Jump to content

NovemberTangoJuliet

Members
  • Posts

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by NovemberTangoJuliet

  1. 8 hours ago, Abriael said:

    We've been flying the A32NX on VATSIM when it had extremely basic navigation features.

    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. 

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 10
  2. 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. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 7
  3. 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. 

    • Upvote 1
  4. 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? 

  5. 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.  

  6. On 4/21/2023 at 7:02 PM, Mathijs Kok said:

    One good thing about starting a beta is that you get some nice imagery. Please note I have told testers not to share images of the flight deck at this moment as there is a lot of tweaking needed.

     

    Screenshot_2023-04-21_142626.jpg

     

    Microsoft_Flight_Simulator_Screenshot_2023.04.21_-_15.37.06.14.png

     

    Screenshot_2023-04-21_141949.jpg

     

    Microsoft_Flight_Simulator_Screenshot_2023.04.20_-_20.07.04.02.png

     

    Screenshot_2023-04-21_143409.jpg

     

    Do click on the images, they are pretty large.

     

     

    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. 

  7. 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.
     

  8. 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? 

  9. 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. 

  10. 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. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use