Warrior II rear bench
-
Thanks Derek but yeah, that is incorrect and far from what you'd find in a real Warrior. I'm sure you guys must have flown the real aircraft otherwise just image-google "piper warrior rear bench" and you'll see. Or if I figure out how to upload a photo here I can upload some of mine but that's not the point, the point is the Warriors have a single wide one-piece bench in the rear and if you advertise things like accurate and comprehensive then it would be nice to have just that.
-
Just to be clear, are you saying it's wrong in the XP and P3D versions of the Warrior?
-
From the links you provided, of course it is. Have you been in a real Warrior?
-
Sorry, but I am no expert on Warriors - somewhat above my pay grade. All I know is that the previous versions of the Warrior have been out for a considerable time. AFAIK, no-one has mentioned an issue with the rear seats - the testing teams include real pilots, but, that aside, a large number have been sold over the last few years to customers. It may well be that the seats are wrong - I am just surprised, given the scrutiny to which this software undergoes in reviews etc, that it hasn't been mentioned. There may well be a good reason. I will pass your comments over to the developers to take a look.
-
-
Roebuck, obviously if the new Warrior has the exact same seats (to the tiniest of details) copied from the Arrow and in fact the details are identical across the Arrow, Warrior and previous sims' versions as well, then they are not developing each aircraft with reference to the real airplanes just copying the same seats into each new product. Which to most people doesn't matter so it's all good.
Derek, indeed I'm not here to pick a fight, I just let you guys know and you can fix it or not, it's up to you, I'm just reporting it, no hate intended at all. Can we see the interior photograph of the real Warrior it's modelled on, since you said it's "built using real-world aircraft plans and comprehensive photography of the real aircraft"?
-
We'll certainly investigate the option of having the traditional rear bench seating, in all it's 1970's sofa cushion glory, although it's not a feature that we've seen requested in the years since the Warrior's first release for FSX/P3D.
@piperflyboy said in Warrior II rear bench:
Have you asked real pilots to test it, and they would notice that immediately.
Yes, we've had many real-world PA28 Warrior pilots involved in testing across FSX, P3D, XP11 and MSFS, including those that fly the aircraft on which ours is based, but no - they've not requested the original bench fit.
Thanks for the feedback!
-
This post is deleted!
-
You people need to lighten up. You've pointed it out, they are aware, these are still by far the best GA aircraft released for MSFS so far. If they fix it great, if they don't, I don't plan to spend a lot of time flying from the split rear seats. I'm very happy with the Arrow, I expect to be just as happy with the Warrior.
-
@jsbrewster1 said in Warrior II rear bench:
You people need to lighten up ......
One of the main reasons I bought Just Flight's Arrows for MSFS is because of their claims for realism, e.g. "built using real-world aircraft plans and comprehensive photography of the real aircraft". When I've been told previously "That's how it was in the real aircraft", I've accepted that. Unfortunately this thread and the way it's been answered does now make me question how much I can rely on that and that's disappointing.
-
@Sender46 Then don't lighten up, nitpick to death. As Piperboy said in the very first entry in this insane thread, there is an option for split seats in the Piper Warrior. It's no wonder developers are hesitant to create anything, there are always naysayers who will find any reason to complain about the smallest thing. Good luck finding an airplane that is 100% accurate down to the last rivet, I'm sure you'll find a way to criticize that as well.
-
@jsbrewster1 said in Warrior II rear bench:
this insane thread
I agree with your first post here, but I think this kind of feedback is important. If Just Flight want to create a realistic-as-possible aircraft, feedback is valuable from people who have spend hours and hours in these things IRL. Derek and Martyn have already said they're willing to take a look at this. While the original post (and subsequent ones) could have worded more nicely, the fact that this discussion is happening in the first place can only help the realism of the plane and in the worst case, nothing changes (which for many of us including myself, is fine).
-
@jsbrewster1 You've totally missed my point. I really don't care about the Warrior's rear seat and if the obvious cutting and pasting from the Arrow had just been openly acknowledged I would not have commented.
I do care about the credibility of developers' claims. I guess some things matter more to some than others.
I'll still enjoy the Arrows. I'm just giving feedback on how this has affected my perception of Just Flight.
-
@vcapra1 I have to agree, I overreacted by calling the entire thread insane, but once the possibility of a bench seat was mentioned, and Martyn said they'd investigate, that's all that was really needed. I plan to fly and enjoy the Warrior, and I'll be overjoyed if my non-existent rear seat passengers have the luxury of split seats rather than a bench.
-
@Brave-Heart said in Warrior II rear bench:
This is unacceptable for a response and you know it as the fact is the seat is not a "feature" of the real life aircraft it is actual fact.
Please see above, GA aircraft are routinely modified and many of the features of all our PA28s differ from the original manufacturer configuration, just like in real life. Hopefully it's pretty obvious from all the significant and smaller differences between our PA28s that these were not simple copy-and-paste projects. Each is uniquely configured to match our chosen real world research aircraft.
It's already been made clear by me above that we will look at adding the option of reverting to the original rear bench/sofa for those that prefer that configuration, but I think we need to appreciate that it's a relatively niche request, hence it not being discussed by the thousands of owners before now. That's not to say it's not a worthwhile suggestion but it's but no means indictive of short-cuts being taken in the development of the aircraft.
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
