I bought the PC-12 like many others to support the devs while they are cracking on features. Mostly wear and failures since that was the plan. Should the plan now change I’ll feel a little cheated since had I known it then I wouldn’t be buying it first day like I did. I did my bit to support. Lots of others did too. If failures for PC-12 are given up I’ll think twice before I give my support next time.
7 Likes
Indeed. This is something you learn over time especially with flight sim related stuff. I’ve been burned on a hardware pre-order previously and I’m sure most can relate to buyers regret with some aircraft purchases. I understand how someone new to this would feel but anyone that’s been in this for a while should know the score by now. In most cases it’s not a deliberate ploy to get one over on the customers but a result of the ever changing environment. Agreed it’s not desirable but not highly unexpected.
1 Like
Sorry, but how much did we again spent on the plane? …This is one of the best planes I ever bought for a flightsim and the price was an absolute bargain. In VR also simply fantastic.
Totally diagree with all the negative statements. But this is nothing new on this forum.
15 Likes
I totally agree with you!
I think this plane is a great plane even without the failure module, way better than others and the price was good so quit complaining, fly the plane or move on. Give the developers credit and support for the hard work and time they put into these things.
6 Likes
I don’t own the PC-12 so there’s no personal investment here. I just want to remind everyone that it’s possible for some people to be totally happy with the product as is, as well as for some people to be disappointed if they were buying into something they might not get now. Both are totally valid opinions and will vary based on the individual.
I just get a little uneasy when one side of the argument becomes that of ‘we should be grateful for what ever developers kick out’ and not hold them accountable for any service shortcomings. That is as damaging to our community as the toxic consumers that berate developers over everything. I’m not saying that I’m seeing that here yet, just tossing out a caution.
Thankfully, everyone here is keeping it respectful and the developer is positively engaged in the discussion. Just remember that just because you’re happy with something, it doesn’t mean the next person has to be and visa versa.
5 Likes
Not sure it can although I never tried. What makes me think this is the state.cfg file from the PC-12. Turbine aging and many other lines present in the Kodia state file are not present in those of the PC-12.
1 Like
If I want to fly from A to B in an airplane (e.g. Pilatus PC12 here), I expect it to have been properly maintained and I can rely on it not to have any unforeseen failures along the way. I don’t want to be surprised by any failures that spoil my enjoyment. Sure, you can call it realism when something breaks down. But in how many airplanes does something constantly break down because maintenance hasn’t been done? So, I’m not going to take the dipstick to check the oil level and I’m not going to check the tire pressure etc. etc. etc. - that has already been done during maintenance.
And that’s the situation I see here in this airplane - I don’t need a failure model.
4 Likes
How many people bought this plan on that statement that failures are coming. How many customers will you lose to bad faith, I know of 1 for sure and now to any other plan developer who’s product is not finished. No more purchases based on things to come.
2 Likes
Failures do happen occasionally IRL even if the airplane is maintained as required. Mostly it’s smaller stuff, like broken lights and faulty indications. Failures IRL do very rarely require you to make an emergency landing. It doesn’t happen every flight but from time to time.
Failures also require you to fly within the numbers. You should be cautious and careful not to blow the engine up by over-torquing it for example. I still try to handle the aircraft as it had a failure model but I find myself pushing the engine too far very often, especially during climb as the air gets thinner. I’m sure it would happen less if I knew this would damage the engine.
3 Likes
I don’t think I’ve ever seen an aircraft for MSFS that had advanced failure modeling that you could not turn off. If YOU don’t want to deal with failures, that is your prerogative but that by no means should negate users that do want them. If you don’t want them, turn them off. Simple as that. As an added bonus; in the case of the SWS PC-12, you don’t even need to buy the failure module if/when it’s ready.
You can stop reading here but for more context, carry on:
I’m a maintenance analyst for a very large charter company and I can tell you with 100% absolute certainty that the more complex the aircraft, the more often stuff breaks. It just happens. We have stuff go wrong Every. Single. Day. Most of the time it’s just something that needs to be reset. Sometimes components just go bad. Proper routine maintenance doesn’t stop components from failing or especially computers glitching out. “OMG you turned BAT 2 on .3 seconds too late after BAT1? AP FAIL! AP FAIL!”. We have a saying: 60% of the time a power cycle works 100% of the time. (Mind you, this kind of stuff is actually just really annoying and I’m glad we aren’t sitting in front of our computers playing Microsoft Power Cycle Simulator, but to illustrate the point…)
And while you’re correct in that you as a pilot likely won’t have to manage the maintenance on the aircraft, you (or your FO if you have one) absolutely would be checking the oil and tires during your preflight on aircraft all the way up to large business jets. How on earth do you think this stuff is spotted when the aircraft is out on the road? We fly jets and our pilots check the oil every day. When they are departing from base, yes, they will ask us to top up the oil if they find it’s low. On the road they have a fly away kit with oil in it for that reason. People assume a lot of things about real world aircraft and maintenance that simply isn’t true.
Again, if one doesn’t want failures, turn them off or don’t buy the failure module. And someone that only wants to fly airplanes with deep systems modeling and failures can choose not to buy and fly aircraft that don’t suit their needs. As simple as that. This shouldn’t be such a point of contention and the truly bizarre thing in my eyes is the fact that people that come out in opposition to people asking for failures. Why do you even care if you can opt out of them? I’m glad that folks are happy with the plane but why oh why oppose someone else from asking for what would make them happy? The developer either will or they won’t add failures, why argue against it if you’re already happy?
4 Likes
any other plan developer who’s product is not finished
If you mean that a plane that doesn’t feature failures is “not finished”, that argument is a battle I cannot win. The rest of it I can relate to.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen an aircraft for MSFS that had advanced failure modeling that you could not turn off
@Eyaen an important reason we didn’t do failures on the PC-12 is to keep the price lower for those that don’t want to use them nor pay them either. That said, please read on below.
What makes me think this is the state.cfg file from the PC-12. Turbine aging and many other lines present in the Kodia state file are not present in those of the PC-12.
@StormWinter7 some failure code may be present in the PC-12 from the Kodiak’s codebase and I could activate it easily. The issue is that the failures can occur at times they shouldn’t (like in the Kodiak) because you just looked away from the aircraft and MSFS decided to over-rev the engine. Additionally, we are trying to make a much more detailed failure system than this which will be able to tell aircraft by their tail number and save their state.
5 Likes
Totally! I got that and I actually think that’s a great idea. And I have no doubt that in a perfect world where development time and money weren’t a thing, you guys would have released them side by side. No complaints from me personally on that! I appreciate you and the team for the work and stress you all endure. The plane looks really good in it’s current state, I just haven’t gotten around to buying it myself… yet.
For the sake of clarity, my position in my posts is meant to be neutral. If I ever fail to come across as much, it wasn’t my intention. I understand all the views here (with the previously stated exception of those that think everyone should be happy as long as they are). Nevertheless, much respect all!
3 Likes
I got it, I just wanted to clarify my position as things tend to get heated for the same reason -we all like what we like too much.
3 Likes
What I meant by “any other plan developer who’s product is not finished” is exactly what we are taking about here. Buy something now on a promise to add some new feature later on. Failures is the only reason I purchased this plan, period. Now with that said I really like the pc12 one of my favorites or was, I mean if it’s not going to get them it will be hangered and that is a shame really.
2 Likes
Some want the failures, some don’t. That’s not important.
What’s important is that it was said that PC12 would have failures. That promise was made. No one can argue otherwise, right?
It’s guaranteed that the devs would have known that at least a portion of supporters would buy the plane based on the anticipation of the forthcoming failures. The developers must have known this.
Therefore, pulling the failures demonstrates to me a lack of concern for the supporters now that money is in the bank.
Weather you like failures or not, that’s the situation as I see it.
Why would you buy a product that didn’t currently have the only feature you are interested in. Sure it was touted for a future addition but you do the sensible thing and wait surely.
1 Like
I didn’t read that failures are pulled. I think you are talking hypothetically right?
It was communicated clearly enough, to me at least, that the failures were planned to be an additional paid extension coming down the line. The current product was never promised to get failures as part of the current price. Anyone buying the current product paid the fair price for a product with no failures, which was clearly advertised in my opinion.
I totally get being disappointed if failures don’t materialize. But don’t act like this was a misrepresentation for what you were already buying.
7 Likes
Thanks for the informations. State saving by registration number of the plane is great. Very happy to see that coming.