NovemberTangoJuliet
-
Posts
46 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by NovemberTangoJuliet
-
-
8 hours ago, Abriael said:
Oh, the irony.
You're literally attacking someone on a company's forum and you're not a fan of "informal and incoherent" communications.
I don't see the irony here. I am not attacking anyone, but merely sharing what was clearly labeled as a personal opinion. I also don't communicate on behalf of a company addressing its costumers. It is absurd to imply that I should adhere to the same standards as someone who does.
8 hours ago, Abriael said: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.
I am perfectly able to form my own opinions on what makes a good flight simulation product based on my own preferences.
This could be a point of contention, but I disagree that the expectations related to IFR/VATSIM operations are "self-generated". Aerosoft have clearly communicated that the A330 aims to model normal operations and put more loosely: "the day-to-day job of the pilot flying". In my opinion, this encompasses all procedures which a flight crew are exposed to relatively frequently, naturally this includes holds, go-around procedures and non-precision approaches. It does not include stuff like failures.
8 hours ago, Abriael said:Aerosoft is never going to be Fenix or PMDG, and honestly, there's nothing wrong with it.
You attributing opinions to me that I have not expressed.
8 hours ago, Abriael said:First of all, people fly all sorts of stuff on VATSIM, including aircraft that are missing holds, go-around procedures, and more.
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.
- 1
- 7
-
Just now, CharlieB00000 said:
Communication improved?
I was not a huge fan of the informal and, in my opinion, sometimes incoherent and unprofessional communications.
- 4
-
On 7/21/2023 at 10:48 PM, Tom said:
Hello all,
Needless to say, we missed the mark with this one, and there have clearly been some communication issues with the launch of the A330 portal. We have already began going through the forum posts from today, and will have a further statement out as soon as we can from our CIO that clarifies the issues brought up in this thread, such as the lack of new information about the project, and the incomplete FAQ's which we are aware need to have further explanations as some of the questions posted there do not provide enough information, such as the one regarding Vatsim/Online use, which seems to have raised quite a lot of questions.
This is not being posted immediately as rather than rushing out a statement we will instead will discuss the issues brought up internally first between departments responsible for the A330, so we can come up with a plan moving forward to address said concerns. Furthermore, I do just want to quickly clarify that we have not specifically mentioned any/which particular systems that will be missing at launch, but this is something that will specifically be talked about internally, so we can clarify this for you.
We appreciate everyone's comments, even if they were not what we wanted to hear, as ultimately this is what will allow us to improve going forward. We'll of course be keeping the thread unlocked for any further comments you may have.
Thanks for your patience in the meantime.
Well, at least the communication seems to have improved following the departure of the previous project manager.
I'll be looking forward to hearing more about the project in the near future. The items I'm most concerned about are those related to VATSIM compatibility - some clarification is this area would be much appreciated. With respect to the rebranding of the A330 as a "platform", I hope this entails the addition of the -200 variant as well as the other engine variant.
- 1
-
7 hours ago, BaxterChico said:
Hey friends of the A330, I may now show pictures from the cockpit, and have made here a few for you
Thank you for these. Can you show us some screenshots of the displays and of the whole flightdeck? Thank you.
-
2 hours ago, Ahmad Elrikabi said:
Is the Beluga XL yours in the MSFS 2024 trailer? really confused with this announcement
I thought about this too. The Beluga XL is based on the A330 and there was also an A330-200 with RR engines. What if MS purchased the A330-200 from Aerosoft?
-
One thing is absolutely clear though. The communication from Aerosoft is laughably bad. Why not make a clear announcement with a short statement explaining your reasoning. Then perhaps throw in a few WIP images as well.
- 13
-
The fact that Mathijs started using ceo explicitly when mentioning the A330 could be an indication that the next aircraft is a neo variant or that neo variants are planned at least...
- 1
- 2
-
7 hours ago, Bigt said:
Are you saying the wing views will be using exterior sounds again like in P3D? If so, I'm sorry but that is awful.
I sincerely hope this is not the case. If it is, not only will we have to use the awkward camera UI to get to the wingviews, we also wont even have cabin sounds.
-
-
On 4/21/2023 at 7:02 PM, Mathijs Kok said:
It might just be the lighting in these images, but I think the skin of the aircraft looks a bit too smooth. On the external models of the PMDG 737 and Fenix A320 you can see a lot of structure on the fuselage in certain lighting conditions.
-
4 minutes ago, JasonmCork said:
They have already started the A320. Its back 40 or so pages with initial model images.
I searched for A320 but couldn't find any post with images of a model, or any confirmation of the A320 being the next aircraft.
-
1 hour ago, Rémy737 said:
Am I the only one seeing a sign of the next project here??
It would make very good sense to do the A321 next IMO. I hope Aerosoft arrived at the same conclusion
- 2
- 3
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Scolding readers for showing interest in your product and asking about the release date does not make any sense.
People come here and ask questions mostly because they are excited about your product, thanks in part to the promising glimpses we have received over the last two years. You are in the unique position of being the first reputable developer who will release a modern long-haul airliner for MSFS.
Many users are impatient because, to them (and me included), it looks as if the aircraft could release at any moment at this point. Especially if they are reading the forum again after a long time, or for the first time. Very few users (if any) have intricate knowledge of your development process and of aircraft development for flight simulators in general. Then add the fact that prior communications regarding the release timeframe of the aircraft turned out to be a bit too optimistic (I don't want to beat a dead horse, I understand that making such estimates is very difficult and the scope of the project has changed since then). And finally, it was communicated some time ago, that the modelling of the aircraft would be the limiting factor. This is evidently not the case.
And for the love of aviation, stop pretending like it compromises the development of the aircraft when people ask for release dates. That is absurd. At the worst, it is a minor (albeit understandable) annoyance for the mods. If reading comments from impatient and excited fans negatively impacts your ability to do your job, then you should seriously reconsider whether it is worth it for you to read the forum at all. Just be thankful that some people show interest in your product and bother to write comments in the forum at all.
- 1
- 18
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, mopperle said:Well, the issue that was found are certain users disturbing in the middle of the work, asking questions about progress. Did you get it now?
What an awful reply. You are an embarrassment to yourself and to the moderators of this forum.
- 1
- 23
-
Surely, by the time the A330 is finally released, the next Airbus will be right around the corner!
-
Are there still no plans to do the -200 variant?
- 1
-
Will the flight-envelope protections be modelled?
-
3 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:
We always made it clear we want to simulate what a pilot does, not what he trains for.
I’ve seen this concept expressed several times in this forum and elsewhere, I like to refer to it as the “Aerosoft design philosophy”. However, I’m afraid I don’t completely understand what it means and what consequences it has for your products in terms of what is modelled “under the hood”, so to speak. Could you perhaps refer me to a source that outlines this philosophy and its ramifications in detail, if such a source exists? I have spent some time thinking about the following and I hope you will take the time to read my question.
You claim that you (Aerosoft) want to “simulate the job of the Pilot Flying” and that this does not include training scenarios with severe failures that rarely happen. Additionally, you don’t aim to model things like circuit breakers or other functions that are only handled by maintenance personnel. Would you say that this summary is roughly, correct?
How is this concept expressed in practice in terms of what systems are modelled and to what extent -where do you draw the line? I can imagine that it oftens takes quite a lot of work and experience to know what to include and what not to, so as to not adversely affect the normal operation of the aircraft or give the user the impression that the aircraft is not behaving as it should.
Can I expect the Aerosoft Airbus products to look and behave similarly to a higher-fidelity simulation that aims to be a “complete simulation” including failures, physics-based simulation of various systems etc. (sorry for the vague definition; think Fenix, FBW, PMDG), if I operate within normal operation?
The relatively limited scope of the simulation must have some impact on the normal operation of the aircraft, right? Perhaps the numbers shown on the various ECAM pages are slightly off compared to the complete simulation under certain conditions but 99% of users won’t be able to tell anyway. I realize that the scope of the simulation might differ substantially between projects and that it might be difficult to give a general answer.
At face value, I think the Aerosoft design philosophy sounds very reasonable and perhaps even preferable(!) compared to projects that aim to do a more complete simulation, when price and development time is considered. There must be a large customer base who is at most interested in simulating the normal operation of an aircraft with the majority of procedures performed by the PF on a daily basis.
I certainly fall comfortably within this category; I love to fly the PMDG 737 and the Fenix A320 on VATSIM, for example, simulating the flight from gate to gate with as many of the correct (normal) procedures as possible. I have never, and I don’t intend to, intentionally initiated a failure to practice the correct procedure for such an event (and certainly not on VATSIM, of course). Thus, in a sense the features relevant only for abnormal operation (?) are not being put into use. Given these preferences, the Aerosoft products should, at face value, be a near perfect fit, however I can’t help but feel a bit skeptical due to my ignorance. I hope my question makes sense and I’m prepared to accept that there might not be a good or at least a short answer.
-
Sorry if this question has already been answered. Will the A330 have a working printer?
-
3 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:
Currently I manage 6 projects
Speaking of projects... Some time ago you said that the development team had the capacity to work on two aircraft projects at a time. Can you confirm that you have been working on another aircraft in parallel with the A330?
-
-
On 2/9/2023 at 6:39 PM, Mathijs Kok said:
We do, all these thing are developed in our 'simulator or the simulator' we have. Just not exported for a while.
Do note that also here there are remarkable differences between versions.I was worried about this too, thank you for clarifying.
-
On 2/9/2023 at 3:18 PM, Mathijs Kok said:
Small tweak to the performance pages:
I hope I'm not being too pedantic here, but it is rather strange to write the units as "kgs" instead of "kg" which is the correct way of writing units in accordance with the International System of Units.
- 1
-
Looks stunning! This is certainly a must-buy for me.
Would you consider doing EKCH at some point? The current offering is outdated and leaves much to be desired in my opinion. EKCH done to the same standard as this ENGM scenery would be just outstanding.
Thank you.
Aerosoft Aircraft - A330 Preview
in Product Previews
Posted
Now you are comparing the A330 from a reputable addon developer to an early iteration of a FREEWARE product. Hopefully I won't have to explain to you why this is absurd.