Boeing B-314 "The Clipper" released!

[tiger1962]

If it's of any use, here's a 15 page pdf list of all the water runways in MSFS which I downloaded ages ago and I can't remember where from - my apologies to the original author.

[dvj]

Nice shot dvj!

Thank you all for the kind comments. -d

[Tom Clayton]

The pdf may prove handy, but don't forget you can filter the available airports in the World Map to only show wet strips.

[Twice43]

There is a thread running in Avsim in which the Developer is objecting to the Jonathon Beckett [sp] review & refund request.
There is another video review link just posted there too.
T43

[dvj]

[dvj]

There is much the developer can do to improve the textures and physical look of the aircraft.

[Spook48]

That first reviewer didn't do much of a review now , did he.
And asking for a refund while there was clearly indicated that the product is still developing , is outright silly imho.
I dont think that much of these youtube reviewers tbh.
They are all a bit to much "followers and likes" horny to me.

[YoYo]

Is this?

[SH427]

I really enjoyed Jons dive into the An-225 when it released,it's sad that this is his response to the 314. I think there was a fair amount of misinterpretation on both sides of the coin. To me I understood what "study level concept" and "some features incomplete" meant from the gun and knew what I was getting.
Pilots has a reputation with the 314 that eventually things will get fixed and we should have faith in that, that but this was one of the bigger concerns I had with the market for this platform. Most of us are elder flightsimmers who recall vividly the days before FS2004 even, but there's so many new folks around that may not understand how it goes sometimes with certain projects.

[StormILM]

I got the model because I am an old fan of the Clipper. Granted, there are some things missing and things that can be improved but my feeling is that they will in due time. Overall it looks and flies good.

[DennyA]

The video reviewer:

1) Literally didn't read the description page closely enough. That's on him, though i will cede that Pilot's would have been better-served with a large "Early Access" label.

2) Realizes the value of a contrary/controversial opinion as clickbait, but perhaps not the long-term negative repercussions.

The B-314 has some quirks. But (1) Pilot's says right on the page that features are still under development, and (2) I know from owning the FSX 314 that they will indeed keep improving it. And they priced it reasonably -- the "full" version of the FSX/P3D 314 used to be pretty expensive. (I'm feeling it was in the $70-80 range?)

I'm certainly having fun with it. It's not perfect, but it's a fascinating chance to recreate flying one of the cooler aircraft of the late 1930's.

[Javis]

What, a.o., keeps me from buying the Clipper is the "hoppin and boppin style" of taxiing. That looks particularly awkward to me. That poor big waterbird is clearly not happy ! It should be gently and gracefully sail across the water like a swan. Not like a sick duck that is obviously suffering from the constant hiccup syndrome. The other big waterbird, Howard Hughes brainchild, doesn't do that !

It very much looks like something's terribly wrong with the contact points. Even inside there's evidence of that by the constant shaking about of the turn coordinator ball. As soon as it is airborne the shaking about stops.

Yesterday i have read that there must be a contactpoints mod available for the Clipper. I cannot seem to find it at fs.to. Does anyone here perhaps know about it and if so, does it fix the hoppin and boppin taxi behaviour ?

Thanks very much for any hints/tips !

[cmiksch]

Yesterday i have read that there must be a contactpoints mod available for the Clipper. I cannot seem to find it at fs.to. Does anyone here perhaps know about it and if so, does it fix the hoppin and boppin taxi behaviour ?Thanks very much for any hints/tips !

It is within this thread https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t.../408190?page=6 in Post#102 of Stearman948713. Hope this helps.

[banjoman1960]

What, a.o., keeps me from buying the Clipper is the "hoppin and boppin style" of taxiing. That looks particularly awkward to me. That poor big waterbird is clearly not happy ! It should be gently and gracefully sail across the water like a swan. Not like a sick duck that is obviously suffering from the constant hiccup syndrome. The other big waterbird, Howard Hughes brainchild, doesn't do that !

It very much looks like something's terribly wrong with the contact points. Even inside there's evidence of that by the constant shaking about of the turn coordinator ball. As soon as it is airborne the shaking about stops.

Yesterday i have read that there must be a contactpoints mod available for the Clipper. I cannot seem to find it at fs.to. Does anyone here perhaps know about it and if so, does it fix the hoppin and boppin taxi behaviour ?

Thanks very much for any hints/tips !

Hey Jan,
maybe this i found here:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t...oat/408190/102

Here is what I changed on the flight model:
point.11= 4, -6.160041, 0, -7.458217, 3500, 0, 0.1, 0, 0.25, 3, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1
;point.11= 4, -6.160041, 0, -7.758217, 3500, 0, 0.1, 0, 0.25, 3, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1 ;original
point.12= 4, -38.278723, 0, -7.458195, 3500, 0, 0.1, 0, 0.5, 1.5, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1
;point.12= 4, -38.278723, 0, -7.758195, 3500, 0, 0.1, 0, 0.5, 1.5, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1 ;original
point.13= 4, -70.974108, 0, -1.459247, 3500, 0, 0.1, 0, 0.5, 1.5, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1
;point.13= 4, -70.974108, 0, -6.759247, 3500, 0, 0.1, 0, 0.5, 1.5, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1 ;original
;point.14= 4, -70.974108, 0, -6.759247, 3500, 0, 0.1, 0, 0.5, 1.5, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1
;point.15= 5, -72.115259, 0, -6.759248, 3500, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1 ; water rudder (original)
point.14= 5, -72.115259, 0, -6.759248, 3500, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1 ; water rudder

Cheers Ralf

[dvj]

Hey Jan,maybe this i found here:https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t...oat/408190/102Here is what I changed on the flight modeloint.11= 4, -6.160041, 0, -7.458217, 3500, 0, 0.1, 0, 0.25, 3, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1;point.11= 4, -6.160041, 0, -7.758217, 3500, 0, 0.1, 0, 0.25, 3, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1 ;originalpoint.12= 4, -38.278723, 0, -7.458195, 3500, 0, 0.1, 0, 0.5, 1.5, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1;point.12= 4, -38.278723, 0, -7.758195, 3500, 0, 0.1, 0, 0.5, 1.5, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1 ;originalpoint.13= 4, -70.974108, 0, -1.459247, 3500, 0, 0.1, 0, 0.5, 1.5, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1;point.13= 4, -70.974108, 0, -6.759247, 3500, 0, 0.1, 0, 0.5, 1.5, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1 ;original;point.14= 4, -70.974108, 0, -6.759247, 3500, 0, 0.1, 0, 0.5, 1.5, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1;point.15= 5, -72.115259, 0, -6.759248, 3500, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1 ; water rudder (original)point.14= 5, -72.115259, 0, -6.759248, 3500, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1 ; water rudderCheers Ralf

The developer seems to state in the thread, that fixes and improvements would cost more and that an update might be out shortly. This may mean that a study sim version is going to cost more.

[SH427]

hopefully if they do a separate study level version those of us who selfishly and impulsively bought the current version get a discount....Not that I'd complain a great deal if the updated study version is full price but..

[Javis]

Thank you very much, cmiksch and Ralf !

According to the video that Stearman sent along that *does* seem to take care of the awkward taxi behaviour. Great !

Btw, love the video ! He even chose my favourite Californian home base 'Half Moon Bay' (just for the romantic name...;-) for the landing sequence ! And he made the effort to setup and include a number of Fly-By sequences with which this big fat waterbird's still gracious lines can be enjoyed to great extend ( well know reviewer ITB might take notice of that..)

Will be difficult for me to keep holding off now. I might have to literally take the plunge now and hope for Jerome to come to his senses.

Thanks again, gentlemen, highly appreciated !

[Javis]

The developer seems to state in the thread, that fixes and improvements would cost more and that an update might be out shortly. This may mean that a study sim version is going to cost more.

Yep, going to cost $60, as i've seen Jerome write somewhere.. I love 'The Clipper' but alas not so much this MSFS version, yet... Although i DO like the external model very much. Then again the spinning props as viewed from within the VC are a disgrace. I simply cannot understand how a dev with a dedication to his project can send something looking so awful out into the world. Ashame really. I guess one *could* come to the conclusion that in this case the dev has no dedication to his project.

Really hate to say that but, IMHO, the whole thing reeks of "Need money asap. Have a good looking P3D model. Convert to MSFS asap. With as little effort as possible. Collect the money".

No matter that, with the awkward taxi, take off and landing behaviour modded out now (many thanks to Stearman948713 !!) i'll donate my 30 bucks to The Clipper fund and, as i said above, hope Jerome will come to his senses. This simply is no way to treat a famous historic and iconic flying boat, not even if it's only a model !

[TiAr]

V1.1 is out.

B-314 Seaports now all have water based parking positions that allow a Cold
& Dark startup on water.

All models
Interior texture overhaul with new colours, refining overall depth (Normals)
and adding wear and tear
Created functional Cold & Dark startup FLT files

Cockpit
B-314A Attitude Indicator was INOP - fixed

Engineer
B-314A PIONEER Temperature Needles for Engines 3 & 4 misaligned- fixed

Flight Model
Contact Point compression adjustment to improve water handling
Contact Point position adjustment to improve high AOA landing
Contact Point steering adjustment to improve water rudder response

A big thanks to Stearmandriver for his assistance with the Contact Points!

Know Issues
The Fuel Tank Selection Dials all show a visible OFF at startup, even when
the engines are running. The LVars for the dials are set correctly, their
position is not passed on correctly from the FLT LVar section to the visible
model. This is being discussed with Asobo.

The Mooring Light Switch, which activates a mooring of the aicraft with
position hold and the mooring lines appearing, is functional upon a Cold &
Dark startup. This is due to the same LVar issue as described above.

[dvj]

.

[StormILM]

After the update. much smoother water transitions and the VC certainly looks better. This for me is shaping up to be a FS classic.

[YoYo]

Good to know, the first opinions was a pause alarm for me, maybe 1-2 patches and will be fine!? P3D version was very good for me.

[Javis]

After the update. much smoother water transitions and the VC certainly looks better.

I got the impression that, after the update, 'the green' in the VC would've been replaced with a bit 'easier on the eyes' color..... I finally bought the B314 package yesterday but don't see much difference in the VC colors compared to all the screenshots of the VC *before* the update... The zip that i was able to download is named "PILOTS_Boeing_B314_The_Clipper_MSFS_110.zip".

I was wondering, as a buyer of the initial Clipper package how did you get the update ?

Could i ask you to post a screenshot of the VC that shows why you think that the VC looks better ?....Do you see other colors compared to the colors of the initial VC ?

Thank you very much !

Clarification : i just wanna make sure i have the updated Clipper version...

[DC1973]

Over the past three years, I have had much experience of the way certain "reviewers" do their work on You Tube and other platforms. Having been fortunate enough to become successful enough as a developer for those reviews not to have much of an effect either way on my products' sales ( most customers don't view them or watch them but make up their own minds ), I can afford to view them from a distance. Not all developers are as fortunate.

There are very few reviewers who earn their place with properly researched reviews of products and / or the knowledge to back those reviews up. CGAviator, IntoTheBlue, CorporatePilotDad and Novawing24 spring to mind. All either have real-world aviation experience or take plenty of time to learn a product before reviewing it, essentially earning the knowledge to pass judgement on whether something is accurate or not. ( And all have posted both positive and negative reviews of my products, so this isn't a choir preaching exercise ).

Reviewers like Jonathan Beckett don't do this. They slap something together as fast as they can, preferably with some sort of click-bait title, and grab as many views as they can. They demand that a developer "do better" as they're being paid for the airplanes they produce, while at the same time earning from their YT videos while doing as little as possible to do so, all the while hiding behind an "honest, I'm a nice guy and I'm doing this for you" approach to their narration. By their own "standards", their channels should not be there. And when the developer stands up for their product and points out the flaws in the so-called review? That's "unprofessional". These reviewers want to be able to say anything they like, but then hide behind "you're unprofessional" as soon as they're called out on their own low standards. The fact that JB pulled his video ( which would have gained a lot of views ) shows the degree of backlash against said video - he's been called out and he deserves it. Others should be too.

PILOTs Boeing Clipper has its faults, for sure. But in the screaming melodrama of reviewers like Jonathan Beckett and their Z-list videos, viewers are conned into thinking that the Boeing Clipper is somehow the "lowest of the low" and we deserve a refund. I'd ask folks here to balance that against products from the likes of MScenery, Deimos Inc, Bredok3D and others. Where does a product from a developer that clearly has worked hard on the product actually stand? Is it really "I want a refund" territory? Or is it something that, as in the case of the Clipper, the developer wanted to improve and was openly asking for constructive criticism? Cue shrill insults from forum members on AVSIM on others that go un-checked, but the developer is chastised for their responses. Double-standards, everywhere.

Everybody has opinions and preferences, each seeks different things from different products. Reputable developers work for many months on a product and don't do so to cash-grab - those that do so are easily spotted, we all know who they are. There should be some equal level of assessment of YouTube reviewers who maintain such low standards, but then demand so much from the developers they have self-appointed themselves to pass judgement upon.

[K5083]

I feel your frustration and agree with you on some points DC, but overall that is a pretty weak take.

I don't think "double standard" means what you think it means. Different standards for different products is not a double standard. A YT video is not an addon plane. YTers are constrained by the conditions of producing on YT, especially if they want to make a little ad money. To please the algorithm, they have to put out a vid every couple of days, if not every day. The content has to be timely. And, they charge me nothing for it. When you release a new plane every 2 days and charge us zero for it, you can talk about double standards relative to YT vids. "Professionalism" has to be assessed in context of the product. Also, to be fair, many of the best sim YTers are working commercial pilots, which must make it hard to produce these vids at all, and I'm happy if they channel their professionalism into their day job.

That said, I would go farther than you and say that not one single YTer offers well enough researched reviews to be worth taking seriously. Some undoubtedly are worse than others. I don't watch all the ones you cited as being good, but I used to watch Into the Blue. I had to give him up, I never made it to the end of one of his videos because I made up a drinking game where I take a shot every time he says, "As I say, ..." and then repeats something he said a few minutes ago. By the end of his vids I was always unconscious. Seriously, that guy is a master at stretching 5 minutes of content into a 30 minute video. But again, he's doing what YT's algorithm commands. Substantively, although he's been a bit better lately, ITB often showed the pressure to get a video out within a day or two of a product's release by producing an ill-researched review in which he sometimes confessed to not even knowing the most basic performance data about the subject airplane to compare with the addon. Why not research it before making the video? No time, hours count on YT, someone will steal your views if you don't get that vid out today. Mostly he erred on the side of being too generous to the addon, which of course, devs are perfectly happy with.

There are YT gaming review channels in which the YTer takes weeks to put out a review video on a new release, does a full play-through, then puts out a beautifully produced, comprehensive review. Angry Joe comes to mind as one that I enjoy. But when you have 3m subs and literally millions of people enjoy your content for its own sake, you are playing on a different level than any flight sim YTer and can afford to do that. A few YTers do this a little bit, taking a more detailed look at addons released some time ago, but sim YTers tend to be rather lacking in charisma and can't really carry a channel on such content. Plus, as you say, many of them simply lack the knowledge and experience to do an informed review, no matter how much time they take.

Forums like this one are a much better place to get informed, thoughtful insights on new products, but I'm sure they have far less penetration than YT vids. I suppose most buyers go on nothing but the publisher's hype, which leads to disappointment sometimes.

August