Jump to content

Mathijs Kok

Root Admin
  • Content Count

    38329
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1786

Posts posted by Mathijs Kok

  1. 57 minutes ago, Hans Hartmann said:

    grafik.png

     

    New throttle calibration window. Originally this was done for the Thrustmaster TCA throttle, but it works for all kinds of throttle hardware. It's going to be available for both, P3D and MSFS (shown in the picture).

     

    Btw, compare this to the MFS aircraft that have been released.  Just do,

    • Upvote 1
  2. 32 minutes ago, John2 said:

    So with the recent MS/Asobo SDK updates, do you now have the "bits" you require to finish the CRJ?

     

    John.

     

    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 as you are in the correct cycle.  You might need to wait for the next update of the sim  to get it running on the sim customers have though. But as I said, when needed Asobo/MS will update when needed.

     

    I will give you an example. We have a professional project intended to train people. It is about the electrical system of an aircraft that shall not be named. Very serious stuff. I mean it models the reduction of load when a footwell heater fails.  Pure C++ code and and while the output to the displays needs to be redone, it all works without any issue in MFS. 100% the same code as in P3D, just needs new variables in input and output.  it can't be used in MFS as you can't get professional licenses but if the customer wants proof the code runs we are happy to show it.

     

    As I keep saying, what you hear about more complex systems in the new sim has as much to do with commercial interests as it has to do with what is actually possible.  Most people just do not understand what is at stake.  If you now start with a new complex airliner from scratch you have to invest 350k (dollars or euro) to even start. We have way  (wayyyyyyyyy) more invested in our Airbuses and they have been profitable from the very first sale. These are not small hobby projects. If you do not have a big company with money on the bank as we have, you need to find investors.  Now if you are multiple hundreds of thousands of Euro's in dept and do not have anything to release, it starts to make sense to start to speak bad about the platform you are not ready for.

     

    It is now Saturday evening 20:37.  I see most people involved with this project online. I see some Asobo people answering the questions of out devs. Again... Saturday evening 20:37. That is how much this project matters to all parties involved. 

     

    The proof is in the pudding. 

     

    • Upvote 3
  3. 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 MFS.  None of them is willing to compare stock MFS to stock P3D. They also do not seem to grasp that the hobby is totally changed as we have between 500.000 and a million new users. Most of these users will not be flying complex airliners because they like the flying aspect a lot more than the system management.  We intend to sell the Twin Otter for the X-Box version. The product for PC and Xbox is 100% identical (same code, same models) and we think thousands of people will enjoy using it on that platform, hook up a simple stick and you'll have loads of fun! 

     

    I am also not sure why they are so vocal. They clearly love what they have now, the aircraft and the sim is still supported by devs and Lockheed (we will keep updating our aircraft for sure). Nothing has been removed for them.  So why be so upset when other people believe MFS will surpass P3D in any aspect (apart from the military things)? 

     

    Why not allow other to enjoy the hobby as they want to?

     

     

    • Like 3
    • Upvote 5
    • Downvote 1
  4. 30 minutes ago, B777ER said:

     

    If you think that Aerosoft CRJ is as complex as the FSL/PMDG, then your delusion is only surpassed by the amount of Aerosoft kool-aid you have apparently ingested. That CRJ was never on par in P3D with the highly complex aircraft and have no doubt that will continue in MSFS. Hence the reason they are able to develop it in the poor state the MSFS SDK currently resides in. 

     

    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.

    • Upvote 1
  5. 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.

  6. 35 minutes ago, ArcticMarkus said:

    Ah, makes sense, I looked up the term study level and couldn't really find a proper explanation for it. I always just assumed it meant that the aircraft accurately simulate regular flights, without the rare failures  

     

    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 smoke (an amazing amount of flights are aborted because of smells) and toilets. As we always say our Airbusses have a highly realistic dual engine failure mode. In real busses that happen two times in over 20.000.000 hours of flight. So if you did not have a dual engine out after 10 million hours we'll refund!

    • Upvote 1
  7. Just now, Omar Al-Safi said:

     

    Good to hear that ! I have question, do you think we can still get it this year in light of the recent sim update if it improved things for you guys? 🙂

     

    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.

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
  8. 15 hours ago, ArcticMarkus said:

    I doubt a few missing features will be much of a deal breaker, the MSFS community is practically starving for a study-level airliner, and the Aerosoft CRJ is definitely looking like it's going to satisfy that craving. Looking forward to learning more about this release next week 

     

    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.

  9. 6 hours ago, Cmacker said:

    When I upgraded to FS2002, I eventually came across a freeware Twin Otter done by Eric Dantes and Mauricio Illanes. It was stunning. The performance and sounds were amazing.

    My focus shifted immediately to short hops and bush flights. I've never looked back.

    I was hooked. Every subsequent sim version since was bought with the express purpose of flying a Twotter in. I thank you.

     

    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.

  10. 21 minutes ago, supera380 said:

    While MSFS has certainly attracted some of the existing, but also a large new base of potential simmers, the remaining Aerosoft customer base on other sim platforms should not be forgotten. Rightly or wrongly, I have the impression at least, that Aerosoft have forgotten about their existing customers to some degree.

     

    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 fed back to P3D and that is exactly what we will be doing. 

     

    What I have done was say critical things about V5 because between the original release, updates and hotfixes many things have changed back and for. Things like the EA were declared fully functional, then fixed and then more or less admitted to be still a bot problematic. It has not been a smooth release and many developers were rather critical in the developers forums. Support from Lockheed has also seriously decreased. 18 months back we got fast and quick replies to comments, now it is much harder. 

     

    We have a pretty good idea about sales overall because the shop keepers talk to each other, because we sell so many add-ons made by others etc. While individual P3D add-ons might still sell, it is a lot harder. That is why almost all developers moved to MFS and it is only a small amount companies doing very specific products that find it much harder to move platforms. We had for our aircraft also serious serious problems, what makes us different is that we started with MSF 19 months ago. 

     

    Can I kindly ask people to read the whole topic before commenting? We keep seeing the same comments and the same reactions from me. 

     

     

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 2
  11. 37 minutes ago, GSalden said:

    Myself I am a 737-800 flyer ( real size cockpit + Prosim ) and at PS they stated that the current SDK is very far away from being supportive for all complex systems .

     

    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. 

     

     

    • Upvote 1
  12. 1 hour ago, GSalden said:

    MSFS was one big hype and all publicity was loved by many.

    Now several updates later : regions are improved but most ac are a mess. If you have the PdL version those extra ac are unflyable. 

     

    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 companies state publically, I also know that's not the whole story, if you never were allowed to access the alpha and beta versions you development runs 9 month behind, right?  But if they believe they can find enough customers on P3D good for them.  If you believe MFS will never reach the complexity of P3D, that's also fine. I know some people in Bordeaux who do not agree and are working hard to proof you wrong. Fact is that there is little that you can do in P3D that you can;t do in MFS. It's not all smooth, still a lot of issues, but if a dev runs into one of these issues they talk to Asobo and often a few hours later it is fixed. We don't use the SDK a lot actually. Some things like getting data from outside the sim, like charts, are not possible. The weather systems is not completely described so a weather radar (a real one, that reads the weather in the sim) is not possible right now. But both are in the pipeline.  

     

    It is surprising so many people believe P3D and MFS are so different. They are not. To a large degree the code you do for them is exactly the same. For all our aircraft products we have one code base that is for MFS and P3D. And we try to keep them exactly the same. That way things we now do (like CPDLC for the Airbusses) will work in P3D and MFS. Of course we'll update the P3D version! We done an update last week and will do one next week. All with code that was intended for MFS.

     

    What I wrote is based on facts. We see our own sales (and of course we sell a lot of products from other companies so we have some idea on how their P3D products are doing right now). It's not pretty and that is why there are so few P3D products being made at this moment. Also so very few updates being done.   Most of that is because these developers are working on MFS add-ons.

     

    At the end, if somebody prefers X-Plane, FSX, P3D or MFS does not matter a lot to us.  We love them all. 

    • Like 1
    • Downvote 2
  13. 13 minutes ago, Abriael said:

    Just today the CEO of another company (who I won't name, but conveniently, they work a lot on P3D) spammed a bunch of unprofessional vitriol against MSFS and the SDK on a thread dedicated to... Christmas.🤔  and got himself (rightfully) flagged. 

     

    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.

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...