-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Boeing B-314 "The Clipper" released!
- Thread starter YoYo
- Start date
Thank you very much, cmiksch and Ralf ! 
According to the video that Stearman sent along that *does* seem to take care of the awkward taxi behaviour. Great !
Btw, love the video ! He even chose my favourite Californian home base 'Half Moon Bay' (just for the romantic name...;-) for the landing sequence ! And he made the effort to setup and include a number of Fly-By sequences with which this big fat waterbird's still gracious lines can be enjoyed to great extend ( well know reviewer ITB might take notice of that..)
Will be difficult for me to keep holding off now. I might have to literally take the plunge now and hope for Jerome to come to his senses.
Thanks again, gentlemen, highly appreciated !
According to the video that Stearman sent along that *does* seem to take care of the awkward taxi behaviour. Great !
Btw, love the video ! He even chose my favourite Californian home base 'Half Moon Bay' (just for the romantic name...;-) for the landing sequence ! And he made the effort to setup and include a number of Fly-By sequences with which this big fat waterbird's still gracious lines can be enjoyed to great extend ( well know reviewer ITB might take notice of that..)
Will be difficult for me to keep holding off now. I might have to literally take the plunge now and hope for Jerome to come to his senses.
Thanks again, gentlemen, highly appreciated !
Yep, going to cost $60, as i've seen Jerome write somewhere.. I love 'The Clipper' but alas not so much this MSFS version, yet... Although i DO like the external model very much. Then again the spinning props as viewed from within the VC are a disgrace. I simply cannot understand how a dev with a dedication to his project can send something looking so awful out into the world. Ashame really. I guess one *could* come to the conclusion that in this case the dev has no dedication to his project.
Really hate to say that but, IMHO, the whole thing reeks of "Need money asap. Have a good looking P3D model. Convert to MSFS asap. With as little effort as possible. Collect the money".
No matter that, with the awkward taxi, take off and landing behaviour modded out now (many thanks to Stearman948713 !!) i'll donate my 30 bucks to The Clipper fund and, as i said above, hope Jerome will come to his senses. This simply is no way to treat a famous historic and iconic flying boat, not even if it's only a model !
TiAr
Charter Member
V1.1 is out.
B-314 Seaports now all have water based parking positions that allow a Cold
& Dark startup on water.
All models
Interior texture overhaul with new colours, refining overall depth (Normals)
and adding wear and tear
Created functional Cold & Dark startup FLT files
Cockpit
B-314A Attitude Indicator was INOP - fixed
Engineer
B-314A PIONEER Temperature Needles for Engines 3 & 4 misaligned- fixed
Flight Model
Contact Point compression adjustment to improve water handling
Contact Point position adjustment to improve high AOA landing
Contact Point steering adjustment to improve water rudder response
A big thanks to Stearmandriver for his assistance with the Contact Points!
Know Issues
The Fuel Tank Selection Dials all show a visible OFF at startup, even when
the engines are running. The LVars for the dials are set correctly, their
position is not passed on correctly from the FLT LVar section to the visible
model. This is being discussed with Asobo.
The Mooring Light Switch, which activates a mooring of the aicraft with
position hold and the mooring lines appearing, is functional upon a Cold &
Dark startup. This is due to the same LVar issue as described above.
B-314 Seaports now all have water based parking positions that allow a Cold
& Dark startup on water.
All models
Interior texture overhaul with new colours, refining overall depth (Normals)
and adding wear and tear
Created functional Cold & Dark startup FLT files
Cockpit
B-314A Attitude Indicator was INOP - fixed
Engineer
B-314A PIONEER Temperature Needles for Engines 3 & 4 misaligned- fixed
Flight Model
Contact Point compression adjustment to improve water handling
Contact Point position adjustment to improve high AOA landing
Contact Point steering adjustment to improve water rudder response
A big thanks to Stearmandriver for his assistance with the Contact Points!
Know Issues
The Fuel Tank Selection Dials all show a visible OFF at startup, even when
the engines are running. The LVars for the dials are set correctly, their
position is not passed on correctly from the FLT LVar section to the visible
model. This is being discussed with Asobo.
The Mooring Light Switch, which activates a mooring of the aicraft with
position hold and the mooring lines appearing, is functional upon a Cold &
Dark startup. This is due to the same LVar issue as described above.
I got the impression that, after the update, 'the green' in the VC would've been replaced with a bit 'easier on the eyes' color..... I finally bought the B314 package yesterday but don't see much difference in the VC colors compared to all the screenshots of the VC *before* the update... The zip that i was able to download is named "PILOTS_Boeing_B314_The_Clipper_MSFS_110.zip".
I was wondering, as a buyer of the initial Clipper package how did you get the update ?
Could i ask you to post a screenshot of the VC that shows why you think that the VC looks better ?....Do you see other colors compared to the colors of the initial VC ?
Thank you very much !
Clarification : i just wanna make sure i have the updated Clipper version...
DC1973
Members +
Over the past three years, I have had much experience of the way certain "reviewers" do their work on You Tube and other platforms. Having been fortunate enough to become successful enough as a developer for those reviews not to have much of an effect either way on my products' sales ( most customers don't view them or watch them but make up their own minds ), I can afford to view them from a distance. Not all developers are as fortunate.
There are very few reviewers who earn their place with properly researched reviews of products and / or the knowledge to back those reviews up. CGAviator, IntoTheBlue, CorporatePilotDad and Novawing24 spring to mind. All either have real-world aviation experience or take plenty of time to learn a product before reviewing it, essentially earning the knowledge to pass judgement on whether something is accurate or not. ( And all have posted both positive and negative reviews of my products, so this isn't a choir preaching exercise ).
Reviewers like Jonathan Beckett don't do this. They slap something together as fast as they can, preferably with some sort of click-bait title, and grab as many views as they can. They demand that a developer "do better" as they're being paid for the airplanes they produce, while at the same time earning from their YT videos while doing as little as possible to do so, all the while hiding behind an "honest, I'm a nice guy and I'm doing this for you" approach to their narration. By their own "standards", their channels should not be there. And when the developer stands up for their product and points out the flaws in the so-called review? That's "unprofessional". These reviewers want to be able to say anything they like, but then hide behind "you're unprofessional" as soon as they're called out on their own low standards. The fact that JB pulled his video ( which would have gained a lot of views ) shows the degree of backlash against said video - he's been called out and he deserves it. Others should be too.
PILOTs Boeing Clipper has its faults, for sure. But in the screaming melodrama of reviewers like Jonathan Beckett and their Z-list videos, viewers are conned into thinking that the Boeing Clipper is somehow the "lowest of the low" and we deserve a refund. I'd ask folks here to balance that against products from the likes of MScenery, Deimos Inc, Bredok3D and others. Where does a product from a developer that clearly has worked hard on the product actually stand? Is it really "I want a refund" territory? Or is it something that, as in the case of the Clipper, the developer wanted to improve and was openly asking for constructive criticism? Cue shrill insults from forum members on AVSIM on others that go un-checked, but the developer is chastised for their responses. Double-standards, everywhere.
Everybody has opinions and preferences, each seeks different things from different products. Reputable developers work for many months on a product and don't do so to cash-grab - those that do so are easily spotted, we all know who they are. There should be some equal level of assessment of YouTube reviewers who maintain such low standards, but then demand so much from the developers they have self-appointed themselves to pass judgement upon.
There are very few reviewers who earn their place with properly researched reviews of products and / or the knowledge to back those reviews up. CGAviator, IntoTheBlue, CorporatePilotDad and Novawing24 spring to mind. All either have real-world aviation experience or take plenty of time to learn a product before reviewing it, essentially earning the knowledge to pass judgement on whether something is accurate or not. ( And all have posted both positive and negative reviews of my products, so this isn't a choir preaching exercise ).
Reviewers like Jonathan Beckett don't do this. They slap something together as fast as they can, preferably with some sort of click-bait title, and grab as many views as they can. They demand that a developer "do better" as they're being paid for the airplanes they produce, while at the same time earning from their YT videos while doing as little as possible to do so, all the while hiding behind an "honest, I'm a nice guy and I'm doing this for you" approach to their narration. By their own "standards", their channels should not be there. And when the developer stands up for their product and points out the flaws in the so-called review? That's "unprofessional". These reviewers want to be able to say anything they like, but then hide behind "you're unprofessional" as soon as they're called out on their own low standards. The fact that JB pulled his video ( which would have gained a lot of views ) shows the degree of backlash against said video - he's been called out and he deserves it. Others should be too.
PILOTs Boeing Clipper has its faults, for sure. But in the screaming melodrama of reviewers like Jonathan Beckett and their Z-list videos, viewers are conned into thinking that the Boeing Clipper is somehow the "lowest of the low" and we deserve a refund. I'd ask folks here to balance that against products from the likes of MScenery, Deimos Inc, Bredok3D and others. Where does a product from a developer that clearly has worked hard on the product actually stand? Is it really "I want a refund" territory? Or is it something that, as in the case of the Clipper, the developer wanted to improve and was openly asking for constructive criticism? Cue shrill insults from forum members on AVSIM on others that go un-checked, but the developer is chastised for their responses. Double-standards, everywhere.
Everybody has opinions and preferences, each seeks different things from different products. Reputable developers work for many months on a product and don't do so to cash-grab - those that do so are easily spotted, we all know who they are. There should be some equal level of assessment of YouTube reviewers who maintain such low standards, but then demand so much from the developers they have self-appointed themselves to pass judgement upon.
K5083
SOH-CM-2024
I feel your frustration and agree with you on some points DC, but overall that is a pretty weak take.
I don't think "double standard" means what you think it means. Different standards for different products is not a double standard. A YT video is not an addon plane. YTers are constrained by the conditions of producing on YT, especially if they want to make a little ad money. To please the algorithm, they have to put out a vid every couple of days, if not every day. The content has to be timely. And, they charge me nothing for it. When you release a new plane every 2 days and charge us zero for it, you can talk about double standards relative to YT vids. "Professionalism" has to be assessed in context of the product. Also, to be fair, many of the best sim YTers are working commercial pilots, which must make it hard to produce these vids at all, and I'm happy if they channel their professionalism into their day job.
That said, I would go farther than you and say that not one single YTer offers well enough researched reviews to be worth taking seriously. Some undoubtedly are worse than others. I don't watch all the ones you cited as being good, but I used to watch Into the Blue. I had to give him up, I never made it to the end of one of his videos because I made up a drinking game where I take a shot every time he says, "As I say, ..." and then repeats something he said a few minutes ago. By the end of his vids I was always unconscious. Seriously, that guy is a master at stretching 5 minutes of content into a 30 minute video. But again, he's doing what YT's algorithm commands. Substantively, although he's been a bit better lately, ITB often showed the pressure to get a video out within a day or two of a product's release by producing an ill-researched review in which he sometimes confessed to not even knowing the most basic performance data about the subject airplane to compare with the addon. Why not research it before making the video? No time, hours count on YT, someone will steal your views if you don't get that vid out today. Mostly he erred on the side of being too generous to the addon, which of course, devs are perfectly happy with.
There are YT gaming review channels in which the YTer takes weeks to put out a review video on a new release, does a full play-through, then puts out a beautifully produced, comprehensive review. Angry Joe comes to mind as one that I enjoy. But when you have 3m subs and literally millions of people enjoy your content for its own sake, you are playing on a different level than any flight sim YTer and can afford to do that. A few YTers do this a little bit, taking a more detailed look at addons released some time ago, but sim YTers tend to be rather lacking in charisma and can't really carry a channel on such content. Plus, as you say, many of them simply lack the knowledge and experience to do an informed review, no matter how much time they take.
Forums like this one are a much better place to get informed, thoughtful insights on new products, but I'm sure they have far less penetration than YT vids. I suppose most buyers go on nothing but the publisher's hype, which leads to disappointment sometimes.
August
I don't think "double standard" means what you think it means. Different standards for different products is not a double standard. A YT video is not an addon plane. YTers are constrained by the conditions of producing on YT, especially if they want to make a little ad money. To please the algorithm, they have to put out a vid every couple of days, if not every day. The content has to be timely. And, they charge me nothing for it. When you release a new plane every 2 days and charge us zero for it, you can talk about double standards relative to YT vids. "Professionalism" has to be assessed in context of the product. Also, to be fair, many of the best sim YTers are working commercial pilots, which must make it hard to produce these vids at all, and I'm happy if they channel their professionalism into their day job.
That said, I would go farther than you and say that not one single YTer offers well enough researched reviews to be worth taking seriously. Some undoubtedly are worse than others. I don't watch all the ones you cited as being good, but I used to watch Into the Blue. I had to give him up, I never made it to the end of one of his videos because I made up a drinking game where I take a shot every time he says, "As I say, ..." and then repeats something he said a few minutes ago. By the end of his vids I was always unconscious. Seriously, that guy is a master at stretching 5 minutes of content into a 30 minute video. But again, he's doing what YT's algorithm commands. Substantively, although he's been a bit better lately, ITB often showed the pressure to get a video out within a day or two of a product's release by producing an ill-researched review in which he sometimes confessed to not even knowing the most basic performance data about the subject airplane to compare with the addon. Why not research it before making the video? No time, hours count on YT, someone will steal your views if you don't get that vid out today. Mostly he erred on the side of being too generous to the addon, which of course, devs are perfectly happy with.
There are YT gaming review channels in which the YTer takes weeks to put out a review video on a new release, does a full play-through, then puts out a beautifully produced, comprehensive review. Angry Joe comes to mind as one that I enjoy. But when you have 3m subs and literally millions of people enjoy your content for its own sake, you are playing on a different level than any flight sim YTer and can afford to do that. A few YTers do this a little bit, taking a more detailed look at addons released some time ago, but sim YTers tend to be rather lacking in charisma and can't really carry a channel on such content. Plus, as you say, many of them simply lack the knowledge and experience to do an informed review, no matter how much time they take.
Forums like this one are a much better place to get informed, thoughtful insights on new products, but I'm sure they have far less penetration than YT vids. I suppose most buyers go on nothing but the publisher's hype, which leads to disappointment sometimes.
August
DC1973
Members +
Double standards are double standards. Neither I nor any other developer could care less how hard it is to make YT videos. If somebody is not up to being able to do the job right, they should not take it on. My post was made to highlight the fact that these low-standard You Tubers can really scupper a new developer's product sales, all based on the You Tuber's own desire to get views and money, based on misinformation and being poor at what they claim to do. It's not a weak take at all, and I see no reason for anybody with a conscience to be good with reviews such as those by the likes of Jonathan Beckett.
Dean, don't forget what this is all about.
This is about a developer that sees absolutely no problem in releasing an MSFS aircraft model with totally wrong contact points and engines running without fuel. And that's just the beginning. That's no fault, that is having precisely zero respect for your customers and no dedication for your model whatsoever. A developer like that deserves to get burned in video 'reviews'. Reviews between brackets because these reviewers (ITB and JB only two i saw myself) knew at first glance this product wasn't even worth a proper review. The developer is 100% to blame for this terrible sad situation, not the reviewers. That's what you get when you just want to make a buck without any dedication, devotion, heart and enthusiasm for your product. It will stand out like sour thumb because that's exactly what our precious hobby is all about.
That the subject of this deplorable state of affairs is the wonderful vintage and iconic Boeing-B 314 Clipper makes it even more tragic.
Dean, thank you and please continue your excellent line of affordable MSFS aircraft models. Your contact points are always spot on.
This is about a developer that sees absolutely no problem in releasing an MSFS aircraft model with totally wrong contact points and engines running without fuel. And that's just the beginning. That's no fault, that is having precisely zero respect for your customers and no dedication for your model whatsoever. A developer like that deserves to get burned in video 'reviews'. Reviews between brackets because these reviewers (ITB and JB only two i saw myself) knew at first glance this product wasn't even worth a proper review. The developer is 100% to blame for this terrible sad situation, not the reviewers. That's what you get when you just want to make a buck without any dedication, devotion, heart and enthusiasm for your product. It will stand out like sour thumb because that's exactly what our precious hobby is all about.
That the subject of this deplorable state of affairs is the wonderful vintage and iconic Boeing-B 314 Clipper makes it even more tragic.
Dean, thank you and please continue your excellent line of affordable MSFS aircraft models. Your contact points are always spot on.
I can't think of a single payware aircraft model MSFS that was perfect upon purchase and did not require multiple updates from the developer after customer feedback. I grow weary of becoming a paying beta tester on every single purchase. Clearly, there are issues with this model, with the developer kicking and screaming all the way to fixing them.Dean, don't forget what this is all about. This is about a developer that sees absolutely no problem in releasing an MSFS aircraft model with totally wrong contact points and engines running without fuel. And that's just the beginning. That's no fault, that is having precisely zero respect for your customers and no dedication for your model whatsoever. A developer like that deserves to get burned in video 'reviews'. Reviews between brackets because these reviewers (ITB and JB only two i saw myself) knew at first glance this product wasn't even worth a proper review. The developer is 100% to blame for this terrible sad situation, not the reviewers. That's what you get when you just want to make a buck without any dedication, devotion, heart and enthusiasm for your product. It will stand out like sour thumb because that's exactly what our precious hobby is all about.That the subject of this sad situation is the wonderful vintage and iconic Boeing-B 314 Clipper makes it even more tragic.Dean, thank you and please continue your excellent line of affordable MSFS aircraft models. Your contact points are always spot on.
Nope, that ugly greem is still there. I don't see much difference if any in the VC or passenger cabin. The VC also remains very dark. It looks like they rushed to address the contact ponts and to fix a couple of guages. And as for the contact points, they leveraged the fix from a customer and gave credit to the wrong person. LOLROTFI got the impression that, after the update, 'the green' in the VC would've been replaced with a bit 'easier on the eyes' color..... I finally bought the B314 package yesterday but don't see much difference in the VC colors compared to all the screenshots of the VC *before* the update... The zip that i was able to download is named "PILOTS_Boeing_B314_The_Clipper_MSFS_110.zip".I was wondering, as a buyer of the initial Clipper package how did you get the update ? Could i ask you to post a screenshot of the VC that shows why you think that the VC looks better ?....Do you see other colors compared to the colors of the initial VC ?Thank you very much !
DC1973
Members +
Contact points, without a doubt the most convoluted process in flight sim historyDean, thank you and please continue your excellent line of affordable MSFS aircraft models. Your contact points are always spot on.
That's because you buy them all and too quickly
'Perfect upon purchase' maybe not but when have you seen a new model bouncing around upon its wheels or floats at first load or engines starting with the fuel valves closed. Can you imagine a betatester being alright with that ? Usually a new model is perfectly fine to put it thru its first testflights. Also perfectly normal to notice a few bits and pieces here and there that might need looking into. One of my favs certainly is Ant's Tiger Moth. I'd love him to put a bit more work into the pilot figures (too small for one thing) but that's about it. You know, that is how it should be. I also have a handful of models that i am perfectly happy with, 'imperfections' and all. I'd say Pilot's Clipper is the very worst aircraft model i did not buy.
(did buy it after the update) Yeah, the thread is closed now but i was about to tell Jerome to stop making a fuzz about the comments and GET TO WORK for godsake!!
Hehe... yes... wasn't it Stearmendriver who got the accolades and Stearman948713 that did the actual contactpoints mod ?
In any case very thankful to the real deal, i can now look and admire the external model without bursting into tears. Love it !
And thanks for the info about the update, dvj. That's another bummer to put in our pipes and smoke it. Oh well, what else is new. Atleast i figure i have indeed the updated model. My hands are itching to get to work on them VC textures but that would be my first work for MSFS and i have a HP Reverb G2 so chances are dim at least.. Love that sand color i saw somewhere in a photo of the real Clipper.
I don't wish to become embroiled in the debate too deeply, but I must say something in defence of Jonathan Beckett. With regard to the now-deleted Clipper review, I agree that he might have been too hasty. Jerome at PILOTS claimed that Jonathan asked for a refund within 90 minutes of the purchase, and that would appear too short a time to read the manual thoroughly and give the model a fair assessment. Also, having the aircraft moored, revving the engines, and implying that the resulting weird wake effects were the fault of the model and not the sim, was obviously wrong. I agree that a developer who invests months of effort and headaches should not have the work undone by an inaccurate, possibly rushed Youtube video that only took an hour or two to put together.
However, this is not typical of what Jonathan Beckett does. I've been a subscriber to his channel for a long time, and much enjoy his flight commentaries. I call them 'commentaries' rather than reviews, because they are often just a circuit or two, or a short trip from A to B, with him offering comments, remarks and observations on the way. He's not the only one - AvAngel is broadly similar in her approach. Generally he is appreciative of the effort that has gone into the model, tolerant and understanding of any obvious shortcomings, and quite complimentary towards the developer. On top of that, his longer and more detailed tutorials have been very helpful. He also runs a thriving online community and VA, which I am considering joining.
Jonathan might have had a hiccup with the Clipper, but overall he contributes much more to the hobby than just his YT channel. For longer, more in-depth reviews, I wait for ITB anyway.
However, this is not typical of what Jonathan Beckett does. I've been a subscriber to his channel for a long time, and much enjoy his flight commentaries. I call them 'commentaries' rather than reviews, because they are often just a circuit or two, or a short trip from A to B, with him offering comments, remarks and observations on the way. He's not the only one - AvAngel is broadly similar in her approach. Generally he is appreciative of the effort that has gone into the model, tolerant and understanding of any obvious shortcomings, and quite complimentary towards the developer. On top of that, his longer and more detailed tutorials have been very helpful. He also runs a thriving online community and VA, which I am considering joining.
Jonathan might have had a hiccup with the Clipper, but overall he contributes much more to the hobby than just his YT channel. For longer, more in-depth reviews, I wait for ITB anyway.
tiger1962
SOH-CM-2025
As a complete bystander in all this, I would like to confirm what Dean says about his loyal customers - I never watch YT video reviews, I haven't got the patience. I can read a written review far quicker and make my own decision on whether the 'reviewer' can be believed or not. If not, I read another one by someone else and it's often one of you guys on THIS forum that gets my vote!
banjoman1960
Charter Member
Hehe... yes... wasn't it Stearmendriver who got the accolades and Stearman948713 that did the actual contactpoints mod ?
In any case very thankful to the real deal, i can now look and admire the external model without bursting into tears. Love it !
And thanks for the info about the update, dvj. That's another bummer to put in our pipes and smoke it. Oh well, what else is new. Atleast i figure i have indeed the updated model. My hands are itching to get to work on them VC textures but that would be my first work for MSFS and i have a HP Reverb G2 so chances are dim at least.. Love that sand color i saw somewhere in a photo of the real Clipper.
Jan,it is the same as p3d or fsx.........
so get to work now
Have Fun,
Ralf