What was the date of the last A2A release?

[monica6211]

An update on something, anything is overdue.

I couldn't agree more. I understand the reasons some developers have to keep things hush hush, but we have gotten so used to constant excitement here at A2A between all of their other products, with sneak peeks, hints of new products, and videos of work in progress. But it has been far too long since we've had any of that. I used to look forward to getting home from work and signing on to this web sight for the latest news. I would always be excited because I new I'd see or hear about something new in development. Now, I keep telling myself each day not to bother coming here because I'd only be disappointed. I still come here once in a while, and yes, get disappointed because of nothing new and exciting (except for some of the best jokes anywhere). we need something, anything, please?!

[Dominique]

As much as I'd love to have the Cub in P3Dv4, I wouldn't be surprised if it was put on hold until the MSFS release... OK, enough of the speculation.

I hate to say it but that was my first thought when I read the announcement about PMDG.

It's bad enough that the P3Dv4 Cub has gone from "any minute now" to "maybe in May" (estimated 6 months to release). I still remember when the F-104 went on the back burner.

Hook

Flying a light aircraft like the Cub in the FSX/P3D world has never been entirely convincing IMHO. The number can be respected, the sensation of fragility, of moving a light thing through a moving medium is not here.

One feature I am really interested in FS20 is the complexities of the Asobo air model including airflow above relief and that 1000-point FDE. If well done, a Cub should immensely benefit from them.

Asobo showed a Cub in their teasers a couple of times. An OEM product from A2A ?

[Scott - A2A]

We are painfully aware of the time since our Bonanza release. And the stretch we're going through, at the moment, will pass and won't return again. We took on two big things at the same time:

1. Re-tooling Accu-Sim from the ground up
2. Creating some airplanes for the military

The biggest reason for this stretch as been #1. The new system we're building is going to put us in a stronger place as it will eliminate a lot of repetition. The Aerostar is being built with this system, while the system itself is being built. The aerodynamics code we're writing now won't need to be re-written again in my lifetime.

The experience with the USAF gave us the opportunity with full access, to develop an Accu-Sim a turboprop and a high performance swept wing turbojet with all the wonderful physics beneath the hood. We're hoping the next steps will be releasing a twin (the Aerostar) and a turboprop twin (maybe an Aero Commander). Then maybe a jet, turbojet/turbofan. The thing is, with the new system we will be able to develop these airplanes simultaneously with other airplanes (combustion props and such). Our hope is this new system will allow us to create both more airplanes and higher fidelity (by eliminating as I said before the mindless repetitive tasks). A single 3d artist will be able to make a much more complete Accu-Sim airplane without bringing in complex custom coding every time.

Once we have all of our production lines back open, we're keeping them running and improving for years to come. The result will be similar to the improvement after a car company tools up a brand new assembly line. We will see higher output and higher quality (and quality control).

[Les Parson]

Will the existing fleet experience the Accu-Sim re-tooling upgrade?

[Scott - A2A]

Will the existing fleet experience the Accu-Sim re-tooling upgrade?

The end result will have to be determined on a plane by plane basis. Take the Accu-Sim 172 for example. The existing combustion engine code (and flight physics) are very accurate to the point where we can tell the difference between the real airplane and the one we created with the existing tools. It would make no sense to re-make the 172 if the end result, from the customer's POV, would be the same accurate experience. The difference would be on our end, developing.

For example, all the gauge physics are done custom by a coder. The new system would allow a non coder to adjust these physics. The difference is the time and the process of creating them and not the end result.

However there is an area we expect to see a big improvement that I don't want to talk about publicly as our competitors read these forums too. And eventually these improvements would likely make it into any airplane that would benefit from it, but again on a plane by plane basis.

[jclay13]

Great discussion and information everyone! It looks like the future will be bright with upcoming A2A releases. For me personally I need to decide if I should jump from FSX to Prepar3d or wait until the new M$ sim is released. I think part of my decision will be based on what A2A will have available on the new M$ sim out of the gate. I like many have been spoiled and prefer to fly A2A.

[patful]

.

[Hook]

For example, all the gauge physics are done custom by a coder. The new system would allow a non coder to adjust these physics. The difference is the time and the process of creating them and not the end result

Now THIS is exciting. I've spent many, many hours in gauge code writing custom XML script to get gauges to do what I wanted. Having a more table driven approach would make things so much easier and faster.

Techie stuff for those interested:

Watch what happens to the oil pressure gauge when you start the engine. It takes a few seconds for oil pressure to register on the gauge, then the pressure comes up a bit higher than the number provided by the sim. As the oil heats up, the pressure slowly drops to the correct number. None of this is handled by the sim. Obviously the "wobbling" of the gauge when the engine is running is custom processing.

I haven't verified this in an A2A aircraft, although I suspect it is occurring, oil pressure is somewhat dependent on oil temperature. At oil temp gets higher pressure gets lower. Both oil pressure and oil temperature are determined by the sim by entries in the .air file and produce a simplistic reading that is displayed by the engine gauges. One thing I learned from the A2A Cub was that the gauge doesn't need to display the reading calculated by the sim and you could calculate your own, which was valuable information.

Obviously many other factors affect oil pressure and these are handled by Accu-Sim. While this is just one gauge display, it is part of what contributes to the soul that Accu-Sim aircraft have.

It wouldn't break my heart to have this new gauge processing in a new package similar to Accu-Feel if it is possible to do this.

Hook

[AKar]

Once we have all of our production lines back open, we're keeping them running and improving for years to come. The result will be similar to the improvement after a car company tools up a brand new assembly line. We will see higher output and higher quality (and quality control).

Of course, the next challenge may be to retain the soul of the product.

If production methods allow for easier and "simpler" ways to get it more or less right, the lack of natural incentive to study the problems to get the simulation just right may lead into relaxed realism. I'm talking about making the numbers and behavior to match a set of flight test data to keep up the pace of production, instead of studying and making the underlying causes right and allowing the behavior to result from these, and then fine tuning to subjective taste to reproduce perceived reality.

While A2A products may come from a line, they should retain their "premium", custom-made feel that makes them feel alive in a special, individual way with each product. I am certain that this remains as a very high priority!

-Esa

[Scott - A2A]

Great points Esa and this is the challenge but if we do this right, the end result will be even better. As we will have two minds going through everything instead of one.

Scott.

[ClipperLuna]

For me personally I need to decide if I should jump from FSX to Prepar3d or wait until the new M$ sim is released. I think part of my decision will be based on what A2A will have available on the new M$ sim out of the gate. I like many have been spoiled and prefer to fly A2A.

Agree. I'm holding off on any more P3D purchases hoping A2A offers addon aircraft for MSFS 2020. I'm tired of dealing with buggy addon scenery. I just want my A2A and decent scenery out of the box without having to buy anything else. I won't even be greedy, just adapt the Bonanza to work with it and I'll be happy.

Raises an interesting question. How easy is it going to be to port our beloved planes over to the new MSFS (assuming they will be)? Or I suppose it might be too early to say(?)

[Piper_EEWL]

Raises an interesting question. How easy is it going to be to port our beloved planes over to the new MSFS (assuming they will be)? Or I suppose it might be too early to say(?)

I’m not an expert I would be very surprised if the planes from FSX/P3D would be portable to the new sim with all the new technology Microsoft is putting in there.

[patful]

I’m not an expert I would be very surprised if the planes from FSX/P3D would be portable to the new sim with all the new technology Microsoft is putting in there.

They have said that legacy flight modeling will be supported, but that might only work for FSX, not P3D. Not sure if they're exactly the same.

[Piper_EEWL]

I’m not an expert I would be very surprised if the planes from FSX/P3D would be portable to the new sim with all the new technology Microsoft is putting in there.

They have said that legacy flight modeling will be supported, but that might only work for FSX, not P3D. Not sure if they're exactly the same.

Oh ok. I must have have missed that. So there is some hope then I guess