Disagree about point 2 since no purchase for the B17 occurs on either Amazon, nor Steam.
Also make the point again that the product is neither ready for release, nor ( in the case of the audio mistake) safe. Caveat emptor (“let the buyer beware”)
As a buyer I have shared my experience so you may be aware.
When they finally fix this, you’ll hear from me again. Until then I suggest you may prefer to wait, it’s up to you.
I suggest you review all the discussion on this topic over the last 6 years. You’re not bringing up a new topic. The facts are, as always, buyer beware. It is not Microsoft’s responsibility to “police” their marketplace or make judgements on products. They can’t. Your requirements are not the same as other people. Judgement would be impossible. Tons of people purchase and love cockpit-less planes or the “toy planes” other vendors make. There’s zero reason to keep those people from doing what they love just because you don’t feel like doing your own research. I don’t mean this meanly. I’m sorry you’re disappointed. As they say, experience is the real teacher.
No sooner did I make a comment a few days ago here, than I saw you can now rent the B-17 on the Market. I couldn’t help myself…
First, I applaud the developer for providing a rental, although at this juncture I’m not sure it was a good idea. Judging from initial reviews, the first buyers weren’t impressed.
I think I would find it almost satisfactory if I didn’t load it up at night and have to use a flashlight, and if most of the tooltips weren’t blank. The light controls are INOP. It’s an experience in frustration and annoyance.
Something else I noticed which I could be wrong on… The engine nacelles look somewhat too large. Would anyone agree with that? I don’t have another B-17 to compare it to, but I’ve been in them IRL before and… looking out the window it just looks oversized. And the crew are much too small. This might only be noticeable in VR where everything should appear to be life sized, but they’re rather small people.
For me, what sticks out about the engines is the front of the engine nacelles appear to have a weird little “lip” to them. Not sure if anyone else sees that. The crew are definitely too small - it comes across clearly on a regular screen too.
The product is clearly still early access. If it were me, I wouldn’t have released on the Marketplace in this state. But if I did, I certainly would’ve put right at the top “EARLY ACCESS”. I’m surprised MP didn’t. They are going to get roasted in reviews and I get it.
I’m on board for the long hall, but the flight model has taken a step back in v1.0.1 as have the sounds. There are still so many systems missing. Right down to basic stuff like the clock or cockpit lighting. Hopefully now that their Marketplace account is setup, the team can really put in some good work. They’re going to need it.
This topic? If you mean payware B17 aircraft for Microsoft Flight Simulator then A2A’s B17 in the Wings of Power collection for FS9 was planets ahead in terms of quality, realism, sound, but that ain’t the topic of this post.
The topic is the Microprose B17 for Microsoft’s Flight Simulator 2024, neither of which is six years old, neither of which is flawless, and historically speaking, both of which have been criticised by paying customers for, and admitted to, coming to market before they were ready.
Let’s not stray off topic please.
May we please take this opportunity to ask all users to keep threads relevant for their specific topic. Please keep conversations here directly related to discussing the Micropose B-17. There are a number of other threads on the forums where you are welcome to provide constructive feedback about the MSFS Marketplace.
Thanks for your understanding,
The MSFS Team
For me, I have a hard time understanding the heavy criticism of the Microprose B-17. Maybe there can be some nit picking over whether it should be V1.0 if it’s still considered early access, either way they have been upfront about it being early access.
Over the years, I have seen a lot of bias in flightsim development and have seen people defend positions before any work has been shown. Some devs. definitely have reputations. Some deserved, some not.
This B-17 though, is from a new team and they have been showing steady progress with frequent updates. I’m going to wait to see how it turns out. At the moment I am happy with the detail of the model and the scope of what they are building. If progress stops it would be a shame, but for now I’m happy with how its unfolding.
I picked it up from a 3rd party, not the marketplace. It should be the same product however it was purchased. That is a whole different discussion if it’s not.
They were also pretty up front about it being out of early access with the 1.0 release. They can’t hide behind that shield anymore.
If a feller bought this plane under the impression that it was somehow related to the old Microprose company’s reputation and not just a bought label, or just based on the subject matter of it being a B-17, or under the impression that, although it was coming to market ‘as is’ ,there was some sort of guarantee in their mind that it would be instantly upgraded to that fellers expectations as soon as he expressed them - well…..
Yea, my problem is that they released it in a finished state as 1.0 on the Market. Those of us here know it’s not. Those who watch Youtube know it’s not, but it’s a disaster for anyone who sees it there, thinks it’s finished and buys it. Granted, one should always check reviews….
I just can’t believe it’s acceptable to anyone without any instrument lights and almost no fuel tips. The cowls don’t work, which tells me the engine stats/temps don’t work either otherwise they’d over heat really quickly. Plus it porpoises pretty badly. Worse than Orbx’ Avenger.
I really do hope they make it into a star, but their willingness to call it 1.0 at this point leaves me with a bad feeling. I very much applaud their effort by putting up a rental as I said above. I’ll rent it again in the future after some updates and give it another try probably. I would very very much like a good B17. But if it’s not good, it’s as good as a brick to me.
I think to release on the Marketplace it had to be 1.0, I don’t think Microsoft accept 0.x addons.
To me, this feels like they needed more cashflow which the MP could provide. Marketing it as 1.0 in its current state is misleading to consumers that expect a certain standard, unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, not everyone does their research before purchasing a new product.
On this point of calling it 1.0, as a comp Blackbird Sims put their SR-71 on the Marketplace in early access as well. Did they call it 1.0? I honestly don’t remember. Of course, theirs was much further along, but I’m just wondering about that “Marketplace not doing 0.x” thing. Either way, the product description should have clearly stated it was early access. Not doing so invites harsh reviews and criticism.
Not only this, the manifold pressure still jumps wildly all over the place at full power, which indicates to me its code is not working properly. No cowl flaps, cockpit lighting, working clock, full working magnetos, autopilot, etc., etc. The crew are still too small and the navigator’s feet continue to stick out through the fuselage. The flight model (mostly the overpowered elevators) is worse now than it was at 1.0.
I didn’t know about the jumping manifold needles. I’m certain I’ve seen that in other aircraft too, but I can’t recall which ones. Good to know either way!
I think putting it on the Market was a poor idea. It may get them more money now, but they can’t erase those ratings. The ratings are going to kill it I suspect. Not many will bother to come back and give a dif rating in 6 mos or a year.
Long time simmer and student of WWII aviation, and I have to say I was struck at how well they’ve captured the shape and look of the Fortress. The old WoP bird was good, but this is another leap beyond that. The interior is just as well done. I know all the fiddly systems aren’t complete, but they should get credit for getting most of the visuals right.