Did FSLABS miss the MSFS train with the upcoming FENIX A320 ?

[Camille MOUCHEL]

As an already seasoned simmer I've seen numerous A320 projects starting with ambitious videos and feature lists that either never made it to release or stalled and never delivered to their promises. (Latest example: one of the offerings on X-Plane). Guess why a ended with FSLabs?
I wish the guys of Fenix all the best but it's not yet the time to hyperventilate.

Agreed but it seems to be delivered not matter what.
A famous beta tester even went to fenix beta team after being one for fslabs.

I just can’t see that project fail


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[Robert Sutherland]

There's a lot of doom mongering going on about P3D and the impact MSFS will have on it. 

From a commercial perspective, MSFS is a threat. But this idea that it'll signal the end of P3D as a product is naïve. I appreciate that MSFS is 'the future' but it ignores the fact that simulation products are there to compete with each other, and that this competition is what ultimately drives innovation forward. The only reason MSFS exists in the first place is because Microsoft saw the value that X-Plane and P3D generated and decided they wanted a piece of that pie. 

Don't write P3D off. Be happy that we have this competition which will make flight simming better for all of us. 

[Jose Rodrigues]

I am happy and satisfied with Prepar3D. No intentions to use "that" videogame (you know which one....).

[Nuno M Pinto]

Same here, MSFS right now is "only looks" and a lot of problems with a gaming interface that really puts me off. It needs a LOT of credible addons for me to embrace the game environment they created and move towards it. Meanwhile i'll be enjoying P3D with its endless possibilities.

Relax, let things flow.

[Lothar Gentzsch]

In my opinion, these speculations are pointless. These developments are known for the MSFS:
Aerosoft goes to the A330, PMDG goes after the DC6 now to the B738NG, Fenix creates the A320 with great system depth and error simulation.

Capt.Blackbox 711 has left the cooperation with FSLabs as beta tester after four years. He will now be quoted by FSelite in the framework with Fenix which will give the benefit for proffesional training.
FSlabs still wants to sell the A320 for the P3D. For this reason they are not promoting any MSFS product now. That is logical.

 

[Sam Barry]

Really happy to see this - hopefully makes both products better. 

[mattyshigh]

2 hours ago, Holger Teutsch said:

As an already seasoned simmer I've seen numerous A320 projects starting with ambitious videos and feature lists that either never made it to release or stalled and never delivered to their promises. (Latest example: one of the offerings on X-Plane). Guess why a ended with FSLabs?

I wish the guys of Fenix all the best but it's not yet the time to hyperventilate.

Its already in alpha?

[Holger Teutsch]

Whatever alpha is.

Gesendet von meinem Pixel 3 mit Tapatalk

[STEFAN DORDEVIC]

14 hours ago, Camille MOUCHEL said:

so what I'm understanding here is that almost everything has been modelled so far except some FMGC feature such as the Step Climb/RTA/Offset... but will be added later on ?

 

How is it possible to implement all tjhat with the current MSFS SDKFailureList-v0.2.pdf

RNP-AR update and some tweaking like the HOLD problem,optimal cruise level and aicraft acceleration over VFE(will be fixed for the next update).
But you are correct most of the missing features are connected to the FMGS system.

[mattyshigh]

18 minutes ago, Holger Teutsch said:

Whatever alpha is.

https://techterms.com/definition/alpha_software

[Ajit Sidhu]

Lets wait and see what Fenix does, over the years on many platforms there’s been promise of Fedility Airbus but when it comes to it it still comes up short. As Type Rated Bus Driver, Airbus Aircraft are immensely difficult to simulate because of how complex the systems, FBW and Logic System is. I came to p3d during covid because I needed a quality A320 to practice with during furlough, Fslabs isn’t perfect but its damn close. In my mind FsLabs is the gold standard for Airbus Simulation maybe even simulation in general at this moment, and people will still come to p3d or whatever platform they choose to expand to just to enjoy this quality simulation. 

[Camille MOUCHEL]

Lets wait and see what Fenix does, over the years on many platforms there’s been promise of Fedility Airbus but when it comes to it it still comes up short. As Type Rated Bus Driver, Airbus Aircraft are immensely difficult to simulate because of how complex the systems, FBW and Logic System is. I came to p3d during covid because I needed a quality A320 to practice with during furlough, Fslabs isn’t perfect but its damn close. In my mind FsLabs is the gold standard for Airbus Simulation maybe even simulation in general at this moment, and people will still come to p3d or whatever platform they choose to expand to just to enjoy this quality simulation. 

Agreed But if Blackbox joined Fenix , it means that the product have a high chance to succeed


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[Michele Benedetti]

I have all the 3 main sims and I find myself at home with P3D, especially with the new Concorde V2 arriving. However, the first sim to receive a high fidelity long range Airbus will be the way to go. I think that market is still (incomprehensibly) unexplored, and the company that first occupies it will be the leader of it for many years to come. (I'm not considering the Aerosoft A330 simply because it has a much different target)

[Jose Rodrigues]

1 hour ago, Camille MOUCHEL said:

Agreed But if Blackbox joined Fenix , it means that the product have a high chance to succeed

Who says Blackbox will integrate Fenix, himself? I don't follow his streams.

[Mikey Miller]

4 hours ago, Jose Rodrigues said:

I am happy and satisfied with Prepar3D. No intentions to use "that" videogame (you know which one....).

Prepar3D is also a videogame 

[Danny Moore]

Déjà vu, the last few post are mirror comments from Avsim. I can see some with tabs open to both sites waiting to respond, LOL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anatoly Briskin]

Yeap you have maybe two to 4 devs across all platforms that can pull a complex aircraft off.  And they all stick with what they know and don't like to venture out of their comfort zone.  PMDG is not doing 787  and Toliss with FSL are not doing A380   And those devs that have talent and reputation to uphold and risk venturing into unknown  take their sweet time as in years.  Inis 380 has been in development for at least 3 years. 

[Robert Schumacher]

5 hours ago, Robert Sutherland said:

There's a lot of doom mongering going on about P3D and the impact MSFS will have on it. 

From a commercial perspective, MSFS is a threat. But this idea that it'll signal the end of P3D as a product is naïve. I appreciate that MSFS is 'the future' but it ignores the fact that simulation products are there to compete with each other, and that this competition is what ultimately drives innovation forward. The only reason MSFS exists in the first place is because Microsoft saw the value that X-Plane and P3D generated and decided they wanted a piece of that pie. 

Don't write P3D off. Be happy that we have this competition which will make flight simming better for all of us. 

The competition with MSFS is XP, not P3D any longer.  LM doesn’t even pretend to compete w/ MSFS.  Technically, although not enforced, P3D isn’t even supposed to be used for recreational purposes...  

[Camille MOUCHEL]

Who says Blackbox will integrate Fenix, himself? I don't follow his streams.

Confirmed by himself


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[Camille MOUCHEL]

On 7/13/2021 at 2:04 PM, Jose Rodrigues said:

Who says Blackbox will integrate Fenix, himself? I don't follow his streams.

He will just be a beta tester for fenix I think






Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[Jose Rodrigues]

1 hour ago, Mikey Miller said:

Prepar3D is also a videogame 

A (very) bad videogame.

[Stu Antonio]

2 hours ago, Jose Rodrigues said:

Who says Blackbox will integrate Fenix, himself? I don't follow his streams.

[Jeremy Smirnov]

I would have loved to explore some quality aircraft in XP... I DO have XP installed but I find the built-in ATC to be an incomprehensible mess and (I know this is a minor nitpick) the lack of ability to hit B to sync baro drives me up the wall. Especially when you are flying something like their default 172 where the numbers on the baro gauge are SO hard to read... I also don't dig how the default aircraft seems to always hang on to the flight plan you last entered (even though your next flight may be from a completely different location, I don't know... maybe payware XP aircraft don't do that)... So I admit I don't own any payware aircraft for XP - only P3D and MSFS...

 

In regards to the Fenix thing... we will wait and see. I DO think it's good to have competition. IF they pull this off, it will be great. I also do agree that I WANT XP and P3D to compete. I am not at all for just ONE sim - monopoly is never good. But P3D doesn't seem to be able to compete in terms of retention of its developers. That's the issue. 

 

MSFS being a game or whatever... those statements are nonsense. XP and P3D are games too. All three are sims. Yes, they have different UI. MSFS does have the console connection thus the UI is a little "gamified", but once you are in the cockpit, it doesn't really differ from P3D. 

In terms of MSFS aircraft... you DO have some great ones. PMDG's DC-6 is a marvel. In terms of GA, both JustFlight's Pipers and FlySimWare's Grumman Widgeon are great - not quite A2A territory, but close. 

Consider this. Once upon a time, FSLabs was a young development company with not much established reputation and A LOT to prove. Who is to say that Fenix can't be the next FSLabs? There is something to be said for complacency once you establish yourself and become a big player - there is a little less drive to innovate. So is FSLabs resting on its laurels now? I don't know. I'd like to think they aren't. I'd love the Concorde, but again, it's a product they have already had. Where is the push for let's say... A350? 

I know FlightFactor has an A350 on XP (about the only 350 I know of on ALL platforms, and I have no idea how good it is). IF I were to give a payware XP aircraft a shot, it would probably be that. 

[Anatoly Briskin]

Ok, so it's like flightdeck2sim going to help zibo out.  How long did it take for zibo to become a high quality aircraft?  Close to 5 years. And zibo is technically donation ware so everybody was testing it out and reporting bugs and were really appreciative  of the team.  Commercial product that would cost close to triple digits no such appreciation, people would want it to work for the most part from day one. 

[Anatoly Briskin]

6 minutes ago, Jeremy Smirnov said:

I would have loved to explore some quality aircraft in XP... I DO have XP installed but I find the built-in ATC to be an incomprehensible mess and (I know this is a minor nitpick) the lack of ability to hit B to sync baro drives me up the wall. Especially when you are flying something like their default 172 where the numbers on the baro gauge are SO hard to read... I also don't dig how the default aircraft seems to always hang on to the flight plan you last entered (even though your next flight may be from a completely different location, I don't know... maybe payware XP aircraft don't do that)... So I admit I don't own any payware aircraft for XP - only P3D and MSFS...

 

In regards to the Fenix thing... we will wait and see. I DO think it's good to have competition. IF they pull this off, it will be great. I also do agree that I WANT XP and P3D to compete. I am not at all for just ONE sim - monopoly is never good. But P3D doesn't seem to be able to compete in terms of retention of its developers. That's the issue. 

 

MSFS being a game or whatever... those statements are nonsense. XP and P3D are games too. All three are sims. Yes, they have different UI. MSFS does have the console connection thus the UI is a little "gamified", but once you are in the cockpit, it doesn't really differ from P3D. 

In terms of MSFS aircraft... you DO have some great ones. PMDG's DC-6 is a marvel. In terms of GA, both JustFlight's Pipers and FlySimWare's Grumman Widgeon are great - not quite A2A territory, but close. 

Consider this. Once upon a time, FSLabs was a young development company with not much established reputation and A LOT to prove. Who is to say that Fenix can't be the next FSLabs? There is something to be said for complacency once you establish yourself and become a big player - there is a little less drive to innovate. So is FSLabs resting on its laurels now? I don't know. I'd like to think they aren't. I'd love the Concorde, but again, it's a product they have already had. Where is the push for let's say... A350? 

I know FlightFactor has an A350 on XP (about the only 350 I know of on ALL platforms, and I have no idea how good it is). IF I were to give a payware XP aircraft a shot, it would probably be that. 

LOL XPs ATC no longer bothers anyone because everyone moved on to Pilot2ATC or Vatsim and never looked back.  XP GA aircraft is excellent especially ones with G1000 suite.  ASOBO could take a lesson or two of what proper stock plane should look like  Stock Airliners are flyable but then again why would I want to fly stock 737 when I have zibo for free and zibo goes toe to toe with PMDG in all respects.  Where XP shines is in user flexibility and cleanness of installation and also visuals that can be had for nearly free. Plenty of top notch of payware airplanes from modern airbuses to classics to regionals to GA Only under represented area is heavy Boeings that's why people like me suffer thru with P3D.  FS ports of GA planes are nowhere close to their counterparts in P3D or XP not in quality of life areas not in flight dynamics. They are better then they were a year ago but still nowhere close. At the rate it goes we'll have to wait another year before it sorts itself out.  As far as DC6 goes, well DC6 is a big C172 with 4 engines, it's a test bed for PMDG.  The true test of what FS can do will be when FSL or PMDG or Toliss or whomever is established in the arena brings over a modern complex airliner into that sandbox.  If that modern complex airliner flies there then we are off to the races.

[Steve Drabek]

19 hours ago, Camille MOUCHEL said:

How is it possible to implement all tjhat with the current MSFS SDK

By understanding how to code in the native MSFS format and persistence for getting it done vs stressing about what "can't" be done due to an incomplete SDK?

It seems pretty simple to me, these guys know what they are doing (very obvious if you watched Chewy's twitch stream), and contrary to popular belief, anyone can design, build and code a highly detailed aircraft in MSFS if they have the skill, knowledge and determination.   This is not a skillset unique  to a few, legacy developers.

The SDK is a guide to help devs build in MSFS (or any platform)...its not a step by step instruction guide.  Like I said...if you have the skills, while a fully baked SDK would be helpful, it's not required (obviously if you look at current work by the freeware groups, esp. FBW and WT).

Other top shelf devs have been adapting to the new platform, some even releasing impressive aircraft in MSFS already (not naming names of course, but if you have a computer and google, even if you don't follow them, you should know who).

Anyway....I'm baffled as to why FSL chooses to remain silent....maybe this current announcement of an aircraft in MSFS that would be a direct competitor if they even chose to enter the market, will prompt a response.  Maybe they won't even create in MSFS and will stay with P3D only?   We can only speculate.

[Anatoly Briskin]

15 minutes ago, Steve Dra said:

By understanding how to code in the native MSFS format and persistence for getting it done vs stressing about what "can't" be done due to an incomplete SDK?

It seems pretty simple to me, these guys know what they are doing (very obvious if you watched Chewy's twitch stream), and contrary to popular belief, anyone can design, build and code a highly detailed aircraft in MSFS if they have the skill, knowledge and determination.   This is not a skillset unique  to a few, legacy developers.

The SDK is a guide to help devs build in MSFS (or any platform)...its not a step by step instruction guide.  Like I said...if you have the skills, while a fully baked SDK would be helpful, it's not required (obviously if you look at current work by the freeware groups, esp. FBW and WT).

Other top shelf devs have been adapting to the new platform, some even releasing impressive aircraft in MSFS already (not naming names of course, but if you have a computer and google, even if you don't follow them, you should know who).

Anyway....I'm baffled as to why FSL chooses to remain silent....maybe this current announcement of an aircraft in MSFS that would be a direct competitor if they even chose to enter the market, will prompt a response.  Maybe they won't even create in MSFS and will stay with P3D only?   We can only speculate.

Yes anyone with talent and determination can do it.  Question is can they do it profitably. :). PMDG came to xplane, which has proper mature and established SDK,  with DC6 they sold few copies of it looked at demand at a given price point looked at the work involved in moving planes over, said too much work not enough money and left.  Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should do it from business perspective. That's why FSL is sitting on the fence and waiting for the new and green trailblazers to pave the way and go broke in the process, as they go broke there will be lessons learned and fixes applied so eventually it will become a profitable exercise. PMDG probably has deeper pockets and can afford to play loss leader to a degree how much of a degree time will tell. 

 

[Camille MOUCHEL]

Yes anyone with talent and determination can do it.  Question is can they do it profitably. . PMDG came to xplane with DC6 they sold few copies of it looked at demand at price point looked at the work involved in moving planes over, said too much work not enough money and left.  Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should do it from business perspective. That's why FSL is sitting on the fence and waiting for the new and green trailblazers to pave the way and go broke in the process, as they go broke there will be lessons learned and fixes applied so eventually it will become a profitable exercise. PMDG probably has deeper pockets and can afford to play loss leader to a degree how much of a degree time will tell. 
 

That means that’s they won’t release their NG3 later this year for msfs ?

At the same time, the DC is a very niche product ? It would sell way less than a 737 me guess


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[Anatoly Briskin]

They said they would that was few months ago, but we haven't heard any updates since. DC6 is superb but it is very simple comparing to a modern airliner.  They didn't do anything in terms of advanced modern navigation with it.  It comes with Asobo's garmin or pure VOR version. Systems,engines, hydraulics etc,  likewise pretty simplistic compared to a PMDG grade airliner.  I think DC was a plane within a sim and NGX would have to be a sim within a sim ie programmed outside and integrated back and that gets hairy and labor intensive pretty fast. If anyone can pull it off it'll be PMDG so keeping fingers crossed.  

And in terms of sales given the Xbox controller touting audience in FS right now I doubt that any of the PMDG products would sell well until the entire fleet is there.  And semi serious aviation enthusiast decides to start doing spring cleaning.  Unless I can uninstall P3D and move over I am sitting and waiting.  Way too much money invested into the beast already to do it piecemeal. 

 

 

[Jeremy Smirnov]

Well, by all indications, the PMDG 737 should be ready in the next month and a half or so. So, we will see how that goes. 

[Alexander Petrenko]

"One of the first things Aamir did was dismiss this concept of “study-level” aircraft. This term has a certain connotation to it, and the whole team are behind the idea that what they’re making is a ‘high-fidelity’ aircraft. This means that the A320 will be full of in-depth simulations, quality texturing and modelling, along with other functionality that makes the experience more immersive for simmers. As such, don’t expect this aircraft to be referenced as a study-level aircraft."

[Camille MOUCHEL]

"One of the first things Aamir did was dismiss this concept of “study-level” aircraft. This term has a certain connotation to it, and the whole team are behind the idea that what they’re making is a ‘high-fidelity’ aircraft. This means that the A320 will be full of in-depth simulations, quality texturing and modelling, along with other functionality that makes the experience more immersive for simmers. As such, don’t expect this aircraft to be referenced as a study-level aircraft."

Yes but it will be study level for us simmer:

When you are getting real time gps satellite positions and then calculating the ANP based on the aircraft position, it’s more than a higher fidelity product


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[Giuseppe Paradiso]

Like many here I agree that FsLabs airplanes are the spearhead of flight simulation..

Like many here, I too will keep P3D alive as long as there are FsLabs and FlyTheMaddogX (personal preference).

Why does FsLabs not disclose the progress of its work on MSFS? In my opinion there are only two answers:

- They are embarrassed because they are far behind with development (an option which I consider unlikely)

- They do not want to provide "tactical" advantages to the competition (option, for me, more likely).

Even the guys of FlyTheMaddogX, apart from a few (rare) screens, have their mouths sewn up, so enough with the psychoanalytic conjectures. They know the future is MSFS and they won't sit idle.

[Sam de Freyssinet]

1 hour ago, Camille MOUCHEL said:

Yes but it will be study level for us simmer

The problem with this simple evaluation is that what makes a study level or high fidelity product is not well defined. This is why there is pushback against the study level attribution. 
 

Study level implies that you can use the product as a study guide for a given type. I would only accept that if the type manufacturer certified the product as study level.

High fidelity, implies that the product is a faithful reproduction of the original, without being a precise copy. This generally is closer to the truth.

[Camille MOUCHEL]

Like many here I agree that FsLabs airplanes are the spearhead of flight simulation..
Like many here, I too will keep P3D alive as long as there are FsLabs and FlyTheMaddogX (personal preference).
Why does FsLabs not disclose the progress of its work on MSFS? In my opinion there are only two answers:
- They are embarrassed because they are far behind with development (an option which I consider unlikely)
- They do not want to provide "tactical" advantages to the competition (option, for me, more likely).
Even the guys of FlyTheMaddogX, apart from a few (rare) screens, have their mouths sewn up, so enough with the psychoanalytic conjectures. They know the future is MSFS and they won't sit idle.

I totally agree with you.

That’s what fenix has done for 2 years: keeping radio silent. Guess thy went public to make themselves known so that potential buyers gets ready to purchase haha


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[Camille MOUCHEL]

The problem with this simple evaluation is that what makes a study level or high fidelity product is not well defined. This is why there is pushback against the study level attribution. 
 
Study level implies that you can use the product as a study guide for a given type. I would only accept that if the type manufacturer certified the product as study level.
High fidelity, implies that the product is a faithful reproduction of the original, without being a precise copy. This generally is closer to the truth.

Regarding your definition, a study level is then a CAE level D simulator then.


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[Sam de Freyssinet]

2 minutes ago, Camille MOUCHEL said:

Regarding your definition, a study level is then a CAE level D simulator then.

Sure, a Level D sim is probably certified by the manufacture as suitable for type certification. However Level D is not a requirement. If Airbus certified the FSL as study level then it clearly is. But they haven't.

[David Porrett]

17 hours ago, Robert Sutherland said:

Don't write P3D off.

I agree. The main attraction to MSFS is the visuals, no doubt. If LM can provide a similar scenery solution then it is "game" on. Only thing is, they would need to do it fast - but will they?

[Eric Fisher]

12 minutes ago, David Porrett said:

I agree. The main attraction to MSFS is the visuals, no doubt. If LM can provide a similar scenery solution then it is "game" on. Only thing is, they would need to do it fast - but will they?

Sun still disappears with shadows when turning your head on the ground and taxing around and been that way since v4. I hold little hope for your wish.

 

[David Porrett]

10 minutes ago, Eric Fisher said:

I hold little hope for your wish

Not really a wish, but a statement. There a plenty of shortfalls in MSFS but the community appear very tolerant of those.

[Mikey Miller]

Fenix are set to release a video very soon of the aircraft in action.

I might be leaning on the bullish side but this seems like a very mature alpha build, I wouldn’t be to shocked to see the product release in some form by summers end. If that is the case, it’s hard to see me using P3D for much longer.

For fslabs sake I hope they have something lined up…because if not Fenix has played an absolute blinder here with regards to business strategy!

[Camille MOUCHEL]

Fenix are set to release a video very soon of the aircraft in action.
I might be leaning on the bullish side but this seems like a very mature alpha build, I wouldn’t be to shocked to see the product release in some form by summers end. If that is the case, it’s hard to see me using P3D for much longer.
For fslabs sake I hope they have something lined up…because if not Fenix has played an absolute blinder here with regards to business strategy!

Agreed but you are a bit optimistic regarding the possibility of a release by the end of summer, it has been in closed alpha since 1 week, lots of stuff to be made


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[Camille MOUCHEL]

Well the energy line and BUSS is already implemented

[Stefan van Hierden]

The A32x of FSL is the only reason I am still running P3D V5.1+ but the rising issues with every update makes it hard to enjoy the hobby (not related to FSL though). Out of vRam, device hung, stutters, bugs to name a few. I reinstalled everything not to long ago and only have FSL installed together with GSX, Active sky and a few sceneries to lower the chances of crashes to a minimum.

If a high fed. A32x comes available for MSFS it will make me switch to MSFS for sure. This means that for P3D I will not buy any addon or expansion from now on, depending the expectations are met on release. So in this case it will be a competitor (from my point of view).

 

But, FSL has provided me with the best addon for P3D for years and have build a very well reputation with me which is very important. If they decide to develop for MSFS one day I am sure I get back to their product as well. P3D for me is a dead horse though and can't wait to leave it behind. It has been a fun run but we've come to an end.

[Hon-Chun Chan]

I think competition from Fenix can only benefit the consumer, if only to speed up FSL's development efforts. We as consumers fully expect FSL to release ports of the A32X (and hopefully Concorde-X) for MSFS, just like what PMDG is doing - if they can do it, so can FSL. Fenix has now planted the flag, and I expect FSL to respond soon.

The previous pace of development for the A319/A321 & Sharklets has been very slow IMO, and the P3D platform is really showing its age. I've been playing XP11 more over the past year despite the FlightFactor A320 being much less complex, simply because the flight model just feels more "alive". It's the same for MSFS, but now with global photoreal scenery, real fluffy clouds and a developer who's genuinely willing to support it long-term. I can honestly say that MSFS will likely be where most of my flightsim dollars will go, and I'll most likely buy the Fenix as long as it's not some hot garbage on early access, like Airsimmer.

I also plan on buying the FSL stuff for MSFS, if they choose to release them. However Fenix has now shown their cards and If their A320 gets real good before FSL releases the A32X, then it becomes a much tougher ask for many people. Like we've seen with the Captainsim 777, the early bird will still get a lot of sales even if it's trash.