I suppose it would also help if the tools / SDK provided by Asobo made it easier to build a plane. So it did not take 3 years…
Have they mentioned anything about how the product performs with an increased sim rate? Especially since this is a long haul.
Nothing official yet about time compression performance. However, if we compare it to the PMDG models, they recommend nothing faster than 4x. I would presume the A330 would be similar.
They warn about a noticeable performance drop when you upload a simbrief flightplan instead of putting it in manually. …I guess that gives some insight on the coding quality and memory usage. 
1 Like
No not everyone… I´d rather have no plane at all instead of getting for example some simpleton CaptainSim alike toy-plane for 10 or 20$.
Only PREMIUM Fenix PMDG or HotStart Challenger quality is interesting, price does not matter because a real good aircraft is only released every few years anyway - that´s why I am not bargaining if something costs 59 or 79 or 49 as long as it is graphics quality perfection and with premium aircraft academy study-level quality cockpit systems.
EFB is not that important and a missing EFB does not mean I am going to hate an airplane… but I personally have zero interest in 10 or 20 buck toy-planes with heavily simplified cockpits and no features because I lose interest in everything that is not complex enough and needs at least one week and hours of YouTube tutorials to learn. 
5 Likes
The A330 that they have worked on for years, will this be released for P3D first and then MSFS?
Aerosoft’s A330 for P3D was released many years ago
Sorry, but there is no way I would ever pay for a “study level” plane that isn’t study level yet, relying on the promise of future upgrade packs. Not a chance. I want the product finished.
3 Likes
This particular question seems to have been about the FSL A330.
1 Like
unknown but possible. Like PMDG FSL misses usable debugging tools in MSFS and - as far as I know - develops the systems in P3D.
I think that’s a fair approach, and completely fine.
The sad reality is just how product development are done these days. Agile approach as they call it. Meaning they work on specific feature set that are important for day 1 first, get it released and sell them to get their Rate of Return on investment sooner, then slowly adding more things as they go along.
And the market is slowly moving towards that trend anyway. Software as a Service is what they call it. Whether you disagree/refuse to accept it or not, that’s completely fair and all good. But that’s the reality.
Gone are the days where product developments are done in waterfall approach, where you scope everything in the beginning, then building everything until it’s completely finished before releasing it. The reason why is because of increasing competition in the market making this approach highly risky. For example, If it takes you 5 years to build something until it’s finished, while your competitor managed to build and release 40% of the scope in 1 year, before developing and releasing the remaining 25%, 20%, 10%, 5% in the following years until reaching the same level of fidelity as your product upon release. The market has already gone to your competitor 4 years earlier and everyone has been enjoying their upgrades by the time you released your product. So that entire 5 year development that you spent would have gone down the drain because you can’t find customers in the market anymore. As the first developer, it also gives them a sense of incentive. That with only 40% of their effort, they can see and benefit from the market demands, and push them to develop further until they can completely finish the product. Even if they end up not getting their return, at least they only spent 40% of their effort instead of going bust after spending the entire 100% of the project budget. While a waterfall approach, it’s just too much of a risk for developers to do these days. A risk that someone else beat them to it, and they can’t make any revenue from it. So, everyone is adopting this approach nowadays.
The state of the market these days are like that. People nowadays have short-term goals in mind, as long as it’s instant, quick, “now” is always more preferable than waiting for something that you don’t know when will come. That’s why TikTok is more popular than YouTube. You can just create content in a few seconds time and share around the world for people looking for a few seconds of dopamine hit rather than YouTube where you need to spend time planning, creating, uploading, and for the viewers to also need to sit down watch minutes of your videos and processing what they watch.
I already stopped expecting “finished” product for years now, and I always have a more pessimistic view on anything that people sell. A “bad something” is still better than “nothing”. Otherwise, I’ll never have anything.
1 Like
I don’t think that is an intentional business strategy in MOST cases. Usually, it’s an issue of getting a product out the door, then listening to customer feedback on said product and meeting those expectations. I can think of several instances where this backfires on a developer, so I really hope they’re not intentionally releasing half-baked products without expressly announcing it as such.
As a daily reader of these forums, you can sort of use the “Aircraft” threads as a pretty good baseline. Watch the activity on threads really increase as the hype before release. Following release, you can often gauge how successful it was just by seeing how that activity changes. What often happens is a hyped release comes & goes and the aircraft had several bugs & issues, and wasn’t reviewed well. Dev either communicates an upcoming fix or doesn’t communicate at all. Activity on the thread dies as time goes by without a patch. After that, it often doesn’t even matter what the dev does. Once people stop talking about their product, it doesn’t matter that they’ve come back 9 months later & fixed everything. It is imperative that a release is mostly functional ON RELEASE, or people just move on to the next big thing. It’s just very difficult to market new features for an existing product. People just don’t keep up with that stuff. So if it’s not there on release, it’s often written off for good for some customers, as they just don’t often revisit products they’ve already decided not to get.
As for the Aerosoft A330, I find it difficult to get too excited about it without even seeing a feature set.
1 Like
Yes, exactly. “Mostly functional” on release is the keyword here. But if we ask ourselves, the word “mostly functional” is different from people to people.
As do the term “study level” as well. Like for me, “mostly functional” means I can start up the aircraft using the most common procedures, start the engine, able to fly with LNAV and VNAV with autopilot, capture ILS signal and land the aircraft until taxi and park and shutdown with a decent enough flight characteristics. As long as these features work without issues, I consider that as “mostly functional”. Anything else that the aircraft has on top of it, I consider them as a “bonus” or “nice to have”, not a deal-breaker requirement.
But someone else may disagree with it. They may be looking for Hydraulic system simulations, electrical bus simulation, failures, engine fire suppression, circuit breaker, fuel flow manipulation. If they’re expecting these to be an important aspect of the aircraft, then even though it can do everything that I mentioned above, if these features are not available on release, then that person may deem the aircraft to be “half-baked” or “not study level” enough because they can’t simulate failure management activities.
So, it’s just a matter of getting that balance… As a developer, will you hold your product from the public while you spend extra 3 years trying to get these features to work only to make happy the small niche number of user that finds them very important, while the general users would already be going your competitor for their own expectations of “mostly functional”?
As for Aerosoft A330, yes there’s no feature set yet and I can understand why it might be difficult to get too excited about it. But they do promise to give updates on what the final feature set would be. And I think the excitement is more like “we’re getting an actual A330 built from the ground up”. Because the only ones we have now are freeware A330s that’s built by modifying the default A320 as a base with A330 exterior model and flight model, that’s it. And I’ve logged more than 500 hours on the Headwind A330neo aircraft simply because, there’s no other A330 out there. So I make do with what we have now.
I didn’t understand then. Sorry.
Indeed. Such an airplane would be a no-buy if the engines and temperatures and accurate cockpit systems, and lots of details about the electrics and hydraulics and other interesting things are not fully modeled.
I had so much fun with the Fenix Airbus for almost a year (currently I am waiting for the V2 release with lots of exitement) because it is THAT awesome detailed!
STRG+E is not “study level” only if real pilots and real maintenance guys can show me (on YouTube) what is all possible with a very deeply and 100% accurate simulated airplanes makes a DLC really precious and interesting for months.
Only true to the core detailed mechanics and electrical systems gives that “wow” effect and keeps me interested and 100% engaged for months, until I know every system and every quirk an airplane has:
“Wow it can even do that? Wow it really behaves like that like the real thing if this or that happens? Wow the blue hydraulics reservoir is really loosing 1/3rd of it´s fluid capacity while the gear is out because all the hydraulics fluid is in the gear hydraulics cylinder.
Ah a RAT has 2500psi and makes the control surfaces move a bit slower oh oh oh what do we have here 3000psi I need to contact Fenix immediately about this little bug…”
I am very curious how many deep simulated systems the Aerosoft A330 will deliver, and it´s the most exiting times for airplane enthusiasts to live in!!
Aw isn´t that a fine ship?
Captain on the bridge:
The seats seem to have more details and more polygons compared to older screenshots. Lovely.
I am curious how this Airbus will turn out
I wouldn’t hold my breath. Their systems are usually very shallow, mostly superficial stuff. And whatever is simulated has been buggy and it takes months to be fixed or will be abandoned altogether. That’s my experience with aerosoft and MSFS so far…
3 Likes
I´m starting to doubt it will ever even get released…
So… I guess I will buy it no matter what. Because if it gets releaset it will already be above my expectations…
The Headwind is quietly evolving in the right direction, but I´m looking forward to this plane anyway…
1 Like
Aerosoft received a funding from German government over approx 459k Eur eur for creation of the Airbus
https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Artikel/Wirtschaft/Games/Games-Projekte/airbusneo.html
I am aware our economic minister is not the best but this i did not expect.
Not fair to the other devs imo.
2 Likes
OK hmm this is something I really hate… considering every kind of software as “fire & forget” missile with all bugs, glitches, visual glitches, crashes, etc. simply being ignored forever.
For example the patch for the CRJ fixing some minor stuff (really SIMPLE stuff like switch positions etc.) never came.
But unfortunately 90% of all game and software developers do this, because only day 1 sales count and afterwards all dev offices have already jumped onto the next project.
I just know a few game developers who don´t share this mentality, for example the CD Project Red team, Guerilla Games, Naughty Dog and a few more who really care about their games, bring remasters and big overhauls, bring constant (big) DLCs… and of course the Fenix team and a few others in the flight simulation world.
But for the most software teams one day after release day means that the product is already forgotten, and all devs have either been released or already sit in different offices doing their next project.
We will see what mindset about their virtual airplane fleet the new Aerosoft will have in the future: Ignoring all products after release, or carefully caring and updating their precious fleet?
Time will tell
This is awesome! Helping game developers survive is the best thing ever.
We can NEVER have enough good software, simulators, games, and virtual entertainment.
I am not really sure if it is fair or unfair. But there are so many Billions over Billions of Dollars which are hold back on purpose by hyperelites and world banks to be able to create one artificial economic crisis after the next and to force people into labour until they croak that in times like these (is it 1942 all over again in half of Europe since 2018? Not so sure anymore!) nothing is more important than to help and support all other people as good as possible.
And of course also small software development studios (I am not sure if Aerosoft would be able to survive without this Government money! And we would lose a precious software developer who will strive and grow in the future!), the poor, and everyone else.
And Aerosoft has announced creating an Airbus A320 Neo as their future project, which makes me really excited because they get better and better with every addon airplane they develop.
Aerosoft has so much potential… but if they are not able to survive all these hunger years they need time while having zero sales because of creating their first big release, everything would be lost.
And we would lose some awesome planes too.