The A2A Simulations Community

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.

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.

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".

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

Hook wrote: ↑19 Jun 2019, 21:34No 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...

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

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.

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!

Life is short and getting shorter. I vote yes.

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!

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.

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?

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?

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.

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