Lucky38i

You mean vibe coding? not specifically with the SDK but I’ve dabbled with something flight sim related. It’s great for frame working but I still had to go in an engineer a number of things. Otherwise it can get unnecessarily messy fast.

Isn't particularly surprising. Who wants to pay $15 a month for an ATC addon? Same way Vatsim is significantly larger than PE

ADS-B Exchange does the exact same thing as FR24. They also charge for their personal APIs https://rapidapi.com/adsbx/api/adsbexchange-com1

ADS-B is not private data, I have no idea where you got that information. Who told you that ADS-B information is solely for ATC?! There's no hacking or stealing of data, this is publicly available information. FR24 charges money because they are an aggregator and store deltas of ADS-B data. You're free to create your own scraper that does this but there's a lot of technical hurdles to attain, store and serve this kind of data with a high level of throughput. That's what FR24 charges for.

I run a lot of programs aside with flight sim, as-well as in VR. Sometimes I even program/code whilst running a long haul. Never felt the need to get more ram. 7800X3D 32GB DDR4 7800XT

That's what the marketplace is for, don't see the point of a subscription. Especially with the increase of timed exclusives.

Unless there's a published roadmap with timelines given, then this is the very basis of how Early Access operates. You can't setup some internal timeline in your head and get upset that BATC hasn't fulfilled it, you signed up to EA knowing full well this is a development process. Some of the most iconic games like rimworld and project zomboid were in early access for near a decade. If you don't want to be a part of that experience you're free to wait for a 1.0 release. https://help.steampowered.com/en/faqs/view/6554-ED29-FBDB-1612 I am not defending Early Access, it is simply a purchase model offered by developers, the best way for you to showcase you're not happy with the model, is by not engaging with it.

I mean what's the point of this comparison? GTA is very much a general purpose game enjoyed by all sorts of gamers, of course the copies sold is wildly different. However, MSFS has become more widely available to the general public as it's now accessible on both console platforms, that was kind of the point abrams was making.

Despite marketed as a 1.0 release, I get the impression ini is practicing a sort of pseudo "early-access" model. For example, GPWS (A fairly simple expectation for 1.0 release) is on their roadmap to be added, why it's not their on release is puzzling to me. They've added 3 INS units but there's no switch or anything to switch to the different units nor is remote mode even implemented (On their roadmap), nor is there any failures modeled so there's very little reason to even program the other 2 INS units. The Pneumatics & temperature simulation is still all over the place, not a deal breaker but come on. The automatic F/E would not turn off the bleed air shutoff valve, so you would be stuck their wondering why your engine start valve is wouldn't open. It's great that it's fixed 2 weeks later, but this is simple A-B testing that should've been discovered before release. I wholeheartedly appreciate how receptive they are to updating their aircraft but honestly if release was delayed another month or two there would be a lot less to fix and less me feeling like I'm not using a polished product like I'd get from JustFlight or PMDG (These are just example, there's more devs I didn't mention). Furthermore, they seem to have a roadmap to add various things that you'd expect from a 1.0 release, further proving to me that this was intentional. We've seen this with the 350 and 340 as-well.

They’re literally the same thing. You glossed over my entire point. 😪

Pirates aren’t going to pay in the first place, making it exclusive to the marketplace holds little water imo as it doesn’t suddenly mean pirates will suddenly start paying. personally it’s not a reason I believe all that much. Exclusivity deals on the other hand…

Judging by this being in development for 3 years and the ini A350 only coming out about a year ago, it's a bit difficult to just scrap everything you've worked on. Also Rhodium may feel they can offer USPs over what ini is offering. We only can wait and see. The nihilism of the community at times drives me up a wall. Any dev no matter how new I always wish them success cause if they do we as a community, win.

It's not particularly better and from what I've seen the devs are adding a bunch of other unrelated features to masquerade that fact. Though I'm happy to be wrong but ontop of the subscription, I'm not curious to find out.

No that won't be available for a few months, similar to their A340 release

I think a more comparison would’ve been to do both shots in “24. Especially considering the new lighting engine in “24. Though I guess this video makes the shots look way more drastic. regardless a welcome addition and well done to the Gaya team.

Third ban? Now im very doubtful just how lighthearted your comment was, even more so considering this is your third ban. Im well aware that Flight1 is a small team and does massive updates rather than incremental ones. Not to mention the recent stream and update posts on SP1 give me the confidence that they’re cooking. I don’t need anything more, the current planes works in fs24 just fine and I got other planes to fly. I really don’t see what they’re is get all up in arms about. You’ve been simming for 30 years yet you haven’t grasped that this entire hobby is measured in months and years not days and weeks in terms of development progress? Give me a break

This all does sound very lovely to make the learning experience much more seamless but at some point I would've like to take a hand at managing that all myself. Alas

Never understood why FSL made that design choice. Why not give simmers the option. Half the fun-factor of the concorde is making sense of the FE panel, particularly balancing fuel.

Or you can let them connect the tug during boarding. There’s even an option to make this happen automatically in the settings page.

No progressive loading or refueling is odd to me, even the A300 had that.

Can’t say the same, I’ve flown tons of different approaches with it. that’s weird though cause with an RNAV there’s nothing in particular to do.

CRJs were later on given the option of coupled VNAV where the aircraft would pitch accordingly but pilots were still required to manage speed/thrust. This option was standard on later CRJs but advisory VNAV was preferred the CRJ in-sim offers both coupled VNAV and Advisory. sorry for giving you the run around I was catching up on my CRJ knowledge

There is no VNAV, there’s only advisory VNAV. The LNAV is perfectly respectable to its real life counterpart. Scratch that I think there’s an optional VNAV but I personally never used it as it’s a rare option irl

So when this occurs its due to a particular approach/star/sid/departure. According to CSS there's navdata flags that they need to cover, they've covered more of these flags in the most recent update which has helped but I've learned there's still soem issues with the aforementioned. My advice is to report it on the discord or send a ticket through the launcher with your exact route so they can investigate.

While avsim has it's own set of problems, the comment section over at fselite can truly be insufferable at times. Someone commented they didn't have a lot of faith because they somehow misconstrued that Vector claimed the EDWs was a flagship feature.