matt oberdorfer 26 Posted August 6, 2009 Author Share Posted August 6, 2009 I think the 787 Dreamliner would be an impossible aircraft to make if you want quality. Reason being no one really knows how it acts in flight. We don't even know how the gear retract or flap speeds! Or even how it's autopilot works (Hopefully just a classic Boeing autopilot). . . I have been waiting for Digital Aviation's CRJ forever. And not too long ago, they made public the fact that they'd only be making the CRJ-700/900. The 2 planes I didn't want! I have always wanted a CRJ-100/200, but oh well, and Wilco's CRJs are crap, so I'm just going to have to wait. For commercial jet addons, I think the Boeing 777-200LR and the 777-300ER would be great planes. POSKY's trip 7s are good for freeware, but they have very little systems modeling, and forgive me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure they mostly use the gauges from the default FS-2004 773. . . Wilco and PSS make a 777, but I really think Aerosoft could make a better one. The EMB-120 would still be a great addon! I used to fly that thing from Salt Lake to Missoula, MT until they replaced it with a CRJ-100. Best flights of my life. I miss those 120s! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPL 39 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Yes, I have been wanting a good Super Cub. Aerosoft made a Super Cub for FS2004, but, unfortunately, not for FSX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newmanix 61 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 I would like to add this MRJ Aircraft to the list. Not since the BAE have Aerosoft made an RJ. The flight deck looks awesome! http://www.mrj-japan.com/details2/main_e.html newmanix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt oberdorfer 26 Posted August 6, 2009 Author Share Posted August 6, 2009 I would like to add this MRJ Aircraft to the list. Not since the BAE have Aerosoft made an RJ. The flight deck looks awesome! http://www.mrj-japan.com/details2/main_e.html newmanix It's very hard to model a plane that hasn't even been rolled out yet, so just like the 787, I think that one would be hard to pull off. . . -Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newmanix 61 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 It's very hard to model a plane that hasn't even been rolled out yet, so just like the 787, I think that one would be hard to pull off. . . -Matt Quite right, reminds me of a development that made an A350 as payware. What junk... Honestly though, I would like Aerosoft to make an all new Avro RJ with the Catalina style quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FSXaddict 18 Posted August 6, 2009 Share Posted August 6, 2009 Honestly though, I would like Aerosoft to make an all new Avro RJ with the Catalina style quality. I don't think they could go wrong with any airplane if it's Catalina style quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPL 39 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I hope Aerosoft is considering our suggestions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newmanix 61 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 I hope Aerosoft is considering our suggestions. If they want me to go FSX any time soon, they will... Anything Catalina quality has to be FSX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duco 5 Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Scenery wise, i'd love to see Toronto Pearson airport being done. but i'd second newmanix's vancouver suggestion aswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow 107 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Whatever project comes next, may I recommed that Aerosoft contract the gentleman responsible for this? Before someone else does... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted August 8, 2009 Aerosoft Share Posted August 8, 2009 Whatever project comes next, may I recommed that Aerosoft contract the gentleman responsible for this? Before someone else does... Yes nice work, but we are currently not looking for more modelers. Overall nice suggestions here, but almost none are commercially or technically possible. All out internal projects are scheduled for the next year or so, and with project done by external developers we normally wait for them to come up with suggestions. We rather see developers do something they like to do. For airports outside Germany (and the surrounding countries), the major problem is that we almost never get enough access to the terrain to do good photo's. For aircraft the whole idea is a lot simpler, we normally do aircraft we love ourselves! And often there are other commercial aspects to consider, like how easy it is to make retailers sell it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAB 5 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Mathijs, Given what you said about how airplanes are selected to be modelled, can you explain/speculate about the lack of really high quality models of the A380? I'm just curious because it seems like a natural and one that would be in demand. The 747 is popular, and the A380 is at least two generations more advanced. Is it the newness of the plane, lack of widespread usage, etc.? Thanks, DAB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted August 8, 2009 Aerosoft Share Posted August 8, 2009 Mathijs, Given what you said about how airplanes are selected to be modelled, can you explain/speculate about the lack of really high quality models of the A380? I'm just curious because it seems like a natural and one that would be in demand. The 747 is popular, and the A380 is at least two generations more advanced. Is it the newness of the plane, lack of widespread usage, etc.? Thanks, DAB Well there are a few reasons: 1) big airliners are far less popular now then they were 5 years ago. 2) FSX is very visual and has problems with big airport, and development for FS2004 is just not very commercially attractive at this moment for many reasons. 3) big airliners are very expensive to do and the amount of customer is reduced. 4) people start to understand that flights of 60 minutes in those big aircraft is not very realistic. A380s will fly ON AVERAGE 7 hour flights and our customers just don't like that a lot. 5) as realism in systems increases because some people think that the only way to go we are loosing a huge amount of customers that don't have the time or the skills (or feel that doing all that on your own while the system is designed for two persons is getting a bit silly). 6) it's pretty hard to get GOOD data on the A380. All in all, doing a Catalina made a lot more sense to us. And believe me, in any aspect that has been a very good success. Now we are doing an A321 with a lot of pleasure but if we did not had more then an FSX use for it we most likely would never have done it and would have picked a more exiting aircraft. Right now I am working a lot on our Discus glider project and that's just amazing. We get far closer to 100% realism there then any major airliner could ever get. And it is just so much more fun. And believe me, commercially this will work fine, even though we worked 21 months on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPL 39 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Overall nice suggestions here, but almost none are commercially or technically possible. Could you tell us which ones are commercially and technically possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt oberdorfer 26 Posted August 8, 2009 Author Share Posted August 8, 2009 Hmm . . . It was a good try! Oh well. I'm sure some of our US Cities we recommended will be developed. . . eventually. . . haha. I still think Washington D.C. would be a great US city, but that's just my thought. I guess I'll have to beg for an EMB-120 on a different payware website ): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAB 5 Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Thanks for the detailed response Mathijs. One thing I like about Aerosoft is that you seem to be very straight-forward with your customers. The more you explain what types of planes and scenery are commercially and technically feasible, the better the feedback I expect you would receive from this thread, which by and large seems to consist of extremely loyal customers. Looks like I'll have to go elsewhere for my A380. Anyone got a suggestion on the best one currently available for FSX? As for the Catalina, it truly is awesome. Frankly, I bought it without further inquiry as soon as I saw a demo of the interactive checklist. It is a great innovation, not to mention how I started to transition from simply hitting Control + E to far more realistic startup procedures for a cold and dark plane. BTW, in the spirit of this thread, I've started a new one on mission packs that we like to see. DAB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow 107 Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Yes nice work, but we are currently not looking for more modelers. Mathijs, 3D modelling is one thing but this gentleman seems to have (singlehandedly?) achieved a number of features previously considered impossible in FSX. Specifically I am referring to the effects features like animated rain effects, icing effects (which affect performance of course), fantastic landing lights (which in one fell swoop seem to have totally eclipsed what Shockwave offers) and adaptive instrument lighting. There are others. I am not saying these features are revolutionary in isolation (perhaps the lights are) as some other addons have one (or maybe two) of these features, but to bring ALL this together into a package with such a minimal framerate hit IS indeed revolutionary. I recall you mentioning that the Catalina was made possible by using a developer with a non-fs game dev background, someone not steeped in the "traditional" way of doing things... well this is what prompted me to mention the L-39 Albatros here as it appears to be the same thing happening. All I can say is that the bar has, once again, been raised by a fair whack. Razorback, Catalina, the L-39... where we gonna be in 24 months time at this rate I wonder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiebe 6 Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 I would really like a good looking and feeling A300/A310. CLS's version has the worst VC and app speeds are about 20 knots high. SSW's VC was great. Something to consider?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerosoft Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558 Posted August 9, 2009 Aerosoft Share Posted August 9, 2009 Could you tell us which ones are commercially and technically possible? Sorry but that and the reasoning behind it is something we rather not share with everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rimshot 5 Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Unfortunately there aren't any good ultralight aircraft for FSX, or aircraft in the LSA category for that matter. I'd love to see the Aerospool WT9 Dynamic modelled. I'm slightly biased, as I'll be doing my training on one when my flying club gets a brand new Dynamic at the end of this month Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newmanix 61 Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 So in other words, What I gather Mathijs has been saying over the last 2 years since I have ben a member here is: don't request airports outside of Germany because we are just not going to do an airport outside Germany regardless of our reasoning. And don't request any aircraft because we only make what we want. Ok Mathijs, I hear you. Outside of AES, which is not an Aerosoft product, but Oliver's product which he makes for you. I won't be making anymore requests here. With Munich and Tiegel i'll have enough Germany airports. My hopes are now solely with the external developers which Aerosoft seems to make money on. I'll make my requests with them directly from now on. newmanix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt oberdorfer 26 Posted August 9, 2009 Author Share Posted August 9, 2009 Well, I think we all should keep writing down what we want because for instance: If Aerosoft had it down to 2 for the next US City or whatever, and it was let's just say. . . Dallas, Texas or Washington D.C., and everyone in this forum says they want Washington D.C., then Aerosoft would have to (or should) pick Washington. This is just an example of course! There's nothing we can lose by at least talking/sharing what we all want. -Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJM101 3 Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 He's talking about the downtown city scenery, like they did for Indianapolis and San Francisco. ImagineSim did the airport. No cloud9 did. Id like to see an Aerosoft MKJP(Norman Manley International Airport). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Hamilton 97 Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 No cloud9 did. Since when did Cloud9 do Charlotte? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newmanix 61 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Well, I think we all should keep writing down what we want because for instance: If Aerosoft had it down to 2 for the next US City or whatever, and it was let's just say. . . Dallas, Texas or Washington D.C., and everyone in this forum says they want Washington D.C., then Aerosoft would have to (or should) pick Washington. This is just an example of course! There's nothing we can lose by at least talking/sharing what we all want. -Matt Except for the fact that if you look hard enough, you will find a post from Mathijs' opinion of ever doing a US airport. It seems there are not enough American customers. Just about everyone here is German it seems so German airports only. Every other airport outside of Germany sold from Aerosoft was made by an outside developer. There is just no point asking for stuff here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts