• 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

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

SU1 live

Doing the update on the Steam version right now. The front-end Steam GUI update took less than a minute.

Forest

Added: First look - My missing Marketplace aircraft are still missing. Also, many of the aircraft that were flyable are now marked as "Creator Not Approved". For that second part it would be nice to hear from them are those now dead-end products or are they working to get them approved.
 
Last edited:
Priller said:
Curious to hear what has changed!

Priller
Click to expand...
For FS2020 fliers, the dark (or too-bright) displays and missing pilots are fixed.

As for the Marketplace stuff, FAC257, the “creator not approved” stuff still works as well as it did before, it’s just a classification to let you know if it’s tested/approved. It’s only the “not available” stuff you can’t even try.
 
DennyA said:
For FS2020 fliers, the dark (or too-bright) displays and missing pilots are fixed.

As for the Marketplace stuff, FAC257, the “creator not approved” stuff still works as well as it did before, it’s just a classification to let you know if it’s tested/approved. It’s only the “not available” stuff you can’t even try.
Click to expand...
I did see that about the Creator label. I'm surprised at the still missing aircraft as most are the 2020 Asobo legend models.

Forest
 
FAC257 said:
...Also, many of the aircraft that were flyable are now marked as "Creator Not Approved". For that second part it would be nice to hear from them are those now dead-end products or are they working to get them approved.
Click to expand...
Developers have to test and approve their ports for MSFS 2024 in order to remove the "not approved" tag, so it's on them to take action. In other words, it's a feature, not a bug. :cool:
 
There was an interesting exchange on the Aeroplane Heaven Facebook last night (since deleted by AH, everything now sweetness and light).

The topic started with them asking for a Beta tester for the Lancaster but quickly went south with multiple posters taking them to task for the low quality of (eg) the 707 and it's obvious lack of testing.
AH said it was no longer anything to do with them and Microsoft tested it and everything was now down to MS.
Which suggests that for the local legends etc it should be Microsoft retesting them (or paying the original developers to do so)...
 
keithb77 said:
There was an interesting exchange on the Aeroplane Heaven Facebook last night (since deleted by AH, everything now sweetness and light).

The topic started with them asking for a Beta tester for the Lancaster but quickly went south with multiple posters taking them to task for the low quality of (eg) the 707 and it's obvious lack of testing.
AH said it was no longer anything to do with them and Microsoft tested it and everything was now down to MS.
Which suggests that for the local legends etc it should be Microsoft retesting them (or paying the original developers to do so)...
Click to expand...
I've read that battle somewhere before a while back, on "whose job is it" to fix Asobo aircraft in the MP.

Forest
 
Last edited:
This is what I hoped for, with the Grumman Albatross:
  • New HU-16 variant: search & rescue version, with nose radome and medical stretchers (cosmetic only, see career mode compatibility problem in known issues).
  • New G-111 variant: long range (external tanks) version.
The new long-range option for the G-111 makes it the perfect aircraft for RTW flights. The solid radome for the SAR HU-16 is also very welcome. I'm hoping for some great repaints for these aircraft.
 
Last edited:
So, no solid nose radome then, Paul ? ( haven't loaded up the SU1 yet). Big Albatross fan, both the metal and live birds, i wondered why Inibuilds Mike Johnson choosed to go with the glass radome instead of the far and far more well known solid radome. To me it almost looks as silly as the ridiculous 'search light' on the A-10 (not really of course because nobody could ever imagine someone to come up with thát idiotic idea! ) So let's say highly unexpected glass radome.... I, for one, have never ever even séén a photo of a Grumman Albatross with a glass radome ! ( and i have two books about it ! ).

And then there's the never to forget Monogram 1/48 scale Grumman HU-16 Albatross model of course as well as the not bad at all model in earlier FS editions. All with solid nose radomes. A truly significant and unmistakeable feature of the Grumman Albatross (IMHO of course). I mean, who has ever seen Syrano de Bergerac with a glass nose ??!....

If it's not with this SU1 upgrade let's 'demand' a solid radome for the next ! It's just a too fantasticly good looking model NOT to come with that ever so well known feature ! :teapot:
 
Jan - Yes, there's a new variant of the HY-16 in SU1 with the solid radome ( the glass bubble option is still there too ). The G-111 now comes with the option of the military external tanks. The developer has been very responsive to feedback and suggestions.
 
Really ??!..... Just come back and i didn't see the HU-16 anymore, just G-111 ?..... LOVE the new water effects ! :encouragement:

And our beloved avatar still can't swim.... he walks on water just like Jesus :
alba_ava.jpg

I've looked thru all available aircraft in the menu ( just an alphabet listing would be fine with me...) and searched Grumman... Only the G-111 turns up (and the Avenger and Goose) no HY-16 and no HU-16 neither.... Great news anyway that there's a solid radome Albatross now !

Thanks Paul, i might've overlooked something...

Btw, the HU-16 (with glass radome) DID come with MSFS2024, right ? ( not a native FS2020 conversion ?...)

Thanks! (y)
 
Ok, found it ! (HY just a typo, right? ;-) Prob too exited to click them all. Fantastic ! That's my Albatross alright ! :encouragement:

Love the nightlighting !

hu16_cpnight.jpg

I think i like the sound external and internal too but need some more testing.

I have only just touched the surface of SU1 sofar but i might be a little impressed ! (a little because there's a big static Cessna 172 suspended in the air next to my parking spot... ) . Very happy with the new water wake and splish splash effects ! We're finally getting somewhere when it comes to that. Please let us see no floatplanes without these effects anymore ! :applause:
 
Yes, the glass bubble nose came in MSFS2024. Jan, there was an issue with the new Albatross variants propagating in SU1. When I first installed the update, there were still only the older options. I think it took something like 24 hours for the new options to filter through. Looks like you're sorted now. The civilian long-range G-III is what I wanted most, though the whole package is a joy to behold. :)
 
keithb77 said:
There was an interesting exchange on the Aeroplane Heaven Facebook last night (since deleted by AH, everything now sweetness and light).

The topic started with them asking for a Beta tester for the Lancaster but quickly went south with multiple posters taking them to task for the low quality of (eg) the 707 and it's obvious lack of testing.
AH said it was no longer anything to do with them and Microsoft tested it and everything was now down to MS.
Which suggests that for the local legends etc it should be Microsoft retesting them (or paying the original developers to do so)...
Click to expand...
I need to correct a few things here. Firstly, that post was deleted because a) it got out of hand and b) had nothing whatsoever to do with the recruiting of beta testers for the Lancaster.

There are many of these "keyboard warriors" out there who delight in hijacking perfectly good, informative posts for their own purposes (usually malice and little else) and it is a practice we, at AH, will not tolerate. These people are killing this hobby by driving developers away in some sort of self-agrandising attempt to gain internet points. It is a certain reason why you are seeing less and less new product. Developers can't be bothered any more. These idiots don't listen and they don't want to listen. Mayb they will when it is too late.

Secondly, I'd like to clarify things in relation to Microsoft and products we develop for them.

1) Most IMPORTANTLY we DO NOT work or contract for ASOBO. They have NOTHING to do with Microsoft/Aeroplane Heaven products.
2) The ONLY reason we do not respond to criticism or comment on Microsoft/Aeroplane Heaven product is that under the terms of our contract, we are NOT ALLOWED TO. I wonder if people understand how frustrating that can be for us.
3) There is a perfectly good, very efficient beta-testing process run by Microsoft with their own teams. We work with these teams to address issues, daily, and submit new upgraded product for evaluation.
4) There are already a number of upgrades and fixes submitted to Microsoft for the products we work on. We await further instruction.
5) We have NO CONTROL over release dates or procedures to place these upgrades back into the marketplace.
6) Therefore we advise that anybody wishing to discover progress on these upgrades or dates for release or the progress of new projects, CONTACT MICROSOFT, NOT US. PLEASE.
7) If you follow the correct procedure and send your complaints, comments or congrats (hah!) to Microsoft, ultimately we will receive notice to address them but again, we have no control over when that might be.

I hope that clears up a few things for people.

Thanks.
 
Thanks for posting Bazzar, very interesting.
The point of my post was to consider who would be testing and certifying the FS2024 compatibility of contracted aircraft for the FS2024 library, I don't know if you can comment on that?

I do understand your frustration and hopefully you can understand ours.
I have bought most of the AH aircraft, both retail and via Microsoft, because you make the aircraft I like to fly, and I've created many improvements (in my eyes), fixes and add-ons for them.
To take the 707 as an example, it is an absolutely iconic aircraft and it was very frustrating to see it released in the state it was and 6 (?) months later no change.

Microsoft may have a "good, very efficient beta-testing process" but they seem to have been asleep on the job for many of the local legends and famous flyers.
Part of it may be their definition of a 'bug' - time and again we raise bug-reports and see them rejected as 'not a bug'. Basically being 'wrong' is not a bug.
Forty plus years in software development and rather longer as an aviation enthusiast means I can't accept that.

I was an MSFS2020 alpha-testing hamster - the bugs I raised were never addressed and still exist and have been carried through to MSFS2024. Raising bugs to Microsoft is unrewarding.

Anyway, looking forward to the Lancaster :)
 
With the Legend aircraft that are still missing on my end, I'm hoping they show up when the Marketplace shows up. My only minor concern is that the don't even show up as disabled/unavailable. Last resort if they don't go live when the Marketplace does, is to send a note to MS asking where are they.
Forest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top