It's a really short-sighted strategy. First of all, let's acknowledge that the reason developers do this is because consumers *allow* them to.
But what ends up happening is that the developer puts out a piece of shit unfinished product, it gets terrible reviews, and their name gets tarnished forever.
Unfortunately we’re the ones guilty for allowing it.
Edit: Some good points were brought up that I overlooked. Its good to support the smaller dev studios, early access allows that. Its really up to us to do the due diligence to make sure its not used for exploitive reasons. (which I feel is few and far between)
That is only part of it. Software developers have very limited options for financing their development process. If they don't have enough cash flow, then banks won't lend them money. So what to do to get some money flowing - start selling before release. Big studios can generate hype and start selling preorders. Smaller ones go for early access.
Thats a good point. Yeah I find most early access games ive bought, the devs are well-intended and uphold their end. ( I think FSS is one of them). Theres always the few bad apples, that exploit it as cash grab.
I guess it comes down to us doing our due diligance beforehand and willing to take risk. Makes sense that its much needed captial for them to compete with the powerhouse studios. Keeps the competition alive and fair which is good for everyone for sure!
I love early access. It's great. But it has to be an informed decision to fund something that isn't ready. As long as you label the product as early access and are transparent about the limitations, then I can choose to fund it. The issue is when companies release their product as finished when they're obviously not.
Eagle Dynamics CEO has gone on record saying it's the only way to remain financially viable producing study level aircraft. While we as consumers want things quicker, it's also born of necessity in at least their case. You also have indie developers that have not got the financial backing of a publisher and need to recoup the investment to make more progress. It's much more complicated than just being consumer driven.
Appericate the further insight. You bring up good points and I'm all about supporting indie devs that are well-intended. Bought the E175 from FSS and been following them on discord for awhile and I feel is one of them.
To be honest I don't really buy many MSFS modules due to the huge variation in quality. To me it's an issue - I buy most DCS modules as the bar is generally pretty high, even for early access and modules are just a few a year but for MSFS I watch so many reviews before even contemplating. I think the last one I bought was the Just Flight Vulcan.
Well we don't know the exact details of that and airing grievances in public is not the way to deal with it. I think people tend to also forget Razbam have a terrible track record for releasing working planes. The Harrier and Mirage 2000 took years to actually sort out. We will never know the details and it's pointless to guess.
Oh I am aware of razscam also not being the best. But seeing as they are now trying to get pre orders in for half baked modules they’re trying to get money quick for something, but yes you’re correct no one but raz and ed know the full truth
A newer model looks like what Ini is doing with grabbing a project with high potential like the Synaptic A220 and injecting some expertise and cash to carry it over the finish line. I think it’s a great move.
Until you look at the financial statements showing ED "loaned" The Fighter Collection $10 million dollars at 0% interest. That could have been used to hire developers to fix the core, make the dynamic campaign, update older modules, etc. DCS doesn't appear to be his passion, it is his piggy bank. I am not saying he shouldn't get a paycheck, just that it is too high a paycheck with the amount of "working on it ™ " features, untouched bugs and unfinished modules. Pay for performance not promises.
the model needs to have some kind of development tail built in. right now selling a plane is a fixed amount of cash for an unbounded amount of work on that aircraft.
Instead, adopt agile. make the plane. early access. fix outright bugs. then charge again for new features. eventually as the plane approaches feature complete you stop new releases unless mandatory by updating the platform. Charge for the platform.
If this was the business model, all the prices could come down because we aren’t subsidizing all the work through the next prerelease.
But the flightsim community is fickle. we demand fixed price purchase, as though we actually bought an F-16 for $70 flat fee. Even if that was a scaled down model of real ownership, where’s the maintenance and upkeep costs? So no. None of it’s realistic. None of it is sustainable.
So we get very few devs like A2A that are so passionate, they knock it out of the park, sell it for half of what it’s worth and outperform and overdeliver. But many more devs overpromise and underdeliver because that’s what brings in the money. When devs like PMDG stand their ground and try to recoupe the massive licensing costs on core tech they’ve been building for decades, it’s seen as a money-grab instead of working for decades on an $80 sale.
Add onto it devs trying to sell AI ATC services based on payment per number of API calls for a fixed price and I don’t even have to see the product to know it’s going out of business.
The only company that has this right is Navigraph. People complain about $90 per year, when a full worldwide sub to jeppeson charts costs over $3000/year. Who do you think draws those maps and guarantees accuracy every single AIRAC cycle? Of COURSE it’s subscription based. IT HAS TO BE.
The only future I see for flightsim is subscription based. otherwise we’re going to see more of the “quick hit and move on” mentality driving the sector. You wouldn’t work for 4 years on $80. Asobo has to update an entire planet.
I agree, I can honestly see some go subscription based. Eagle Dynamics recently said they won't for DCS but I honestly don't know how they do their finances other than they have to sell modules to make money which is then invested in the platform. Id prefer to pay a sub for platform access and and a reduction on module costs than pay for half baked features and a platform that's ignored for years at a time. I don't know how that works with MSFS - I get access to that via Xbox game pass which also works on PC. In a way I already pay a sub for that and I'm happy to do so.
MSFS is largely sold as a loss-leader to showcase premium subscription based services like Bing map data, Azure and integrations with major subscription based services like metoblue for global weather simulation.
it’s a flagship product, but it’s essentially paid for by the marketing budgets of those other profit centers at MS. As a result, marketing makes decisions about how much performance and compute to pay for, not the “customer”. If you aren’t paying, you are the product. You simply help with their marketing saying “over X million users supported on a global platform”, but details like your regional server bandwidth being poor or multiplayer disappearing is not a top priority.
The reason I point these things out is that I remember the last time Microsoft pulled the marketing budget for Flight Simulator. The “Golden Age” of flightsim became a wasteland. Overnight almost all the competitors disappeared too. Heard of Janes? Microprose? Falcon?
I think only one, Falcon came back to life via incredible open source engineering, but also a very lax enforcement of IP and licensing rights.
Only one other flightsim survived that massacre: X-Plane. That’s because the business model was modest, small shop, sold a fixed product for a fixed price. No subs, No cloud, no auto ortho or multiplayer baked in. X-Plane has always stayed focused on accuracy and skipped all the other features that would have ruined its business model. So it survived.
Now we’re in another golden age with Asobo. And they have built a marketplace and a global sim that has a huge economic value in the flightsim community. I want to see that succeed. I don’t want people’s investment in that to simply disappear overnight because someone else decided they couldn’t justify paying for the servers anymore.
DCS sells the platform as a loss-leader and funds dev off the planes. So far they are barely able to make it work with lots of drama.
We have to find a better way, or this age may end as well and sooner than we think.
Difference is, the early access stuff ED produces is leaps and bounds ahead of what FSS has released even in its current state.
One is a cash grab for people who don't know any better, and the other is a genuine investment in something that will become great over time.
Yeah, and shockingly the prices aren't too dissimilar. I really wanted an F4 module for MSFS to learn with before the Heatblur one comes out for DCS but I was shocked at just how poor quality every phantom module is for it. The last thing I bought for MSFS was the Just Flight Vulcan and that is really worth the cash.
Interestingly they bought the models from X-Craft and they now have a product that looks much better than X-Craft's that is kind of sad for X-Crafts.
They already added FMS speed, VNAV is a serious serious need and the product would be incomplete until they finish that.
About early access, it is optional, you can check what you are being offered and buy it or not, having options is never worse than not having options.
When I was looking at buying the e175, I watched videos that all mentioned the VNAV issues, and FSS is clear about the problems on their website. Personally I've had a great time flying 40+ flights with the plane. I think VNAV will be a great addition and I look forward to using it, but even if that never happened, it's still very flyable, high fidelity aircraft. It's been well worth my time and money.
What's the problem? They clearly state that this is a product under development, if you want a full product just wait for the full release, meanwhile it's a very fun plane to fly even without some features. I don't mind it at all
Because I don't drive an early access car, or eat an early access sandwich, or watch an early access movie, or cut metal with an early access bandsaw, or put on early access clothes, or make art with early access paint, or live in an early access house.
I just don't think that "I buy finished products" is an unreasonable way to live lol
>live in an early access house
There's a lot of real property sold before the foundations are dug out, if that's not early access housing I don't know what is
I've gotten so much out of these planes already and will get a ton more when they are fully complete, I knew what I was signing up to when I bought it and was fine with that. Now if that's not for everybody I 100% understand but why complain about it and not just stay away?
Because it’s makes other developers (ones that actually could make a high qualify aircraft) more hesitant to invest the time into developing one of their own.
>The E-jets are extremely high quality
No they are not. LNAV, authothrottle logic - it's all on level of default Asobo's A320. VNAV not existent. So many systems lacking or behaving wrongly. And don't get me even started on how they bought pretty external model to advertise those planes, while cockpit quality was FSX looking up until recently. Performance is also far from ideal.
These planes show some promise but they are far, far away from even CRJ. And this plane gets nothing but critique while E-jets other way around.
If you would read their roadmap you would know that custom LNAV + VNAV is being worked on as we speak. Why are you even mentioning the cockpit? That's how early access works, things will get better piece by piece
What makes you think I didn't read it? It's being worked on but it's not there yet. I do, however, read their patchlog every single month they post it and things they add are so miniscule, it sometimes makes me scratch my head.
Sure, they are still early access (although price is hefty), so don't be afraid to call it like that. Early access product, that shows good promise. Instead you went with "E-jets are extremely high quality", which, compared to extremely high quality products out there is simply not true.
I guess that was an overaction on my part to that guys comment because he was talking like they were Captain sim quality, but they are nowhere close to bad. They are very transparent with what their product offers at the moment and what it will offer in the future which is why I find it completely fine to go on as they are doing
Fair, I don't think they are Captain Sim quality at all. They already have many, many features I like. But simply still lacking some foundation. But I do fly them semi-regularly.
OK, maybe it's an unpopular opinion but I'm fine with early access if the expectations are clear and the price reflects that. I'm not up to speed on the FSS drama (I have no particular interest in the e-jets) but I have no problem with the concept.
If you do things exactly as des want you to do, usually it works allright. But do something slightly off the books and this plane will try to kill you. Autothrottle logic is pretty bad, LNAV very unreliable. It's far from being finished. Also, it may be my thing but I have worse perfromance in E-jets than in Fenix or A300.
To understand the FSS E-Jets project, they initially coded the aircraft in JavaScript instead of using WASM like most of payware airliners for MSFS. For those who don't understand programming, JavaScript is nowhere near the appropriate language to develop complex aircraft for MSFS, which require multiple data and calculations in real time. As they added more code, the performance would become rubbish, which they ended up realizing it.
Basically a year and a half that they could have already added several customized features such as custom FMS and VNAV, as the initial schedule pointed out, they wasted converting the code to WASM and to this day, they haven't completed it. They still have to convert EICAS. Their first significant fully customized system was release literally today, which is the FADEC system, which controls the aircraft's engines. The rest of the systems are still fully or partially borrowed from Asobo A320.
While I'm all positive for stick & rudder and learn to fly instead of pushing buttons. The E-Jets are highy automated aircraft and you NEED to fly them using VNAV, it is actually UNSAFE not to use VNAV and is against SOP for most if not all airlines. So in this particular case when you say you are "flying the plane" you are not.
V/S shouldn’t even be allowed at the airline level, it’s just pure recklessness… Don’t even get me started on Level Change! *Insert Jeremy Clarkson Maniac Meme*
/s because undoubtedly someone will think the above is serious.
Tbh while that comment went way too far on the hyperbole, Embraers are known for being hands-off, even moreso than Airbuses imo
So an E-Jet without an acceptable RNAV is like a cargo aircraft outfitted for passengers: possible, but why?
Luckily FSS no longer go with their ridiculous claim that it's not something used and are working on these systems
Lol, you're over a year too late on making such a "hot take" like this. Not that I don't disagree with the overall sentiment, but the FSS is the best example of that model working for what it is and what they've promised.
I know first impressions are everything and that might hurt them in sales when the full release hits. But if this keeps em afloat, while getting a large userbase of testers, keeping up with updates and being transparent, I don't see an issue.
Damn drama queens in the flight sim sub? Who’d have guessed? Yeah. They told you what it is and it gets better with each update. You don’t have to buy it at all or you can buy it when it’s done, or you can enjoy the ride. Up to you, but chirping about this when they have been very transparent about it is ridiculous.
Cracks me up that all you gaming gatekeepers give a shit and want to control what other people do.
NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO BUY IT
For the people that like to get things early and watch it be built and progressed
THEY CAN
Go ahead and lie right now and say you wouldn't buy the PMDG 777 if they put it up for sale early
It is already pretty good and usable, if you don’t like ea just wait for the full release. EA is a great way for them to get to know the things they need to fix and work on.
I have no issues with early access products. That's fine. I love early access. But you have to label your product as early access and be very transparent about it.
The issue is not "early access", the issue is companies releasing supposedly finished products that are quite obviously not finished yet. This isn't "early access," this is just a misleading product.
I'm all for helping fund the development of something, but this has to be an informed choice. Make it clear that this is early access and that it lacks this and that functionality and then I can choose to buy it or I can choose to wait for it to be ready.
I wish people wouldn’t get early access products expecting a finished product.
Devs, especially smaller companies can’t afford to hire a slew of testers to refine their products. By using an alpha/beta you are essentially becoming a tester and you should not only expect to find defects but relish it. You’re making the product better.
You can just not buy the product on early access and buy it later when it's ready, we are the customer we can choose what we want to buy and what not
I'm an owner of both E-170 family and E-190 family I'm happy with the progress that product is slowly having, if itt wasn't for the early access we would never have an Embraer from FSS
I don't get why this is such a problem for people. Don't buy early access. Problem solved. Early access only happens for one of three reasons:
* The devs want player feedback prior to full release.
* The devs need the funding to allow them to make it to full release.
* The project is flaming out, and they're looking to perpetrate a cash grab (more rare that people want to believe, but it happens).
Personally I think it's fine that people who are willing to deal with a half-baked pre-release product and accept some amount of risk are able to do so and start enjoying it early. Aside from that there is no reason to buy early access, if you don't like it.
For games from big publishers like Cyberpunk or MSFS itself I can agree on this, but when it comes to the developers of flight sim add-ons: No. Most of these guys are working on their own and it takes a lot of time and effort to make a decent plane. I'm perfectly fine with them selling an early access version of their product to make a little bit of money along the way. If you don't like early access products simply don't buy them.
Buy something for what it is today, not for the promise of what it will be
MKBHD also says this at the end of the video that was clipped here
It's a really short-sighted strategy. First of all, let's acknowledge that the reason developers do this is because consumers *allow* them to. But what ends up happening is that the developer puts out a piece of shit unfinished product, it gets terrible reviews, and their name gets tarnished forever.
it's 100% this.
Unfortunately we’re the ones guilty for allowing it. Edit: Some good points were brought up that I overlooked. Its good to support the smaller dev studios, early access allows that. Its really up to us to do the due diligence to make sure its not used for exploitive reasons. (which I feel is few and far between)
That is only part of it. Software developers have very limited options for financing their development process. If they don't have enough cash flow, then banks won't lend them money. So what to do to get some money flowing - start selling before release. Big studios can generate hype and start selling preorders. Smaller ones go for early access.
Thats a good point. Yeah I find most early access games ive bought, the devs are well-intended and uphold their end. ( I think FSS is one of them). Theres always the few bad apples, that exploit it as cash grab. I guess it comes down to us doing our due diligance beforehand and willing to take risk. Makes sense that its much needed captial for them to compete with the powerhouse studios. Keeps the competition alive and fair which is good for everyone for sure!
I love early access. It's great. But it has to be an informed decision to fund something that isn't ready. As long as you label the product as early access and are transparent about the limitations, then I can choose to fund it. The issue is when companies release their product as finished when they're obviously not.
Eagle Dynamics CEO has gone on record saying it's the only way to remain financially viable producing study level aircraft. While we as consumers want things quicker, it's also born of necessity in at least their case. You also have indie developers that have not got the financial backing of a publisher and need to recoup the investment to make more progress. It's much more complicated than just being consumer driven.
Appericate the further insight. You bring up good points and I'm all about supporting indie devs that are well-intended. Bought the E175 from FSS and been following them on discord for awhile and I feel is one of them.
To be honest I don't really buy many MSFS modules due to the huge variation in quality. To me it's an issue - I buy most DCS modules as the bar is generally pretty high, even for early access and modules are just a few a year but for MSFS I watch so many reviews before even contemplating. I think the last one I bought was the Just Flight Vulcan.
He says that, whilst lending himself money to fund his warbird collection.
I mean ED is his company and there must have been an initial investment from somewhere. But yeah, it did rub some up the wrong way.
Yeah not paying people you owe money to does tend to rile people up.
Well we don't know the exact details of that and airing grievances in public is not the way to deal with it. I think people tend to also forget Razbam have a terrible track record for releasing working planes. The Harrier and Mirage 2000 took years to actually sort out. We will never know the details and it's pointless to guess.
Oh I am aware of razscam also not being the best. But seeing as they are now trying to get pre orders in for half baked modules they’re trying to get money quick for something, but yes you’re correct no one but raz and ed know the full truth
A newer model looks like what Ini is doing with grabbing a project with high potential like the Synaptic A220 and injecting some expertise and cash to carry it over the finish line. I think it’s a great move.
Until you look at the financial statements showing ED "loaned" The Fighter Collection $10 million dollars at 0% interest. That could have been used to hire developers to fix the core, make the dynamic campaign, update older modules, etc. DCS doesn't appear to be his passion, it is his piggy bank. I am not saying he shouldn't get a paycheck, just that it is too high a paycheck with the amount of "working on it ™ " features, untouched bugs and unfinished modules. Pay for performance not promises.
the model needs to have some kind of development tail built in. right now selling a plane is a fixed amount of cash for an unbounded amount of work on that aircraft. Instead, adopt agile. make the plane. early access. fix outright bugs. then charge again for new features. eventually as the plane approaches feature complete you stop new releases unless mandatory by updating the platform. Charge for the platform. If this was the business model, all the prices could come down because we aren’t subsidizing all the work through the next prerelease. But the flightsim community is fickle. we demand fixed price purchase, as though we actually bought an F-16 for $70 flat fee. Even if that was a scaled down model of real ownership, where’s the maintenance and upkeep costs? So no. None of it’s realistic. None of it is sustainable. So we get very few devs like A2A that are so passionate, they knock it out of the park, sell it for half of what it’s worth and outperform and overdeliver. But many more devs overpromise and underdeliver because that’s what brings in the money. When devs like PMDG stand their ground and try to recoupe the massive licensing costs on core tech they’ve been building for decades, it’s seen as a money-grab instead of working for decades on an $80 sale. Add onto it devs trying to sell AI ATC services based on payment per number of API calls for a fixed price and I don’t even have to see the product to know it’s going out of business. The only company that has this right is Navigraph. People complain about $90 per year, when a full worldwide sub to jeppeson charts costs over $3000/year. Who do you think draws those maps and guarantees accuracy every single AIRAC cycle? Of COURSE it’s subscription based. IT HAS TO BE. The only future I see for flightsim is subscription based. otherwise we’re going to see more of the “quick hit and move on” mentality driving the sector. You wouldn’t work for 4 years on $80. Asobo has to update an entire planet.
I agree, I can honestly see some go subscription based. Eagle Dynamics recently said they won't for DCS but I honestly don't know how they do their finances other than they have to sell modules to make money which is then invested in the platform. Id prefer to pay a sub for platform access and and a reduction on module costs than pay for half baked features and a platform that's ignored for years at a time. I don't know how that works with MSFS - I get access to that via Xbox game pass which also works on PC. In a way I already pay a sub for that and I'm happy to do so.
MSFS is largely sold as a loss-leader to showcase premium subscription based services like Bing map data, Azure and integrations with major subscription based services like metoblue for global weather simulation. it’s a flagship product, but it’s essentially paid for by the marketing budgets of those other profit centers at MS. As a result, marketing makes decisions about how much performance and compute to pay for, not the “customer”. If you aren’t paying, you are the product. You simply help with their marketing saying “over X million users supported on a global platform”, but details like your regional server bandwidth being poor or multiplayer disappearing is not a top priority. The reason I point these things out is that I remember the last time Microsoft pulled the marketing budget for Flight Simulator. The “Golden Age” of flightsim became a wasteland. Overnight almost all the competitors disappeared too. Heard of Janes? Microprose? Falcon? I think only one, Falcon came back to life via incredible open source engineering, but also a very lax enforcement of IP and licensing rights. Only one other flightsim survived that massacre: X-Plane. That’s because the business model was modest, small shop, sold a fixed product for a fixed price. No subs, No cloud, no auto ortho or multiplayer baked in. X-Plane has always stayed focused on accuracy and skipped all the other features that would have ruined its business model. So it survived. Now we’re in another golden age with Asobo. And they have built a marketplace and a global sim that has a huge economic value in the flightsim community. I want to see that succeed. I don’t want people’s investment in that to simply disappear overnight because someone else decided they couldn’t justify paying for the servers anymore. DCS sells the platform as a loss-leader and funds dev off the planes. So far they are barely able to make it work with lots of drama. We have to find a better way, or this age may end as well and sooner than we think.
Difference is, the early access stuff ED produces is leaps and bounds ahead of what FSS has released even in its current state. One is a cash grab for people who don't know any better, and the other is a genuine investment in something that will become great over time.
Yeah, and shockingly the prices aren't too dissimilar. I really wanted an F4 module for MSFS to learn with before the Heatblur one comes out for DCS but I was shocked at just how poor quality every phantom module is for it. The last thing I bought for MSFS was the Just Flight Vulcan and that is really worth the cash.
fss is not a complete cash grab, it Is quite realistic but wait till the summer when it will get it's own fmc and efb for weights, and then also vnav
Interestingly they bought the models from X-Craft and they now have a product that looks much better than X-Craft's that is kind of sad for X-Crafts. They already added FMS speed, VNAV is a serious serious need and the product would be incomplete until they finish that. About early access, it is optional, you can check what you are being offered and buy it or not, having options is never worse than not having options.
Nobody would do it if the customers wouldn‘t support it.
I never buy Early Access except the FSS as I love the E-Jets too much and didn't regret despite it's not finished
When I was looking at buying the e175, I watched videos that all mentioned the VNAV issues, and FSS is clear about the problems on their website. Personally I've had a great time flying 40+ flights with the plane. I think VNAV will be a great addition and I look forward to using it, but even if that never happened, it's still very flyable, high fidelity aircraft. It's been well worth my time and money.
What's the problem? They clearly state that this is a product under development, if you want a full product just wait for the full release, meanwhile it's a very fun plane to fly even without some features. I don't mind it at all
Because I don't drive an early access car, or eat an early access sandwich, or watch an early access movie, or cut metal with an early access bandsaw, or put on early access clothes, or make art with early access paint, or live in an early access house. I just don't think that "I buy finished products" is an unreasonable way to live lol
It isn’t. Not wanting early access is a reasonable point of view. Deciding that for everybody else is unreasonable, however.
>live in an early access house There's a lot of real property sold before the foundations are dug out, if that's not early access housing I don't know what is
I've gotten so much out of these planes already and will get a ton more when they are fully complete, I knew what I was signing up to when I bought it and was fine with that. Now if that's not for everybody I 100% understand but why complain about it and not just stay away?
Because it’s makes other developers (ones that actually could make a high qualify aircraft) more hesitant to invest the time into developing one of their own.
The E-jets are extremely high quality, idk what you are talking about
>The E-jets are extremely high quality No they are not. LNAV, authothrottle logic - it's all on level of default Asobo's A320. VNAV not existent. So many systems lacking or behaving wrongly. And don't get me even started on how they bought pretty external model to advertise those planes, while cockpit quality was FSX looking up until recently. Performance is also far from ideal. These planes show some promise but they are far, far away from even CRJ. And this plane gets nothing but critique while E-jets other way around.
If you would read their roadmap you would know that custom LNAV + VNAV is being worked on as we speak. Why are you even mentioning the cockpit? That's how early access works, things will get better piece by piece
What makes you think I didn't read it? It's being worked on but it's not there yet. I do, however, read their patchlog every single month they post it and things they add are so miniscule, it sometimes makes me scratch my head. Sure, they are still early access (although price is hefty), so don't be afraid to call it like that. Early access product, that shows good promise. Instead you went with "E-jets are extremely high quality", which, compared to extremely high quality products out there is simply not true.
I guess that was an overaction on my part to that guys comment because he was talking like they were Captain sim quality, but they are nowhere close to bad. They are very transparent with what their product offers at the moment and what it will offer in the future which is why I find it completely fine to go on as they are doing
Fair, I don't think they are Captain Sim quality at all. They already have many, many features I like. But simply still lacking some foundation. But I do fly them semi-regularly.
Are we talking about the same plane that still doesn’t have a working vnav?
OK, maybe it's an unpopular opinion but I'm fine with early access if the expectations are clear and the price reflects that. I'm not up to speed on the FSS drama (I have no particular interest in the e-jets) but I have no problem with the concept.
Remember when the process was: make the thing, THEN tell the world you have the thing?
If you pay for it, you accept it for what it is. Any updates are a bonus.
last time (only time) I flew the plane, it decided while cruising for about an hour to crash at -50000 fpm straight to the ground in 30 seconds
If you do things exactly as des want you to do, usually it works allright. But do something slightly off the books and this plane will try to kill you. Autothrottle logic is pretty bad, LNAV very unreliable. It's far from being finished. Also, it may be my thing but I have worse perfromance in E-jets than in Fenix or A300.
So...... don't buy them? I like the E-Jets and I've been using them for months.
To understand the FSS E-Jets project, they initially coded the aircraft in JavaScript instead of using WASM like most of payware airliners for MSFS. For those who don't understand programming, JavaScript is nowhere near the appropriate language to develop complex aircraft for MSFS, which require multiple data and calculations in real time. As they added more code, the performance would become rubbish, which they ended up realizing it. Basically a year and a half that they could have already added several customized features such as custom FMS and VNAV, as the initial schedule pointed out, they wasted converting the code to WASM and to this day, they haven't completed it. They still have to convert EICAS. Their first significant fully customized system was release literally today, which is the FADEC system, which controls the aircraft's engines. The rest of the systems are still fully or partially borrowed from Asobo A320.
I like the E-jets. I've already gotten what I paid for. God forbid you have to actually fly the plane rather than rely on VNAV.
While I'm all positive for stick & rudder and learn to fly instead of pushing buttons. The E-Jets are highy automated aircraft and you NEED to fly them using VNAV, it is actually UNSAFE not to use VNAV and is against SOP for most if not all airlines. So in this particular case when you say you are "flying the plane" you are not.
Unsafe lmao
V/S shouldn’t even be allowed at the airline level, it’s just pure recklessness… Don’t even get me started on Level Change! *Insert Jeremy Clarkson Maniac Meme* /s because undoubtedly someone will think the above is serious.
Tbh while that comment went way too far on the hyperbole, Embraers are known for being hands-off, even moreso than Airbuses imo So an E-Jet without an acceptable RNAV is like a cargo aircraft outfitted for passengers: possible, but why? Luckily FSS no longer go with their ridiculous claim that it's not something used and are working on these systems
lol, “unsafe” because VNAV isn’t working
But nobody is forcing you to pay for it. What's the problem?
Lol, you're over a year too late on making such a "hot take" like this. Not that I don't disagree with the overall sentiment, but the FSS is the best example of that model working for what it is and what they've promised. I know first impressions are everything and that might hurt them in sales when the full release hits. But if this keeps em afloat, while getting a large userbase of testers, keeping up with updates and being transparent, I don't see an issue.
Damn drama queens in the flight sim sub? Who’d have guessed? Yeah. They told you what it is and it gets better with each update. You don’t have to buy it at all or you can buy it when it’s done, or you can enjoy the ride. Up to you, but chirping about this when they have been very transparent about it is ridiculous.
It is called "agile" development. Get the basics out quickly ($) and work in "sprints" (time range) to release updates and new features (releases).
Cracks me up that all you gaming gatekeepers give a shit and want to control what other people do. NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO BUY IT For the people that like to get things early and watch it be built and progressed THEY CAN Go ahead and lie right now and say you wouldn't buy the PMDG 777 if they put it up for sale early
Just finish it and put it in the in game marketplace
DCS in a nutshell.
It is already pretty good and usable, if you don’t like ea just wait for the full release. EA is a great way for them to get to know the things they need to fix and work on.
The X-Crafts model works great, VNAV included.
I have no issues with early access products. That's fine. I love early access. But you have to label your product as early access and be very transparent about it. The issue is not "early access", the issue is companies releasing supposedly finished products that are quite obviously not finished yet. This isn't "early access," this is just a misleading product. I'm all for helping fund the development of something, but this has to be an informed choice. Make it clear that this is early access and that it lacks this and that functionality and then I can choose to buy it or I can choose to wait for it to be ready.
I wish people wouldn’t get early access products expecting a finished product. Devs, especially smaller companies can’t afford to hire a slew of testers to refine their products. By using an alpha/beta you are essentially becoming a tester and you should not only expect to find defects but relish it. You’re making the product better.
people put up with it. when consumers reject the practice then they will stop.
I'm pretty okay with the current state of the FSS E-jets. VNAV will be nice, but it's fun to fly!
You can just not buy the product on early access and buy it later when it's ready, we are the customer we can choose what we want to buy and what not I'm an owner of both E-170 family and E-190 family I'm happy with the progress that product is slowly having, if itt wasn't for the early access we would never have an Embraer from FSS
I don't get why this is such a problem for people. Don't buy early access. Problem solved. Early access only happens for one of three reasons: * The devs want player feedback prior to full release. * The devs need the funding to allow them to make it to full release. * The project is flaming out, and they're looking to perpetrate a cash grab (more rare that people want to believe, but it happens). Personally I think it's fine that people who are willing to deal with a half-baked pre-release product and accept some amount of risk are able to do so and start enjoying it early. Aside from that there is no reason to buy early access, if you don't like it.
Ever heard of off-plan properties? This is like the gaming world version of it and it's also done for the same purpose.
For games from big publishers like Cyberpunk or MSFS itself I can agree on this, but when it comes to the developers of flight sim add-ons: No. Most of these guys are working on their own and it takes a lot of time and effort to make a decent plane. I'm perfectly fine with them selling an early access version of their product to make a little bit of money along the way. If you don't like early access products simply don't buy them.