Microsoft Flight Simulator Aerosoft Aircraft - A330 Preview

[Bojangles 87]

6 hours ago, Lukas Rudek said:

The release dates always said it could be, or even it's done when it's done, AS said never more. And would you rather have a finished product that you also enjoy a lot or have a half-finished product with many bugs that you will only get upset about?

All I can say for you Lukas, if this is the product you have been hoping for, I am happy for you.  I think for the rest of us that are hoping for more with this renaissance of flight swimming have been wanting more from one of the legacy developers of flight swimming.  So Lukas, I am glad you are feeling confident in this plane, I am personally not.  If it does what you want it to do, then that is awesome.  I fly LNAV routes a handful of times a week, and that means all the time, so I’ll just enjoy not moving back and forth across the magenta.

[rasseee 19]

Aerosoft could release an early access version of that plane. 

[lojijf 1]

Are you aiming for an August release for the A330 or more in semptember; or more? @À M

[Piddare 63]

Total disappointment. Keep putting off the release as still, after years, there are problems with ILS alignments and so on. Like me, I think most are disappointed.

[Bobo57 7]

Am 20.7.2023 um 19:51 schrieb Mathijs Kok:

 

There has never been any moment in the 21 years I worked for Aerosoft that I was not handling at least five projects. So no matter at what moment I would leave, it would always be in the middle of multiple projects.  The reason I leave is rather mundane. I was simply uncomfortable with decisions and how Aerosoft was being run. That happens, and it is no drama. Every employee will face that at some point. I just happen to get a job offer from a competing company that was extraordinarily attractive. 

 

There is no bad blood between me and Aerosoft, as I have seen suggested. Just an employee that leaves a company. The fact it became 'news' and even featured in some videos was a bit of a surprise to me. According to my wife, also incredibly bad for my ego. 

 

 

Well sad to hear you leave but its a normal act. I done the same years ago when I left my company even being in the position of a Co CEO. That is Business. It was a joy being on your Beta Team Years ago and all the feedback we had. I wish you the very best for the future and have little hope, that Aerosoft will do what you have promised to me in a recent feedback here on the forum. Be well.

 

Best wishes Uwe

[rsmith6621a 3]

Hey Aerosoft Developers and CIO.

 

Why not release the A-330 as an early adopter program and let us pay a discounted price in exchange for us while using the product give you BUG reports. This product will never be perfect.

 

Think about it.

[Piddare 63]

23 hours ago, JeremyBoyles said:

When the A330 will be released:

Please login to display this image.

 

Please login to display this image.

 

 

[Nway Dev 12]

There's no problem with the plane getting delayed, IMO, if the rumours are correct, and this thing can't even fly normal VATSIM procedures, then a delay is a GREAT THING. I want Aerosoft to work on this for as long as it takes to actually make a good product, that flies like we expect it to, if this becomes another FSS Embraer, then I doubt the community will continue to have faith in the team much longer. Take your time and ensure the product will be good, don't rush with the release, even if the community might want a release tomorrow.

[NovemberTangoJuliet 69]

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. 

[CharlieB00000 72]

26 minutes ago, NovemberTangoJuliet said:

Well, at least the communication seems to have improved following the departure of the previous project manager. 

 

Communication improved?

[NovemberTangoJuliet 69]

Just now, CharlieB00000 said:

Communication improved?

I was not a huge fan of the informal and, in my opinion, sometimes incoherent and unprofessional communications. 

[Bigt 83]

On 7/21/2023 at 1:48 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.

 

Personal opinion but I'd say you folks have been missing the mark for quite some time now....

[Abriael 377]

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. 

 

[cwa alt 47]

45 minutes 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.

 

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. 

 

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 

[Abriael 377]

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.

[YAG 194]

After this disappointing website can we have a release date prediction as a relief because it’s getting boring around here m, not to much to ask right? Thanks  

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Abriael said:

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 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.  

 

(Agree)

As if everyone does VATSIM.

I have VATSIM but I don't use it often.

People should just stop whining for now, and when it comes out look at some reviews and then make their decision.

If people think they've "Overpromised & Underdelivered" then they can say that once they've tried the plane, it wouldn't be too late.

Whether they like what they bought or not, there'll always be people who want what Aerosoft is aiming for.

 

Bad communication really doesn't have to equate to a bad plane.

 

Side note: People overreact in the community, PMDG 737 not having an EFB somehow makes it unflyable to some.

I have the Fenix and for my simbrief flightplan I find it way nicer to just alt tab back and forth rather than repeatedly switching pages in the EFB.

 

Don't get me wrong, I hope the release of this isn't delayed again.

[NovemberTangoJuliet 69]

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. 

[NovemberTangoJuliet 69]

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. 

[Hendrik96 97]

I mostly fly offline...

but I think being fully functional for vatsim is a good indicator if an aircraft is capable for normal operation flight simming. An yes normal operation does include holds, go arounds, non precision approaches, secondary flight plan, ETP, etc....

[SoarandSkor 70]

13 minutes ago, Hendrik96 said:

I mostly fly offline...

but I think being fully functional for vatsim is a good indicator if an aircraft is capable for normal operation flight simming. A yes normal operation does include holds, go arounds, non precision approaches, secondary flight plan, ETP, etc....

 I completely agree. The reason vatsim is so important to many people is because it is a very good measure of normal operations as would be performed in the real world (vatsim doesn’t really allow simulated emergencies). Aerosoft has made it clear that they plan on simulating real world normal operations, and so vatsim capabilities is a great threshold to measure that. It doesn’t seem unfair to require a payware aircraft to be capable of being used on one of the largest community platforms in the sim community, especially in this day and age where addons are only getting cheaper and better.

[Guest]

Pretty sure they never said that they would not add functionality that happens to be important for VATSIM. 

It's gonna come with an update or something.

[Carl Järvholm MAGYe 36]

1 hour ago, Jetti200 said:

Pretty sure they never said that they would not add functionality that happens to be important for VATSIM. 

It's gonna come with an update or something.

Right, but they did say that they didn’t wamt an E-jet situation, which this would be, though much less severe.

[lindbergh72 74]

It will come when they fix 3 issues with Simbrief import, ILS and LNAV problems. It won't take long. I still think this summer (August or primo september) 

[Jordan87 207]

18 hours ago, NovemberTangoJuliet said:

I was not a huge fan of the informal and, in my opinion, sometimes incoherent and unprofessional communications. 

I completely agree. Their communications team need some customer service lessons.