would you ....

[stiz]

.... so with all the talk of developers selling ext models only ..... lets spin it around ... would you buy an interior VC only model? :running::engel016:

[MCDesigns]

Nope

[spotlope]

No way. Let me revise that - I might be willing to buy a VC only if I could pair it with a great external model. It's not a plane to me unless it's got good innards and, uh, "outtards".

[Lionheart]

Thats a very interesting question Stiz...

If I had a vintage exterior I loved, and could add a super high detail VC and it wasnt too expensive, I would. Sure..

Some planes we buy may not have the best interiors in them. A chance to upgrade one might be pretty interesting.

For instance, there are some cool AI planes out there, no VC's in them. This would totally open things up to a new level.


Thats my own opion. (You have to remember, I am a sim addict first, and a developer second).



Bill

[Dain Arns]

Yes. I'll take an accurate, working VC with good FDE, and okay exterior over an accurate exterior, good FDE, and crummy VC any time.

Outside could look like a cardboard box for all I care. :icon_lol:

[N2056]

Half-Baked is Half-Baked. The half you get does not matter to me!
I find the recent phenomena of releasing what is essentially incomplete work to be pretty disappointing. Even more disappointing is knowing that there will be enough people that buy into it that it will continue.

What a joke!

[Kavehpd]

Nope. Because I work hard for my money and would never waste it on a half arsed product.

[Prowler1111]

well, IMHO, i was really thinking of this myself..but it really can´t be that expensive..than we hit a catch 22, VC´s (IMHO) in order to be payware must be not just visually accurate, but also functional, sure you see great exteriors with not so functional cockpits(albeit very good looking)but both words blend together to create a good/bad/great product (and always the VC is the key factor to judge payware these days), if you create VC´s only, you got to also include functionality since that´s the whole product..and we all know that´s the real expensive part (or time consuming...)...i need coffee

Best regards
Prowler

[Prowler1111]

BTW..it´s not half baked if the whole product IS the virtual cockpit, not the promise (in this case) of a matching exterior model..
Prowler

[Curtis P40]

I spend minutes looking at the aircraft from the outside, but I spend hours in the VC.
Curt:kilroy:

[Kiwikat]

Half-Baked is Half-Baked. The half you get does not matter to me!
I find the recent phenomena of releasing what is essentially incomplete work to be pretty disappointing. Even more disappointing is knowing that there will be enough people that buy into it that it will continue.

What a joke!

+1

Couldn't have said it better. :salute:

[TheOptimist]

Prowler I think the original post pertains to the other thread regarding the B-52 exterior only.

I read the original post as 'if a payware developer released a VC with the future promise of an external model, would you buy it?' Of course I may be wrong.

Anyway, in regards to payware developers selling (not even) half finished models, I think it's disgraceful.

When people like piglet (one man show who turns around quality aircraft faster than any developer), Roland Laborie (who put together one of the most stunning and advanced freeware packages ever created) and Lotus (albeit payware but still a one man show who produces exceptional results) can release products which exceed the standards of many huge developing companies, selling 'half' a product is criminal.

[Francois]

'Huge developing companies'..... ???? That's an interesting notion, didn't know we had any (well, not for FS that is). Maybe I live on another planet (would be preferable actually these days) :icon_lol:

[DB93]

I wouldn't buy an exterior model only aircraft, however spinning it around as you suggested, I could see buying an upgraded vc for an existing aircraft, expecially if it's a significant improvement over the original.

Just my opinion, of course.
-George

[Lionheart]

'Huge developing companies'..... ???? That's an interesting notion, didn't know we had any (well, not for FS that is). Maybe I live on another planet (would be preferable actually these days) :icon_lol:

Same here..

(arrgh.. now to find out what planet Im from.. )



I spend minutes looking at the aircraft from the outside, but I spend hours in the VC.
Curt:kilroy:

This is very true. I do as well.



Bill



:d

[IanP]

I probably wouldn't in this case - unless it was a complete VC adding a lot more detail into a model - e.g turning the default airliners into complex ones with full system depth. But if you're going to do that much work, getting/making a better model would probably be a better idea anyway.

I can't see the market here being very big as there really aren't many FSX-compiled (required for the separate VC) aircraft around that don't already have VCs. Most of the models that could most do with having a VC added are FS9 freeware, not FSX models.

The primary reasons I'd want an external model - I can use it for AI or it's a big gaping hole in my hangar that I need to fill for some other reason - wouldn't apply to a VC. If I'm going to use the VC often enough to warrant paying for one, I'm going to want an aircraft for it to sit inside.

[bushpilot]

I somehow understand how it would work for somebody, but for me the simming is all about immersion. I too spend most of the flying time in VC, but as soon as I would step outside and there was no exterior model, the feel of you sitting on a plane would quickly vanish.

[jankees]

Currently, all I have of the warbirdsim P-51B is the VC..
and it is not enough....

so no, I'd never buy just a VC

[Lionheart]

Wait, lol......

In FSX, you can have seperate models for your plane. Exterior is one model, and you have a diff model for your VC.

Thus, you could have a P-51 exterior model and a Cessna 172 for your VC model, lol...

So, if you have a really nice exterior plane, but not VC for it, or a rough VC, and someone offered a VC for it, then, if you purchased it and slipped it into the folder structure and started up FSX, you have have a totally new interior.


But...............!

It must (must) be a pure FSX model with two models in the model folder, interior and exterior.


Must.......



Bill

[Snuffy]

I guess I'm a poor example of a pilot.

I do most of my flying from outside. while I do enjoy the 3d pit environment, I only spend maybe 35 percent of my time there.

I would prefer both models.

[falcon409]

I guess I'm a poor example of a pilot.
I do most of my flying from outside. while I do enjoy the 3d pit environment, I only spend maybe 35 percent of my time there.
I would prefer both models.
When I first started getting into sims (Red Baron, Flight Unlimited, Pro Pilot, etc) I always flew from the exterior, it was the only way I could keep my bearings and see where I was going, lol. It was also the only way I could land, as I tried many, many times to land from the cockpit and just couldn't seem to master it.

Over the years now, I've moved into the cockpit, and with the hi-detail VC's and TrackIR. . .I spend very little time outside the aircraft.

It seems foreign to me now to fly outside at all, but I do understand it.:salute:

[Javis]

Looks like a slippery slope we're on, young grasshoppers.....

Don't you know about the proverb ' Never wake up a sleeping dog " ??.....

And it could very well be that with this kind of conversation many a sleeping dog will be woken...

Did you ever see a crummy looking external model containing a superb looking VC ??..... I sure haven't.

For a dev to create a great looking external model is nothing but fun (can't wait to get started on the 55 strikingly colored liveries ! ), creating an equally great looking VC is were the REAL work begins. An external model is just the packing, the VC is what is supposed to be *inside* the package ( FD and system works just the same ). Who cares about 55 different strikingly colored chips bags if there are no chips inside..... ( Ok, people who'd like to loose weight, maybe ... )

Let me put it the other way around : what's wrong with the CS 130, 727, A2A 377, P-40, P-47, J3, Aerosoft H-1, Cat, RAS Spit, Duke, Caranedo Pipers, Beech, FR Me-262, 109, Lotus L-39, CH FW190, Sibwings Birddog ( talk about superb VC ! ), just top of my head, i'm sure i forgat a bunch. That's what FSX payware packages should be like. Great external, great internal, great FD, great soundsuit. Period !

Can you imagine what terrible swamp we'd be in if all of these models came as external OR internal model ONLY and we'd have to hold our breath and keep our fingers crossed for 'the other part' to maybe eventually turn up ? Or not at all !?? I sure can ! :banghead:

Don't try to fix anything if it ain't broke ! Don't even ask about it !

What we should be looking for is progress NOT decline. In my book this new trend of releasing half arsed FSX models ( and having to pay for them too ! Ridiculous !! ) reminds me very much of the good old FS4 days...... ( what was it, 1988 ?.... 22 years ago ! ) where we had to be happy with flying John Kelley's lovely DC-3 model with the stock C172 panel. In my book flying a B-52 from within the cockpit of a 747 is just as sad and ridiculous. Where's the fun in that !??

I am a big fan of CS just because of their fabulous modelling and texturing but what they are doing with their upcoming B-52 release is ashame and taking the mickey out of the FS community ! ( of course the modelling/texturing is again of superb quality ) Put a stop to this unfortunate 'trend' by not buying this half arsed B-52 package so they know the're taking the wrong taxi way !

FSX is the last of our precious MSFS iterations, lets be careful with it and try to make something better out of it ( like Mike Johnson did with his amazing Albatros !! :salute: ) instead of ushering in the decline of it !

Oh,well, just my 2cents worth. But don't come crying in here when, after a while, you have ended up with 42 superb looking FSX external models of which half of them you'll have to fly with the stock 737, P-51 or Learjet VC's ! :barf: ( not that i think they are not good, on the contrary :) )

Cheers,
Jan

[Tweek]

Definitely not. Even when I do fly from the VC, often I like to record what I've done and play it back (very useful for display routines), so an exterior model is essential.

[dharris]

:pop4:I am reminded that I am still waiting for FSX to come thru with the promised weather app and airport textures that clearly show on the programs interface. Sometimes devs get in over their heads, tiime wise, and financially, perhaps knowledge also. To purchase another product that was not "finished" is no longer in my lecixon. The road to "hell" is paved with good intentions and I am sure by trying to sell the external hoping that those that do, would at least stick aroound for the vc and generate funds in the mean time is fine. But it puts more oneus on the dev to finish if there is no funds available until after completion. Perhaps what is needed is the major software distrubutors have to have an incentive package, that a developer can draw a commission against the final product. The dev has some finaces coming in, the distributor now has an investment in staying on top fo the devs to get it done. I cannot imagine anyone walking into a General Motors dealership and saying "yeah I'll take that frame and engine combo, and then when you get a body for it I will shell out more money for it later. A risk most would not take. If devs need help, then they would be wish to acknowledge the fact that maybe the project is more than they can do alone and spread the work around. You asked, I answered

[Francois]

I agree Jan ((hi !), that this is a 'no-no' in most developer's books. I don't know why our friends from Kiev are trying this... lack of funds probably. We're (mostly) all in that boat ! Solutions vary..... mine is to just try and find MORE good developers and make MORE products, sticking to the rigid quality rules we already have.
Others may find other solutions work best.... they may also find some of them do NOT work ;-)

Personally I'd rather WAIT for a great product (and spend time on so many other great ones I already own anyway) then to get me something that isn't 'it'. And that's not even taking into account the financial RISK involved. Better companies have gone broke and disappeared lately .

@ Dharris: distributors don't give a damn, don't be fooled. Only producers/publishers would, and most of those do not have any money to invest in this industry. I know some people still think there's rich FS developers somewhere, but I still haven't found them. Unless we mean Austin Meyers? :engel016::icon_lol::icon_lol:

Forming cooperative groups is a more feasible road to go indeed, and that already happens quite often.

[Kavehpd]

Wait, lol......

In FSX, you can have seperate models for your plane. Exterior is one model, and you have a diff model for your VC.

Thus, you could have a P-51 exterior model and a Cessna 172 for your VC model, lol...

So, if you have a really nice exterior plane, but not VC for it, or a rough VC, and someone offered a VC for it, then, if you purchased it and slipped it into the folder structure and started up FSX, you have have a totally new interior.


But...............!

It must (must) be a pure FSX model with two models in the model folder, interior and exterior.


Must.......



Bill

And takes a lot of CFG editing too to get the taxi physics, VC fx lighting, viewpoint, etc right.

[BASys]

Hi Folks


would you buy an interior VC only model?
Yes -
If it provides a capability change to an existing aircraft.
e.g. A glass or analogue gauged variant VC.

Personally I'd love to see an EH101 VC upgrade.

There's potentially a currently untapped niche market,
though returns might not be economical,
unless you were the original modeler.

After all many FSX users already made similar choices,
(albeit probably for other primary reasons),
by purchasing FSX Standard or Deluxe versions (http://www.fsdeveloper.com/wiki/index.php?title=Aircraft_-_Listing_-_Default_Types_%28FSX%29),
containing standard or glass cockpit, (G1000), variants of -
- Beechcraft Baron 58
- Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP
- Mooney M-20-M Bravo

Unlikely candidates would be VC addons for FSX Standard users
- Grumman G-21-A Goose
- Maule Orion M-7-260-C Super Rocket

HTH
ATB
Paul

[FAC257]

For those that never did....back in '06 Stopworks created exactly this concept for Falcon4.0 Allied Force.

They created only addiitional cockpits for F4-AF's F-16. I bought the Block-50, Block-40 and the MLU-40 pits from them at about $22 a piece.

They were well worth it. But the big kicker that they had going for them was that they were creating new cockpits for a sim aircraft that arguably to this day, already had one of the most functional and complete cockpits ever seen in a sim. Stopworks made an existing excellent "Complete" package even better.

That formula worked.

But if F4-AF had been released with no cockpit or a place-holder cockpit, and then later on Stopworks had released the very same products that they did, I wouldn't have touched either one.

I don't mind coming home every day to find a new aircraft that I might want to purchase and usually find I'm buying at least a few new add-ons for FSX every month or so. I don't mind spending and sometimes wasting, money on this hobby at all. Even then, I'd never spend a penny for an aircraft without an already excellent VC with most or all of the usual default FSX expected systems already working.

And then that translates into I'd never buy the stand alone VC cockpit for that aircraft, because I never would have purchased the original half-done aircraft to begin with. :)

Now the scenerio begins....what if you did buy a cockpit from one developer and then later on the aircraft that it goes with from another developer. I can already imagine the nightmare of incompatibility issues and developer finger pointing that could and probably would come out of a situation like that.


FAC

[ryanbatc]

No....

[Mathias]

I don't even download freeware without a VC, I would never ever spit out money for half an aircraft, be it that it's missing the VC or the exterior.
As a commercial vendor myself I wouldn't even waste a thought on producing a half product. Should I ever come into the bad position to require some quick cash I'd rather do the weekends driving a nightshift or two a month with the cab. :salute::bump:

[ryanbatc]

I don't even download freeware without a VC,

As rude as it sounds, neither do I! What fun is it to use an external model. Now, if its a really nice model, such as the Project Airbus models, you can always assign the default Airbus VC to it - which I did, then I can have all the nice paints I want.

[Odie]

I spend minutes looking at the aircraft from the outside, but I spend hours in the VC.
Curt:kilroy:

Curt, I'm the exact opposite....I spend more time oggling the exterior only hopping into the VC occassionally during the flight! :icon_lol:

[Bjoern]

.... so with all the talk of developers selling ext models only ..... lets spin it around ... would you buy an interior VC only model? :running::engel016:

Ask that question differently:

Why does no one make add-on VCs at all?

I think a bunch of bugfixed and enhanced VCs for the default birds (737 comes to mind) would be a great thing, especially since you can recycle the textures and gauges.
The closest thing to something like this would be Thomas Ruth's A3x0's VC which is basically default textures and gauges on a new model.