Jump to content

A new simulator


Recommended Posts

If you can not land without haveing dissabled crash detection, you have a mayor problem. Then i suggest yuou turn on Crash detection and learn how to fly. I now understand why you do not like crash damage effects, it's becayse you would end up in a mayor fireball all the time.

Excuse me? I suggest you tone down your words a little, and stop making ridiculous assumptions out of nothing! The people you're attacking might actually be professional pilots after all. How dumb would that feel?

those huge "welcome mats" around the airports.

In addition, or maybe because of this, airports, especially the small ones, are much too easy to spot from the air in FSX. In real life, it's quite easy to fly right over a little airport without ever seeing it, if you don't pay close attention.

For example would it not be much more logical to have a structure that can save

  • The aircraft and the state of it's systems
  • The current location, heading etc
  • The current weather and time

all in separate files? And then have a small link file that links three of those to make what FSX now calls a Flight File (though it lacks the aircraft system settings!)

I'd love that! Especially if it allows mixing and matching different files (which this kind of implies), and creating some of them (like position, heading, etc.) on the fly.

Judith

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I have to attract a crowd who doesnt have to do much with flying before I would try to get them back to their simplest motivations, like discovering, experience.

What we always hear when we tell a friend that we like to fly virtualy, is something like "cmon thats mad". So me too not long ago. Then I showed him a great video about a L-39, by EFSFilms (

, 0m 45s), he was impressed. Why? Because the video shows the great things of flying, cutting is great and the music goes great with it. Simple: You can nearly feel the speed and freedom.

Then I showed him a other video, CATII approach:

(2m 54s) and I dont know nobody who isnt impressed by this. Also it looks simply great when the runway lights come out of nothing and the glow that feels kind of warm and relaxing.

If AFS2012 can convey feelings and motivate people to discover then they will give it a try.

Who didnt want to see their home from above? Mountains? Other cultures? Destinations like hawaii, which is a bit expensive for the most of people? A sightseeing flight around Paris? etc.?

For those who doesnt know to fly, example flights which shows them the power of the simulator in atmosphere (clouds, lighting (sunset, sunrise, ...)), landscapes, cities and so on would be great. The flight physics are simplified and maybe a virtual pilot acts as a copilot and demonstrates whats possible and teaches how a plane flies, how thrust is applied, why ailerons, elevators are important and so on. The basics.

But I think the basic intention should be to amaze and to let the user discover the little things which makes a sim great. Thats also why eyecandys are important even if its just a bird which flies over the runway before takeoff.

My 2 cents

Emmanuel

I agree with everything except this: "The flight physics are simplified..." I agree with your other ideas about teaching beginners to fly, but why do the flight physics have to be simplified? If the flight physics are simplified, the beginner will have a hard time flying when they try the realistic flight physics. They'll form bad habits that will be hard to break later. Are you saying that they should learn with simplified flight physics and continue to fly with simplified flight physics later? Or are you saying that they should have simplified flight physics during training and realistic flight physics later? If the latter is the case, then they will have a very hard time flying with realistic physics, because they were trained with simplified physics. Also, are you saying that the flight physics should be simplified for all users, or are you saying that there should be an option of simplified physics for beginners? Sorry if I seem dogmatic. I am just a firm believer in maximum realism.:) I don't really care if there's an option of simplified physics, as long as we still have the option of realistic physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that our efforts might be better spent in asking for what each of us personally wants in the product, as opposed to spending energy arguing against ideas from someone else.

Hopefully, we can get a lot of what we want and what others want and they don't all have to be mutually exclusive.

The flexibility that could allow this might be the same thing that allows adding features not yet imagined, in the future, without breaking existing features.

Having said that, people will write what they want, of course; I am just saying, one person's scenario need not be implemented at the expense of others' ideas. It all depends on how the framework is designed.

So, in my opinion, it is important that we can find areas where we want choices to be available and say what those choices are, individually, knowing that future choices might also be doable as well, and in doing so, show Aerosoft those areas that we want to be extensible for flexibility.

My question for Aerosoft is, is this your intent, or are you looking for a few fixed ways of doing things, based on polling or what you decide is best after considering all input? My guess is a little of both depending on the area involved.

Just wondering, I know this is Aerosoft's forum for their own purposes, but it would be interesting to know what you are thinking, so far.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For sure AFS2012 will be far less complicated then FSX, we think it is a mess of ideas that do not work well together. We think a more professional, less game like interface will work far better for something this complex.

Ok, I think I understand you now. Thanx for answering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand what you were saying about one person doing the job of two when flying an airliner, but I hope that the systems won't be simplified in the small aircraft also.

Well, I'm not in this one. We have to have complex aircrafts and their systems. I fly the Level-d B767, the captain sim 727-100/300, the stratocruiser from A2A simulations. That is the comlexity I wan't in the Aircrafts, and maybe more complex if that is possible.

The Level-D 767 was the first payware aircraft i bought, it was when it first came out for the FS9. I remember i did not understand how to start that engines, and in the beginning i was flyeing it with auto start. I loved it. Learning how to fly it, and useing the autopilot.

Then one day i wanted to take a step further. I learned about the APU, and I finaly learned to start that plane, and sett it up for flight.

After a while I wanted to learn the FMS. I sat dow'n and learned how to use it. And then again, a new world opened for me. It was funn. Now i newer use the FMS, it's boring to lett the plane do all the work, I like to fly, and I manualy set the autopilot while flyeing VOR - VOR.

After learning the Level-D B 767-300, it was easier to learn other planes as well, bcause things are common in cocpitts. Most bigger planes have APU, and you know what to look for and what you need to know to start the engines, though it's newer 100% the same prosedure.

And about check list, I newer do them, I know what buttons I need to click on to make it work. So the work load is not that big.

But for some people the check lists are important, so they can simulate the real thing. And for some pitt builders that realy build huge cocpits, it's important to have the option to actually simulate a two person crew like in a B737. Yes in my country there are some people that have built the whole B737 cocpitt for both the captain and copilot.

Have a look at these pictures, and you understand what Norwegians do in their spare time ;), I'm not sure if they use FS9 or FSX. I think they use FS9:

http://www.flightsim.no/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=429982&page=2

http://www.flightsim.no/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=429982&page=7

http://www.flightsim.no/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=429982&page=8

http://www.flightsim.no/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=429982&page=13

So if Aerosoft wan't to make a simulator, you should make a sim that these people also can use.

Aerosoft, make us happy, and you will be gods ;).

Have a nice weekend

-----Edit-----

Excuse me? I suggest you tone down your words a little, and stop making ridiculous assumptions out of nothing!

I did just answer from what you you're selves have written.

That being said, I usually turn off crash detection in FSX, and turn on the aircraft over-stress option. While detecting collisions with the ground, and even graduating them from 'blown tire' through 'bent wing' to 'aluminum fireball', is useful (and required to some extent, or else you couldn't land)

If you write that you need to turn of Crash detection to manage a landing, then i say that you have poor landing skills. If you are a real pilot, I do not care, still you can't make a nice landing in FSX. Turn on crash damage detection and learn to land.

Have a nice weekend

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not in this one. We have to have complex aircrafts and their systems. I fly the Level-d B767, the captain sim 727-100/300, the stratocruiser from A2A simulations. That is the comlexity I wan't in the Aircrafts, and maybe more complex if that is possible.

I agree. I just said that because I don't fly airliners; I was speaking for us GA pilots. If AFS2012 could be as complex as A2A's Accu-Sim aircraft that would be awesome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that our efforts might be better spent in asking for what each of us personally wants in the product, as opposed to spending energy arguing against ideas from someone else.

Hopefully, we can get a lot of what we want and what others want and they don't all have to be mutually exclusive.

The flexibility that could allow this might be the same thing that allows adding features not yet imagined, in the future, without breaking existing features.

Having said that, people will write what they want, of course; I am just saying, one person's scenario need not be implemented at the expense of others' ideas. It all depends on how the framework is designed.

So, in my opinion, it is important that we can find areas where we want choices to be available and say what those choices are, individually, knowing that future choices might also be doable as well, and in doing so, show Aerosoft those areas that we want to be extensible for flexibility.

My question for Aerosoft is, is this your intent, or are you looking for a few fixed ways of doing things, based on polling or what you decide is best after considering all input? My guess is a little of both depending on the area involved.

Just wondering, I know this is Aerosoft's forum for their own purposes, but it would be interesting to know what you are thinking, so far.

I agree that flexibility is the key here. The flight sim community is very diverse. And the only way for AFS2012 to be a success is to be flexible to the needs of as large a crowd as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everything except this: "The flight physics are simplified..." I agree with your other ideas about teaching beginners to fly, but why do the flight physics have to be simplified? If the flight physics are simplified, the beginner will have a hard time flying when they try the realistic flight physics. They'll form bad habits that will be hard to break later. Are you saying that they should learn with simplified flight physics and continue to fly with simplified flight physics later? Or are you saying that they should have simplified flight physics during training and realistic flight physics later? If the latter is the case, then they will have a very hard time flying with realistic physics, because they were trained with simplified physics. Also, are you saying that the flight physics should be simplified for all users, or are you saying that there should be an option of simplified physics for beginners? Sorry if I seem dogmatic. I am just a firm believer in maximum realism.:) I don't really care if there's an option of simplified physics, as long as we still have the option of realistic physics.

I was talking about the beginners not us old veterans ^^.

Good point. Haven't thought of this. Well I think for the first flights it would be good. Just to see how thrust, ailerons and elevators work. Then a message can appear to push the settings to realistic. FS9 already has this, you can configure the amount of realism of flight physics. I think a big amount doesn't wan't to see in their first try how winds or g-forces drift you off.

Emmanuel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking about the beginners not us old veterans ^^.

Good point. Haven't thought of this. Well I think for the first flights it would be good. Just to see how thrust, ailerons and elevators work. Then a message can appear to push the settings to realistic. FS9 already has this, you can configure the amount of realism of flight physics. I think a big amount doesn't wan't to see in their first try how winds or g-forces drift you off.

Emmanuel

Now I see what you mean. So you're saying have this at first so that they can see the basics of aircraft controls. That's a pretty good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't think simplifying the physics is a good idea, for the reasons already mentioned (bad habits and all). Besides, it's just so incredibly - unrealistic. ;) But I realize we have to cope with some unfortunate limitations in our little virtual world. For example, on intro flights I tell the prospective student pilot to put their toes lightly on the pedals and feel what I do with the rudder. Can't do that in a sim with non-force-feedback hardware (if the novice sim pilot has special hardware at all).

Judith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't think simplifying the physics is a good idea, for the reasons already mentioned (bad habits and all). Besides, it's just so incredibly - unrealistic. ;) But I realize we have to cope with some unfortunate limitations in our little virtual world. For example, on intro flights I tell the prospective student pilot to put their toes lightly on the pedals and feel what I do with the rudder. Can't do that in a sim with non-force-feedback hardware (if the novice sim pilot has special hardware at all).

Judith

Even with force-feedback hardware there are still limitations. I have a force-feedback joystick, but it's still not the same as it is in a real plane. In a real plane, the airflow over the controls just tries to neutralize them, but a force-feedback joystick does some weird things. Also, I have no pedals; so I use the twist on the joystick for rudder, but the twist has no force-feedback. Because of all of this, I just have the force-feedback for the controls turned off and just let the spring centering handle that. I downloaded a demo for some software that made the force-feedback very realistic, but I don't really want to pay for the full version. I think that FSX may be the cause of the weird force-feedback, because the force-feedback seems realistic in RoF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was searching the net this evening, and I found this Flightsimulator, anyone tried it out?

While we wait for AFS 2012, we can try out this one:

http://72c9adthz908f...id=FLIGHTFORUMS

Anyone tried this one, is it a good sim? Does it need a bigger PC than the FSX?

I have seen this reply on. "The flight simulator network"

I can`t wait either, but this one is not allright.

Best regards Michael

"DO NOT BUY THIS SOFTWARE.

Someone has taken the free, open-source FlightGear package at http://www.flightgear.org/ and is selling it for $47. He's within his rights to do so as long as his package remains under the GPL, but it doesn't appear to do so. If you bought this, you just paid $47 for a copy of FlightGear on DVD with a different name."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's within his rights

Actually, he isn't, in my opinion, simply because he never mentions the name 'Flight Gear', nor does he ever acknowledge the original authors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And maybe not.... in you're case ;)

Mathijs confirmed the validity of my responses and my interpretation, Einstein.

That makes your responses look even more foolish.

Keep it up, you'll set a record soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be great if the product had an instructor's page, like X-Plane.

It allows monitoring in real-time and changing things such as failures, in real-time.

Any thoughts on this? I haven't seen it mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Wishlist

!=Priority

No running engines!!!!!!

No quantity,Quality!

Real Flightdynamics (Gravity)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Slope effect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Realistic Runways!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No Overhead like a paint,without function!!!

"Big" and "Fat" Clouds with rational Frames!!!!!!!

Multiplayer!!

Real Sounds !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Real 3D Cockpit!!!!!!!!!!!

Flightschool!!

Cabability for Professional Pilots!! That means 2 Versions .One for commerce,and one 4 Hardcore clients

Im a Jetflyer in VC.Another thing is i think MSFS dont simulate the Real Gravity,in my op.Cause if u taxi or fly,it moves unreal

Wish this Project will make a landmark.All the while the community wait 4

Anyhow time is right for a good PC "Flightsimulation" not Showsimulation

Im so glad that MS had finally stopped with MS!!!!!hahahaha So the progress can go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mathijs confirmed the validity of my responses and my interpretation, Einstein.

That makes your responses look even more foolish.

Keep it up, you'll set a record soon.

Realy? Can you point to where Mathijs have answerd you're statment and confirmed the validity of you're responses and you're interpertation, because, I can not see any where that Mathijs has confirmed you're thoughts....

And, You have changed/edited you're original post:

I answerd you're post at,

Posted 06 November 2009 - 10:21 PM

Then you edited the post that I answerd at,

This post has been edited by nolanh: 07 November 2009 - 02:41 AM

This makes your responses look even more foolish.

Keep it up, you'll set a record soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What i'd like to see is that navigation beakons, DME, VOR or NDB behave a bit more like in real life. I mean, it's analog radio signals which deteriorate when you are at a greater distance. You can see this in e.g. Flightgear, An NDB needle first jumps off and on into roughly the right direction but as you get nearer the signal gets stronger and finally the needle becomes steady. In fs9/fsx a beacon has a configured range e.g. 195nm and at exactly that distance the VOR needle is in tune. That doesn't seem right, does it? It wouldn't be too hard to implement, i reackon.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the (locked) Status Update thread:

Here is something we can up with recently. An clickable external model! To open doors, remove 'remove before flight' stuff, wiggle things on a walk around check etc...

Cute. But please keep in mind that having to do a mandatory virtual walk-around might be a bit tedious in a training environment. Or if you have a hardware cockpit, which probably needs some preflight preparations anyway. But as long as it's optional, I think it's a great idea.

Judith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kenneth.

This will be my last response to your rudeness.

I don't have any reason to need to prove anything to you. Anyway, how could I prove anything when you can't even understand my original post.

You were rude and you were, and still are, completely confused about what I said and how it was an honest and logical statement.

Apparently your intention was only to be a jerk, and there you have been successful - over and over.

And as for your insinuating that I had done something wrong by editing, I edited my post to remove the hyperlinks from the quote (which I had not noticed when I originally wrote - it was a partial quotation for clarity) to make it more clear that I was referring to your own words, because you refused to listen to that fact in your response.

But clarity is obviously not what you were after.

Simply, unnecessary complexity of the simulator, and not sophistication of modeling, is what Mr. Kok was talking about avoiding, and what you said sounded like you thought he meant to avoid the sophistication of the modeling.

It's that simple, Mr. Kok even confirmed that you had mistaken his intent, which is what I was trying to say to you in the first place.

If you didn't understand my post, you could have asked me to explain at the time, or ignored me, but instead you insisted that I was not reading things correctly, and that I was not to "get back" to you, until I had found the error of my ways. Incredible! You obviously do not see, in your words (from another of your rude posts to someone else), "how wrong" it was that you did that. Are you 5 years old?

Why you would use a forum like this to be rude to so many people (who you know nothing about) in so little time is something you should determine for yourself.

Kenneth, do not talk down to people as if they are idiots, and as if your word is law, and then expect them not to react.

End of subject for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Guys:

I’m aware that the ASFS2012 discussion has been continuing for some time, and I have been following the threads with interest, unfortunately I got tied up with work for a long time and so for a month or so I’ve not been keeping up with things here. My own fault I know, but I did want an opportunity to say my piece, and I apologise in advance if this has been said before, and for rambling on. It’s not an easy topic to neatly sum up, so I shall try to keep it as brief as possible, but those that know me, will know that that is unlikely to happen.

Initial Thoughts

So, Aerosoft are going to potentially attempt to do the impossible and build a Flight Simulator that works. Good luck to them, and I can’t wait to see the results of their labours if they decide to go ahead and make it. It won’t be easy, it probably won’t be perfect right off the bat, but it deserves the support of all in the community. I’m sure that they will make mistakes, and along the way discover better ways of doing certain things, but all lessons learned will no doubt go into future versions, and so a franchise is built. One thing that Aerosoft certainly won’t be able to do is please everyone, and so I offer my thoughts below with the understanding that they are of course personal thoughts as to what a sim should be, and that the chances are that each and every item will be passed over, I did feel it important to make sure my voice was heard, and who knows. Maybe something I suggest will make it into the sim.

Where to begin

I think you could define FS users as three broad categories.

1. Beginners / Mild curiosity

2. Enthusiasts

3. Hardcore Simmers

Within each of those categories, there would be various sub-categories however each of those levels require / demand a certain level of realism and user friendliness. Where FSX excelled, was in area 1, the newbie’s. They could get into a default aircraft, fly about a bit, view the scenery, and fly some missions, for everything above that, I think it was a bit of a hit and miss, however.

For the Enthusiasts and the Hardcore Simmers they (we) all go into any new version of a flight sim expecting to have to purchase / download new aircraft, scenery, mesh, land class, traffic, and so on. So, was it really that different to any other release of FS? No, the Marketing Department just promised more than it delivered.

That said, for any sim, there should be a base from which the add-on developers and end users are able to build, and this is where MSFS fell down. The Land class and Mesh was poor, the Weather engine was hideous, and the flight models of the default aircraft were, erm, well…. Perhaps someone that has actually flown a default aircraft could tell me what the flight dynamics are like.

So, what do I think the new ASFS should do for us at its base level?

1. Ship with a decent (if basic) mesh, I appreciate you will end up with a terabyte of data if you go too far with this point and the land class, but try and strike a happy medium. Your customers know the areas that they live in, try and make them at least feel at home

2. Ship with a land class that works well for all seasons in all environments (IE, desert, Tropical, Ice Cap, Urban, Suburban, Countryside, and so on, for god’s sake, when I fly over Siberia from EGLL to RJAA (Heathrow to Tokyo Narita) when I look down it should at least look something like a snow covered tundra at some point in the year.

3. Include a set of default aircraft that vary in ease of use from something like a micro light, up to a 747 but get the dynamics right, they don’t have to be Level D / PMDG in quality, let the Add-On dev's do that so that the hardcore simmers get the aircraft they want, but the aircraft should at least teach the end user that the real ones are not easy things to fly.

4. GET THE WEATHER RIGHT!!!!! If one thing affects an aircraft more than anything else, it’s the weather, in particular, moisture. From Braking, to Engine Performance, to Flight Envelope, to Control and Flight Surfaces, even the Systems Cooling, Moisture Modelling should be done right.

5. Lighting (I know, you are all very much aware of it). When I am flying into clouds with the landing lights on, shouldn’t the clouds light up? When I am pointing at the terminal and I have the taxi lights on, shouldn’t the terminal light up? Same if my lights point at another aircraft.

6. We are living in the 21st Century. Most sound cards are capable of 5:1 or even 7:1 Surround these days. Please support that right off the bat.

7. Default Airports. Choose 3 to 8 major airports per country (or two per state if it’s a big country like the USA), and get them right. They don’t have to be perfect; the Add-on Developers will fill those gaps, but try and get the layout and gates right. If you could include something AES like to make it actually feel like you’re at a proper airport then that would be a bonus.

I think the key thing that I am trying to say here, is get the environment right (Runway Slope?), and all else should follow. You don’t have to get everything right, like all of the World’s airports, but you should get the immersion factor covered, and the weather and moisture modelling correct straight away.

Personal Pet Peeves

I fly mostly the PMDG 744 in FS9. I had FSX on the system and have spent over $2,000.00 on add-ons for it, but I just was never happy with it. My pet peeves below apply to both FS9 and FSX, maybe some more for one version than the other, but I’m sure you will work it out.

1. Weather – I’ve mentioned this above but this really does get my goat. Why should companies like HiFi Sim exist, there should be no need for them whatsoever. That’s nothing against HiFiSim, I’ve owned all versions of their software since Active Sky 2002, and I love it, but my point is that they shouldn’t need to fix the weather system in a flight sim! As mentioned, WX is one of the MOST important things when you fly, from a Micro light to the A380, it’s important. So my WX peeves in FS

A. Descending into cloud. I have never been able to see the weather do this

in FS9 or X or if I do, halfway through the arrival the system clears it and magically I go from CATIII Limiting Fog to CAVOK. Make it stop! 

B. Brakes perform differently when they are hot or cold, when the runway is Dry, Wet, Very Wet, Really Wet, Snow Covered, Ice Covered, Slush Covered and so on in the real world. They should in the sim.

C. Make the surfaces look damp, dry, snowy, and so on. It’s all about immersion.

2. Lighting – Please get this sorted. Clouds Buildings, Surfaces, Aircraft, should all light up when my aircraft lights hit them.

3. Multiplayer Aircraft. Wouldn’t it be great if you could see the Lights go on and the flaps go down or up when another pilot nearby turns them on / moves them? Also, when flying, you often see the contrails of another aircraft before you see the aircraft itself. Could it be possible to make the contrails work in multiplayer?

4. Consider the VA’s. I’m with British Airways Virtual, and one of the biggest things that we, and any other VA’s Management worries about is Flight Logging, from Touchdown Rates to Autopilot in/out times, and so on, could you perhaps design a flight logging system, or at least an easy and documented way to create a flight logging system that can interface with our Web Facilities. Perhaps this is something that you can include and then customise and license to the VA’s for a fee? I know that many wouldn’t pay for it, and the VA’s members certainly shouldn’t but as a director of a VA, I wouldn’t mind paying a onetime license fee so that my membership have a flight logging system that gives us the ability to do check rides and training scenarios such as failures and what have you.

User Interface

I have a few thoughts on this, but have you considered a networkable ‘instructors station’?

So, the scenario is that you start the instructor’s station on your laptop; you configure your aircraft, your flight plan, your weather, and your location and then start the sim (within the instructor station) and if you’re desktop FS PC is turned on, the Sim starts up. During the flight, you can still tweak your settings, WX, Failures even, from the instructor station.

Obviously there are users that would only want to have the one machine, so perhaps the instructors station is mirrored in the sim itself, and if the sim is launched from the same machine as the flying machine then the instructors station starts first, if you are networked, then the sim knows that and goes straight to the setup flight.

Regarding a comment I read somewhere in these forums about FSUIPC not being necessary. I wholly agree. Again it’s not that FSUIPC is bad, it’s that it shouldn’t NEED to exist in the first place. The sim should do all that FSUIPC does natively.

Overall

I don’t want to teach you to suck eggs, as I am sure that this has all been discussed at Aerosoft Towers at great length, but the trick is to build something that can work for all user levels. You want the newbie level 1’s to want to go to level 2 and so on. If they can use it in its most basic form, and we old hacks can tweak and add-on to get the ultimate sim experience, then you have a lifetime client base.

Don’t forget about the Home Pit builders, a project I am thinking about embarking on myself in the near future, and keep asking the client base. One of the biggest mistakes I think MS made, and slowly started to rectify with the likes of Phil, the product evangelist, was customer interaction.

Like I say, sorry for rambling on, but I hope that I have offered some useful opinions and thoughts, even if I may be repeating the sentiments of others. I take my hat off to Aerosoft for having the stones to look into a project like this, and much Kudos to you for involving the community as deeply as you have thus far.

Good luck and thank you

Paul Smith

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • 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