Should A2A release official trainers even if not "complete" by our standard?

This is the place where we can all meet and speak about whatever is on the mind.

Should A2A Release Official Trainers even if incomplete?

Yes
69
58%
No
49
42%
 
Total votes: 118

User avatar
DC3
Technical Sergeant
Posts: 694
Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Location: California

Re: Should A2A release official trainers even if not "complete" by our standard?

Post DC3 »

My initial response was "no" with the exception that if a person owned two or more A2A aircraft then they would be eligible to purchase one of the incomplete aircraft.

Why the requirement of 2 or more A2A aircraft ownership? Because I at this time feel super-confident in recommending A2A aircraft and everyone I have recommended the aircraft to and everyone who has purchased and A2A aircraft that I have talked with have nothing but outstanding things to say about A2A.

From a purely selfish standpoint I don't want to be in the position where I have to explain to a disappointed A2A customer how the aircraft they bought was a less than full version of the aircraft they thought they bought.

By the time someone has bought at least 2 A2A aircraft of the current quality they are hooked and they are on these forums and they know that the aircraft that they are going to buy is not complete by A2A standards. In other words they can make an educated decision to buy and they know that the aircraft will not be up to the normal standards.

And again from a personal viewpoint I can go on to continue to praise A2A to people and not be put on the defensive when someone who has not experienced A2A's quality buys a less than complete aircraft.

However if we are talking about an aircraft without a maintenance hanger, but with the same high quality flight characteristics, the same full cockpit functionality, and the same characteristics quirks of the aircraft being modeled then I believe even first time A2A customers can accept and appreciate that aircraft.

So I am voting no unless something akin to what was mentioned in the last paragraph can be produced.

User avatar
crippy
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 266
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Location: Arkansas

Re: Should A2A release official trainers even if not "complete" by our standard?

Post crippy »

Given the latest I saw on facebook, I would vote yes, as long as there are some form of checklists to follow, given there would be no manual. Otherwise the user is just left to guessing.

It would be just a almost hybrid version of the old Air Factory brand. Nobody shamed A2A for those planes back in the day, because they knew what they were buying (hopefully), and the same would apply to these planes.

Besides given the list of no's on facebook (below) the walk around is already...NOT a feature of the A2A war-bird fleet.

What won't fit in this bucket will be:
- In depth manual with history -- I like the manuals with all the details and flight testing data, but some don't and will be fine with this.
- Maintenance Hangar -- Up until the T-6 Texan, the old warbird hangars from FSX were already fairly bare bones...You could check the engine, but that was basically it. (I'm not hating, but just comparing to the modern A2A Maint. Hangars)
- Walk around -- Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think ANY of the warbirds currently have a walk around anyway. I was always saddened at this.
Image Image Image
3D Lights Redux | Accu-Feel v2 | J-3 Cub | P-51C | T-6 Texan | B17 | L049 | Cherokee 180 | Comanche 250 | 172R Skyhawk | 182T Skylane

jimcarrel
Senior Airman
Posts: 120
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Location: Tuttle Oklahoma, USA

Re: Should A2A release official trainers even if not "complete" by our standard?

Post jimcarrel »

Scott - A2A wrote:
19 Jun 2019, 18:37
Well I have to say I'm actually a bit surprised but as usual impressed with the comments. What about making a new line of "Official military trainers" which would be slightly different to our main GA and Warbirds standard. Still looks, flies, functions and sounds without compromise but without some features, like the maintenance hangar and walk around. We have poured more energy into these airplanes than ever in the past because these instructors need accuracy on a level never before delivered, even in multi million dollar sims. We are delivering this, but like we've said in the past, we only have one "bucket" per airplane.

I put the T-6a and a T-38a through Accu-Sim flight tests. We've built these engines brand new, from the ground up. The level of fidelity is crazy good.

The military has discovered Accu-Sim..... which means we have to expand to meet demand but we must find a way to get these airplanes to the public. I know there is a way to do this without compromising the A2A brand, and even enhance it.

I actually think the title I made here is misleading. I don't consider our T-6a incomplete. It just puts more focus into different areas the military needs. So it's a different product.

Scott.
I voted no, but having read your input on this and used this line - "I put the T-6a and a T-38a through Accu-Sim flight tests. We've built these engines brand new, from the ground up. The level of fidelity is crazy good." I can now vote with a resounding "YES".

Hook
Master Sergeant
Posts: 1296
Joined: 31 Dec 2012
Location: Bonham, Texas

Re: Should A2A release official trainers even if not "complete" by our standard?

Post Hook »

Checklists are easy to make. If one is not provided, someone will write one. Almost everything I fly is either using my custom checklist or a modified version of what came with the plane.

Edit to add: As an example, the Cherokee has some additions to the first page of the checklist to cover turning on the pitot heat, and I added an additional page to the end for a shutdown checklist.

Manuals: That's not a bug, that's a FEATURE! I'd rather read a military manual any day. In fact, I once delayed purchase of an aircraft for several months *because* of the manual.

If these are Accu-Sim aircraft that have been enhanced for the military, the quality might be a cut above what we're currently getting. This might be a new section for the store and have nothing to do with Aircraft Factory.

No walkaround? No maintenance hangar? You mean, just like the Cub and Stratocruiser? :)

Hook

patful
Master Sergeant
Posts: 1072
Joined: 15 Jun 2017

Re: Should A2A release official trainers even if not "complete" by our standard?

Post patful »

Hook wrote:
19 Jun 2019, 21:34
No maintenance hangar? You mean, just like the Cub and Stratocruiser?
Oof! Didn't know that about the Cub. I'll take back what I said earlier about possibly purchasing it if one's not included. I might be frozen at nine A2A aircraft for eternity... :(

User avatar
rhenson529
Senior Airman
Posts: 169
Joined: 23 Mar 2015
Location: KPAE

Re: Should A2A release official trainers even if not "complete" by our standard?

Post rhenson529 »

I have to vote “yes”. This could help expand A2As customer base offering a different model of marketing. Not all A2A planes have the same menus, hangers, etc. Just have a separate section in the store. I also think 3rd party sales would increase and thus building a bigger customer base. Those that vote “no” can continue to shop in the current sections of the store. I think Scott and the team have a great opportunity here and I would hate to see them miss out.
Just my two cents.
Ron
A2A Planes: Cub, 172, 182, Cherokee, Comanche, Bonanza,T6, 377, Spitfire, and P51
Hardware: i7 (5.0 ghz) 32 GB 3000Ghz; RTX 2080ti; 1TB PCIe M.2; 1TB PCIe M.2

gibo
Senior Airman
Posts: 233
Joined: 14 May 2009

Re: Should A2A release official trainers even if not "complete" by our standard?

Post gibo »

The graphics look stunning. It would be a great experience to practice flying this aitcraft.

After all a pilot doesn't take care of the maintenance in r/l

I would purchade these aircraft upon release without hesitation.

User avatar
Piper_EEWL
Chief Master Sergeant
Posts: 4250
Joined: 26 Nov 2014
Location: Germany

Re: Should A2A release official trainers even if not "complete" by our standard?

Post Piper_EEWL »

rhenson529 wrote:
19 Jun 2019, 22:16
I have to vote “yes”. This could help expand A2As customer base offering a different model of marketing. Not all A2A planes have the same menus, hangers, etc. Just have a separate section in the store. I also think 3rd party sales would increase and thus building a bigger customer base. Those that vote “no” can continue to shop in the current sections of the store. I think Scott and the team have a great opportunity here and I would hate to see them miss out.
Just my two cents.
Ron
I agree 100%. And Scott’s further explanation about the word “incomplete” has made me more confident in voting yes. If incomplete means no manual and or no walkaround or maintenance hangar I think it’s fine to sell those planes under a different brand. I really do hope A2A will decide in favor of releasing those planes in order to increase the customer base and also recouping some of the money spend and using that for more “real” Accusim planes!
B377&COTS, J3 Cub, B-17G, Spitfire, P-40, P-51D, C172, C182, Pa28, Pa24, T-6 Texan, L-049&COTS, Bonanza V35B

User avatar
bladerunner900
Senior Master Sergeant
Posts: 1867
Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Location: South Wales

Re: Should A2A release official trainers even if not "complete" by our standard?

Post bladerunner900 »

Life is short and getting shorter. I vote yes.
"Patience young Grasshopper!"
ImageImage
& all the others.

ryanbatc
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 405
Joined: 20 Nov 2012

Re: Should A2A release official trainers even if not "complete" by our standard?

Post ryanbatc »

A Texan II without mx hangar? I could care less...I rarely open that with the other GA aircraft anyway. You're saying you've got realistically modelled systems and turbine engine? Ahhh yeah I'll take three please!

The Texan II is sleek, sexy and fast!

User avatar
ClipperLuna
Technical Sergeant
Posts: 596
Joined: 23 May 2014
Location: KPUW

Re: Should A2A release official trainers even if not "complete" by our standard?

Post ClipperLuna »

I was really on the fence almost leaning no for the same reasons others have voted no (disappointments, a sullied reputation, etc., etc..), but as long as the flying characteristics and engine management aspects are a dead-ringer for the real thing, I could get into that. I do think there should be at least some kind of maintenance feature, even if it's a stripped-down, bare-bones affair. Heck, I'd be satisfied with just a simple pop-up list (like our checklists) that tells us what's wrong. My reasoning being, part of the magic of Accu-sim is if you mishandle/mismanage the airplane and/or its power plant, it will "punish" you with worn and broken parts, and that goes a long way toward completing the realism aspect.

Blitzer
Senior Airman
Posts: 190
Joined: 24 Mar 2010

Re: Should A2A release official trainers even if not "complete" by our standard?

Post Blitzer »

Are we voting for Brexit again... I mean the spilt as I type is 53% for, 48% against - not sure where the extra 1% comes from though! Lol

On a more serious note though...

I think releasing one as a tester would be sensible. I mean reading between the lines, the product is essentially in a finished stated with regards to the original remit, I.e. highly accurate flight model for military training.
Personally I’m not to fussed about the manual, I like the maintenance hangar and as already pointed out the walk-around is good but already absent from warbirds.

As for what it should be released as, why not: “Professional Trainer”
Really that is exactly what it is isn’t it?.... originally created/commissioned for use to train pilots without the associated expense of flying real aircraft all the time?
i7-6700k | Asus Maximus VIII Hero | 32GB Corsair Vengence (LED) DDR4 3000MHz (15-17-17-35) | Asus Strix GTX 1070 OC | Corsair H115i | Samsung V-Nano 950 Pro M.2 NVM Express (256GB) | Corsair Obsidian 750D Airflow Full Tower

Blitzer
Senior Airman
Posts: 190
Joined: 24 Mar 2010

Re: Should A2A release official trainers even if not "complete" by our standard?

Post Blitzer »

One question though.... would treating the systems badly e.g. over stressing the engine result in damage/failure that would either require a “reset” of the aircraft or just be fixed when starting a new flight?
i7-6700k | Asus Maximus VIII Hero | 32GB Corsair Vengence (LED) DDR4 3000MHz (15-17-17-35) | Asus Strix GTX 1070 OC | Corsair H115i | Samsung V-Nano 950 Pro M.2 NVM Express (256GB) | Corsair Obsidian 750D Airflow Full Tower

ImpendingJoker
Senior Airman
Posts: 182
Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Location: Tampa

Re: Should A2A release official trainers even if not "complete" by our standard?

Post ImpendingJoker »

I voted very big YES, even before Scotts additional remarks. I might be an A&P but when I sim I spend my time in the plane and not the A2A mx hangars(neat as they may be). I like aircraft systems modeling and aerodynamic fidelity above all else. As others have already stated the Warbird line doesn't have the walk around anyway, and to me the mx hangar wouldn't be missed on something like the T-6A and the T-38A, as in a turbine aircraft it is very quickly noticeable if something is wrong, and as along as you have the systems fully modeled, and watch the gauges for hung or hot starts, you wouldn't really need the hangar, after all in the AF the pilot writes up the squawks, hands it to the CC, and they take it from there. I want any airplane that FLIES like the real thing, not sits on the ground like the real thing.
Paul

Part 65 certified Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic
Part 107 certified Remote Pilot in Command
Part 147 Instructor
Google
Street View Photographer

HAROLD SCHECKEL JR
Airman First Class
Posts: 80
Joined: 11 Oct 2004

Re: Should A2A release official trainers even if not "complete" by our standard?

Post HAROLD SCHECKEL JR »

I vote YES. Then I would have the option to purchase or not. If people are holding out for Accusim fine, but you need the money. It's a business decision.
Harold

new reply

Return to “Pilot's Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 19 guests