Abriael
-
Posts
262 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Abriael
-
-
19 hours ago, Geir Haukland said:
WHY not? Its still a well used platform as well as the MSFS thing,
No. It is not. As the navigraph survey clearly shows. P3D is dead and buried, and Aerosoft has announced that it wouldn't support it anymore a long time ago, same as many other developers.
-
6
-
-
11 hours ago, FrankGehry said:
In December 2022, he said testing will start in early 2023 with a release in the first quarter as reasonable...so sometime before April 2023. Now it's been delayed to sometime before the new year, so if it gets pushed to say December it could be seen as a 10-11 month delay from the timeframe given at the end of 2022.
My point wasn't to make a negative post but to point out how egregiously inaccurate timeframes are from these developers, not only Jo. They continue to lead on the customers. I get a 1-2 month delay, but anything more than 6 months, and I start to feel like they're telling us a timeframe to make us happy, but not being honest. Just shoot it to us straight...
"Reasonable" is not a promise nor the announcement of a release date.
-
5
-
-
12 hours ago, NovemberTangoJuliet said:
Very well, but this is not the issue. The relevant question is what reasonable expectations the costumers should have when terms like "normal operations" and "the day-to-day job of the pilot flying" are used by the developer.
With all due respect, your "expectations" are not very relevant in the grand scheme of things.
When the aircraft is about to release, they'll publish a full feature list. If it fits what you need, buy it. If it doesn't, don't. If it doesn't at launch but it might later, wait. It isn't rocket science.
Not all products for a simulator will be for you. Aerosoft has made quite clear with its previous products what kind of customer they're targeting and they have not given any signal that they'd be changing course. This isn't any different or new.
-
2
-
1
-
2
-
-
55 minutes ago, cwa alt said:
I’m pretty sure most people understand that the a330 will be mid level, we also understand what aerosoft pitches with there aircraft, to simulate normal operations, what people are concerned of and rightlfully should be is what defines normal ops, to many, that included holds, sec fpln, etc. when aerosoft said that some systems will be missed on the question about vatsim, that begs the question on what will be simulated that is pretty important for vatsim. I think you and aerosoft needs to realize that not everyone in flight sim nowadays flys on the outside with the freakin vfr map going direct to a random airport, a lot of people care about these systems, they are normal ops
The fact that a lot of people care about these systems doesn't make them an absolute requirement for any product. There is a reason why they're missing from *many* products and even super-dedicated teams working for hardcore simmers like FlyByWire took a long time before implementing them despite having pretty crazy manpower behind their project. That's because they're not "basic" or "normal" at all in terms of developing them.
It's also a fact that aircraft without holds, secondary flight plans, go-around procedures, or even vnav can be and are enjoyed as daily drivers by many people (likely an overwhelming majority), so they're far from a general requirement without which an add-on cannot be released.
There are as many versions of what is "basic" or "normal ops" as there are simmers, so much so that there are still wackos out there who argue that PMDG and Fenix are missing "basic" stuff (one clear example is the EFB on PMDG's 737s). Ultimately, as customers, we look at a product and decide if its feature set fits what we need, and then make an informed purchase or we simply don't. There's nothing shameful about realizing that a product is not for us and moving on.
The simple truth is that people who go around pontifying about what's basic, required, or normal, and what isn't, have absolutely no idea of what goes into coding an autopilot system for a modern airliner. Not even the foggiest hint of an idea. There's a clear reason why what some people define "basic" is actually done by an extremely limited number of developers worldwide. We're talking about barely double digits. Again, perhaps this should signal that what some claim is "basic" (without having the slightest idea of the work it entails) simply isn't.
-
2
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, NovemberTangoJuliet said:
I was not a huge fan of the informal and, in my opinion, sometimes incoherent and unprofessional communications.
Oh, the irony.
You're literally attacking someone on a company's forum and you're not a fan of "informal and incoherent" communications.
As for what they have revealed, this has always been supposed to be a mid-range add-on, as Aerosoft has done for decades. I'm not sure what led people to expect more, but it's certainly not something Aerosoft has said nor the nature of their previous products. They've never described this as anything even close to what some would define "study-level."
I see that the usual suspect "influencers" are fanning the flames of negativity and sensationalism as usual, but we should probably judge a product from what it is, as opposed to self-generated expectations that have never been supported by a product's promotion or by a company's history. Aerosoft is never going to be Fenix or PMDG, and honestly, there's nothing wrong with it. Mid-range add-ons may not be everyone's cup of tea, but a wide range of products for a wide range of customers is a sign of a healthy market.
Incidentally, I have to giggle at people talking of VATSIM as it was some sort of necessary threshold for a product. First of all, people fly all sorts of stuff on VATSIM, including aircraft that are missing holds, go-around procedures, and more. We've been flying the A32NX on VATSIM when it had extremely basic navigation features. But more importantly, VATSIM is awesome, but it's also used by a vastly outnumbered minority of simmers. In the grand scheme of things, it's an extremely niche activity compared to the bulk of the users of a simulator. It's far from a priority for a company with Aerosoft's target.
When one is an advanced user of a simulator, requiring advanced add-ons, it's important to realize that there are products that simply aren't made with us in mind as their main target, and that's ok.
-
4
-
4
-
-
12 hours ago, SimPilotMika said:
Exactly what I mean! I just want a 330 and 350
Some people can’t take a joke
Also, she/her
There's a very good freeware 330neo available right now.
17 hours ago, Jetti200 said:No she's saying she wants another high fidelity or study level airliner that is NOT quite small and is pretty much only used for short hauls like the BAe146 for example, and e.g they tend to be old fashioned when it comes to navigation which is probably not what she wants. PMDG 737 and the Fenix A320 are pretty much the only ones out there that suit her wants but she's been flying them so long she's gotten tired of them, so she wants another plane that is close to or on the same level as they are in terms of systems, flight model, you name it.
EDIT: He to She.
Even if you confine the spectrum to that very narrow-angle, there's plenty more than the PMDG 737 and Fenix. Obviously, she wouldn't be here if Aerosoft's level of fidelity wasn't sufficient for her, and in that case, even the 787 and 747 with the new avionics from the AA2 are perfectly eligible.
The truth is that for a completely new simulator platform that has been out less than 3 years, what we have in terms of all types of aircraft (including airliners) is absolutely luxurious and historically unprecedented.
I'm starting to suspect a lot of people 'round here weren't around when previous new platforms without backward compatibility were released, and aren't aware of the usual pace at which aircraft are developed in this kind of situation.
-
2
-
-
On 7/15/2023 at 6:02 AM, SimPilotMika said:
I want to be put into an induced coma for 3-5 years so I can wake up to new airliners. This period is so awkward for airliner people. Nothing but Fenix and PMDG so far
There's so much wrong with this single line that it isn't even funny. There's only Fenix and PMDG if you're completely oblivious to the vast majority of the payware market and the entire freeware space.
-
4 hours ago, YAG said:
I think we have the right to know what is happening with the plane, even if the detail is boring because it was postponed for about 8 months. Come on aerosoft you can do better.
As a matter of fact, no. You do not have any such "right."
The only right you have is to decide whether to purchase the product or not. Receiving constant development updates isn't a right or any kind of requirement in any field of software development, especially before you pay for a product. It has never been, and it'll never be.6 hours ago, cwa alt said:Sorry but your just gonna have to wait 10 years for the fslabs a330 to get your ge engines, aerosoft clearly had made up there mind about only rr engines, no separate isis instruments, or different variants, imo it’s a sign of laziness
There are few things that make me roll my eyes all the way back into my skull than seeing people who have zero idea of the work going behind something like this calling developers "lazy."
-
1
-
13
-
-
6 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:
Indeed, indeed.
Besides, Project Managers basically do nothing useful. They just get told by upper management to get things done and by the developers that it can't be done. Can you blame me for doing something else after 20 years?
Friends, this is my last post on this forum section as the project manager. I leave you in good hands. When I leave Aerosoft end of the month I will make a new account and join as just another enthusiast for the A330!
Thank you for your hard work and for telling it like it is, which is often rare but definitely refreshing.
Looking forward to seeing where you land next.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
As customers, you have the right to buy a product or not. You don't have the right to demand answers to a question that has already been asked many, many times, and the developer already said is not going to be answered many, many times.
False entitlement won't get you very far in life.
-
1
-
2
-
9
-
-
23 hours ago, WebMaximus said:
What money I spent isn't about what I'm entitled to but how I expect to be treated and addressed as a good customer.
Good customers understand that developers who don't give release estimates do so because it's much better to provide a release date when a product is done and finished than dealing with people being abusive and angry (and it happens a *lot* in the flight simulation community) when something goes wrong or goes long and a delay is required.
Big game developers can afford to do it more because they have a lot of bodies to throw at a problem to get past bumps faster (and even so, they still have to delay quite often and deal with the snark), but this is not true for small operations like flight simulator add-on developers, and even more so one-man teams like Jo Erlend.
More importantly, anyone who has been on Aerosoft's forums for more than a few days should know that it's their policy not to provide release estimates of any sort before a product is basically finished, so it's not exactly the best idea to ask them to ignore their own established policies for your sake.
I happily defend "such behavior" because they're human, and after they're asked the same question that people already know will be denied a gazillion times, anyone would be snippy. They're actually remarkably civil about it, all things considered.
If you want a nice atmosphere, you may want to begin by not asking what has been asked many times before (just changing the wording a little bit), and is known won't be answered, and by not defending juvenile behaviors like "Oh, you're not doing this fast enough! I'm gonna buy it from the competition, neener neener!"
-
3
-
-
6 hours ago, WebMaximus said:
Quite distasteful IMO when you're a grown up asking a perfectly valid question and after having supported these guys for years and spent an endless amount of money buying their products.
The money you spent on their products entitles you to *these products,* which you were provided.
What it does not entitle you to is the indication of release windows of future products when the developer isn't ready to give one. -
8 hours ago, Bjørn Supersten said:
This waiting starts to be frustrating, think I have to go for the Orbx version...
I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to achieve with a post like this?
-
4
-
-
On 4/30/2023 at 9:39 PM, Fynn X said:
What a roller coaster of emotions,
Perhaps, I could suggest leaving emotions at the door.
An "emotional" reaction to something like sound in an add-on for an entertainment product is certainly conducive to toxicity, on top of being a little weird. And yes. This community (I mean the flight simulation community in general) does have a toxicity problem when it comes to addressing developers, whether it's Asobo, Aerosoft, or a number of others.
I'm no moderator, but some of the comments I've seen on the sound definitely looked toxic to me and made me roll my eyes quite a bit.
Moderators on this forum are pretty strict, and with good reason. The official MSFS forums are an example where moderation is extra tolerant toward negativity and the level of toxicity has been allowed to reach intolerable peaks, as the ATR thread perfectly exemplifies. I'd rather not see that happen here as well.
-
5
-
5
-
-
It's almost like having options is bad
By when this is finished, there'll be three versions of Oslo on the market, plus a pretty decent freeware option. I *really* wish I had so many options for my favorite airport (Haneda).
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, gigachad said:
Summary: "We are Aerosoft. Our opinions matter the most!"
A better summary: We are Aerosoft and we create our products according to what we know a majority of our customers want based on extensive experience and decades of sales data, not according to the demand of a handful of forum users. If our approach doesn't fit your taste, don't purchase said products.
I don't always agree with Aerosoft's positions, but they certainly provide plenty of information on why they do what they do. Informed customers can make informed purchasing decisions.
-
8
-
2
-
3
-
-
32 minutes ago, Thomas Philibert said:
Are you seriously going to sell this fuselage who are from FSX with textured portholes while the Microsoft SDK allows you to make 3D effect windows in a few hours? i can count the edges and see the pixelised portholes.
I am frankly very skeptical when I see the external model, I don't understand how a payware editor can validate this. If it stays like this, prepare to receive a ton of messages about your external model.
You are supposed to pull the simulation up, not down.
Edit : I just saw you will use the parallaxe portholes, that a good point but the critic remain for the fuselage.
What part of "Again, work in progress, things will change" did you miss?
-
4
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Mathijs Kok said:
No, in all our aircraft we only model Normal Operation and not emergencies or failures. We simulate the job of the pilot, not the training of the pilot.
And indeed the lighting of XP12 is superb, but I think MSFS can match it.I would humbly say "overcome it by a large margin."
The lighting of XP12 is an improvement over XP11, but it's still a 2015-standard compared to the wider gaming industry (as opposed to 2010). -
4 minutes ago, Ryan E said:
I don’t get any app appearing
Do you use AVAST perchance?
-
3 minutes ago, Bastian B. said:
where can i find the exe.xml ?
it's in the C:\Users\XXXX\AppData\Local\Packages\Microsoft.FlightSimulator_8wekyb3d8bbwe\LocalCache folder if you have the Microsoft Store version.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Bastian B. said:
Yes i am sure.
Is this Massage normal? two times?
Check that you don't have multiple entries of the program in your exe.xml. at some point I had 3 and had to remove 2.
-
1
-
-
So, I actually managed to launch it. The problems seem to be in the fact that Avast antivirus blocks it. The only way to make it work is to disable the antivirus shields when it launches. Adding an exception is not enough.
Avast really appears not to like Aerosoft's programs for some reason. While the new Aerosoft One doesn't have this issue, AVAST also used to block the old updater, with the same requirement to disable the shields to make it work.
-
I have been trying to get the VDGS menu to pop up all day, but didn't manage so far. I tried with the default left-shift+V or changing the keybind and several different gates at Brussels, and made sure the program is listed in the exe.xml. No go so far. Any insight?
-
10 hours ago, oisk said:
I wish we could wake up from and realise that SU5 was just a dream (actually a nightmare). Bring back SU4.
Yeah, 20-40 FPS more is such a terrible thing.
-
3
-
Aerosoft Airport: Oslo-Gardermoen (ENGM) (released)
in Product Previews
Posted
Simply being helpful by sparing him the effort to explain to the usual P3D nostalgic why the platform isn't supported anymore. If you want to ask someone something privately and don't want anyone else to chime in, you can send them a private message instead of posting on a public forum.