I certainly don’t want my remarks to be misconstrued as bashing the simulator. I think it’s a tremendous effort so far and I certainly have a stake/hope in seeing it continue to develop and improve. It’s just that it’s not quite there yet. Anyway, back to the OPs topic, one of my hopes is that A2A can get some of their aircraft and flight modeling magic over this way. I know they won’t be swayed by complaints that it’s too complex or difficult to fly or doesn’t ‘fly right’.
The problem with realism is that you can abuse most aircraft way longer than people expect and even then the failures, which are mainly expensive repairs wouldn’t be visible in the sim.
E.g. we had a few idiots in my old company which used to overtorque and overtemp the poor PT6 engines for hours, almost each day, and none of these four engines ever failed for that reason.
Failing equipment is a nice idea, but with a realistic MTBF you would like never experience one in many years…except of course you fly an A320 
They are certainly hinting at that. I haven’t heard much about the Aerostar lately, but Scott has hinted at the Comanche being the next in line. And just like PMDG, they’re waiting for SDK improvements. And also just like PMDG, i think they’d rather go out of business than nerf their planes.
2 Likes
Well, there is a balance to be found, right? Somewhere in the middle? The issue as it stands is in many third party aircraft you can deploy full spoilers flying at 250 knots in a… Piper… and nothing happens. There ought to be consequences for these sort of things, right?
Default aircraft doesn’t count, I suppose. It’d be nice, but I am not asking much from default planes. That’s kind of where the “accessible” aircraft comes into play.
2 Likes
Wasn’t that A2A where you e.g. lost ailerons and experienced spark plug fouling way too frequently?
PMDG isn’t waiting anymore.
To put that another way, quoting me as saying “MSFS isn’t ready for PMDG” is a bit like someone in 1971 using a 1959 quote of the NASA administrator saying “We don’t have the technology to land on the moon.” Sure- that was true at the time it was uttered- but no longer a factor.”
1 Like
They may not be perfect (who is?) but I guess at least they’re trying.
1 Like
I don’t know about “too frequently”. Most, if not all of them are pilots, some with a lot of experience. But yes, they’re the ones. There was a video of theirs online where they were showing off one of their new planes (might have been the P51) and they had a flap failure.
I also think it’d be refreshing to get some new blood! I am all for PMDG and A2A and MilViz. I own all their stuff and fly it all the time. But this is also a new sim. Those guys started somewhere sometime too. It’d be nice if someone new comes along and adapts the “we are gonna do it right or not at all” kind of mentality.
FBW and Working Title.
There’s a reason why the folks at WT have been hired by Microsoft. They’re all new blood.
1 Like
They are great and all. But I am talking about developers who create brand new aircraft and charge money for it.
I’m not sure why you’d care more about a developer who creates a brand new aircraft and charge money for it than about developers who creates a brand new aircraft (the A380) and charges nothing for it?
I mean, to each their own, but I wouldn’t say the act of charging money directly influences the enoyability of an add-on.
1 Like
Because freeware and quality are often not things seen together, and for good reasons. FBW is the outlier here. Most people who put in significant effort creating something want to be compensated for their effort. That flow of money opens up more resources for them to do things with - like using genuine aircraft to model for sim, recording sounds, etc.
Which is a shame because the original topic is one that does need to be discussed.
I know FBW is the outlier for now, but I think they’re the signal of things that will expand to more than a single group. The gaming industry as a whole has made big strides in freeware development, and you see free mods for other games that are certainly close to industry quality (and at times better).
FBW’s approach means that they don’t just have access to the insight of a couple or a few real pilots and airbus engineers, but tens of them.
I’m fairly sure this is part of the more widespread appeal this sim has, that opens the door to hundreds of people joining forces on things like this, and that’s something that the usual payware developers simply can’t do.
Now, I’m not saying it’s better or worse than payware developers. Those aren’t going anywhere (especially with a bigger market that helps them put food on the table) It’s good to have both.
1 Like
I completely agree with that.
We can only hope that if there is any dumbing down/ reduction in complexity/realism of some addon aircraft, then this is left to individual developers to decide on, rather than it be a ‘community’ expectation for all addons and all developers. Then it’s down to the individual to make a choice as to if it meets their expectations. Likewise, where the ‘high realism’ devs decide against such a move because that’s not their business model, the ‘community’ also needs to respect that and accept that people can’t have it all their own way.
I’m not a 737 pilot, never will be one. But my expectation and what I’m happy to pay for, and I don’t think this is being unreasonable, is that PMDG deliver the most accurate and realistic simulation of that aircraft as far as is possible for MSFS as they can, and that’s it. I don’t want any ‘concessions’ unless it’s done so because the simulator itself means it has to happen.
There’s definitely plenty of scope to cater for the different types of sim flyer, but the comments you raised in your initial post do give cause for concern.
2 Likes
PMDG disagrees. I have a feeling they know better.
1 Like
PMDG are not here are they? They will work with the updated SDK and whatever else, as they said and I said, they wrote off the sim. Im not insulting you, and using childish emoji’s I am simply saying you are deluded. PMG crawled out of the woodwork once Aersoft released their amazing CRJ, and as I said months before and on the day of release I knew that would happen.
You still have not said why it is the other developers fault! Anyway, time will tell, until then you are becoming what you rile against.
“You pretty literally don’t seem to have any idea of what that title means” Ok then
I literally linked you to their disagreement, which I quote again for your convenience.
"To put that another way, quoting me as saying “MSFS isn’t ready for PMDG” is a bit like someone in 1971 using a 1959 quote of the NASA administrator saying “We don’t have the technology to land on the moon.” Sure- that was true at the time it was uttered- but no longer a factor.
"
The moon landing was in 1969.
Incidentally, PMDG has never “written off” MSFS.
That title simply indicates someone who was in the tech alpha. Nothing more, nothing less. Microsoft calls “Insiders” people who test unfinished stuff. If you agree to test beta Windows builds, you’re a windows insider.