Jump to content

Mathijs Kok

Root Admin
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Mathijs Kok

  1. Btw, compare this to the MFS aircraft that have been released. Just do,
  2. As explained in another topic, the SDK is not really the bottleneck at this moment. The SDK will catch up but right now goal is to get the code we have to run smooth and reliable. Also as explained in another topic, getting C++ code to run in the sim is not really a problem. You can make a electrical or pneumatic system system as complex or deep as possible. Beyond what any P3D add-ons has now if you so require. It's just code. Of course there will be problems as variables from the new sim do not give the same value as on P3D, but you ask Asobo for help and you will get is as long
  3. No guys, the key here is that everything fails, expect one livery version. So it has to be something very weird in the graphics pipeline.
  4. Download it again from our shop.
  5. Did you download that installer recently from our shop?
  6. That is a very strange error. I looked at the texture and it really is the same as all the others. Have you tried low settings to see if there is an effect there?
  7. On a CRJ it is more the whining of passengers who had to leave their hand luggage outside because the overhead bins are just large enough to store your iPhone.
  8. Friends (and people clearly not my friend) I am closing this. I have been reading some rather nasty posts where I have been called very nasty things (all deleted of course, btw dear p3dlover21, very clever to make jokes about my name, there was one I never ever heard, kudos!) and some other posts that I find borderline. I have simply no idea why MFS crates such deep problems for some people they find it necessary to attack people who like it with such vigor. I simply do not get it. These people are clearly the fans of the very complex aircraft that are at this moment missing in MF
  9. And we never claimed that and we never priced it like that. What we do claim is that is a pretty realistic aircraft for day to day flying. If you feel things are missing we gladly hear about them! About the SDK, please read what I have written, it does not matter a lot.
  10. Of course not, but we do not do support for the sim content and have no way of feedback of issues like these to Asosbo. So using the MS forum is simply a far better place to discuss this. You get better replies and if you have found a new bug Asobo will immediately know about it. So feel free to discuss it here, but we have seen a lot of people thinking that we would do support for the simulator. That's simply not true.
  11. I think most simmers define it as a product that contains all systems of an aircraft and is able to handle a dual failure (so two problems at the same time). The first is certainly possible, the second is extremely hard. You can easily add another 4 men year to a project if you want to attain that. Just not our idea of flight simulation. We prefer to simulate flying and not the sim rides crews get to deal with problems. And if we would do it, we would do it realistic, so we would focus on the problems that actually happen with some regularity. Problematic passengers, problems with
  12. We simply can't say. Everybody is working on it 7 days a week. And Asobo is removing issues that block us every single day. It could be another update is is needed, but we know Microsoft is willing to do that to make the CRJ release possible.
  13. check this: https://flightsimulator.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360015946980-Missing-Deluxe-or-Deluxe-Premium-DLC-content-Microsoft-Store-
  14. No, we feel the whole term 'study level' is a bit weird and we most certainly do not aim to be that. Things that never or extremely rare happen in the real aircraft are not simulated in any of our aircraft. We focus on what the crew has to do on every flight not on something that happens once in a few million hours. Our CRJ is a very solid simulation of the systems. Not on possible emergencies.
  15. You are not alone. These short range aircraft always get the highest sales numbers. The A330's and 777 get the big attention, but not the most customers.
  16. I hate to repeat myself, but this is simply untrue. We have released P3D products in November, not a lot of developers have done that. For most products we sell we are only the reseller and it is not Aerosoft who decides for what platform to model but the developers. For our own developments like the airbusses, CRJ and some scenery we are still very much supporting P3D. For most we have V5 versions, they still get updates etc and as I said for the aircraft the MFS and P3D development goes hand in hand. It's the same code! So when we add things to the MSF development they can be fe
  17. As I written, we do not use the SDK a lot because we mostly build all systems in our own code. Just as any complex aircraft does. And if that code runs in P3D, it will most likely run in MFS. What companies at this moment say and what they actually do, differs a bit. They have to manage expectations. In early 2021 you will see a lot of things move a lot faster.
  18. I still do not understand why you and others do not compare P3D (with default scenery, weather, aircraft) to MFS (with default scenery, weather, aircraft). If you feel P3D is better in that comparison, so be it. What you are doing is comparing $100 add-ons to a default aircraft, and guess what, the add-on is better. That things like the default AP are not okay means very little. The default one in P3D sucks big balls and that is why everybody is doing there own versions. Again comparing default to coded add-on. And guess what, the AP in the add-ons is better! I know what some com
  19. Well yes, that is exactly what I mean. If you can't make money, a logic reply is to attack the platform when your money has gone. But basically that is telling your (potential) customers they are crazy. Not a solid business model. If you have a business you sell what your customers want to buy.
  • Create New...