Never had a random engine failure.
Engine failures yes, but always when i get distracted and do not keep manifold pressure and oil pressure within limits.
Regardless of potential bugs, you can turn engine failures off in the clipboard if your having issues. It is not as if most planes even have the option, just fly it without them.
I’d say it is the most bug free aircraft released for the sim.
The only thing - i think - is not correct is the oil temperature gauge (or was it oil pressure?).
Got engine fires and such too at the beginning but learned to interprete the dials and never got an engine failure ever after.
Some people here repeatedly want developers who are constantly fixing (and breaking) stuff and think that is a good thing.
Here is a developer that put all his energy into the whole package BEFOREHAND. So it is (nearly) bug free.
Much better than most other products released (got most of the “premium” 3rd party planes).
Would i like to see the developer fix what needs to be fixed (very few things) and perhaps give a little extra/polish? Yes. Will it happen? I’m sure. Am i in a hurry? No.
If you can’t fly it like it is now with failures on: i think a fix won’t change that.
Wrong. The starboard flywheel sound is missing and, more importantly, the visual position of the levers isn’t always in sync with the actual state of the system. That is something that I’ve seen no other aircraft get wrong.
Most bugfree aircraft? I beg to differ.
Well, I had random engine failures and that’s why it bothers me. An engine that goes up in flames because of me being distracted is awesome, of course.
I was a Day 1 buyer and love the plane in many ways but “bug free” is a frankly absurd statement. Missing sounds, corrupted/incomplete state saving, counterintuitive engine failures based on physics not adequately described by the manual, incorrect units and/or scaling for engine instruments, and DEFINITE bugs in the oil change/refill system … all of these desperately cry out for at least a bug-fix patch, and perhaps a complete rewrite to correct.
But 4-1/2 months after release, not one fix has been issued.
‚…most bugfree…“ is what i said and i stand by that.
The thread is flooded with whining.
This is why we get rushed and bug ridden releases, because everyone is crying for a release and then crying for bugfix after bugfix…
So i made my point. I can enjoy it like it is and am patient that it is perfection when a patch is coming. You think it will be abandoned? I don‘t think so. That product is the result of labour of love and there is just so little missing.
I‘m sure the dev is working his ■■■ off for another aircraft and will take care for the 247 afterwards.
No second thought if his next product is worth it or not. My guess is: it will be even more stunning.
It’s not at all the most bug free aircraft, that’s just incorrect.
I think a lot of us are going to hold off on the purchase of his next aircraft if we don’t believe he will send out patches for them afterwards. That’s why you need to keep your customers happy, otherwise we won’t come back.
Just incorrect but no example?
And lets not forget that this thing doesn‘t use anything „stock“!
That‘s what i mean. Not caring about what customers ask for but develop something you love and do it as perfectly as you can is a philosophy i prefer.
Getting surprised is better than getting exactly what i want and then realize it‘s boring.
So don‘t buy next time. Your decision.
We‘ll get our update (my guess).
Trying to enforce it by consumer power through the mighty dollar („i won‘t buy if…!“) is something that annoys me to death.
I hope the dev keeps on doing what he loves doing and not what others ask for.
It‘ll pay his bills anyway.
I own the BN-2 Islander, DC-6, 737, Stearman, Twin Otter, Kodiak, PC-6 and a couple more. I would say that most of them have less bugs than the 247D. Maybe the Twin Otter is on par with the 247D but that’s mostly because of its sound issues.
It’s one thing to go your own way and develop aircraft that are not very popular but you have a passion for, that I can really admire. It’s another thing to abandon a product after initial sales because you want to move on with another product. That doesn’t work in the flight sim world where all the products are dependent on bug fixing patches, no matter how much work you put in before release.
Again, I really love what Wing42 has done and every time I fly the 247D I’m having a blast. That’s why I want them to keep the respect and reputation so that customers will come back and buy more from them when the next product releases. I know I won’t buy from them again until they fix the bugs with the 247D.
I gave you examples which you ignored: no windup sound for the right engine; bugs in the engine heat/physics model with regard to type of oil and whether you top off or do a complete oil change; at LEAST a units error in the engine instruments; and buggy state-saving from session to session.
Don’t get me wrong - it’s a lovely effort and fun to fly, and was a tremendous value. But it is most definitely NOT “bug-free” and the developer’s lack of support post-release is disappointing.
None of that is “whining”, it’s just a statement of fact.
I have all of them. Dc-6 has it‘s problems mostly adressed. True. 737 also. But these are products supported by a comparatively large company with manpower to support multiple parallel projects. Lovely products though still some bits are missing and at a much higher price.
The rest mostly relies >90 % on stock systems are lacking in different departments.
Yes they got patches.
I would not compare their level of detail to the countless lovely things of the 247. The mentioned planes got patches because they really needed them. The „mostly bugfree“ state of the 247 without getting a single patch is a one-off. Somehow this makes people nervous because it‘s so uncommon nowadays.
However we‘re not opposite positions here.
It‘s just that nothing will change by all the noise. I have respect for devs not bowing to that pressure and only surface when they got something to show.
I found a way to make the COM radio 25kHz and 8.33kHz (5kHz) compatible:
...\wing42_boeing_247d\ModelBehaviorDefs\wing42-boeing-247\radio.xmlchange Line 226 from
<ANIM_LENGTH_DECIMALS>90</ANIM_LENGTH_DECIMALS>
to
<ANIM_LENGTH_DECIMALS>97.5</ANIM_LENGTH_DECIMALS>
and Line 284 from
<ANIM_LENGTH>#ANIM_LENGTH_DECIMALS#</ANIM_LENGTH>
<ANIM_LAG>800</ANIM_LAG>
<ANIM_WRAP>false</ANIM_WRAP>
<MOUSEWHEEL_INCREMENT>10</MOUSEWHEEL_INCREMENT>
to
<ANIM_LENGTH>#ANIM_LENGTH_DECIMALS#</ANIM_LENGTH>
<ANIM_LAG>800</ANIM_LAG>
<ANIM_WRAP>false</ANIM_WRAP>
<MOUSEWHEEL_INCREMENT>2.5</MOUSEWHEEL_INCREMENT>
For 8.33kHz (=5kHz) spacing, use:
<ANIM_LENGTH_DECIMALS>99.5</ANIM_LENGTH_DECIMALS>
and
<MOUSEWHEEL_INCREMENT>0.5</MOUSEWHEEL_INCREMENT>
Because the scale of the dial is designed for .0 to .9 only, it will be a bit out of sync,
as we now also use .905 to .995.
But you will need to use the ATC window for these frequency spacings anyways.
The issue that the tick sound of the clock is lowder in the passenger cabin than in the cockpit can be fixed by open the file
…\wing42_boeing_247d\SimObjects\Airplanes\wing42-boeing-247d\sound\sound.xml
in an editor
and changing Line 39 from
<Sound WwiseData="True" ViewPoint="Inside" WwiseEvent="instrument_clock"/>
to
<Sound WwiseData="True" NodeName="instrument_clock" ViewPoint="Inside" WwiseEvent="instrument_clock"/>
This moves the sound source from the center of the plane to the clock in the instrument panel.
I bought the Wing42 Boeing 247D from the store inside msfs2020 and it worked great until june when it started crashing the game in the loading screen every time I try to fly it.
I have removed all other add ons and re-installed countless times. The Wing42 support is not responding. I have looked up the crash on event viewer and it shows a problem simply in the ”Microsoftflightsimulator.exe” file
Anyone got some advice for me?
Perhaps delete contents.xml?
He was looking for examples of aircraft with fewer bugs, not what bugs exist in the plane.
The levers out of sync is not really a fault of the aircraft and is more an Asobo bug.
Did not help
Um, no. Read the parts I quoted, lol.
“most” bug free does not mean bug free, and he later explained his position in detail. He asked for examples to this concept, “what aircraft are “more” bug free than the 247D?”, and instead he got a list of a couple of bugs.
Please reference these posts as well (ignore the fluff and focus on his discussion of the “most bug free” concept):
None of what he said says there are no bugs.
As much you may parse the statement, it’s still just factually-wrong but whatever. You’re entitled to believe what you like.
As for me and evidently a lot of buyers, the plane is in the virtual hangar and used only rarely, where it will remain until Otmar ever fixes the major bugs.
Carry on if you must.
