state for 2pos switches. - Changed: Knobs with Push button behavior. In LEGACY interaction - push button now work as before. In LOCK interaction - you may use Aerosoft behavior (RightClick on knob, then LeftClick on button) or Asobo style (LeftClick and Hold on knob, and RightClick for button interaction). I continue to improve the functionality. - Changed: Pass Sign and ELT switch behavior. There is no difference for the end user, rather an annotation for me. - Fixed: Missed sound on some knobs/switches - Fixed: Inverted power switch on Fuel System. - Fixed: Terrain TILT knob/button. - Fixed: Buttons RTU1/2 inhibit and Ignition cont. broken animation. So, @Mathijs Kok, what do you think?
    14 points
  41. Yesterday evening Hans and I had a long teams meeting in which we smooth out the sounds even more then they already were. Unfortunately it wasn't possible to add these changes and adjustments in the release version as everything was set and ready. These adjustments will come in the first update that's rolled out. The sounds are tested, provided and confirmed working as should, by real Twin Otter pilots who have hundreds of hours on the left or right seat. Also note that if you don't change the settings during climb/cruise you'll indeed go deaf but that's how loud the plane is according to the real world Twin Otter pilots, so we followed that advise 40TQ and 75% NP should be the power settings while climbing and cruising.
    14 points
  42. Was checking out the last beta and could not stop myself making this crummy low res video. That is one impressive terminal. Note the reflections and the moving rolling roads.
    14 points
  43. In a few weeks we can really start to show stuff. At this moment it is all rather bare.
    14 points
  44. Not really an image that shows a lot, but what the hey...
    14 points
  45. There has not been a lot of news because we had little to report and because a lot of us were busy with our gamescom event. Hans just made a statemement and that is exactly how things are at this moment. The ´deal´with Microsoft is a bit more complex and special for the CRJ, other projets have less limitation, AS far as we know those contracts are the same for every company, but I am not sure if they all fully follow that. Please a bit more patience.
    14 points
  46. There are three people on the modeling. three on the systems (but they are doing a full new 'airbus basic' system so not only A330), one person on the flight model, one technical project manager who is researching the systems so he can assist the coders, one tester. And me. But nobody cares about me. In this stage of a project my only role is to make sure the team has all the resources they need and to make sure it is all aligned.
    13 points
  47. Oh please, there is no conspiracy here. You might not agree with how Aerosoft is handling this -- and I can understand not being satisfied with the communication about the delays -- but to suggest they are intentionally upsetting or trying to take advantage of customers is ridiculous. I guarantee they are as frustrated about this as we all are. If they sell a product, they want it to be well-received for sales, reputation, lesser support burden, and morale. There's no reason to doubt that resolving this is one of their top priorities at the moment...they're not just sitting there laughing and counting their money.
    13 points
×
×
  • Create New...