The transition straight from Feudalism to Capitalism only really exists in Marx's Theory of Historical Materialism, which even modern Marxist Historians don't use anymore. Even in the terminologies you yourself use, how would you distinguish "Nobility" from "Private Owners?" What defines "Nobility," and what happens if instead of transitioning to "Private Owners," their wealth (however you choose to measure or determine it) is collectivized or nationalized? The Italian economy, for example (my area of interest, although I prefer to focus on pre-industrial centuries) in spite of timid industrial growth in the late 19th century remained largely agricultural (complete with aristocrats touting ancient rights and privileges) right up until the Second World War, and progressed through its most rapid industrialization period with most driving components of the economy nationalized.

There have been a number of discussions on this sub looking at when Marxist methodologies and interpretations can be used effectively, and when they best be left aside (in other words, Marxist class and capital-based analysis can be useful to explain some things, but not all things). This discussion, this other discussion, and this podcast episode might interest you.

Modern economic history tries to use more precise terminology that that of Marx, measuring instead when and how an economy was able to industrialize, and from there measure if and how the economy has expanded into high-value and.or service-based activities. Using these parameters, there are tons of economies that to this day have industrialized only partially, ineffectively, or with limited success. Notably in sub-Saharan and Eastern Africa, as well as parts of Asia. There are also countess regions and sub-regions that are much less industrialized than the wider economies they are usually aggregated with.