Other users are reporting they can see the differences in the VC from the upate. Honestly, I cannot. The VC remains very dark and dull to my eyes and I run 4K resolution. I like this aircraft for the historical perspective of seeing this beauty flying again. Pilots may have underestimated the broad base of MSFS users attention to detail compared to P3D. I do like the suggestion that the model should have been announced as a pre-release up front. That would have settled the dust pretty quickly. The developer has responded to me about the green interior which according to Pilots is accurate. May take some research to validate this.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.
Boeing B-314 "The Clipper" released!
- Thread starter YoYo
- Start date
K5083
SOH-CM-2024
It was just a botched launch of an undercooked plane. I don't object to the idea of releasing a mid-quality version of a plane and using the revenue from that to sustain you while you develop a study level version. That's not too different from what many indie game devs do, although it must be noted that the price of the early access purchase is credited toward the final version. But, mid-quality doesn't mean this buggy. At release, this was not better than a Diemos or Bredok3d plane.
Gotta say also that when devs wish there were more sophisticated, researched, thorough reviews of their products on YT and elsewhere, it calls to mind phrases like "be careful what you wish for" and "you can't handle the truth." Generally, less knowledgeable reviews are more favorable, because the reviewer doesn't know enough to spot faults or gives the product the benefit of the doubt. Every product has many issues, faults and problems that never come out on YT and we on the forum only discuss via PM or email because it would seem impolite or pedantic to air them here. If anyone on YT were doing really careful reviews leveraging all the knowledge about the RL plane available on the internet and not pulling punches, very few devs would like the result, based on how they now cry on the few occasions when the kid gloves come off.
August
Gotta say also that when devs wish there were more sophisticated, researched, thorough reviews of their products on YT and elsewhere, it calls to mind phrases like "be careful what you wish for" and "you can't handle the truth." Generally, less knowledgeable reviews are more favorable, because the reviewer doesn't know enough to spot faults or gives the product the benefit of the doubt. Every product has many issues, faults and problems that never come out on YT and we on the forum only discuss via PM or email because it would seem impolite or pedantic to air them here. If anyone on YT were doing really careful reviews leveraging all the knowledge about the RL plane available on the internet and not pulling punches, very few devs would like the result, based on how they now cry on the few occasions when the kid gloves come off.
August
DennyA
SOH-CM-2023
There’s already an update with a bunch of tweaks and sharper cockpit textures. Given the first-week progress, I’m excited to see where it goes.
If you’d told kid me that instead of building a 1/144 model of a B-314 I could hop into VR and get a feel of what it was like to fly it… Man, I’m glad I can enjoy these things and not fixate on finding all the problems.
It’s fun now and just going to get better.
#notjaded
If you’d told kid me that instead of building a 1/144 model of a B-314 I could hop into VR and get a feel of what it was like to fly it… Man, I’m glad I can enjoy these things and not fixate on finding all the problems.
It’s fun now and just going to get better.
#notjaded
I would've asked for a refund within *10* minutes ! Like just about all of Jerome's rather childish atempts to blame a reviewer for the way his botched Clipper product is presented is nothing more than trying to focus the poison arrows away from himself. Would the manual show the positions of certain switches with which the extremely awkward taxi and take-off behaviour could be switched on and off ? Would reading the manual help in any way to correct all the other errors, faults and imperfections ? Focus on reading the manual is just another silly atempt to put the blame on somebody else.
The manuals are great and come straight from the FSX/P3D versions, like the model itself of course. But the manuals don't need new contact points, flight dynamics, texures and gauge programming.
Like we say here in Holland "The monkey has crawled out of the sleeve" and "He who burns his butt must sit on the blisters"
Not sure if i get this right, Paul. You mean it was wrong for Jonathan to say that the model was to blame, not the sim ? For all i know this fantastic 'Waterspout Extravaganza Show" was caused by the faulty contactpoints just like they caused the hoppin and boppin taxi behaviour.
Absolutely ! And for all i know that's really not what's happing. Atleast not with the few reviewers i usually follow and have respect for. I'm a bit of a fan of both ITB and Avangel. I do like the professionalism of ITB, to me he deffinately sounds and acts like a RL pilot (if he's not he performs a perfect impression of a real pilot, more kudus to him..;-) and i also like the more 'down to earth' "let's start the engines now, shall we..." style of Avangel. I can't remember hearing anything unjustifiedly negative about any model from both these video reviewers. On the contrary, if ITB is over the moon with a certain new model (which happens quite a lot) usually so is Avangel, and that goes for the reverse case as well, be it that the negativity IS justified ( can't help it but i always agree with them. Overall i feel they know what the're talking about. And after 35 years of simming and modeling i feel i may well too..;-)
Personally, i think watching reviews of new aircraft models, good or not so good, is part of the fun and i'll always buy a new model that interests me after having seen the first reviews and video reviews, certainly not before ( one exception, the PMDG DC-6..;-). I just bought the Virtavia Short Stirling because of a (not so good) video review. One 'flyingliar'... Did not know about this guy. ;-)
No matter the tremendous storm he instigated (and quite rightly so!) i will surely keep an eye on Jonathan Beckett from now on (sorry to say but i kinda liked his "Sink or swim" Clipper video..
)
ak416
Members +
Same could be said about developers releasing obviously rushed/unfinished products. As a consumer, I don't really care how hard a product is to make, if you aren't up to it, maybe you shouldn't release half baked products and then get upset when people review them unfavourably. Which is exactly what PILOTS has done here.
"Oh, we'll fix it later" well, you're charging me now. I'm going to review what I paid for, not what you are telling me might come in the future.
Jan, you being a modeller of considerable repute, it is very interesting to read your views, and compare them to Dean's (another fine developer).
I must admit that after first watching the video, I sided with Jonathan Beckett (JB) in his views, but Jerome's angry reaction at AVSIM did contain some salient points. You're spot on in saying that obvious errors don't require reference to the manuals - no amount of documentation is going to explain engines running with the fuel valves closed. Early access or no, such a fundamental error should have been spotted before release. But we've seen equally fundamental errors from other developers, in what they claim to be fully beta-tested and finished products (reversed ailerons, for example) - and they are usually afforded the chance to rectify the problems, rather than having an instant refund demand slapped on them.
Do you suspect the model is a port over ? Jerome states that the 3D model was developed from scratch by Sim Works Studios for MSFS. From the now-infamous AVSIM thread:
Jerome: The PILOT'S B-314 for MSFS is brand new, there is absolutely nothing that was ported over in any way! The entire 3D model was created from scratch by SimWorks Studios, along with the texturing and implementation of avionics and gauges.
As for the manuals, I don't suppose there was any need to rewrite the P3D ones, if they are still fully accurate ( IF...)
I have a flight-sim user's grasp of contact points, but I'm no expert - you will understand their complexities far better than I. JB's review implied that the fault lay with the model, and thus was one of the reasons for the refund request. Jerome, on the other hand, states that the simulator itself is at fault.
Jerome: Despite the manual stating that the mooring feature should only be used with all engines off, you proceed to turn on the mooring feature with all engines running, then seem surprised at the resultant effect, what a daft endeavour! The simulator itself currently has a rather poor implementation of water physics, as your video shows, there is also very little water surface friction etc., this is all beyond our control!
So as you ask, Jan, was JB wrong to say the model was to blame ? I think it was unwise to make the implication without being absolutely sure. IMO, too much was made of a relatively minor thing - external visual glitches when revving at full throttle while moored - and it added to the overall negative impression. It's a pity we can no longer view the video to be certain.
All things considered, and despite the controversy, I shall certainly be sticking with Jonathan Beckett, along with the other reviewers you mention.
You say you didn't bother with reviews when deciding to buy the PMDG DC-6 ? No, neither did I - there are some things in life that you can depend on! Still one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen in any flight sim.
Anyway, enough jibber-jabber from me. I'll keep an eye on the Clipper and Jerome's promises of further development. Until someone does a Short C-class Empire, it's the only classic flying-boat era aircraft we have.
DC1973
Members +
As you should. But none of that was my point. It's whether you properly review something or not. Rushing a "review" out the day after something launches is no better than the developer rushing out their aircraft. Reviewers can't have it both ways, but that's precisely what some want and do. Everything else added since is just noise around the edges of that single reality.ETA: JB's reviews routinely contain basic errors, factual inaccuracies, assumptions and so on. Where is the outcry about such things, if standards are applied fairly to both product and reviewer? As a further note, while I have not tested this in the Clipper, in real life aircraft engines will run for some time with the fuel valves shut off. It all depends on the length of the fuel line itself and the amount of fuel contained within the engine itself. I've seen this myself while PIC of a PA-28 Warrior after missing a checklist item and starting the engine with the fuel valve set to "OFF". The engine started fine and idled for quite some time before the fuel "ran out" and I was alerted to my error. A large airplane like the Clipper might run for some time if the magnetos have not been shut off as well. It's little real-world details like this that make the difference between YT'ers assumptions and actual aviation.
The only way to determine whether this was PILOTS' intent, or just a fortunate real-world characteristic that lets them off the hook ( so to speak ), would be to see if it's mentioned in the manual, or by conducting a lengthy flight and seeing if the engines continue to run with the valves closed. Personally, I suspect it's an error in the original model - I can't think of any aircraft in the simulator that I've succeeded in starting with the fuel shut off. Then again, I haven't tried doing it in all of them, so maybe other people here know different.
K5083
SOH-CM-2024
The issue with the fuel valves, as the dev has stated in that other thread, is a visual one. The valves are in fact open, but the valves show closed because the var is not properly transmitted to the visual model. In the other thread I think the devs said they are contacting Asobo to figure out how to fix it. Since every other dev can make this work properly, I imagine Asobo will tell them to read the ___ing manual about the API and SDK. That would be ironic wouldn't it.
August
August
DC1973
Members +
Yeah, I don't know if MSFS models this, although SU9's changes to the sim cocked up the fuel lines in Concorde and strangled the reheats, so certainly the potential is there for such an event to be modeled natively as fuel flow through the lines must be present in some form. Was just an observation really, the kind of one that would slip certain YT reviewers' awareness and might be labelled as a "bug" incorrectly. JB did this on my F-15 Eagles, for instance, comparing their low-speed handling with that of the one in DCS and, as they were different, assuming that the DCS version was correct. In reality, it was the other way around - the DCS version, although a good product in its own right, was just flat-out wrong. Just one of many instances of what I'm referring to.Anyway, from what I have seen PILOTS are already working hard to correct and update their airplane and will likely continue to do so, so who's really losing anything? My F-15s, the first launch for MSFS ( PC Pilot Classic award winners in FSX and P3D ), were also given a lot of flack from some quarters upon launch, some of it deserved but much of it not. Since then, they're one of the best-selling military jets in MSFS, hugely popular and widely used, still selling like hot cakes. I'm willing to bet that the Clipper will evolve into a great product and PILOTs will learn from this experience for their next launch. Which, if so, supports my notion that they were undeserving of such harsh criticism compared to certain other developers.
DennyA
SOH-CM-2023
The fact is, no plane is going to reach perfection, because a simulator is never going to replicate the real flying experience in full. To some degree, it's a game no matter how many fuses and underlying systems are simulated in detail. There's no risk, there's no physical feedback, and you're "flying" in your basement. The goal is not replication, it's being immersive and convincing, and there are degrees there.
"Minimum standards" are a personal measure. If a dev wants to charge for an early access version, that's their right. It's very, very common in the electronic entertainment/gaming industry nowadays. As long as it's labeled as such, that's fine.
There are gatekeeper sim fans who wouldn't want the B-314 released now because it doesn't meet their standards. There are gatekeeper sim fans who wouldn't want the Virtavia Stirling released because its visuals don't match the fidelity of stock Asobo planes. I'm glad their influence is limited to frustrated posts and that they're not running the show.
Instead of rage-posting and criticizing and vilifying publishers for not meeting their standards, they could instead wait for impressions and (properly done) reviews and make a purchasing decision then. (I'm not saying there's rage-posting here, it's been a civil if impassioned discussion, but there's plenty of that on the official forum.)
Because I'm happy with a mid-detail Stirling. I'm okay with the chance to fly the B-314 now and watch it improve over time, rather than sit around for another year reading development processes while the tinier details are addressed.
And frankly, with reasonable developers who listen to their audience, the feedback from early releases can make for a better product because the concerns and areas of focus most important to the customers can be prioritized.
You have devs dumping planes in the marketplace where they've bought a 3D model and added rudimentary animations and a basic generic flight model and walked away. Then you have Pilot's, with decades of passionate research into the aircraft, who have stated from the beginning that that it will continue to grow in detail. I don't think it's unreasonable to give the latter a lot more leeway on releases.
TL;DR -- It ain't done but Pilot's only real crime here was their subtle labeling that it's early access. Shoulda been a bold headline.
"Minimum standards" are a personal measure. If a dev wants to charge for an early access version, that's their right. It's very, very common in the electronic entertainment/gaming industry nowadays. As long as it's labeled as such, that's fine.
There are gatekeeper sim fans who wouldn't want the B-314 released now because it doesn't meet their standards. There are gatekeeper sim fans who wouldn't want the Virtavia Stirling released because its visuals don't match the fidelity of stock Asobo planes. I'm glad their influence is limited to frustrated posts and that they're not running the show.
Instead of rage-posting and criticizing and vilifying publishers for not meeting their standards, they could instead wait for impressions and (properly done) reviews and make a purchasing decision then. (I'm not saying there's rage-posting here, it's been a civil if impassioned discussion, but there's plenty of that on the official forum.)
Because I'm happy with a mid-detail Stirling. I'm okay with the chance to fly the B-314 now and watch it improve over time, rather than sit around for another year reading development processes while the tinier details are addressed.
And frankly, with reasonable developers who listen to their audience, the feedback from early releases can make for a better product because the concerns and areas of focus most important to the customers can be prioritized.
You have devs dumping planes in the marketplace where they've bought a 3D model and added rudimentary animations and a basic generic flight model and walked away. Then you have Pilot's, with decades of passionate research into the aircraft, who have stated from the beginning that that it will continue to grow in detail. I don't think it's unreasonable to give the latter a lot more leeway on releases.
TL;DR -- It ain't done but Pilot's only real crime here was their subtle labeling that it's early access. Shoulda been a bold headline.
heywooood
Mayor Emeritus of Taco City
so this release went south in a heartbeat. The problem persists with regard to impatient, self-righteous forum dwellers (largely at the official one) being triggered endlessly by perceived or early shortcomings of brand new product releases for MSFS.
"It's overpriced" "its a cash grab" "this (insert favorite thing they notice here) doesn't work and there's NO EXCUSE" and so on...so frustrating to find the community still being its own worst enemy after so many years.
As to the youtube thing - I agree with Dean and with the folks who say there are classes to that - some are very good at least at putting in some effort to read the manual if there is one or fly a few familiarization flights before making one for upload.
the rest are just no use at all, and usually you can spot the useless ones in the first minute or two. I myself only make the YT vids I upload so I can watch them on my big tv - I record no narrative to avoid putting any opinion or review slant on them.
It's just the aircraft in the sim, operated to the best of my ability (usually - lol) in their very basic or intended flight envelopes.
Anyhoo - I do wish this constant flaming and bashing would end but - who are we kidding. "this is the way" apparently..
I hope Pilot's creators won't be discouraged from staying in the game. It's kind of a contact sport isn't it?
"It's overpriced" "its a cash grab" "this (insert favorite thing they notice here) doesn't work and there's NO EXCUSE" and so on...so frustrating to find the community still being its own worst enemy after so many years.
As to the youtube thing - I agree with Dean and with the folks who say there are classes to that - some are very good at least at putting in some effort to read the manual if there is one or fly a few familiarization flights before making one for upload.
the rest are just no use at all, and usually you can spot the useless ones in the first minute or two. I myself only make the YT vids I upload so I can watch them on my big tv - I record no narrative to avoid putting any opinion or review slant on them.
It's just the aircraft in the sim, operated to the best of my ability (usually - lol) in their very basic or intended flight envelopes.
Anyhoo - I do wish this constant flaming and bashing would end but - who are we kidding. "this is the way" apparently..
I hope Pilot's creators won't be discouraged from staying in the game. It's kind of a contact sport isn't it?
That's certainly true, Paul. But i think we can safely say that the situation with Pilot's Clipper is abnormal. The release was abnormal, therefore the reviews were abnormal, ipso facto Jerome's reactions were abnormal. Once all this abnormal dust has settled down hopefully we'll maybe get a good Clipper out of it afterall.
After this first update (which one could also call abnormal because the main work was done by a customer... ) the model is already much better and can now more or less be enjoyed normally. The 'ab' has been removed and if that would've been done *before* release non of this awkward situation would've happend. In any case that's how i look at it.
That's easy for Jerome to say... On the other hand it's easy to *see* that the modeler of the B-314 model for FSX/P3D did a superb job with hundred's and hundred's of hours hard and meticulous work wrapped up in it. Almost nothing is easier than to pull this FSX model thru the so called MSFS Legacy Importer. Et voilà, one Boeing B-314 Clipper for MSFS.
Not so fast though... Lots of stuff will need to be amended and fixed and if one wants to go all the way the mesh of the model also needs to be adapted to what MSFS can handle. And re vertexes, poly's and textures that's rather a LOT. A LOT of work involved here but still far from as much as creating a completely new Clipper model from scratch. With a rather beautiful model at hand already a modeler would be crazy to start all over again from scratch.
Hehe...Yeah, i loved that ! Go right ahead, blame the sim ! Easy peasy.
Jerome: Despite the manual stating that the mooring feature should only be used with all engines off, you proceed to turn on the mooring feature with all engines running, then seem surprised at the resultant effect, what a daft endeavour! The simulator itself currently has a rather poor implementation of water physics, as your video shows, there is also very little water surface friction etc., this is all beyond our control!
Haha! Another classic one. Stearman(and a lot of numbers) had it under his control just fine. Pilot's may want to hire the guy.
Certainly JB was not wrong when he said that the extremely funny waterspout show was caused by the model and not the sim (before MS/Asobo updated the water physics we would see a rather cheesy rendition of wake and waterspray effects but never something as hilarious as happend with the Clipper with running engines while moored). With pulling the video JB showed to be the better man.
You say you didn't bother with reviews when deciding to buy the PMDG DC-6 ? No, neither did I - there are some things in life that you can depend on! Still one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen in any flight sim.
Couldn't agree more, Paul ! I couldn't believe what was happening when they announced it !
Have to say i didn't need any reviews before buying A2A stuff neither. IMHO if there's anything missing in MSFS today it's A2A (and Instant Replay and Instant Fly-By View.. ;-)
Indeed. That's what makes this MSFS Clipper story so sad sofar, isn't it, it's such a wonderful and interesting subject. But luckily the future looks a bit brighter now compared to its launch 10 days ago !
Cheers,
Jan
HeyHeyWood, aren't you going a bit overboard (to stay on topic) with the 'constant flaming and bashing' ?...
Constant ?... Where's the flaming and bashing with for instance the recently released Farman F.60, P-40N, DHC-4 Caribou, Bf-108 Taifun, Mig-15bis ? (Ok, i made a remark about the,say,inelegant spinning prop anims of the otherwise superb Caribou model. But that's all ! ;-)
No flaming nore bashing going on regarding any of these new MSFS models. Atleast not according to my understanding of what flaming and bashing means. Sure, the normal wishes to please fix this or please add that but you can hardly call that flaming and bashing, can you.
The subject of this thread happend to be an 'abnormal release'. Something that shouldn't have been released in the state it was in in the first place. You should be able to agree with that, right ? Just because of that it got pretty bad reviews and IMHO well deserved too.
YoYo
SOH-CM-2023
Personally, I don't want to write anything about the B314 for MSFS because I don't have it. There are always two sides, the developer side and the user side. One may be disappointed with sales (e.g. quantity) and annoying users, the other with quality and price, because they usually expect a good and finished product with an attractive price. The problem that I often see, and where the later problems of users come from, is the situation when the developer tests everything on his own, without contacts with several beta testers presenting different knowladge levels and playing on different hardware. Then it turns out that the users are disappointed and start screaming loudly after release. Can we blame them if the testing procedures were not done? Not completely. Of course - never, even in the testing phase, you can't avoid the "free of bugs" version, but you can minimize them to a minimum. Enough for the end user to be satisfied despite the fact that it will not be perfect. The basic problems hurt the most and if they are visible, the question arises how the product was tested and whether it is not really the case that the developer simply rushed to release the model. But then the mistake is on his side according me. No user who pays full price wants to be a beta tester (or even alpha) unless there is a discounted price for that time and it is clearly stated. An example of DCS modules, although here we are talking about incomplete functionalities (mainly ), not bugs (in general). So it's not as simple as some people think. Generally, in such cases - have a group of trusted enthusiasts, then you should test, test and test and develop the product again, and finally inform about everything well with a clear road map of developing, if we are talking about a beta version for the user who buys the product. In this situation there will be no surprises that the water is rising around the hull like in one video here. My 2 cents. Btw. Pilot's B314 for P3B was my one favorite model from many.
), not bugs (in general). So it's not as simple as some people think. Generally, in such cases - have a group of trusted enthusiasts, then you should test, test and test and develop the product again, and finally inform about everything well with a clear road map of developing, if we are talking about a beta version for the user who buys the product. In this situation there will be no surprises that the water is rising around the hull like in one video here. My 2 cents. Btw. Pilot's B314 for P3B was my one favorite model from many.
ak416
Members +
Well, I can only speak for myself, but I'm not paying anyone to watch their YouTube review. Why would I hold a Youtuber to the same standards as a company who sold me a $50.00 product? What am I going to do, ask them for my time back? If I don't like what someone has to say in a youtube video, I simply move on with my life and don't watch their videos anymore.
If I were in PILOTS shoes, I would have probably just (politely) pointed out in the comments the things the review got wrong and referred them to the manual and moved on from it. I have no idea who JB, never heard of him until PILOTS made such a fuss over his review. But I do watch ITB and PILOTS also took issue with IntoTheBlue's review, so I'm starting to think maybe the reviews are not the real issue here and someone at PILOTS is having a bit of difficulty accepting criticism.
The product page has only this to say about the state of the aircraft at release:
"Although none of the original 12 Clipper aircraft were preserved, the inspiration to create this PILOT’S representation of the B-314, which over time will be developed to study level, is to allow this majestic flying machine to yet again take to the skies, even if just to the virtual skies!"
"Study level concept, some features under construction"
Ok, well, what features are under construction? What features are considered complete? How am I supposed to know if something is broken, missing, incomplete, or just not implemented yet? It will be improved over time, ok, how much time? Weeks? Months? Years? Also, they state over on the official forums that as more features are added, the price will increase. No mention of that anywhere on their website either. Their "known issues" section contains nothing but issues they say are out of their control (Asobos fault), yet these problems have already been solved by developers of other products.
Sure seems like a little more communication on PILOTS behalf would have been much more beneficial than lashing out at people over a review you don't like.
cavaricooper
SOH-CM-2023
Many of our community’s brightest stars have participated in this post. I value each one and their opinions.
I have yet (and I’m really waiting eagerly) to buy the Clipper- based mostly on what I read and see. It simply isn’t up to current standards. Hopefully that will change soon.
I bought the An-2 at $10 and am blown away by the modeling and textures- not to mention the exquisite flight modeling from Alex Metzger.
I shall wait in hope as I really want a long night over water (with a Sextant). Meanwhile, I have my precious DC-6 and Annuschka to lose myself in.
Best- C
I have yet (and I’m really waiting eagerly) to buy the Clipper- based mostly on what I read and see. It simply isn’t up to current standards. Hopefully that will change soon.
I bought the An-2 at $10 and am blown away by the modeling and textures- not to mention the exquisite flight modeling from Alex Metzger.
I shall wait in hope as I really want a long night over water (with a Sextant). Meanwhile, I have my precious DC-6 and Annuschka to lose myself in.
Best- C