Official Discussion: Junkers Ju 52

This is definitely a major part of why it is so odd to me that these issues didn’t get revisited.

I find it so odd on many of these aircraft that have working switches that do nothing. Here this effort was put into coding the switch, creating the art assets for the animations, creating the sound assets for animation, creating the accessibility call outs for mouse over, making sure it all works, debugging it, and then just walking away from it? Why bother? Why have the overhead in the aircraft’s overall code to have a bunch of placebo switches and knobs that aren’t hooked up to any actual function? Why spend all that time and effort for absolutely no reason? It isn’t like every switch and knob is modeled, so why bother modeling these that don’t do anything?

I find this sort of thing really weird.

If you don’t want to go the distance, don’t bother in the first place. There are plenty of non-functioning controls in many of these models and it’s perfectly fine that they be that way. Sure, we’d like them to function, but understand for the sake of complexity or simplicity that they aren’t and we are understanding of it.

It’s the former that makes zero sense to me.

1 Like

thats the point… users expecations are far aways from real… there is so much work in such an airplane, also in the level we currently have. We can not expect the same as an airplane which cost 60€ and more, and thats good so.

I didn´t understand either until I read a post from Aerosoft in their Twin Otter forum.
They deliberatly made all the switches work, so those who want to do the full checklist are ablet to, but kept a quite simple overall implementation, so especially beginners can´t break anything.

So in that case it seems it was a development decision right from the start.
On the other hand it would be great if you could manage how deep the systems are simulated and to what degree an “internal damage model” is active.

1 Like

With good quality product and customer service you will sell more (earn more money) no matter what the price is.

of course do we expect a support… But also here I not expect the same kind of support like for a >60€ airplane ( e.g. I not expect that the developer completly redesign the airplane model and bring it to the quality of the most expensive airplane , just for free. ). My thinking is more like, that I would happy about a bit cheaper and a more expensive version and users can choose. But I will not repeat me and I assume its not like the topic for the Junkers :slight_smile:

But which would sell better? A few tweaks and I bet those holding off would buy it.

And I bet more total than if it where at £30/£60.

and that mean, that all other developers too must sell your products far under the costs of worktime. And because we then have only such kind of cheap airplanes, we not buy all of these and developers going bankrot. It must allways be a balance. Have in mind, that with these 15€ ( and with the Junkers we get realy a lot for the money ), the developers have to spend some support time later on. Get your pocket calculator and check how many airplanes you must sell, to get a normal monthly salary ( with no equitment you need, etc ). … but… sorry… I would not go to much off-topic.

1 Like

Regarding the 15 € price:
I am absolutely certain any developer sells more than twice or three times as many aircraft as he would without Microsoft, let alone at a price that would be adjusted for numbers (e. g. 45 €).


This aircraft was most likely subsidized by MS just as all the free aircraft included in the coming 40th Anniversary Edition are subsidized by MS.

By your criteria, if these pending free aircraft have issues that means, what, no one should have any expectation of the modeled systems to work, because those aircraft are free?

After all they are free, so no expectation should be placed on them to be right within the bounds of their included controls and systems.

Stop tying the price of an aircraft to the quality of it. No one is asking for a low cost high fidelity aircraft in the case of the Junkers, people are asking for the implemented controls and systems to actually function as expected within reasonable terms given the apparent inclusion of controls for those systems or in the case of the superchargers the very engines installed in the aircraft ought to be modeled, as such.


if you get an aircraft for free, you can have zero expectations. Be happy that you can use it for free and hope that the developers of that still give support. But in case you mean the aircraft which are included within MSFS, then this are not “free” - we paid for it, because these are part of content we paid for the game and so I expect at least bug fixes and can only hope that these getting more details in future.

Whether an aircraft is subsidized or not, is unrelevant… as @Underbird9276 mentioned, if that would not be that case, the Junkers is more in a range like 40€ ( but we not know whether it is realy subsidized , or the price is lower because the assumption that in MSFS more users buy e.g the Junkers ).

I will not stop to mentioned that we get lot for 15€, its my opionon and you have yours. Real Bugs should be fixed, thats part of support. Getting new features is not part of that, but often we get new features, often not ( check the big aircraft manufactors, you will never get new features , new high-res textures, or what else ). If you ask for a high-price model, which is mainly same as my wish was, then we have to wait for a developer which want to do the job and spend much more time into more exact “copy of the real airplane”.

And many more would buy them. It’s a win-win

Just allow the .cfg files to be opened and edited, Asobo. Otherwise this thread is probably going to rumble on, because I can’t see any more support being offered. Bugs that make the aircraft unflyable will I’m sure be addressed. But the other things? No.


Ok. Here is what I’m talking about

The IniBuilds A320 is a £69.99 aircraft for X-Plane. When it was announced they were developing this model for MSFS 2020, we can presume that the price would be somewhat comparable once it was offered for MSFS.

Now, if we bought this aircraft for £69.99 and it had issues, we would expect it to be given support and fixes.

Now, MS has come along and subsidized the A310 and is going to include it, for free, in the 40th Anniversary Edition.

Ok, now what? We are to expect nothing for support, because MS bought it for us? Because it went from being a £69.99 aircraft to free simply because a multi billion dollar corporation bought it for us and we should:

In the case of the Junkers, Oliver Moser would certainly have charged more than $15, because to not do so would indicate he tied his aircraft, aka his labor, to MS for zero compensation. That makes no sense.

But you’re right, you have your opinion and I have mine.

I’ll let the developer stand up for himself and we’ll see if he addresses any of our requests. No harm, no foul if he doesn’t.

Yeah … a supported aircraft I have to pay money for is definitely preferable over a buggy mess for free.

1 Like

Out of interest what would you need to do if you had access to the cfg files for the ju52 to add the supercharger? I have a freeware old plane that has a similar lack of a supercharger. Is it as simple as changing it to supercharger =1 in the engine.cfg or is there more to be done?

Yes, that’s what you have to do. MSFS does not differentiate between a turbo- and a supercharger. So just look for the [PISTON_ENGINE] section and change these two entries:

turbocharged = 0 ; Is it turbocharged? 0=FALSE, 1=TRUE
max_design_mp = 29.6 ; Max design manifold pressure, (inHg)

After activating the turbocharger you also have to specify the max value for the manifold pressure.

Not wishing to throw any oil on the fire , but this discussion did get me thinking …

Yes it is fantastic we get all these planes for a smaller price (Local Legends, Famous Flyers), or even free (40th anniversary).

However, looking at the post release support history of these releases, I wonder if it would almost be more preferable for a lot of people to be able to buy them full price, and be able to expect a reasonable level of support for them.

That A310 looks fantastic for instance, but we all know a version 1 of anything will have issues. How committed will Microsoft/Asobo be to address issues post release, for the A310 or the Beaver, or any of them?

Looking at how they’ve treated most of their plane releases (or even just the base planes, or even the “premium” edition planes (!!)), it doesn’t fill me with much confidence…

I’d rather buy that Junkers, or the A310, from a reputable third party, and be able to rely on good support, bug fixes, and timely updates …

I wonder if there will ever be a “Plane Update”, where they do nothing but do a big old bug and issue sweep of all planes released so far.

A man can dream …


Believe me, I had this in mind when I made my point about the A310, but didn’t say it aloud.

I’d rather spend and have support than be given a discount and no support.


You’ll wake up soon :wink:


Well you never know - we’ve got 8 years of promised support left on this platform. One day we’ll get to a point where most of the core platform can be considered stable and “finished”.

Perhaps they’ll get around it then :wink:

Anyway, back to Auntie Ju :smiley: