It doesn’t do anything while you are actually flying so in that respect it adds nothing to the flying immersion. It’s nice for it to remember how you left the aircraft between flights though as that makes performing the proper checks all the more meaningful and important. However out of all the nice features one could ask for in an aircraft, it not having state saving concerns me the least and only because you can if you want apply your own state saving using external software. Most of the other features that often get spoken of can’t be done externally like this. It’s still nice to see it included though.
3 Likes
I’ve always wanted a good PC-12.
But the M500 calls to me…
In the WB-Sims 172, state saving is pretty important. If you leave the pitot tube cover off overnight, bugs may get into the pitot tube and that will certainly affect how the plane flies.
5 Likes
It’s because that aircraft was made that way. If there were no pitot blocking or loss of airspeed info then state saving for the pitot cover would be cosmetic only. So in this case there’s a reason for it.
As I said before though if you can control putting the pitot covers on/off externally from the sim then it’s not essential to have state saving built into the aircraft because an outside app can also store and retrieve the state for you. So i say it’s less essential only because of this reason. The outside control app can’t fix the flight model or a sound issue for instance so these I consider to be very essential. I’d rather these be right and no state saving than the alternative is all I’m suggesting. If we can get it all then great.
That’s the whole point, I know it’s not all that important to you, but, as a real pilot, state saving is super important to me and completes immersion for me, as @meningstlos said. And, no, I’m not interested in dealing with all sorts of external mods. Given my limited time to play, I want my sim simple and put the details in the plane so I don’t have to deal with what I need to do in one versus the other.
But I don’t mean to try to change your mind on the feature.
3 Likes
what do you mean by that?
They’re not including damage modeling in the first release… something to that effect. A lot of customers didn’t like having to worry about damaging their plane, plus, doing it properly is going to be a lot of work. So they’re releasing that feature as an addon at a later date so people can choose whether or not to implement it. But the systems are full up in the first release.
I’m excited to have a turboprop simulation that’s more real than what Asobo has delivered to date.
3 Likes
I just said it’s not as important as other features. Let me think what’s more immersive state saving or a good flight model, sounds and systems. I’m just saying I’d rather they be right than have state saving and they be not up to scratch. Personally I applaud SWS for going down the split release route. It puts the extra cost decision firmly back to the user. Those that want the extras pay the extras.
I consider these a given. As we’ve been saying, state saving falls under the immersion category, as opposed to necessary to even want to fly the plane.
1 Like
I fly the pc12 for work…so I think it may be the pc12 
2 Likes
Says who? SWS? Lol. Why not make it optional in the initial release? Look at A2A -almost everything is optional - so the higher probability here is that they want to publish this project asap and milk part of the costumers again later. I can understand that from a business pov, but as a costumer I vote with my wallet.
3 Likes
TBM instabuy…
Because:
- It’s not done yet and they want to release the plane
- There’s ton of work to do to get it working and they want to release the plane, they’re not even sure how they’re going to do some of the things yet
- Says lots of people who whined and said they don’t want it, so they’re making it an addon product and let people decide what they want and what they don’t want. They’re tired of listening to whiners and people who think they’re entitled to free stuff. (they never said that, I’m putting those words in their mouths)
That’s why not.
Your wallet will be able to vote, nobody’s taking that right from you.
You have an interesting perspective on how people decide to feed their families. They’re a year late on their budget here, and it’s time.
2 Likes
And you think those people put their emphasis on an accurate flight model, let alone can tell the difference between the SWS/Carenado/Real PC12 flight characteristics? I have +5 digits flight hours in real life (but not on the PC12) and I could definitely not.
Do you think those people can tell (or care) about correct ITT behavior or can tell the difference to Carenado/RealPC12?
Yeah, sure. If you read the thread about the Kodiak, I don’t see anyone complaining about options - so they must have done it somewhere else.
But anyway, I don’t want to keep anybody from buying the PC12, but I’m just too old to fall for those marketing tricks.
See you in another thread.
p.s. I don’t even bother to reply to that last sentence.
I think the Velocity XL (which came before all their analogue enhancements) was also scratch built (except the audio perhaps)?
I agree with the approach by SWS. Makes a lot of sense and if the upgrade price to the full featured version is fair, this could set a new way for other developers to approach their offerings. Cheaper entry price for the base aircraft, with a Pro version for extra. Everyone wins.
I am pretty set on getting the Piper though. Been following Raul’s various streams and everything looks very fun and slick. Even if I don’t fly this type of plane very often, that kind of effort deserves my coins. Knowing me I’ll end up with the PC-12 by SWS too though
5 Likes
I defer to your far greater knowledge! I totally forgot about the Velocity XL…
The velocity XL is a very nice aircraft, pity they didn’t keep it up-to-date and abandoned the project. It’s quite unique compared to other GA planes and the performance is very nice.
Now that you mention that I see Blacksquare rarely updates its products, even the analog conversions have stalled completely after release while other teams like Flysimware keep updating the products even when it seems everything is already in order.
Knowing me I’ll end up with the 3 aircraft, and I already know how I will think about each of them.
I feel the same way. I bought the Cessna 414A to see how I’d like flying higher/faster prop aircraft. It’s a very good plane, but I realized that when planes start flying at “FL xxx” vs “Alt xxxx” I start getting bored. Like you I will buy the M500 immediately and likely the PC-12 depending on reviews/impressions from the folks around here. When I watched Murph’s interview with SWS I was as excited to hear about the continuing development of the Kodiaks as much as getting a look at the very promising work they’ve done on the PC-12.
I think the key to enjoyable IFR (because, like you, I get bored too easily flying airliners, even on Vatsim), is aircraft to have aircraft with good failure systems, or other secondary systems like pressurisation or proper / accurate fuel management that help keep you focused and flying to your plan.
Flying a light GA at high altitude brings its own special risks from icing and convective weather in particular and the pre flight planning and ADM once in the air can really add to the challenge/fun. Mind you, would help if MSFS weather hazards were an actual threat to safety…
I can see that the M500 will offer this sort of engagement (plus pax comfort management).
I look forward to replicating this kind of flying
3 Likes
I disagree that they abandoned the Velocity XL. I was impressed that Black Square updated it with the same custom turbocharger logic that was developed for the turbo Bonanza. It also has better avionics support now that PMS50 are offering a WTT package for the Velocity.
Overall, Black Square have a history of developing new technology for new airplanes and then updating their older planes with the new features. The analog Caravan and King Air had multiple updates with improvements.
3 Likes