All's quiet on the Alphasim front?

[tigisfat]

Does anyone know what's going on with Alphasim these days? Are they ever going to release the promised C-17 updates and the islander? If I had purchased the C-17, I'd be REALLY angry right now.


It does appear that the C-17 paintkit was released today.

[Tako_Kichi]

Just a few moments before reading this I was over at the CBFS forum where a poster had hinted that he had seen info on the Islander with a possible mid-Jan 2010 release date.

[tigisfat]

Well, the C-17 was also 'almost done' two years ago this January. :icon_lol:

[bushpilot]

he had seen info on the Islander with a possible mid-Jan 2010 release date.

And I'm also convinced that Duke Nukem Forever will be out very soon:icon_lol:.


I don't envy those who purchased C17, they have had a fair amount of time to stare that exterior model:kilroy:.

[tigisfat]

It sure doesn't look like a 60 dollar product either. Especially without the VC that will or won't ever make it.

I bought a product from FSdreamscapes that was supposed to be a beta, and the updates would be free. I never got a single update, and the owner told me that I was welcome to fix it myself and he had moved on to other products. :mixedsmi:

[Dangerous Beans]

And I'm also convinced that Duke Nukem Forever will be out very soon:icon_lol:.


I don't envy those who purchased C17, they have had a fair amount of time to stare that exterior model:kilroy:.

Did someone sat Duke Nukem Forever, I'm really looking forward to its relaese, that and Racing Legends http://www.racing-legends.com/news.htm :icon_lol:

[anthony31]

Well the alphasim website does say the C17 update is due somewhere between mid Jan and Mid Feb but that info is from 11 Dec. That's also the same post that says the islander will be released mid Jan. I guess they will be released when their released.

And please people, stop paying companies full price for only half a product ... It just encourages them.

[krazycolin]

Please note that the text below is NOT an attack. It is outright curiosity...

I think that the methods Alphasim and Iris chose for their respective "C" haulers bear some similarity: charging for an unfinished plane with no VC, no sound and basic FDE and basic or no code with the minor(?) difference of Alphasim contracting theirs and Iris buying theirs off of Turbosquid for about 200 bucks.

To be honest, we're seriously considering doing this same thing with our F-15C and E. How many people would buy those? 15 bucks, two planes, 4 liveries, basic animations (externals and VCs) no real system(s) code, no sound and a basic FDE but they do have awesome VCs with some working gauges and stuff and nearly beautiful externals (still working on the materials)... (and a paint kit). And we are working on them on a daily basis...

I'm really curious because this is a great way to pay for dev costs as the project goes on as well as allowing us to gauge the amount of interest a product will get... (especially if we buy the models rather than make them)

And no kidding, I am really serious about knowing this...

kc.

I sure hope no one starts a flame war as that is NOT my intention...

[b52bob]

I would purchase it! $15 for 2 models and a chance to upgrade later at no or small cost. Count me in, even just for the support to the devs.

[hews500d]

Please note that the text below is NOT an attack. It is outright curiosity...

I think that the methods Alphasim and Iris chose for their respective "C" haulers bear some similarity: charging for an unfinished plane with no VC, no sound and basic FDE and basic or no code with the minor(?) difference of Alphasim contracting theirs and Iris buying theirs off of Turbosquid for about 200 bucks.

To be honest, we're seriously considering doing this same thing with our F-15C and E. How many people would buy those? 15 bucks, two planes, 4 liveries, basic animations (externals and VCs) no real system(s) code, no sound and a basic FDE but they do have awesome VCs with some working gauges and stuff and nearly beautiful externals (still working on the materials)... (and a paint kit). And we are working on them on a daily basis...

I'm really curious because this is a great way to pay for dev costs as the project goes on as well as allowing us to gauge the amount of interest a product will get... (especially if we buy the models rather than make them)

And no kidding, I am really serious about knowing this...

kc.

I sure hope no one starts a flame war as that is NOT my intention...

For me, I'd rather purchase the "finished product" rather than get a basic model now and then wait endless weeks/months for an upgrade. I just feel like I would loose interest in a product long before the upgrades come along and probably not consider purchasing until it was completed with all the promised "bells and whistles."

Darrell

[N2056]

To me it's like someone really expecting that I would buy a car that has no engine yet, but they promise one in "a few months"

I buy NOTHING based on it being completed in the future. To do so is just stupid! I constantly remember a corny bit I tolerated on the first ship I served on...but frankly it was right on. "You get what you inspect, not what you expect"

Sorry, but if you are having to do this to customers to stay afloat something is wrong with your business model. I'll never accept a partial product with an attached promise to finish the job.

[jmig]

And I'm also convinced that Duke Nukem Forever will be out very soon:icon_lol:.



It better! Howie Long ain't getting no younger. ;)

[jmig]

Please note that the text below is NOT an attack. It is outright curiosity...

I think that the methods Alphasim and Iris chose for their respective "C" haulers bear some similarity: charging for an unfinished plane with no VC, no sound and basic FDE and basic or no code with the minor(?) difference of Alphasim contracting theirs and Iris buying theirs off of Turbosquid for about 200 bucks.

To be honest, we're seriously considering doing this same thing with our F-15C and E. How many people would buy those? 15 bucks, two planes, 4 liveries, basic animations (externals and VCs) no real system(s) code, no sound and a basic FDE but they do have awesome VCs with some working gauges and stuff and nearly beautiful externals (still working on the materials)... (and a paint kit). And we are working on them on a daily basis...

I'm really curious because this is a great way to pay for dev costs as the project goes on as well as allowing us to gauge the amount of interest a product will get... (especially if we buy the models rather than make them)

And no kidding, I am really serious about knowing this...

kc.

I sure hope no one starts a flame war as that is NOT my intention...

For YOU and for the F-15, I would gamble the $15. I figure it must be better than the old Iris F-15, which cost as much 2-3 years ago.

If you can provide working systems and gauges, I would happily pay the difference.

Bare in mind that this is only because I trust you and I would love to have a working F-15. I would not do this as a rule.

[BOOM]

I've preordered aircraft before and now(VRS Super Hornet) I feel the small developer needs a considerable bankroll to either start or finish a product.So this doesn't seem very different.

[dswo]

"Always in motion the future is." --Yoda

It's a tempting strategy, but what if something goes wrong? E.g., you don't get enough money to finish; one of your development partners dies/gets sick/gets bored; you run into technical problems that you can't fix? All of these things can and do happen. And if they happen to you, and you can't afford to issue refunds, you will have alienated the most loyal (and possibly most vocal) fraction of your customer base. Your reputation is toast. In a small market -- which this is -- you will have a hard time recovering. --> The risks outweigh the benefits.

[tigisfat]

I'd get the milviz F-15 pack. 15 for both and VCs included? I can add sounds from other fighters. Milviz has completed and delivered more models than anyone else. They are a different kind of developer to me, one that has other ways to make money (that demand timely production and hard work) and doesn't come to the forums selling 'snake oil'.

I've been ripped off by quite a few lying developers, and it makes me sick to my stomach when they come here and elsewhere to lie about their latest products. I'm tired of it. I've missed out on some potentially cool products lately, but once I'm burned I NEVER purchase from a specific company again.

[MenendezDiego]

Please note that the text below is NOT an attack. It is outright curiosity...

I think that the methods Alphasim and Iris chose for their respective "C" haulers bear some similarity: charging for an unfinished plane with no VC, no sound and basic FDE and basic or no code with the minor(?) difference of Alphasim contracting theirs and Iris buying theirs off of Turbosquid for about 200 bucks.

To be honest, we're seriously considering doing this same thing with our F-15C and E. How many people would buy those? 15 bucks, two planes, 4 liveries, basic animations (externals and VCs) no real system(s) code, no sound and a basic FDE but they do have awesome VCs with some working gauges and stuff and nearly beautiful externals (still working on the materials)... (and a paint kit). And we are working on them on a daily basis...

I'm really curious because this is a great way to pay for dev costs as the project goes on as well as allowing us to gauge the amount of interest a product will get... (especially if we buy the models rather than make them)

And no kidding, I am really serious about knowing this...

kc.

I sure hope no one starts a flame war as that is NOT my intention...


Please no. I'd like custom sounds (startup/shutdown), HUD, systems, please please

[michael davies]

Milviz has completed and delivered more models than anyone else.

Small point to clarify, no they haven't, there are several long term developers who have made more models than Milviz, cripes, in over ten years I've made and delivered more models than Milviz. If your talking recently then probably yes, but cumulative, then I'm afraid its no they havent.

Milviz are a supplier, not a publisher, they have supplied to quite a few development houses in the past but on face value many recently seem to be returning to in house developement (at a slower rate) in a bid to help reduce costs.

Whilst on the subject of numbers and Alphasim, Alphasim have released more old products as freeware than any one else, in fact theres probably more Alphasim freeware than Milviz payware.

C-17, whats been said has been said, nothing new added in this thread either.

[tigisfat]

Small point to clarify, no they haven't, I was just kinda throwing that out there. I don't know for sure, but they have made a lot of models for other applications than MSFS.


Whilst on the subject of numbers and Alphasim, Alphasim have released more old products as freeware than any one else, in fact theres probably more Alphasim freeware than Milviz payware.


C-17, whats been said has been said, nothing new added in this thread either.Not that anyone needs to report to the consumers, but we've never been given the full story on this project that was once eagerly awaited by many. I offered up predictions about the C-17 just for fun from time to time and annoyed Alphasim workers showed up to chastize me for it,; much of my speculation turned out true in many ways.

[michael davies]

I was just kinda throwing that out there. I don't know for sure, but they have made a lot of models for other applications than MSFS.

Your probably right, but as the models are not aimed at the FS market they surely cannot be included in the calculation.


Not that anyone needs to report to the consumers, but we've never been given the full story on this project that was once eagerly awaited by many. I offered up predictions about the C-17 just for fun from time to time and annoyed Alphasim workers showed up to chastize me for it,; much of my speculation turned out true in many ways.

Sadly offering up predictions for 'fun' (right or wrong) isnt seen as funny by opposing parties, its seen as poking the tiger, knowing full well it cannot bite or scratch back, I understand what your trying to achieve but these forums are not the place to do it, you should know full well by now that those who can make changes or are responsible for certain issues do not visit here. All that is effectively being achieved is bombardment of the innocent hive workers who try to co-exist here, you'll notice there are less and less of them recently, theres good reason for that.

I do believe that consumers should have their voice and right now cannot see any other way of accomplishing that fairly, its just that the current situation seems so bloody painfull to developers, consumers and innocents that simply browse the boards.

Kindest

[DennyA]

To be honest, we're seriously considering doing this same thing with our F-15C and E. How many people would buy those? 15 bucks, two planes, 4 liveries, basic animations (externals and VCs) no real system(s) code, no sound and a basic FDE but they do have awesome VCs with some working gauges and stuff and nearly beautiful externals (still working on the materials)... (and a paint kit). And we are working on them on a daily basis...

I'd be fine with this, except I'd want a good FDE. The flying's the most entertaining part to me, and it needs to feel like the real thing. If the HUD and MFDs came from the Hornet to make it $15 instead of $60, it wouldn't really bug me. I'm more about the flying experience than systems management.)

(And yep, I do have 1.5 hours in an F-15D, so I do know what it flies like. :))

[michael davies]

Its interesting to see another developer considering the middle market, as noted in the Halifax thread, not everyone appears to want Capt Sim or Accusim depth, though reading the forums that is the overall impression one gets.

It should be possible with baisc FDEs to still mimic how an aircraft feels, certainly good enough for the middle market type of guys, what you wont get is a 1% FDE, it'd be more like 10%, but if people are willing to accept say F-18 HUD in a F-15 or other small compromises then surely the same should apply to the FDE. If the whole product is to the same standard then it should fair well, what usually happens is one part of the product is very good and the rest normal, which often leads to conusmers claiming its unfinished.

It has to all be very good, all average or all poor, as soon as you mix those qualities then the product feels disjointed and usually attracts criticism of one kind or another.

There are several developers who actively target this middle market and on the whole do very well, but they do also attract their fair share of criticism, some justified, some not, the balance being individually subjective.

[Henry]

Its interesting to see another developer considering the middle market, as noted in the Halifax thread, not everyone appears to want Capt Sim or Accusim depth, though reading the forums that is the overall impression one gets.

It should be possible with baisc FDEs to still mimic how an aircraft feels, certainly good enough for the middle market type of guys, what you wont get is a 1% FDE, it'd be more like 10%, but if people are willing to accept say F-18 HUD in a F-15 or other small compromises then surely the same should apply to the FDE. If the whole product is to the same standard then it should fair well, what usually happens is one part of the product is very good and the rest normal, which often leads to conusmers claiming its unfinished.

It has to all be very good, all average or all poor, as soon as you mix those qualities then the product feels disjointed and usually attracts criticism of one kind or another.

There are several developers who actively target this middle market and on the whole do very well, but they do also attract their fair share of criticism, some justified, some not, the balance being individually subjective.
Personally im one of the consumers
that love the average versions, we are not all pilots
and its all about fun to me
i may not speak for all ,
you are correct in dont mix and match in my view
and yes we all want different things
accusim is too hard for me in general
fsx is a hobby to me not a real thing
obviously other people have other opinions
H

[Lewis-A2A]

I still think Alphasim should get back into that middle market, as you say Micheal there is a real market out there for those that dont want the depth and just want relaxing flight/arcade/sim.

[d0mokun]

Yet when AS did serve the 'middle market', there were plenty of people saying the contrary, along with some pretty harsh criticisms.

Devil's advocate.. away! :ernae:

[Mathias]

Yet when AS did serve the 'middle market', there were plenty of people saying the contrary, along with some pretty harsh criticisms.

Devil's advocate.. away! :ernae:

You can't please every blessed mother's son.
Judging by the download numbers of the "Just fly" mod we posted as an update to the Fw190 it appears that about 75% "just want to fly". Not sure if the other 25% just didn't get word about the update yet. :bump:
So I think for the future we'll keep offering high detail visuals with scalable system/realism modelling, all in one box/one price.

[falcon409]

Personally im one of the consumers that love the average versions, we are not all pilots and its all about fun to me i may not speak for all. You are correct in dont mix and match in my view and yes we all want different things. Accusim is too hard for me in general, fsx is a hobby to me not a real thing. Obviously other people have other opinions
H
Kinda my take on it too Henry. I will never get to fly on my own and it's not from lack of desire, simple economics really. I don't have the money it takes to pursue that luxury any more. In Flight sim I can, at my leisure, putter around in anything I want, at any speed and any altitude under any conditions (none of that necessarily realistic, lol). So complex models will never be anything I'm interested in.

That brings me to the "middle market" and why, lately, that area has become more enticing. My opinion is that it's driven by the ever increasing prices of a lot of the current models. Back when the middle market aircraft were being developed, many folks saw those as "toys", not complex enough in their minds to be considered "real" aircraft, but fun enough for the "slackers" among us, lol, to be interesting. For many, they lacked the complexities they desperately wanted developers to start building into the creations they delivered.

Now, we've created a monster (so to speak) in that the more complex, and time consuming the models are for developers to build the price has risen to a point where many of us are being priced out of the market and moving away from that "complexity" that we don't really care much about and back. . .full circle. . .to "middle market" models. This is not a slap against the complexity of today's models, nor the pricing (it goes with the territory). It's simply my opinion on why that "middle market" model is something folks are looking for once again.

We are a fickle lot to be sure. . .and that also goes with the territory, lol

[Lewis-A2A]

we get a bit of bashing on our high realism stuff being too real, you just got to concentrate on your audience and not the fs fanbase in general.

An example is how our 377 and Cub have brought in more customers than the warbirds have together, in those circles we were simply not known to the fs user.

[Chuck_Jodry-VJPL]

The ratio you mention Mathias is what a number of polls and experience have shown as the preferred option , it’s been something that i have learned from and followed.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Applying realistic start-up procedures and a degree of engine management seems to be the happy medium that i now aim for , those who want to watch every gauge and system have proved to be a minority. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
My job depends on providing what the majority want, the flight dynamics , sounds , look and feel need to be top class , eye candy and little extras like making things multiplayer friendly are important as well but having smoke belch out with the least oversight turned out to piss off more people that it made happy in every instance, so it’s not something i add to a release any more.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>

[Ferry_vO]

Of course this is a warbird sim community, which is not used to having fully realistic models. Most civil flightsimmers in here have their roots in the 'fly & shoot' sims like IL-2 and the CFS series. There's another, and much bigger, group of simmers that only fly airliners with all the switches etc working that demand a high degree of realism.

Personally I really like the current wave of realistic aircraft from Classics hangar, A2A, Realair etc, so much in fact that when I go back to more basic models I find them 'lacking' somewhat.

However, these models do come at a price, and I find myself buying a lot less models these days. In the haydays of Fs2004 I would buy 2 or 3 Alphasim models a month, simply becasue they were cheap and I liked the aircraft.
It all depends on my personal taste how much I want to pay for any add-on. If I really like the aircraft in question I do look at the model and VC first, then the feature set and finally the amount of realism.

[crashaz]

we get a bit of bashing on our high realism stuff being too real, you just got to concentrate on your audience and not the fs fanbase in general.

An example is how our 377 and Cub have brought in more customers than the warbirds have together, in those circles we were simply not known to the fs user.


What knocking warbirds! Why I oughta! :icon_lol:

Just kidding Lewis. ;)

Looking forward to the new year and see what comes out of the A2A ironworks.

[IanP]

I fly a mix, but would have no problem at all seeing middle ground products back and I don't think the market is restricted to the warbird arena either - there are any number of airliners and GA aircraft out there that offer nothing more than default functionality. The sheer presence of a certain well known mass-producer of boxed FS add-ons shows that there's still a market for default-level military aircraft as well. Would there be anywhere near as many "Flight Deck" incarnations as their have been if they didn't sell?

Edit to add: Ferry - there's also a massive amount of airliner fans perfectly happy with default levels of systems. The number of people who get upset when top-end add-ons don't have a switch to connect the NAV autopilot mode to the default GPS and want to be able to hit engine autostart rather than pressing two buttons to start a Boeing when presented with a fully-set-up-for-engine-start default state, is very great indeed.

[Henry]

You can't please every blessed mother's son.
Judging by the download numbers of the "Just fly" mod we posted as an update to the Fw190 it appears that about 75% "just want to fly". Not sure if the other 25% just didn't get word about the update yet. :bump:
So I think for the future we'll keep offering high detail visuals with scalable system/realism modelling, all in one box/one price.

i must be one of the 25% I didnt know:isadizzy:


we get a bit of bashing on our high realism stuff being too real, you just got to concentrate on your audience and not the fs fanbase in general.

An example is how our 377 and Cub have brought in more customers than the warbirds have together, in those circles we were simply not known to the fs user.
Bashing is not a good thing
i do not bash about high realism its a great thing
its just not for me but i can see why those 2 products would out sell
warbirds, what is the audience?/ fs fanbase?
i would think that the warbird section was actually a small base
the Ga and Commercial airliners was the mainstream
the SOH is mainly warbirds
but we are not the B all of flight sim consumers .
As a commercial developer\ business how much determines
what is to be made, ie is it what you like to create or is it what you like to sell?
there is a large market out there
for diverse products
look at scenery for example
lost of great products orbx, Tongas just to name a few
how many WW2 scenery's are payware?
sorry just got a little off topic
H

[IanP]

how many WW2 scenery's are payware?


Don't let Lewis see that line... :icon_lol:

[Henry]

Don't let Lewis see that line... :icon_lol:
:monkies:
LOL
H

[Nick C]

This thread has most likely strayed off topic now (I didn't read all the posts), but to answer Colin's initial question; I wouldn't purchase a model before it's complete and even then, usually not until a few people have publicly griped and a service patch or two has been released by the developer.

I'm not your typical customer I admit, but even if something I really want is being developed, I'm still happy to wait as long as it takes. I've never subscribed to the 'is it ready yet' customer emotion, if a project needs another month or two for completion and a bit of polish, we'll that suits me just fine as that will pass soon enough.

I understand why a developer would want to sell a product half finished, but I don't understand why a customer would pay for it.

[IanP]

I understand why a developer would want to sell a product half finished, but I don't understand why a customer would pay for it.

I can in some instances - exactly the same as some people will buy a product that they have no intention of using - which is to support a developer, particularly if they are a friend.

However, if a developer is going to do that, they should only sell what is done as a fraction of the price of the full model. Certainly, no way would I ever buy an exterior model for $30 or $40 with a promise that the rest is on the way. The exterior of a $30 model for $10 though? I'd consider it, if I could use it. Then again, I'm not your typical customer, either.

[falcon409]

. . .I understand why a developer would want to sell a product half finished, but I don't understand why a customer would pay for it.
Yea, I have to agree Nick and realistically I would hope it's a practice that is short lived. I think the negativity that has become associated with this is hardly worth whatever monies the developer might take in. We're in a time when money is not grown on trees anymore (much to the chagrin of my granddaughter, lol) and developers would like to bring in some additional funds to keep them encouraged that everything their doing is worth the effort and get some idea of the customer base prior to a release.

I just wouldn't pay anything for a half done model, even by a reputable developer. I don't need any aircraft that bad. . .shoot I don't fly even a small percentage of the aircraft I own as it is, lol. So, as you say. . .back to the original topic. I hope that answers (for my part), the original question.:salute:

[Lewis-A2A]

oh no Henry not aimed at you at all matey, I wrote that reply to Dan's question about alpha getting bashed themselves for the middle market models and by the time I hit post others had posted.

You are right Roger Warbirds are a small section of the market, PDMG etc outsell I bet every other developer that posts on this board with there single 747 simply because of how much bigger that market is, real niche markets within niche markets.

[Odie]

Well, speaking as the simplest man on the planet :icon_lol: I'm not a hardcore flyer...kind of jump in and go, most of the time. I enjoy that the switches work and do things, but the only plane that I do enjoy all the bells 'n whistles on is the IRIS F-14D. Due to the a/c interest itself, I will struggle to get it up as it was designed, but 95% of a/c, I like them simple enough to be functional and get into the air without having to be a real-world pilot to keep them there! And to their credit, most designers do offer a 1,2,3 step system for those of us that just want to fly (Mathias, thanks for the JUST FLY utility for your beautiful FW-190, BTW).

In the past, I always felt that AlphaSim filled a notch by providing inexpensive a/c of a type not being provided elsewhere. They had a pretty good stable and all at a good price that wouldn't tax your wallet even if they had one a month coming out. I was disappointed when they started going to the high-end of the market.

Would I buy half a model? Depends on the plane. If it were one that I really liked and no one else was producing. The exterior would have to be drop-dead beautiful, though, especially if it was a high-dollar price.

Again, it depends on the individual and what they want to experience out of FS.

[centuryseries]

Not that anyone needs to report to the consumers, but we've never been given the full story on this project that was once eagerly awaited by many. I offered up predictions about the C-17 just for fun from time to time and annoyed Alphasim workers showed up to chastize me for it,; much of my speculation turned out true in many ways.

Walker, that just sums up one of the reasons why I don't bother reading these forums very often. You've stirred up your fair share of misinformation over the months including reporting the C-17s demise!

They have never tried the "release part now, part later" idea, so no one really has any right to make any assumptions that they will not deliver the VC.

I'm sure those involved want the completed article out there already!

[Nick C]

Certainly, no way would I ever buy an exterior model for $30 or $40 with a promise that the rest is on the way. The exterior of a $30 model for $10 though? I'd consider it, if I could use it. Then again, I'm not your typical customer, either.

I'd certainly agree that paying the full amount for an unfinished model would be ludicrous, but if a low cost external model can be used as AI, for example, then fine. But if a customer is simply purchasing a model because they love the aircraft, there seems little point (IMO) if the vast majority of the parts that make it unique are missing.

I should also point out that I wasn't keen on that Captain Sim bird that used the F-18 VC.

[warchild]

Personally, with the advent of superior freeware releases available, i dont see the logic or rational behind a low end market. The high end market will always be just that, high end, and high priced. I've listened to people whine and groan about ariane's pricing for years, and now, PMDG is pricing their new md-11 the same as ariane does with their 737s. High end is meant to push boundaries. it takes flight sim places it's never gone, kinda like driving one of those 3 million dollar sports cars. most people dont have 3 million for a car, and they certainly dont have a hundred bucks for an airplane. Most people live in that middle region, what we call the middle market. They own fords and chevys, cessnas and pipers, but everyone dreams of a warbird or a jet.

I look at what Lionheart did with the Eclipse, and i'm amazed. It looks fantastic, it flys fantastic ( even better than my own, but he's got a lot more experience at it than i do :) ). There is no reason in the world that we cant offer people really good looking, great flying aircraft. you dont need the systems for it to fly right. you only need to do the work with a pencil and paper ( and theres a plethora of extremely intellegent and knowlegeable people right here that can do flight dynamics in their dreams ) and spend a little talent in photoshop ( if your fortunate enough to have the talent ).
Yes, i wish AS would return to the middle market it's where they have always excelled, but i'm among those who also will not by a partial airplane. I did that with the CS-727 and have regretted it ever since.

By the way. Has anyone seen my signature? it seems to have run away. please PM me if you run across it..

[warchild]

Well, speaking as the simplest man on the planet :icon_lol: I'm not a hardcore flyer...kind of jump in and go, most of the time. I enjoy that the switches work and do things, but the only plane that I do enjoy all the bells 'n whistles on is the IRIS F-14D.

Odie!! i love ya :wiggle:

[empeck]

I agree with Nick too. I won't buy half finished product. I don't understand products like those - for example CaptainSim's Hornet and F-117 exteriors, it's ridiculous.

I don't buy too much payware products lately, I don't have that much money to buy everything is out there. When I'll spend some money for an aircraft it has to be a simulation of a plane, not a nice exterior with not functional VC. My favourites I have are 377 with Accusim and CaptainSim's C-130. I'm waiting for SuperBug and Dodosim's Huey too.

[IanP]

Ariane, for a single B737 with panel, sounds and a single model, you can be looking at well over £100 all in. PMDG at the top end are about half that, in the case of the B747 pack for a number of models, which isn't really comparable IMO. Ariane still price themselves out of a massive part of the market and annoy people away from them for a large part of those who can afford it!

Unfortunately we don't have the freeware to replace the low-to-mid end of the market, either. Off the top of my head I can think of a single WW2 combat aircraft available freeware (Edit: Make that three... still not many) and three modern combat aircraft. That's hardly filling the void that just one company used to fill with an extensive back catalogue of not brilliant, but perfectly usable, models.

I assume you mean the F-117, Nick? I agree that using the Hornet VC in that was probably a bad decision, but I fly the F/A-18D from the same pack, using the same VC, far more than I fly the Accel F/A-18. I also know a lot of people that do the same for various reasons. They paid, like I did, for the Hornet D and totally ignore the F-117.

[Henry]

oh no Henry not aimed at you at all matey,
i didnt mean to assume you did if thats what it looks like to you
i know you did not:guinness:
and ignore the scenery bit:icon_lol:
back to topic i would not pay for a half finished project
either.
if its middle market and finished then i know exactly what i am getting
i appreciate updates and tweaks thats customer support
but buy now and get the rest later seems a bit off!
the question from me is what is top of the line?
is it a Rolls Royce that i cannot drive, i guess if i owned one
i could afford a chauffeur :isadizzy:
H

[tigisfat]

Okay, if we're going to talk about high end versus middle products.

I'm sure we can all agree that something like the 'flight deck' series represents the low-end market, right?

I think quite a few developers are confused as to which market their products fall under, but they bear no reservations about pricing. Virtually every payware product we've seen released of late has been advertised as 'high end' and doesn't deliver. The Captainsim C-130 is high end. There are few high end releases out there, to be exact. Everyone thinks they should be able to charge 50 dollars for their products, too.

Don't release a product with crap all around and tell me it's 'middle market' for 30-40 dollars. 30-40 dollars is not middle market just because developers are always trying to outprice each other. The market will support what the market will support, and there are no developers getting rich these days. There is no 'budget' or 'basic' FDE either. There may be less detailed VCs and exteriors, but it either flies like the real thing or not.

Alphasim did not release middle market aircraft. They released aircraft priced for the high end market and occasionally angered a few people in the meantime with problems.

@ A2A and a few others: You say over and over again that people complain because your products are "too realistic". You're putting a positive spin on the complaints. I've been around for quite a few sessions where people have complained about accusim, and I've never once heard that things were "too realistic". It's quite to the contrary. Some efforts have only served to make things harder. I loved your awesome crew sounds and other effects, but having engines waiting to blow up at any moment is not realistic at all. Please don't tell me that I need to read the manual or that I don't know what I'm talking about like has been done before. I'm a professional pilot who's flown a few vintage aircraft in his day.

[warchild]

the question from me is what is top of the line?
is it a Rolls Royce that i cannot drive, i guess if i owned one
i could afford a chauffeur :isadizzy:
H

THAT, is an extremely good, and difficult to answer question. I believe this would be a gret topic for another thread, as there IS an un-written standard that is more a gentlemans agreement, on what is top of the line, but it's a pretty loose and subjective one..

[tigisfat]

[QUOTE=centuryseries;329066].....You've stirred up your fair share of misinformation over the months including reporting the C-17s demise!.....[QUOTE]
I didn't report it, I guessed that it'd never see the light of day. Seeing as it's still not completed, I haven't been proven wrong yet.

[tigisfat]

This thread has most likely strayed off topic now (I didn't read all the posts), but to answer Colin's initial question;

That wasn't the original topic either. :icon_lol:

[IanP]

Unfortunately, Tigisfat, you have once again proven how little you know about this hobby and its history.

Alphasim was built on very reasonably priced, perfectly usable, aircraft with default levels of complexity. As has already been discussed here and elsewhere, they tried to move to what a particularly vocal group of people on their forum wanted and that move has not proved successful. What it has proven, once again, is that those who shout loudest are usually a minority of the userbase. Those who got what they wanted tend to be using it, not complaining about it.

[tigisfat]

Your probably right, but as the models are not aimed at the FS market they surely cannot be included in the calculation.Well, I was mentioning their model production in all markets as evidence that they can be trusted to deliver more than another company. Flight sim developers often take their time. The commercial 3D market waits for noone.




.....Sadly offering up predictions for 'fun' (right or wrong) isnt seen as funny by opposing parties, its seen as poking the tiger, knowing full well it cannot bite or scratch back, I understand what your trying to achieve but these forums are not the place to do it, .......The tiger bites and scratches all the time, and it also has predominant control and preferential visitation from this website.

This is the exact place to talk about products in all manners. This is the social center of military flight simming. Noone wants to insult or hurt anyone's feelings, but just because developers come here too doesn't mean that the odd bad review or bit of speculation shouldn't be given.




All that is effectively being achieved is bombardment of the innocent hive workers who try to co-exist hereI wouldn't take it as bombardment or personal. Only rarely do I see personal comments around here. You're one of the good ones, Michael, but not all developers are nice or even around to better this hobby.



its just that the current situation seems so bloody painfull to developers, consumers and innocents that simply browse the boards.That's because the last few years has seen people grow very bitter. Developing for this hobby is now a viable commercial enterprise, and I'm sure every consumer here has had a bad taste in their mouth from one purchase or another. Further, I'll bet most consumers feel that they have been lied to once or twice.

We need guys like you running the companies at the forefront.

[Henry]

Alphasim was built on very reasonably priced, perfectly usable, aircraft with default levels of complexity. As has already been discussed here and elsewhere, they tried to move to what a particularly vocal group of people on their forum wanted and that move has not proved successful. What it has proven, once again, is that those who shout loudest are usually a minority of the userbase. Those who got what they wanted tend to be using it, not complaining about it.
Here here!:guinness:
thanks
H

[DennyA]

Yep, I bought TONS of the Alphasim stuff when it was under $20. I've bought nothing of theirs that cost over $30.

I wouldn't buy a half-finished product. But I'm very likely to buy an under-$20 plane that looks good inside and out, has all the basic instruments (but not serious, FMC-level stuff), and has a convincing flight model. I'm not going to spend $60 on a model with meticulous detail and tons of systems modeled that I won't use, because I'm not going to spend enough time flying it to justify that.

I did buy a couple of AccuSim planes (the B377, etc.) and really enjoy those. But those are the exception, and they handle any desire I have to play engine manager. Usually I want to fly, not twist knobs, and I just need the plane to be realistic enough to immerse me in the flying experience.

[tigisfat]

......... delete please. :mixedsmi:

[tigisfat]

Unfortunately, Tigisfat, you have once again proven how little you know about this hobby and its history.

Okay, if we're going that route, let's see links showing how I've proven a lack of knowledge. If you can't, then you're just opening your mouth to complain about people complaining. Who's worse?:kilroy:


Alphasim has had some of their best releases go relatively unnoticed, like the Apache longbow. I liked the wording when you said 'default complexity'. That sums it up, and that's what I want. The default 737 isn't simple, so to speak, and it's still very good looking and functional but not full of smoke and mirrors.


Getting back to the REAL original topic, Is Alphasim going to be around for a while still releasing aircraft? Are the winding down? Does anyone know?

[IanP]

Alphasim are still present or accounted for as of this time. Beyond that? Well, they haven't been particularly open about their internal status ever, as far as I'm aware, and I've used their products since the company was founded. They certainly haven't closed their door, but if people know, they're not likely to be saying.

Incidentally, my classifications for products wouldn't be specific to payware or freeware and would cover both in the same scheme:

Low end: Very basic. Model with no additional animations other than, say, props, gear and a single door, default gauges, low resolution textures. Basically, you wouldn't want to pay for this but some developers would want you to.

Mid-range: Good external model and paint, custom gauges and/or soundset but default functionality (clickable VC for basic gauges and switches, usable but not stand out).

High-end: Better than default wherever possible (custom gauges and sounds, well modelled, textured VC, custom animations, that sort of thing).

Top-end: Fully functioning systems, very detailed model, custom sound set... PMDG, LDS, Accu-Sim, Captain Sim, that level of complexity.

Edit: If you haven't done the research and want to make yourself look a clown, that's up to you. It's not my job to correct your lack of knowledge, it's yours.

However, because I'm such a nice chap, I'll suggest that:

a) you read Henry and DennyA's responses to my post, both of which prove that Alphasim's high pricing is a comparatively new thing.
b) you go back and check their freeware pages, which are their older commercial packages that they now have chosen to give to the community.
c) you search for discussions of Alphasim products prior to about 2006.

That should give you a reasonable grounding to explain why your statement that "Alphasim did not release middle market aircraft. They released aircraft priced for the high end market and occasionally angered a few people in the meantime with problems." is incorrect.

It would be more accurate as do, but what the did is far different and what many people - myself included - wish that they had stuck with rather than the current mess they have created for themselves. We've also been saying that for years.

Does that make things more clear?

[Lewis-A2A]

Tigs the aircraft are built with pilots who help us develop the stuff and help verify what we produce. The 377 treated badly will explode on you, and P47 treated badly will be naughty on you too. The 377 was built with help from a pilot of the type with hundreds of hours and the P47 was built with help from a few people including Dudley who again has many many many hours on the type. Our Beta team has pilots and simmers alike, from the simmer to the tube liner pilots we believe we have one of the best BETA teams in the industry.

I said once that people can sometimes complain about the realism and they do, I stand by it. But these people are happy once I tell them which products we offer for there flavour of flight simming, and Scott will often offer refunds/exchanges for those that want it.
This is EXACTLY why accusim is an option in the first place. The aircraft are fine without it for those that dont want it.
Which leads me back on topic, could this be considered a working and sucessful example of what has previously been discussed re: part releases? I believe we have managed to cater for two different groups with two products that are essentially one.

Alphasim are famous for the middlle market Tig's I think you may want to go back and take a look, they provided cheap products for the masses and were really good at it and very well respected for it overall, with people like Micheal creating some really good stuff for them.

[michael davies]

Well I did post this afternoon but its gone, either admin removed it (it wasn't inflammatory) or the forum ate it, needless to say things have moved on but in condensed format here goes.

I agree with Lewis, Alphasim should go back to middle market, to clarify that a little better, middle market is default +25-35%

Dan is also right, Alphasim did get beat for middle market in the past.

Alphasim has erred in the past, price, description, quality, customer care which ever you choose, I'm not here to defend that (for either party), those issues need to be taken to the correct parties, if thats me then PM me please. I have and will still jump in if I think a position has been taken on information that isn't correct, offer what I believe to be the correct information and allow the other party to either revise their view or continue with their existing view, but it is still their view and I will never argue that.

Part models, I have my own views, they do not always align with others, even if I worked on a product.

IanP is correct Alphasim built up a big user base when military aircraft were not the norm, they did take council from others, with hindsight it may not have been the right council.

Warchild's / Henry's, comments on what defines a product (IanP has voiced above a good starting point) is a good point for a diverging thread, for the community to co-exist in the future then some sort of generalized guideline needs to be agreed as to what is middle market, high market etc, price is not always reflective of market position these days. Whether the standard is adopted by developers will need to be seen but if adopted by consumers will soon force developers to follow suit, the recent discussions re FSx ready or port over is a good example of users defining what developers should follow, with tact and discretion end users have more power than they perhaps realise, make it work for you !, developers who care about the community will listen.

Tigisfat, I understand what your saying, trust me companies don't want me running them, I'm a useless business man, too soft :). The problem with Alphasim is that its primarily a collective, yet it is rarely the collective that is at fault, even though the forum is a social event if someone has an issue with the collective then yes the forum is the correct place, if they have a problem with the singular then it should rightly be taken up privately or if taken up publicly then written so that the collective do not assume its aimed at them. An analogy, if the tables were reversed would see me making SoH accountable for your actions, does that make sense ?, hope so, no offense intended. Regarding Milviz bringing products to market, quite a few models were brought to market through Alphasim (IRIS and Razbam too), who gets the credit there ?, Milviz for the model or the other developers for doing the (then) FS conversion work.

Middle market, I strongly believe there is a market here, a market just above default, bespoke sounds, a believable FDE but not necessarily accurate to within 1% of the real deal, 10-15% would be a good base line ?. A good external model and well modeled VC, not too poly heavy or too poly frugal (100-125,000 poly for each), for example a middle market VC would have textured panel screws, where as a high end would have 3D modeled one, textures should 2048. There are already developers in this arena and they do really need more exposure and perhaps encouragement as it seems that this area actually forms a large percentage of users, mostly satisified and generally quiet. for it to suceed it will need to try and move past the 'toy' label that has perhaps unfairly been applied in the past.

Growing pains (tigisfat) yes it has been a rocky road these last two years, mid way through FS9 the FS scene grew at an astonishing rate, developers scrabbled to catch up and meet demand, but like the global economy its fallen flat on its face, mistakes were made but the strong will survive. People are more frugal with their money, more particular about what they buy or where they shop.

Ok enough, what was condensed has expanded as I rambled on, my apologies.

[VCN-1]

I always liked the products AlphaSim produced along with their pricing structure. If I want to buy a uncompleted product that is my choice no one else.

I thought the FSX F-105 and FSX T-34C were very good. They had a lot of technical help from individuals that that had flown the real world planes and were willing to share their knowledge.

We were on the 3rd page of an AlphaSim thread which seems to be about where it starts to go south. I hope the new year brings a change to that trend.

VCN-1

[michael davies]

Getting back to the REAL original topic, Is Alphasim going to be around for a while still releasing aircraft? Are the winding down? Does anyone know?

No they are not winding down, yes they are still releasing aircraft, the C-17 and Islander are due for release. I've been asked to look at a reworked FS9 product (one I know intimately) due out soon, every indication I have recieved indicates business as usual. A more apt description would be a scaled back operation due to the current global economy.

If its anything different to that then I am not aware of it.

[Kavehpd]

Please note that the text below is NOT an attack. It is outright curiosity...

I think that the methods Alphasim and Iris chose for their respective "C" haulers bear some similarity: charging for an unfinished plane with no VC, no sound and basic FDE and basic or no code with the minor(?) difference of Alphasim contracting theirs and Iris buying theirs off of Turbosquid for about 200 bucks.

To be honest, we're seriously considering doing this same thing with our F-15C and E. How many people would buy those? 15 bucks, two planes, 4 liveries, basic animations (externals and VCs) no real system(s) code, no sound and a basic FDE but they do have awesome VCs with some working gauges and stuff and nearly beautiful externals (still working on the materials)... (and a paint kit). And we are working on them on a daily basis...

I'm really curious because this is a great way to pay for dev costs as the project goes on as well as allowing us to gauge the amount of interest a product will get... (especially if we buy the models rather than make them)

And no kidding, I am really serious about knowing this...

kc.

I sure hope no one starts a flame war as that is NOT my intention...

I've never paid for an unfinished product and never will. So, that's one customer down for you if you choose to go C-17 on us!!

As an end user, production costs and difficulties are none of my concern. All I care about is the quality of the final product and service I am paying for.

[JohnC]

I'm going to pick on two people that like and respect, so hopefully this does not burn any bridges.


There is no 'budget' or 'basic' FDE either. There may be less detailed VCs and exteriors, but it either flies like the real thing or not.




Middle market, I strongly believe there is a market here, a market just above default, bespoke sounds, a believable FDE but not necessarily accurate to within 1% of the real deal, 10-15% would be a good base line ?

Personally, I would be bouncing off the walls if I had managed to make a Flight model which was 1% accurate to the way the plane actually flies. Within the realm of longitudinal flight dynamics; Lift/Drag/Thrust/Climb, we (FDE developers) can get on track. For a single configuration, we can get even closer.

But considering the change of Reynold's numbers over a given aircraft's flight profile, and that Reynold's Number is the basis for an body's aerodynamic properties, and that it's assumed static from a FDE modeler's point of view. I would claim that it's impossible to set up a single configuration which was accurate to 1% throughout the entirety of a flight envelope. Then consider multiple configurations. When flaps and slats are applied to a wing, it frequently changes the stalling angle of attack by several degrees, yet there is no way to account for those changes in MSFS. Sure we can increase the lift coefficient, but a 1 degree offset obliterates your 1% accuracy. Now mesh the concept that pretty much every FDE developer ignores complex three dimensional flow, such as vortex sheets, because we simply don't have the computational power at our finger tips (Am I the only one who can't afford Fluent?) and combine that with the second order differential equation, which describes rigid body motion in 3-dimensions with six degrees of freedom (attached) and you see 1% accuracy in the realm of Lateral dynamics and stall is just plain crazy. Exactly how complex is it? China built a super computer to professionally accomplish what an FDE modeler does for MSFS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8362825.stm

Does any of this really matter? No! No ones seems to care all that much unless a problem is painfully obvious. Just how obvious is that? Two recently purchased, and I think quality payware aircraft had a little too much kick on the runway. Turns out the power output for each engine was on the order of 3x the static rating. Were their support forums laden with complaints? I haven't seen one in either of them.

So, I think there is lots of room for gray in the realm of flight dynamics. Sure, there are always developers who cut corners. But holding us 1%, or a black and white "It does or it doesn't" sets the bar impossibly high.

[michael davies]

John,

No bridges burnt here, I think ?, your agreeing that 1% FDE isn't always necessary or practicable ?.

The FDE is always subjective to individuals, what one feels is just right then another feels is too soft or too hard, you cannot account for individually controller set ups or end users systems, its just too diverse.

Perhaps I was a bit weak on the 10% FDE comment, don't get me wrong, it is a thing to aim for and anyone who is that dedicated to achieve the utmost best in what ever sphere they choose should be applauded. However not everyone wants to fly like that, for example a 1% file (name traken from the accomplished CFS team that aimed to get within 1% of reality) would have ultra accurate rates of climb, engine thrust parameters, wing loading and fuel burn etc, a 10% would be close but not that accurate, you might fly a little shorter or longer than the fuel capacity says you should, you might reach the right altitude with a given weight sooner or later than real world specs, your roll rate might be slightly out, nothing untoward, it still feels like you 'think' the aircraft should and thats basically all that matters.

I mean we accept compromises in other fields, 1024 viz 2048 textures, click able VCs or not so it should be acceptable to accept a lesser FDE if it falls within the rest of the models chosen quality bracket.

This doesn't mean that those FDEs developed with sweat and raw grit and big calculators are not required, it may mean that those sorts of FDE are better mated to high end models ?.

I've worked with helo FDEs for many years, a well documented area thats just littered with can't do's and never going to work's, yet for many some of those FDE's were enjoyed immensely by users, some still are, leading one to the conclusion, what is actually important, the numbers in the file that many cant read or care about or the way it feels by the end user ?. The answer to that I feel depends on the type of simmer you are, if your a systems man then the numbers are very important, if your target audience is middle market then I'd offer its perhaps not so.

Kindest

Michael

[DennyA]

As the person who made the initial comment about wanting an accurate FDE, I just wanted to clarify... I want something convincing, but I don't care if it's 100% on the numbers. I just don't want "generic jet FDE" "generic prop FDE" etc.

Having flown in a real F-15, and having pulled additional Gs doing laser combat in a T-34, I know that even the most realistic FDEs and systems capture about 10% of what it's really like to fly in a high-performance aircraft. So nitpicking numbers is silly; it just needs to feel right, so that, say, flying an F-15 would feel very different from flying an F-104.

[IanP]

I think what I'd say is that you wouldn't want a Spitfire that handles like a Flitfire or a Starfighter that handles like a Eurofighter. People have certain expectations of what an aircraft should handle like based on numbers available and piloting accounts they've read. Provided a package gives people something close to what they'd expect, most will be happy - the lower the price point, the larger the percentage of "most" will be.

[jdhaenens]

Henry, I'll be glad to sell you my WW II scenery if you really feel the need to pay for it. RAF Oban, Oak Harbor, Doebritz, and Floyd Bennett Field are all I have at present (maybe Gutersloh if you squint in certain directions).

Jim

[Henry]

I think what I'd say is that you wouldn't want a Spitfire that handles like a Flitfire or a Starfighter that handles like a Eurofighter. People have certain expectations of what an aircraft should handle like based on numbers available and piloting accounts they've read. Provided a package gives people something close to what they'd expect, most will be happy - the lower the price point, the larger the percentage of "most" will be.
3rd time today:applause:
thats how i feel about fd's and how i make them
i have never had a complaint
mind you it could be no one cares:icon_lol:
H

[OBIO]

I have not purchased a single plane from Alphasim or IRIS, but I have grabbed and flown every item that they have released as freeware that I have been able to get my grubby little hands on....heck I have some Alpha stuff from way back in their earliest days. I have never had a problem with the quality of the stuff from Alpha or IRIS....they both produce very nice animated cartoon airplanes....and that boys and girls is exactly what we are dealing with here...animated cartoon airplanes. They aren't real, they may look pretty much like the real thing in many aspects...they may even sound a good bit like the real thing....but they are not the real thing. CFS1, CFS2, CFS3, FS2000, FS2002, FS2004, FSX, IL2, XPlane....all of these sims do nothing more than allow you to pretend to be a pilot...but in all actuality, we are all doing nothing more than giving directions to an animated cartoon airplane.

If you want 100% realism in your aircraft, shut down your computer, go to your local airport, pony up the bucks to get a Sport Pilot License, or a Private Pilot License, buy yourself a nice used Piper J-3 Cub or Cessna 172 and go fly a real aircraft with real rivets, real radios, real fuel, real flight dynamics. If you can not afford to do that and must rely on flight simulators to fulfill your dream of flight...do so with the understanding that you are a make believe pilot in a make believe airplane in a make believe world with make believe clouds and make believe trees.

OBIO

[michael davies]

in a make believe world with make believe clouds and make believe trees.

OBIO

Hey, that sounds just like my world :), until I open my eyes :pop4:

[Smudge]

I have not purchased a single plane from Alphasim or IRIS, but I have grabbed and flown every item that they have released as freeware that I have been able to get my grubby little hands on....heck I have some Alpha stuff from way back in their earliest days. I have never had a problem with the quality of the stuff from Alpha or IRIS....they both produce very nice animated cartoon airplanes....and that boys and girls is exactly what we are dealing with here...animated cartoon airplanes. They aren't real, they may look pretty much like the real thing in many aspects...they may even sound a good bit like the real thing....but they are not the real thing. CFS1, CFS2, CFS3, FS2000, FS2002, FS2004, FSX, IL2, XPlane....all of these sims do nothing more than allow you to pretend to be a pilot...but in all actuality, we are all doing nothing more than giving directions to an animated cartoon airplane.

If you want 100% realism in your aircraft, shut down your computer, go to your local airport, pony up the bucks to get a Sport Pilot License, or a Private Pilot License, buy yourself a nice used Piper J-3 Cub or Cessna 172 and go fly a real aircraft with real rivets, real radios, real fuel, real flight dynamics. If you can not afford to do that and must rely on flight simulators to fulfill your dream of flight...do so with the understanding that you are a make believe pilot in a make believe airplane in a make believe world with make believe clouds and make believe trees.

OBIO


Amen to that!:applause:

[tigisfat]

A couple points:

I don't know why people complain about Alphasim's customer support. People such as Dan, Michael and David have offered thousands of hours of one on one support over the years. Just because a certain character there in charge isn't well liked doesn't mean that Alphasim employees (speaking and helping in the name of Alphasim) haven't helped people tons.

Another:

To refine; Saying the FDE does or doesn't fly like the real thing doesn't mean it has to be perfect, it means that someone like me, who's a pilot, should be convinced that I'm flying it. If I have hours in the type, I should think it's good enough. I've made this distinction in the past and been okay with it. The loss of 'feel' means you couldn't tell if it was perfect anyway. I'd almost venture to say there's a 10-20 percent margin of error that's livable as long as it flies at the right speeds.

[warchild]

The absolute, very best i can offer in a flight model, is that of a plane, sitting stationary in a constant speed wind with engines attached. i can get all those numbers exactly correct, but as soon as your in the air, it's a whole different ball game. You would have to have a flight model for each type of flying condition. just the weight of the aircraft alone changes as soon as you reach a point where there is lift on the wings. notice also, i said weight, not mass ( but that changes also as the plane accelerates and decelerates ). There's simply no way for me to model all the changes that take place, so what i can do, and do is simply state that all the numbers that i derive, match the numbers provided by the manufacturer, the FAA, and the MOD. After that, you need a super computer to figure out the center of lift movement across the wing, or the angle of deflection of air off the trim tab as the barometric pressure, lift, and speed of the plane changes.. I can, and do get it close, but i'm not sure if even 10% is possibly.. We're looking at entire sytems within other entire systems and how they interact on each other. That said, I and i know other FDE engineers, will always try and give you folks the very best we can give. We'll make it as accurate as possible, and still make it as enjoyable as possible..

An example though if i may.. I'm working on that C-27 mentioned earlier as we speak. One of the issues brought up was with the constant speed prop. Constant speed props are just that. they dont speed up or slow down, they move at a constant speed, so when you push the throttle forward, you arent adjusting the rpm of the engine, your adjusting the pitch of the prop, but to do that in fsx, you have to change the control axis for the throttle to control prop pitch. We felt it was a little much to ask our customers to do, so accurate as it would have been, you wont find it in the C-27. So i'm reworking the rest of the flight model, to make it fit the specs, and still be a fun ride.. But please.. i do this by hand, one number at a time. it's not an overnight proposition, and it can take a very long time.. I'm sorry.. but thems the truths..
Pam

[tigisfat]

I'm working on that C-27 mentioned earlier as we speak. One of the issues brought up was with the constant speed prop. Constant speed props are just that. they dont speed up or slow down, they move at a constant speed, so when you push the throttle forward, you arent adjusting the rpm of the engine, your adjusting the pitch of the prop, but to do that in fsx, you have to change the control axis for the throttle to control prop pitch.


ummm, I hope there's only a miscommunication here. :icon29:

The throttle doesn't ever adjust prop pitch, it still throttles the engine; I promise. A constant speed prop has a governor that adjusts pitch to maintain a certain RPM, which can be adjusted with the prop control. Onve the RPM is set, engine effort can be adjusted with the throttle, usually measurable by something like manifold pressure.

FSX already accurately simulates constant speed prop control, believe me.

but now we're WAY off topic. :mixedsmi:

[JohnC]

My favorite FSX prop quirk is the thrust efficiency equation: ηp = CT*J/CP (Efficiency = Thrust*Adv Ratio/Power Required)

You can define ηp vs J and CP vs J in the .air, and then MSFS calculates CT from ηp and CP for a given advance ratio. (It should calculate ηp from CT, CP and J)

A problem arises in MSFS because at V=0, J=0; so ηp has to = 0.
Using correct numbers with the MSFS equation at V=0:

CT = Cp*ηp/J = CP*0/0 = undefined or 0

But, if the Thrust Coefficient (CT) is 0; the aircraft would never start to accelerate!
This has lead to all sorts of fudge factors for ηp, up to 70% in the default aircraft. Beyond that, just the opposite happens at high advance ratio. When the Thrust coefficient actually goes to 0 at some high advance ratio, ηp has to be 0, but for some reason it's artificially inflated....for who knows what reason!

Edit: Sorry Walker, once the nerds have made an appearance..conversations are bound to digress into oblivion. But between you and Pam, I think there is a bit of a miss communication in terminology. The C-27 has a gas turbine powered constant speed propeller. I've never really dabbled in Turbo-props within FSX, so I can't vouch for Pam directly, but MSFS is notoriously bad at them. A large company who is held in very high esteem has had to fudge their gauges in the past to show what the engines should read rather than what MSFS was calculating them to be.

[michael davies]

A couple points:

I don't know why people complain about Alphasim's customer support. People such as Dan, Michael and David have offered thousands of hours of one on one support over the years. Just because a certain character there in charge isn't well liked doesn't mean that Alphasim employees (speaking and helping in the name of Alphasim) haven't helped people tons.

I don't think customer care 'generally' has been too much of an issue over the years, your right, a lot, an awful lot if we're truthful is carried on outside of the normal channels, much of it silent and unseen. However it would also be truthful to say that some people have, sadly, for one reason or another slipped through the net, landed on stony ground and walked away with an after taste. As I said above I'll not defend either party as its none of my business (unless I was directly involved in which case an apology is hereby offered), but it is sad to see two adult parties part with out reaching some sort of amicable agreement.

[warchild]

Sorry Tigisfat.. Didnt mean to drag it off topic.. but now i've got two air force people telling me contradictory information.. I'm hoping i'm just going nuts and your both saying the same thing and i'm just hearing it sideways or something.. :redface:..
Thanks for the info though :) .. my solution on that was to use what you describe, using the formulas that JohnC posted. Silly thing STILL doesnt want to sit still though :;sigh:;

Anyway.. apologies to all for dragging everything off topic..
Pam

[tigisfat]

Sorry Tigisfat.. Didnt mean to drag it off topic.. but now i've got two air force people telling me contradictory information.. I'm hoping i'm just going nuts and your both saying the same thing and i'm just hearing it sideways or something.. :redface:..
Thanks for the info though :) .. my solution on that was to use what you describe, using the formulas that JohnC posted. Silly thing STILL doesnt want to sit still though :;sigh:;

Anyway.. apologies to all for dragging everything off topic..
Pam

PM sent. I'd like to know who your AF people are. There are many people in the AF that have nothing to do with planes, and there are many liars on the internet.

:icon29::ernae:

[Gibbage]

Its a tight-rope we walk, between detail we WANT to put in, and the possible return on investment.

There is no way too please everyone. It would be nice to have a product devided though, say have a base F-15, and then a super-detailed F-15 for more, like what A2A does with Accusim. That way you can please both sides or at least try.

To put things bluntly, we are throwing darts at a wall, and trying to find out what sticks. A big company normally has people locked in a back room with crystal balls and slide rulers that can tell them what aircraft will sell how many units for what price. We dont have that. We just to try things out, and see what sells.

[crashaz]

Phew to think I am thinking of giving up CFS2 design to stay current with FSX.... scary. :kilroy:

[MenendezDiego]

I would be very dissapointed if the Milviz F-15C/E wasn't made completely. 4 different models with a certain amount of paints? I remember seeing renders, and being told we'd have a weapons configuration tool, like the VRS Hornet, where we can add CFT's, Lantirns, all sorts of goodies.

If we are given 4 models, without custom HUD, sound, effects, I just won't get it, I'll be very dissapointed

[falcon409]

Phew to think I am thinking of giving up CFS2 design to stay current with FSX.... scary. :kilroy:
Yea, just imagine. . .you'll be privy to some of the best criticism anywhere and all for FREE!!!:salute:

[fsafranek]

Jeez. I finally go to the end of this thing and the subject has changed yet again. :icon_lol:

Believe me, Alphasim is still alive and kicking. I don't care what you've heard or seen (or if this is all because you haven't heard or seen enough). Alright, I'm going back to the spray booth now to work some more on an upcoming release. :salute:

Michael, I owe you an email. I'll get to that.
:ernae:

[Wing_Z]

Attaboy Frank, my C-17 is parked at the back of the hangar waiting for its refit.

[tigisfat]

Believe me, Alphasim is still alive and kicking. I don't care what you've heard or seen (or if this is all because you haven't heard or seen enough).

That's good to hear. Most developers do only release a few products a year, but we got to expecting a feverish pace from Alphasim. It seems so quiet from the 2008 I remember.

[arrowmaker]

That's good to hear. Most developers do only release a few products a year, but we got to expecting a feverish pace from Alphasim. It seems so quiet from the 2008 I remember.

At least AlphaSim aren't called Air Simmer. Apparently their A320 has been in development for the last 3-4 years (even longer if you believe FSBreak). It has only recently begun to see the light , in the release of a dumbed down version of the final product. Now they really are the Duke Nukem of FS developers. :isadizzy:

As for the policy of releasing unfinished products, presumably in order to raise revenue to complete the project, I can kind of see the point. I just, personally, would not buy such a product. I think it unfair to expect any buyer to take a gamble on whether or not a fully complete product is eventually released.

[Mithrin]

I have an idea for a new year resolution. Let the alphasim topic die and let's focus on important things instead, like flying online with your friends, having a good time while you still can. It can be over just now!

[krazycolin]

Just as an FYI, I never said that the F-15's or any of our models would be low end, middle end or high end and I have NO idea where that one came out.

That said, I can say that the E version will be as accurate as we can make it and the C will be more "simplistic". As it is in real life.

kc.

ps. Mods, I think it's time to shut this one down too.

[jmig]

Sorry Tigisfat.. Didnt mean to drag it off topic.. but now i've got two air force people telling me contradictory information.. I'm hoping i'm just going nuts and your both saying the same thing and i'm just hearing it sideways or something.. :redface:..
...
Pam

Pam, Tigisfat is correct. The engine RPM is set by the Prop lever by adjusting the pitch of the propeller. The throttle now becomes a load control and will give the engine more or less fuel to control the engine power output. The governor in the constant speed prop keeps the RPMs at the desire rate by adjusting the prop pitch. This allows the pilot to adjust the prop for more bite on climb out and speed at cruise. Think of it as shifting gears in a car.

There are some newer airplanes like the Cirrus which combind the throttle and prop pitch levers into a single control. The T-6, PC-9 also use a single power lever. However, since these two aircraft use turbine engines connected through a step-down gear reduction box to the propeller, they may function differently from the Cirrus. In both cases, the end result is the same. the prop pitch and engine load are automatically adjusted when the throttle/power lever is moved.

I hope this helps,

[Henry]

Its a tight-rope we walk, between detail we WANT to put in, and the possible return on investment.

There is no way too please everyone. It would be nice to have a product devided though, say have a base F-15, and then a super-detailed F-15 for more, like what A2A does with Accusim. That way you can please both sides or at least try.

To put things bluntly, we are throwing darts at a wall, and trying to find out what sticks. A big company normally has people locked in a back room with crystal balls and slide rulers that can tell them what aircraft will sell how many units for what price. We dont have that. We just to try things out, and see what sells.
very well stated
there are so many of us who want or expect different things
its impossible to please everyone
especially with the more complex sdk's
H

[crashaz]

Yea, just imagine. . .you'll be privy to some of the best criticism anywhere and all for FREE!!!:salute:
LOL!

Oh Joy!:kilroy:

[Slug Flyer]

Getting wayyyyy back to Colin's question...

Nope, I wouldn't be interested in paying $15 for a half-finished F-15. If it uses displays and the HUD from the Hornet, that means I'd have to go buy Acceleration, so it's no bargain for me, and while I don't demand that every system is modeled, I'm not interested in "simple" flight models.

[krazycolin]

Don't worry. We will not be "selling" our F-15's until they are good and ready.

thanks,

kc

[MenendezDiego]

Getting wayyyyy back to Colin's question...

Nope, I wouldn't be interested in paying $15 for a half-finished F-15. If it uses displays and the HUD from the Hornet, that means I'd have to go buy Acceleration, so it's no bargain for me, and while I don't demand that every system is modeled, I'm not interested in "simple" flight models.

Here Here! :ernae:

I'm hoping for Aerosoft F-16 quality on these 15's

[tigisfat]

default complexity was a good way of putting it. I like aircraft just like the Lotus L-39. There are plenty of accurate-feeling systems to play with, but you can still CTRL+E it whenever you want. He also advertised it's depth, but didn't tell us it was perfectly like the real thing. He let his work speak for itself.

[krazycolin]

Here Here! :ernae:

I'm hoping for Aerosoft F-16 quality on these 15's

It will be somewhere between what is and what isn't... :pop4:

[MenendezDiego]

Honestly, I'd just like a custom smooth HUD (Aerosoft F-16/Iris F-14 Pro quality), real F-15 startup sounds, real F-15 canopy sounds, and I'd be happy. Also, switch sounds (and not just the same sound for every switch, mix it up a big :ernae:)

I think it can be done

Regards, Diego

[tigisfat]

As long as they have the trademark Milviz VC textures. I'm spoiled; I can't take the cartoons anymore.

[michael davies]

Also, switch sounds (and not just the same sound for every switch, mix it up a big :ernae:)

I think it can be done

Regards, Diego

This has always perplexed me, can pilots in F-15 or modern military jets actually hear switch sounds ?, through all that engine noise and the acoustic dampening helmet they wear, I cant hear my light switch with full ear stereo headphones on so how does a pilot hear a VC switch click ?.

I'd offer up that he actually cannot hear it click at all, but can feel it click and that gives a mental image of what it should sound like, ie its a feeling and not an audable sound, something that cannot be accomplished in FS though. Of course you would hear it click with engines shut down, so perhaps its all just a case of click levels of volume, there just too loud (FS) and cut through engine and helmet noise ?.

Authentically you may not hear it click but if you modeled no click then you'd be wrong, again one of those foibles whilst technically incorrect is still built in to please our sensibilities.

[MenendezDiego]

Lower your landing gear in flight, you'll hear it lock. Also, since we can't feel the switches, I think it's a nice touch to hear them

[krazycolin]

Having flown in the backseat of an F-14D, i can tell you straight up that you can't hear anything but the engines and the creaking of the plane which, IMHO, is surprisingly loud as well as the breathing of the "other" guy...
However, that said, I agree with Michael that without the sound, for us in FS anyway, it would remove the "feel" of having switched...

As for what you want Menendez, we'll have to see.

kc.

[PRB]

Having flown in the backseat of an F-14D, i can tell you straight up that you can't hear anything but the engines and the creaking of the plane which, IMHO, is surprisingly loud as well as the breathing of the "other" guy...
However, that said, I agree with Michael that without the sound, for us in FS anyway, it would remove the "feel" of having switched...

As for what you want Menendez, we'll have to see.

kc.

Re sound from inside. This reminds me of the MAAM B-25, which has no flap sound because, as they put it, you can't hear 'em when they move, or anything else except the deafening engine noise! So, in the sim, as in the real plane, you haves ta look at the gauge! I think that's cool. So, no more switch clicky noises! (Just kidding! :icon_lol:)

[michael davies]

Lower your landing gear in flight, you'll hear it lock. Also, since we can't feel the switches, I think it's a nice touch to hear them

Landing gear I'd agree with, its several tons of moving metal, it'll not be the locks you hear as they're quite small hydraulic rams, it'll be when the leg hits the end stops you'll hear I suspect.

As PRB also notes, flaps are silent in all but the smallest aircraft, probably anything multi engined would put the cockpit too far away from the flap motor to be effectively heard, same for some landing gear sounds on some models, quite un athentic, but if not added people cry foul. Its a sound often added in films too, seem to recall a cockpit scene in Memphis Belle where you could hear flap and gear motors going, quite un authentic but left viewers in no doubt as to what was going on :).

Regarding gauge click sound, I think its a one shot deal, ie you can only use one wav file, I dont think the VC coding will allow you to assign different sounds to different switches, not 100% sure on that though, the sound might be defined in the mdlXML compiler thingy whatsit codes.

[Smokey Joe]

Does anyone know what's going on with Alphasim these days? Are they ever going to release the promised C-17 updates and the islander? If I had purchased the C-17, I'd be REALLY angry right now.


It does appear that the C-17 paintkit was released today.

I bought the Albatross HU16B when it came out. I am a huge fan of the RW Grumman Albatross. I was really disappointed in the Alphasim plane. It looks great but it has no less than eight skin textures so the performance is miserable. The flight model was simply not right. Had it not been for some sharp people here on SOH that worked out mods to the water handling, the plane would have been unusable. The VC looks good but only a few of the controls work. I paid almost $40 for the plane and I felt really burned. I will never buy another Alphasim plane, even if they put them on sale for $1. They're not worth the aggravation. I don't think Alphasim is an honest outfit. They're selling merchandise that is presented as complete and it really isn't.

[MenendezDiego]

Regarding gauge click sound, I think its a one shot deal, ie you can only use one wav file, I dont think the VC coding will allow you to assign different sounds to different switches, not 100% sure on that though, the sound might be defined in the mdlXML compiler thingy whatsit codes.

VRS Hornet did it

[MenendezDiego]

I meant the landing gear handle

[michael davies]

I bought the Albatross HU16B when it came out. I am a huge fan of the RW Grumman Albatross. I was really disappointed in the Alphasim plane. It looks great but it has no less than eight skin textures so the performance is miserable. The flight model was simply not right. Had it not been for some sharp people here on SOH that worked out mods to the water handling, the plane would have been unusable. The VC looks good but only a few of the controls work. I paid almost $40 for the plane and I felt really burned. I will never buy another Alphasim plane, even if they put them on sale for $1. They're not worth the aggravation. I don't think Alphasim is an honest outfit. They're selling merchandise that is presented as complete and it really isn't.

Price viz content has been gone over in these forums a lot and seems to be the main issue for many, if the model was priced at say $25 would you be less displeased ?, not sure the eight textures are the issue with performance, there are other models with as many textures that are ok, I had similar problems with the Blackhawk, never could get it to run smooth, kinda made making the FDE quite difficult, in the end I think it was a gauge or something that was causing problems my end, however many others had no problems at all !.

Glad the water fix worked for you, I sent it to them as an update but I dont think it ever got added, cant lay claim to fame for the reverse prop fix, dont think that got added either.

[michael davies]

I meant the landing gear handle

Ahh I see, I think that comes from a different wav, theres one for the flap lever as well, might even be the same wav but it is different to the switch click as you say.

[tigisfat]

I was really disappointed in the Alphasim plane.

I thought it was a beautiful work of art........except for the garbage VC. (no offense if anyone here worked it) It ruined the aircraft to me. The sounds were incredible, the outside great...but man; that VC.....

:blind:

[MenendezDiego]

No, I meant you can hear the landing gear handle while in flight, nothing to do with Wav files. And I don't want to hear anymore about Wav files. VRS has multiple sounds for multiple switches/buttons. It CAN be done

[michael davies]

No, I meant you can hear the landing gear handle while in flight, nothing to do with Wav files. And I don't want to hear anymore about Wav files. VRS has multiple sounds for multiple switches/buttons. It CAN be done

Sorry I was only trying to make polite conversation, jeez now I know why I retired :isadizzy: probably best if we walk around each other in future ehh ?.

[tigisfat]

[QUOTE=michael davies;330416].........I retired............[QUOTE]

:pop4::isadizzy:What?! No wonder flight simming has gone to hell. And here I've been, blaming the changing community on highly priced mediocre products and blissfuly ignorant attitudes.

If I win the lotto, I'm going to offer you a price you can't refuse to un-retire and run the world's largest FS development MEGA-conglomerate. We'll subsidize a number of old Alphasim heads plus Milviz and TSS. Then we'll saturate the market for 2 straight years with rediculously high-fidelity products every month......Then we'll buy up FS11 and finish it. Every scene will have 1.4 million objects drawn and it'll get 90FPS at 7,000 by 6,000 resolution on pentium IIs!! (cackles madly):isadizzy:

:salute::gameon:

[AckAck]

If I win the lotto...


I'll send you a dollar, if you think it would help with winning the lotto...

Brian

[MenendezDiego]

I'm sorry Mike, it's been a bad day here. It wasn't personal, please forgive me

[michael davies]

I'm sorry Mike, it's been a bad day here. It wasn't personal, please forgive me

Its ok, I think we are talking about the same thing but in a different language, your talking about sounds and clicks, I'm talking about wavs, there actually exactly the same thing, you hear sounds, I see wav's, the wav is the sound you hear when you click the switch. unless your a modeller you probably wouldn't know what a wav file was, so thats my mistake for assuming you did. In short, when you mouse a switch it tells the sim to do two things, play the animation to move the switch and play the sound associated with that switch ie the wav file. You may already know all this, my apologies if you do.

I didn't know you could get different sounds for different switches so I have learn't something new as well thanks to you input previously.

So, no problems here have a :icon29: and relax.

Kindest

Michael

[peter12213]

I just want a VC for the C-17 and that Jaguar they were planning to release and I'd be happy!

[Mathias]

I didn't know you could get different sounds for different switches so I have learn't something new as well thanks to you input previously.



Michael

Not out of the box.
You need an extra dll.

[michael davies]

Not out of the box.
You need an extra dll.

Typical, more SDK tricks and skulduggery no doubt :). At my current pedestrian pace I'll get to that section, ohh sometime around 2012 I suspect LOL.

Kindest

Michael

[MenendezDiego]

Thanks again Mike for putting me in my place lol.

I'm all better now, after a few :icon29: of course, well I wouldnt say better...more like....:isadizzy:....oh yea! Wish I was at my place where my FSX Rig is (been at my parents house over the holidays...I'm having withdrawls!)

When I get back, hopefully the VStudios Dauntless will be out, I'll drink a few :icon29: and have a grand old time!

Diego

[jmig]

Having flown in the backseat of an F-14D, i can tell you straight up that you can't hear anything but the engines and the creaking of the plane which, IMHO, is surprisingly loud as well as the breathing of the "other" guy...
However, that said, I agree with Michael that without the sound, for us in FS anyway, it would remove the "feel" of having switched...

As for what you want Menendez, we'll have to see.

kc.

I concur on the "hearing" part of switches. what they did have was tactual feel. The rotaries for changing freqs. all had detentes that you could feel. so, you could change freqs. just by counting the detentes.

In fighters you could easily sense the opening of the gear doors and movement of gear, the attitude change as the flaps came down. Or, the increased vibration as the speedbrakes came into the slipstream. These were your cues. Most of which are missing in FSX.

I use a special transducer that converts low freq sounds into vibration. It is attached to the bottom of my cockpits ejection seat. It does an amazing job of making you feel like you are in the cockpit. Project Magenta has a free program called PMSounds that has an excellent speedbrake sound/vibration.