PDA

View Full Version : Alphasim....how the mighty have fallen, discuss!



calypsos
March 9th, 2010, 01:05
I do not want to start a 'bash Alphasim' thread, but thought it an interesting reflection (a weather gauge anyway) of the state of our hobby IN GENERAL.
Alphasim were responsable (as Phil Perrot and his panel add-ons in MS98) for my interest in FS, a hobby I have now enjoyed for 12 years. I must not be the only one here sad not make a weekly visit to the AS website, to see screen shots of some upcoming new model.

At it's height, AS were releasing FS9 models every 2 weeks, of variable quality for 'pocket money' prices. The sort of Airfix (series 1) kit of the FS world, if you grew up in the 1960-70's. Nowadays we have had one model (Yak-52) and a half model (C-17) in 6 months. Even the 'we are still here' notice on the website looks a bit faded now.
So what has (all but) killed off AS, pirates? Customer service? (which was fine when the had a forum), model choices? the complexity of FSX and the time it takes to model nowadays? Good old lack of profit? or just a gradual decline of flight simming in general?

Remember, no mud slinging please, just some educated thoughts on the (possible) demise of an old long established developer and it's implications for the rest and the hobby in general.

Kavehpd
March 9th, 2010, 01:51
My personal reason for losing interest was the unnecessarily hostile attitude towards criticism. Ironically, this was mostly from a bunch of sugar junky teenagers who had no say in the business itself and just wanted to sound cool or whatever. But at the same time, I hardly ever remember any officials respond to this issue. As if it was simply ignored, if not encouraged.

Example: The C-17 thread: Michael was looking for photo references on refuelling formation lights, I found a couple and posted them. Turned out the modification was going to take a while. I got bombarded with PM and vicious posts for "disrespecting" the modeller and loads of other nonsense. Same happened when I pointed out the FSX HC3 Merlin update had the wrong landing gears. While Danno was emailing me a fixed version, trolls were doing their routine. I even got banned once (from both the shop and the forums) for #### knows what reason. This was completely out of the blue. Contacted Danno via email and he kindly sorted it out. Needless to say, when their forums went down, I didn't lose any sleep!

Come to think of it, the ONLY two reasonable officials I remember there were Michael and Danno. Welcomed the criticism and stayed out of all the BS in their forums.

What went on behind the scene over there is none of my business. I'm commenting from a customer's point of view.

Lewis-A2A
March 9th, 2010, 02:37
They stepped up there game, moved out of the budget market. If this was by choice or the fact fsx is a bit more timeframe unfriendly we dont know but I think IMO its very clear that as the prices went up so did the quality of the products.

Also when you are gauaging stuff its best to use common market and not specialist. I was explaining to falcon409 the other day on teamspeak how it was interesting that the guys on the fsbreak podcast had not heard of us (a2a) until the cub, IRIS until the latest GA stuff and I guess alphasim would be the same. fsbreak is a half decent measure as you have several hosts with different fs interest from small ga to large tubeliners, to VA's vatsim, to a Chris that runs the angle of attack website.

Its not the state of fs at all, its the state of a small segment. See carendo and PMDG etc to get a real gauge, and boy, business is as booming as ever.

hey_moe
March 9th, 2010, 02:58
I never had a problem with them. When I had problems with the DL or password, Phil would take care of the problem. I did notice lately their prices took kinda of a jump.Also FSX and most of the flight stuff has dropped due to MS backing out of the program . Which to me has a little to do with the market. I guess it is just their time...Mike

kilo delta
March 9th, 2010, 03:25
I'm sure that the piracy issue must have hurt them too?


Slightly OT...but does anyone know if their BN Islander (in collaboration with Flight1) is still on the cards?

harleyman
March 9th, 2010, 03:31
Remember, no mud slinging please!




Companies come and go...For many varied reasons I'm sure.

Personally I never follow close enough to know who or what makes a thing..I just purchase what I like...

I have better things to do than speculate over what is or has been....Or might be...but thats just me and my time...:kilroy:




But yes, they did seem to be the leader at one point...

PRB
March 9th, 2010, 04:20
I've got tons of Alphasim planes, and there isn't one of them I'm not happy with. Mountians rise, and turn to river mud, continents drift apart and meet again, and FS outfits are not immune. Alphasim deserves a lot of BRAVO ZULUs for all they have contributed to this hobby. I wish them well.

stiz
March 9th, 2010, 04:21
I'm sure that the piracy issue must have hurt them too?


piracy effects all the devs so thats really a null point, just depends on how much of an issue the developer wants to make of it.

To me they've just switched to higher detailed models, if they released a model now at the level of detail they where say 2 years ago (which was fine) at a cheaper price (say $20) it'd still be compared to the higer end models and generaly ripped apart for not being detailed enough and not haveing all the mod cons or accusim like features.

You cant really blame them for switching really, and who knows, they might have just had enough of fs developement, after all they seemed to get a lot of unfair stick for their stuff.

Tweek
March 9th, 2010, 04:22
The timescale is obviously down to the fact that they now try to build models with more depth and realism. While that's fine for some, a lot of simmers just want a Ctrl+E aircraft that they can just hop in and punch a few holes in the sky with, and for a long time, AlphaSim covered that market. Unfortunately, they seemed to take on board the unwanted 'advice' from armchair experts who represented the minority, that spoke the loudest, about how their models were wrong in this way and that, whereas most accepted the fact that they're cheap, easy to produce models with a low price tag, therefore there's bound to be a few errors here and there.

I'd love for them to return to how they used to be, and to be honest, there's nothing from stopping them doing so. You might say that with FSX has come longer development times, but individuals produce basic, but decent freeware models at a rate that I'd be more than happy with from AlphaSim - namely the likes of Piglet and Thomas Ruth, so I can't see why a company can't do that.

d0mokun
March 9th, 2010, 04:33
Though reluctant to comment I'll come out of the shadows just this once.

I think the 'sad' thing is that times change. People come, people go; groups come and go too. Purposes and plans change. Sometimes that just ends up with things not going quite how they were expected to, for whatever reason. No single reason can be attributed to anything.

There is always a future regardless of how sterile the present may seem.

My best regards to all.

Dan.

arrowmaker
March 9th, 2010, 04:53
Personally I will always be grateful to AlphaSim for being the only dev's out there to produce an English Electric Lightning , and three packages of them at that! :applause: As far as I am aware no other models exist, either payware or freeware, something I am at a loss to explain. After all it was one of greatest British jets ever built.

mike_cyul
March 9th, 2010, 05:05
I've always thought that the expression that "the only constant thing in life, is change" was a good one. Happens everywhere, to everyone and everything. Just have to adapt and learn and keep on going. I think that applies to Alphasim and us users and devs as well.

Voila, my philosophical input for the day. :)

Mike

Prowler1111
March 9th, 2010, 05:07
IMHO:
Wrong business decisions based on a equally wrong perception of their own market.
Bottom line..they drowned their own loyal customers with many addons no longer at budget prices and with also high developing costs which might have lead to a financial bottle neck.Better hold it there until the tide gets even.
Piracy? fat chance (IMHO), we are all victims of it at all levels, not a decisive factor even in a small market like this.
Lack of support? If there is one thing i can´t say bad things about AS, is their support, at least as a former customer, they got it right.

Prowler

noddy
March 9th, 2010, 05:25
I to have many Alphasim models, I always liked the way produced non-mainstream planes i.e. Cutlass, Skyray F-89 etc. Plus the Brit models, Lightning, Swift, Hunter and Scimitar.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Guess the only problem was they were not to everybody’s tastes, and not big sellers. That's one of the reasons they backed of doing more Brit stuff.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
It is a shame not to see more coming, but as already stated people are becoming more demanding and wanting all the bells and whistles which pushes the development time out.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I for one do not mind a nice simple VC, I just want to jump in and fly. <o:p></o:p>

MudMarine
March 9th, 2010, 05:28
Theft of property is NOT a null point!

Henry
March 9th, 2010, 05:56
personally i have never had a problem with them
they have always helped me with problems
and when they decided to make there products available for free
after a certain time they gladly let us upload them here.
I do know they had a few internal problems but frankly thats none of my business
i still have and use many of there products
but change happens
H

OBIO
March 9th, 2010, 06:46
Let's not toll the death bell on Alphasim yet, not until there is an official statement from the upper echelons of Alphasim saying that they are throwing in the towel. Companies large and small encounter problems from time to time. Sometimes they decline for a bit, regroup, restructure and come back stronger than ever. Sometimes they fold. What will become of Alphasim is an unknown at the moment. I personally hope that they are able to regroup, refocus, and become even stronger than they were before. They are one of the longest running commercial sim companies....been around for 10 or 11 years now I think.

I do hate the fact that when I do a search for an Alphasim plane...trying to find some of their much older packages for use in CFS2....that 90% of the search returns are for pirate downloads of their products. If the amount of piracy that a company faces is any indication of the success of a company, Alphasim would surely be ranked as the most successful payware sim companies.

OBIO

Lateral-G
March 9th, 2010, 06:54
I think FSX was a game changer for them (as for many developers). From what I have gleaned over the years it seems making models for FS98 thru 2004 was pretty similar so those that were high up on the learning curve could crank out a new aircraft model pretty quickly. FSX seems to have changed that. Developers had to re-learn, use new software tools, new modeling methods. Some designers seemed to feel this was too much work.

I still see this today. In FS2004's heyday you had new models daily pop up on the various websites (both freeware and payware). FSX has really slowed it down. yeah, there's new stuff coming out....some very nice stuff to be sure....but at nowhere near the pace you saw for FS2002 or 2004.

I think we all know quite a few prolific model makers for FS98-2004 that have disappeared from the scene just because of FSX and it's intricacies.

I also think the "half-done release" business model may also be a contributing factor. It's hard to fork over $60 or more for a model that isn't completed. I know I'll get the AS C-17 eventually (once the VC is completed) but right now it's really hard to spend that much for an aircraft that isn't done. If the price were lower (by 1/2 at least) then maybe. CS' B-52 was a no-brainer because it was $15. I can live with that sort of price point. $60 is much harder to part with....no matter how stunning the exterior is.

i also think the management wore their heart on their sleeve. Any sort of criticism of their product was not tolerated. Even folks that tried to present criticism in a positive way were banned from the forums. You have to develop a thick skin when you're in business. yes, Phil was always helpful with problems with either the website or orders but he is a bit petulant, and this came thru in a very noticeable way.

I hope that AS can keep making planes. I have enjoyed all the ones I have bought (and I have over 20 over their planes in my hanger). It would be sad to see them no longer offering products.

-G-

calypsos
March 9th, 2010, 07:42
Excellent replies chaps, just the sort of discussion I had hoped for. :salute:

I am not writing them off, just bringing up the point that they are a shadow of the once market leading developer. It is a shame they seem to have stopped converting the old models to native FSX, it was great for customers like me (they were free upgrades) but it brought some new life back into 'old stock'.

I would still be happy to pay $20 for a model of a native FSX BAC Lightning or Short Belfast, even if they had simple systems and not all the switches worked.....but I guess I am in the minority.

thunder100
March 9th, 2010, 07:54
I think FSX was a game changer for them (as for many developers). From what I have gleaned over the years it seems making models for FS98 thru 2004 was pretty similar so those that were high up on the learning curve could crank out a new aircraft model pretty quickly. FSX seems to have changed that. Developers had to re-learn, use new software tools, new modeling methods. Some designers seemed to feel this was too much work.


my 5 cents go in same direction.I have helped to develop several freeware planes more prominently Connies.

From FS2002 to FS2004 workload went up 50% to get a decent one (Fzdigns Connie was more heavy as Howard wanted the best) but FSX is very different.FS2004 by 2 fore external and then double for an VC.So planes must increase in price seeing the time spent.

Now the sad fact looking to download figures but also talking to a developer is taht the FS community dont grow anymore,they just split into 50% Fs2004 and the other rest FSX.So you cannot offset more work by more sales.

Its not only AS.Look to capatin sim-->B52 exterior after 2 years and VC after annother year

I hope that AS keeps going and I am still buying planes i can buy nowhere else** .I accept a slow development rate

Roland

**Where can you buy a TSR-2,a F-111, a good B1

Shane Olguin
March 9th, 2010, 07:54
Hey guys,

Thought you'd like to hear from one of the team members. After a long hiatus I have rejoined the AlphaSim team. I was very happy to discover that there are quite a few projects currently in the pipe. The company is alive and well, and we are preparing to release quite a few new aircraft as well as updates to older releases.

I'm excited to get back to work myself!

Skittles
March 9th, 2010, 08:05
I always wonder what effect piracy actually has on sales of FSX related goodies.

I have never pirated anything (except downloading a back-up of something I already have bought and own, which is of course perfectly legal - and none of those things flight sim related). The only real figure that matters from a financial standpoint (differing from a moral standpoint) is the percentage of people who would have bought the item, yet did not because they pirated it instead. It would be completely wrong to suggest this number was anything close to 100%, I would imagine it is around the <10%, or therabouts.

d0mokun
March 9th, 2010, 08:26
I'd like to comment on the FSX dev side if I may.

For AS I think FSX was a driving factor, not a limiting one. The SE.5a was one of the first commercial FSX products to be made available for example, and there was always a drive to upgrade and update all old models to FSX standard. FSX and its abilities were always foremost in planning. This did lead to problems, given, but generally it worked out.

There are plenty of reasons I am sure for the lack of publicity of present, but I don't think (speaking as someone who 'was there') FSX is to blame.

Best
Dan.

gonzonm
March 9th, 2010, 08:29
I hate to say it, but i think it's a bit of what have you done lately. This is a hobby all about what is new, and instant gratifcation. In this e-market you need to regularly put out products to keep yourself on peoples minds.

MudMarine
March 9th, 2010, 08:30
I never had a problem with alphasim. And I own just about every plane they produced. I hope they come back stronger than ever.

Tweek
March 9th, 2010, 08:33
Hey guys,

Thought you'd like to hear from one of the team members. After a long hiatus I have rejoined the AlphaSim team. I was very happy to discover that there are quite a few projects currently in the pipe. The company is alive and well, and we are preparing to release quite a few new aircraft as well as updates to older releases.

I'm excited to get back to work myself!

Good to hear! Still waiting with baited breath for that Jaguar!

Roadburner440
March 9th, 2010, 09:16
I contemplated buying a lot of AS aircraft, and actually bought a couple. What really turned me off was when they started doing the EA6B and A6 packages, and charging rediculous amounts of money for them. I bought the EA6B, only to have Razbam make a better one later down the road at a far cheaper price. So where I shelled out over $100 at the time for the AS A6/EA6B package I wound up once I got the Razbam models never installing the AS ones on the system again. I really have my hopes up for the C-17, and I hope once the VC comes out I can convince myself to make the purchase and give them another shot. I have learned the hard way over the years not to buy incomplete packages because you never know what may happen after the fact. It seems that business model is slowly spreading through the payware dev's tho. It is good tho to hear there are quite a few new projects in the pipeline and that the company is doing well. Always interested to see what new aircraft have to bring to the sim.

Lateral-G
March 9th, 2010, 09:32
Hey guys,

Thought you'd like to hear from one of the team members. After a long hiatus I have rejoined the AlphaSim team. I was very happy to discover that there are quite a few projects currently in the pipe. The company is alive and well, and we are preparing to release quite a few new aircraft as well as updates to older releases.

I'm excited to get back to work myself!

Good to hear Shane!

I look forward to some new AS planes.

v/R

-G-

Shane Olguin
March 9th, 2010, 09:43
To be honest with you the boss has given me quite a few assignments so there are definitely new releases and updates in the works.

magoo
March 9th, 2010, 09:44
Ten years ago the models were simple. I loved the accurate exterior shape of the old alphasim mdls. Price was low, you could buy them like candy. I still pull these aircraft out to admire them. The later Jay McDaniel flight models where great. Good evocation without the need for any further tweaking. Just turn on the mags, swing the prop and go. Great stuff.

Like all flightsim creationists, Alpha's facing a new sim and more powerful pc's that require much greater detail/complexity to maintain the sim-experience. Longer production hours, fewer products, higher costs. It's a Darwinian cycle. Amongst the flightsim creators, commercial and freeware, who will stay with it ?

Many have left us, but surprisingly, more artists have stayed with it than I would have predicted. It may have more to do with how aviation and flightsims get under your skin, than so much to do with profit margin.

I'm curious to see where this all is ten years from now.

Alphasim?

:guinness::guinness:

rsgunner
March 9th, 2010, 09:50
OK, I am a glutton for snipes but I thought I would respond to this.

As a team member of AlphaSim I can tell you I am still doing textures.
And I working on them at this moment so AlphaSim is still alive.

Russ

cheezyflier
March 9th, 2010, 09:53
i really like cupcakes. but i also like pudding. i like doritos but prefer to drink pepsi whilst i eat them.
what i don't like is turkey bacon or onion bread or things made with cottage cheez.
has anyone ever tatooed a fish?

Sundog
March 9th, 2010, 11:28
i really like cupcakes. but i also like pudding. i like doritos but prefer to drink pepsi whilst i eat them.
what i don't like is turkey bacon or onion bread or things made with cottage cheez.
has anyone ever tatooed a fish?

Thems fightin' words. I like turkey bacon.:icon_lol:

I'm still looking forward to the AS Jaguar packages.

michael davies
March 9th, 2010, 11:28
i really like cupcakes. but i also like pudding. i like doritos but prefer to drink pepsi whilst i eat them.
what i don't like is turkey bacon or onion bread or things made with cottage cheez.
has anyone ever tatooed a fish?

Wow !, I 'really' want some of what you have LOL.

AckAck
March 9th, 2010, 11:29
has anyone ever tatooed a fish?

No, but I know someone who had one that was tatooed.

Brian

(regarding Alphasim, I was kind of wondering where the original thought came from for the thread. Is it just because they haven't released anything for a couple months? Or that they haven't posted teaser shots of upcoming projects, drawing the ire of people complaining that it hasn't been released yet? Did they do that anyway, until release was nearly imminent? Kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't in that respect)

magoo
March 9th, 2010, 12:12
Michael Davies! Last I collected of your work were superb steam locomotives for MSTS. You still carving molecular ether into 3d shape?

Agg
March 9th, 2010, 12:18
Personally I steer clear of all Alphasim products simply because I dont think they are worth the asking price. The 3d models are very often quite a bit far off from the actual aircraft (look at their Gripen f.i, it looks nothing like the real thing), there is little or no system simulation, and the flight model is often horrible. When I buy an add-on I want it to be as close to the real thing as possible, and so I would rather spend my money on add-ons like the VRS Superbug or the IRIS F-16D than any Alphasim product.

OBIO
March 9th, 2010, 12:48
has anyone ever tatooed a fish?

OT...but since you asked...yes, there is an entire cruel industry centered around tattooed and color-dyed fish. Valentines Day will find various Tetras and Gourami's being tattooed with hearts and I Love You in red and pink. Some fish will be tattooed with polka dots of various colors and sizes. Some fish will have their entire bodies died colors they would not wear in their natural form...Blueberry Oscars, Day Glow Green Tetras. These practices are very painful, drastically shorted the life span of the fish subjected to this cruelty as the dies and inks accumulate in the livers of the fish, turning the livers hard and crystalized. An estimated 70% of the fish that under go tattooing and dying do not survive the process. I will not purchase dyed or tattooed fish nor buy anything from any pet store that has them in stock.

OBIO

Henry
March 9th, 2010, 12:52
OT...but since you asked...yes, there is an entire cruel industry centered around tattooed and color-dyed fish. Valentines Day will find various Tetras and Gourami's being tattooed with hearts and I Love You in red and pink. Some fish will be tattooed with polka dots of various colors and sizes. Some fish will have their entire bodies died colors they would not wear in their natural form...Blueberry Oscars, Day Glow Green Tetras. These practices are very painful, drastically shorted the life span of the fish subjected to this cruelty as the dies and inks accumulate in the livers of the fish, turning the livers hard and crystalized. An estimated 70% of the fish that under go tattooing and dying do not survive the process. I will not purchase dyed or tattooed fish nor buy anything from any pet store that has them in stock.

OBIO
darn once they have batter on them
who knows:engel016:
H:icon_lol:

michael davies
March 9th, 2010, 13:14
Michael Davies! Last I collected of your work were superb steam locomotives for MSTS. You still carving molecular ether into 3d shape?

Wow, that is going back a few years, was it the payware LNER Pacific's or the smaller freeware LNER mixed traffic locos.

Yes I still bully the molecules, since MSTS some models for Alphasim (hence the association in a previous post), the Seaking was the last major model of mine, though assisted in one small way or another with most helos there after.

Since late last year a personal resignation to get away from it all, take time for my other hobbies and re asses whether FS modeling is really what I want in the future, but I still dabble in Max, some aircraft, some ships and some trains.

I seem to remember your handle from way back ion CFS2 days ?.

Kindest

Michael

Willy
March 9th, 2010, 13:46
I don't do FSX, but thought I'd toss my two pence out there.. Where AlphaSim lost me was when they went up in price. On a limited income, I just can't justify over $30 for one aircraft. For me over $20 is a hard sell.

oldhand
March 9th, 2010, 15:06
All the theories in this thread are a galaxy removed from the real reasons behind the apparent fall from grace of AS. As an ex-AS dev I am qualified to say that. Time to leave AS alone and let Phil regroup. AS will be back in strength having learnt from past mistakes.

krazycolin
March 9th, 2010, 16:06
as another ex dev from AS, I sure hope that's true.

NoShades
March 9th, 2010, 16:50
I thank Alphasim --Alphasim phil was the first guy to take me in a few years ago to do some stuff..if he needs something--I'll be there.. I think its the economy thing going on..New Zealand is taking a hit too

Hope and change = Desparatley hoping with only a bit a change in yer pockets

peter12213
March 9th, 2010, 17:04
Well heres my opinion, I'm gutted by them of late, I'm a buyer of the C-17 (Will I get a VC?) and I'm dying for there Jaguar too, but I have to say and I'm a beliver in good things come to those who wait (But I don't drink Gayness lol) I will have lost one of my fave dev's if Alpha goes down the pan thats for sure!

Naki
March 9th, 2010, 17:08
I thank Alphasim --Alphasim phil was the first guy to take me in a few years ago to do some stuff..if he needs something--I'll be there.. I think its the economy thing going on..New Zealand is taking a hit too

Hope and change = Desparatley hoping with only a bit a change in yer pockets


Yes to a certain extent but the ecomony hasn't been hit as bad as some other countries....I'm sure 90% of Alphasim sales wil be outside NZ anyway as we are just too small.

tigisfat
March 9th, 2010, 21:11
A couple points:

--People have been producing conjecture about the downfall of Alphasim forever. They once produced a jillion models a year, they once had a jillion employees. Production times are on a J-curve in flight simming. The great Mike Stone used to barrage us with models we loved constantly, that simply cannot be done anymore with the clarity and fidelity demanded from competitive products now. To sum it up, it's possible that Alphasim is on a very acceptable production schedule given the complexity of their projects in addition to the amount of employees they have.

--As bitter as people claim to be about Alphasim, they keep coming back. Why? Developers plan projects smartly for the most part. They don't like to do what others have done, and they produce to fill our needs. When we all are foaming at the mouth for a native FSX jaguar (and starting gripe at alphasim threads the whole time) and Phil releases one, who'd gonna buy it? You're darn right we are. Don't talk about poor customer treatment and services from Phil (yes, I've been burned too) because Alphasim's other employees have met us in every forum for solutions and handed out personal email addresses to assist us many times.

--Alphasim has possibly reached a point where they have a fairly decent lineup of products that are still selling. Most other devs are killing themselves getting their fourth aircraft out. Less visibility and releases do not bequeath the fall of Alphasim.

--The departure of some of our favorite artists and developers over the years from Alphasim employment do not neccesarily mean that Alphasim will fail. Probably half the big names I can think of 'round these parts used to work for Alphasim and Alphasim kept going.

--Internal conflicts and pay problems? We only think we know what's going on because maybe a few friends have told us bits and pieces. I've been privy to a chunk of Alphasim drama over the last few years, and I'm sure I don't know the half of it. The drama goes both ways from owners to employees and from employees to owners, and it's common in business.

--Piracy? I don't advocate it, participate in it or see any justification, but let's be real. Piracy's impact on the software industry CANNOT be quantified, and thus, the 'fall of Alphasim' can't be blamed on it. Blaming poor sales on piracy in a rough economy is BS. 99.99999999% of the time, a pirate was never going to buy it anyway, so no money was lost. There are also no lost manufacturing or production efforts on a single pirated piece of software if it's downloaded. The only thing that happened is some jerk has something illegally that he has no right to use. On the same token, price increases to account for piracy are BS, because there is no way to substantiatei your liquidated damages from piracy.

Odie
March 9th, 2010, 22:33
I've never had an issue with Alphasim and have a large hangar full of their FS9 aircraft and a couple of their FSX models. When they producing FS9 models, I felt the price was right and the selection of models very good.

No complaints on the FSX side as well.

jankees
March 9th, 2010, 23:40
I've never had an issue with Alphasim and have a large hangar full of their FS9 aircraft and a couple of their FSX models. When they producing FS9 models, I felt the price was right and the selection of models very good.

No complaints on the FSX side as well.

I agree, I fly still their B-24, Harvard and Hudson occasionally, and I do like them. They are simple, hop in and fly models, that always look good from the outside and for a fair price too.

Mithrin
March 10th, 2010, 04:09
I am for one really glad with their free FSX upgrades and the amount of time they put into that. Can't go without my beautiful He-111 in FSX to name one plane. Let's also not forget their grand helicopters. I'm happy about what they gave us back then for fair prices. We'll see what a future brings.

:salute: for countless hours of fun in AS aircraft. Their planes still dominate my hangar. :applause:

Mickey D
March 10th, 2010, 06:55
They once produced a jillion models a year, they once had a jillion employees.


Got to correct you there Tigisfat. Alphasim has never had more two employees. Initially just one ie. Phil and then more recently Phil and Danno. Now just one again. Everyone else is/was a freelance dev and Alphasim in the main is a publisher of their work. 90% of products sold by AS are the property of those freeance devs. Who can, and some recently did, move them elsewhere.
Just to put the record straight. :)

On the piracy thing I agree with you 100%. It exists and if MS and other big players can't beat them what hope have we bit players. Best to just forget it in the knowledge that most simmers are honest.

DennyA
March 10th, 2010, 10:44
I don't think you can blame piracy when they totally shifted their product focus.

When Alphasim sold cool military jets and props for $10 to $20 a pop, I bought tons of them. I probably have 15 Alphasim payware planes I've bought for FS9 and FSX, far more than any developer. I was happy with the medium-resolution models, because the price was in "buy on a whim" territory, and the flight models were convincing enough to immerse me.

Then Alphasim decided to shift to competing with the "high-detail" publishers, going from $15 planes to $60 planes. Now, the planes had more detail, more options, etc., but I just don't fly the vast majority of planes enough to invest the price of a full stand-alone game in one.

Perhaps this business decision made sense for them -- Phil and co. might be making more cash overall off the higher-priced planes than they were off the less expensive, more "niche" mid-range planes. But as a customer, I wanted their old products, stuff like the B-36, the Cutlass, and the T-34 package, not the high-end, costly stuff they're doing now.

It would be great if they had the resources to serve both markets. I'd certainly buy FSX SDK updates (but still with 'medium detail') versions of their classics like the F-8 Crusader, F-111, A-3 (got burned on the "FSX" port there), F-4, ec.

GZR_Sactargets
March 10th, 2010, 11:58
I have found Alphasim to be one of the best. Always got good replies to my questions and for the most part the Aircraft are top-notch. I have a ton of them in my hangar.

centuryseries
March 10th, 2010, 12:02
As an existing (started in 2003) freelance aircraft modeller for Alphasim I can tell you that there are plenty of things to get excited about with forthcoming line up.

We are certainly not floundering - granted from the outside it all looks like nothing is happening, but behind the scenes we're all beavering away on some really good projects.

I'd like to show off the aircraft I'm working on, but it's not quite ready for that yet, but I think you will be happy when I do! :icon_lol:

We're alive and well!! :wiggle:

David. (ex-AlphaSim-Quid21), AS SR-71, B-58 Hustler, B-52, Mirage IV)

calypsos
March 10th, 2010, 13:27
That sounds very promising David, I guess what is needed is a little bit of PR at the front end of the AS website, as I said even the 'we are still here' sign is looking a bit jaded, especially after the way it was in the past, always something new popping up every few weeks.

doublecool
March 10th, 2010, 13:52
I've been happy with evey purchase from ALPHA Sim and look forward to many more:applause: Change is good

DennyA
March 10th, 2010, 14:30
David,

Hoping the new planes have something to do with your forum handle. :)

falcon409
March 10th, 2010, 15:29
. . . . .When Alphasim sold cool military jets and props for $10 to $20 a pop, I bought tons of them. I probably have 15 Alphasim payware planes I've bought for FS9 and FSX, far more than any developer. I was happy with the medium-resolution models, because the price was in "buy on a whim" territory, and the flight models were convincing enough to immerse me.

Then Alphasim decided to shift to competing with the "high-detail" publishers, going from $15 planes to $60 planes. Now, the planes had more detail, more options, etc., but I just don't fly the vast majority of planes enough to invest the price of a full stand-alone game in one. . . . . . . .
I have to agree Denny, I open my account on the Alphasim site and I have three pages of aircraft and scenery I've purchased from them, but that all stopped abruptly when they went "high dollar". What I and others in a financial pinch have to accept is that "high dollar" to us is a drop in the bucket to those who want that super high detail and every rivet in it's proper place and don't even flinch at a $50 to $60 price tag. It is what it is unfortunately. Like the "buy the exterior now and we'll get you the interior later" concept that seems to be gaining in popularity. It's like the car salesman selling me half a car with the promise that the rest will be in around the middle of next month, lol and as I walk out the door, I can hear him saying. . . ."trust me", lol. . .ummmmmm. . .NO!!:salute:

High priced addons are a thing of the past for me. . .as much as I may want them. . .it takes very little to realize I don't need them.

Paul K
March 10th, 2010, 15:37
Loved every Alphasim release up until the utterly dreadful B-24D, and will happily consider every Alphasim release from here onwards. Judge each product on its own merits, not by the label sewn into the collar.

centuryseries
March 11th, 2010, 10:30
David,

Hoping the new planes have something to do with your forum handle. :)

I believe this jet came out before the century series - or perhaps the same decade? Hmmm will have to find out. I can say that it's not a Centuryseries jet :jump:

Shhhh I've said too much lol - all will be revealed in due course.

Mickey D
March 13th, 2010, 11:37
Shhh! David's building an................................................ .ARRRRRGH!!!!!!!

krazycolin
March 13th, 2010, 14:58
A couple points:

--People have been producing conjecture about the downfall of Alphasim forever. They once produced a jillion models a year, they once had a jillion employees. Production times are on a J-curve in flight simming. The great Mike Stone used to barrage us with models we loved constantly, that simply cannot be done anymore with the clarity and fidelity demanded from competitive products now. To sum it up, it's possible that Alphasim is on a very acceptable production schedule given the complexity of their projects in addition to the amount of employees they have.

--As bitter as people claim to be about Alphasim, they keep coming back. Why? Developers plan projects smartly for the most part. They don't like to do what others have done, and they produce to fill our needs. When we all are foaming at the mouth for a native FSX jaguar (and starting gripe at alphasim threads the whole time) and Phil releases one, who'd gonna buy it? You're darn right we are. Don't talk about poor customer treatment and services from Phil (yes, I've been burned too) because Alphasim's other employees have met us in every forum for solutions and handed out personal email addresses to assist us many times.

--Alphasim has possibly reached a point where they have a fairly decent lineup of products that are still selling. Most other devs are killing themselves getting their fourth aircraft out. Less visibility and releases do not bequeath the fall of Alphasim.

--The departure of some of our favorite artists and developers over the years from Alphasim employment do not neccesarily mean that Alphasim will fail. Probably half the big names I can think of 'round these parts used to work for Alphasim and Alphasim kept going.

--Internal conflicts and pay problems? We only think we know what's going on because maybe a few friends have told us bits and pieces. I've been privy to a chunk of Alphasim drama over the last few years, and I'm sure I don't know the half of it. The drama goes both ways from owners to employees and from employees to owners, and it's common in business.

--Piracy? I don't advocate it, participate in it or see any justification, but let's be real. Piracy's impact on the software industry CANNOT be quantified, and thus, the 'fall of Alphasim' can't be blamed on it. Blaming poor sales on piracy in a rough economy is BS. 99.99999999% of the time, a pirate was never going to buy it anyway, so no money was lost. There are also no lost manufacturing or production efforts on a single pirated piece of software if it's downloaded. The only thing that happened is some jerk has something illegally that he has no right to use. On the same token, price increases to account for piracy are BS, because there is no way to substantiatei your liquidated damages from piracy.

Unfortunately, there is a cost. That cost comes when those very same pirates show up expecting to get help because this that and the other thing don't work. That's time and time is money in this biz, like all others. Besides... it REALLY hurts to see your (my) stuff going up on pir@teb@y within two hours of it going on sale. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. There is no quantifying THAT.

Sundog
March 13th, 2010, 16:03
Unfortunately, there is a cost. That cost comes when those very same pirates show up expecting to get help because this that and the other thing don't work. That's time and time is money in this biz, like all others. Besides... it REALLY hurts to see your (my) stuff going up on pir@teb@y within two hours of it going on sale. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. There is no quantifying THAT.

We actually had stuff pirated before it went on sale. It was obvious that someone we sent a pre-release copy to for a review was responsible.

Roger
March 13th, 2010, 16:50
Loved every Alphasim release up until the utterly dreadful B-24D, and will happily consider every Alphasim release from here onwards. Judge each product on its own merits, not by the label sewn into the collar.

The Alphasim B-24 has given me a lot of pleasure since I bought it, so in what way is it utterly dreadful?

Paul K
March 14th, 2010, 03:05
The nose was far too short on the D model, Roger. I won't resurrect that controversy again, because I can almost hear the sighs and eye-rolling as I type this.

Driving past old 2nd Air Division airfields such as Shipdam, North Pickenham and Hethel as a boy generated a life-long interest in the Liberator, so suffice it to say the Alphasim D-model was a huge disappointment.

centuryseries
March 14th, 2010, 03:32
Hi Paul,

I guess thats one of the problems associated with being in love with a plane.

It's what got me building planes for FS2000 to start with - I wanted an SR-71 to look right, couldn't find one so I started building one, then another, then another, and so on :icon_lol:

To the bystander, the AS B-24 looks fine, but to the lover, anything small or large that is wrong with it makes it dreadful.

Do what I did, pick up the tools and get to work! It's the only way to ensure that you get what you want!

centuryseries
March 14th, 2010, 03:33
Shhh! David's building an................................................ .ARRRRRGH!!!!!!!

Certainly am Mickey!

Mickey D
March 14th, 2010, 03:38
Unfortunately, there is a cost. That cost comes when those very same pirates show up expecting to get help because this that and the other thing don't work. That's time and time is money in this biz, like all others. Besides... it REALLY hurts to see your (my) stuff going up on pir@teb@y within two hours of it going on sale. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. There is no quantifying THAT.

That's why I don't go looking any more. Ignorance is bliss. Neither do I assist anyone who isn't on our customer list. A simple check to do.
I still agree with Tigisfat when he says no sales are lost as the morally challenged low lives wouldn't have bought it anyway.
Look on it as an accolade and free advertising. I think I'd be upset if it wasn't on a torrent site.

Paul K
March 14th, 2010, 03:43
We're alive and well!! :wiggle:

David. (ex-AlphaSim-Quid21), AS SR-71, B-58 Hustler, B-52, Mirage IV)


You built the AS Hustler ? I loved that aircraft! Still a great purchase for any FS9 user, and I'd dearly love to see a native FSX one.

2187218821892190

centuryseries
March 14th, 2010, 04:22
Awesome shots Paul.

Funnily enough I have a single FSX native B-58 Hustler test model, Hustled up on my hard drive that will be getting some attention in the future :icon_lol:

Paul K
March 14th, 2010, 05:11
Awesome shots Paul.

Funnily enough I have a single FSX native B-58 Hustler test model, Hustled up on my hard drive that will be getting some attention in the future :icon_lol:

Well you can definitely put me down for one, if and when it appears.

centuryseries
March 14th, 2010, 05:12
Well you can definitely put me down for one, if and when it appears.

Thanks Paul. It is a favourite of mine too.

DaveQ
March 14th, 2010, 10:16
Awesome shots Paul.

Funnily enough I have a single FSX native B-58 Hustler test model, Hustled up on my hard drive that will be getting some attention in the future :icon_lol:

I'm still working on the rivets........!:wavey:

DaveQ

centuryseries
March 14th, 2010, 14:43
I wish aircraft were still made that had those elegant lines.

Good job on the detailing :mixedsmi:

I personally fell in love with Super Sue.

PRB
March 14th, 2010, 16:24
Well, I've seen a lot of comments here that seem to equate Alphasim's relatively low end cockpits and polygon counts with equally “simple” flight models. I'm not so sure that “equation” is valid. All you jet jockeys just try taking off with the AS F-105 with a full load a fuel and turning around in the pattern and landing. A “Class A mishap” will probably follow. Do the same with 50% fuel and the newspapers will have less to report the next day.... And try “throttle yanking” the B-58 and F-104 with reckless abandon and see what happens. Smoking hole, that's what! Now, what I know about flight model making could probably fit on one page, but this “conventional wisdom” around here that “Alphasim = easy & simple” is not so easily borne out, not by me anyway.

tigisfat
March 14th, 2010, 20:53
Well, I've seen a lot of comments here that seem to equate Alphasim's relatively low end cockpits and polygon counts with equally “simple” flight models. I'm not so sure that “equation” is valid. All you jet jockeys just try taking off with the AS F-105 with a full load a fuel and turning around in the pattern and landing. A “Class A mishap” will probably follow. Do the same with 50% fuel and the newspapers will have less to report the next day.... And try “throttle yanking” the B-58 and F-104 with reckless abandon and see what happens. Smoking hole, that's what! Now, what I know about flight model making could probably fit on one page, but this “conventional wisdom” around here that “Alphasim = easy & simple” is not so easily borne out, not by me anyway.

Hard doesn't equal realistic. I may not have ever been an F-104 or F-105 pilot, but I am a pilot and those two flight models were garbage. As I understand it, there was a real F-105 pilot who insisted it be that way while Shane scratched his head. F-105s would have never been produced if they did rediculous things on final in anything but mild conditions. It's too bad I love the AS F-105....

Ken Stallings
March 14th, 2010, 21:43
Well, I've seen a lot of comments here that seem to equate Alphasim's relatively low end cockpits and polygon counts with equally “simple” flight models. I'm not so sure that “equation” is valid. All you jet jockeys just try taking off with the AS F-105 with a full load a fuel and turning around in the pattern and landing. A “Class A mishap” will probably follow. Do the same with 50% fuel and the newspapers will have less to report the next day.... And try “throttle yanking” the B-58 and F-104 with reckless abandon and see what happens. Smoking hole, that's what! Now, what I know about flight model making could probably fit on one page, but this “conventional wisdom” around here that “Alphasim = easy & simple” is not so easily borne out, not by me anyway.

Well, many aircraft have a gross weight for takeoff higher than the limited weight for landing. And when you find yourself needing to land above that limit, you dump fuel. Other than that, turning with full fuel isn't an issue unless you go under the stall speed at a given weight, and stall speed increases as the bank angle increases.

I would find it strange that you cannot turn the aircraft at all at max gross takeoff weight, else it would be impossible to fly the aircraft. Since approach speed can vary with weight, provided you stay at approach speed and don't try to land above max landing weight, I don't see an automatic ticket for a Class C mishap.

I do know that the century series fighters had a constant problem with the slow spool up times of those older jet engines. And they had high wing loading. So, if you lost an engine on takeoff, it was pretty dicey given those old ejection seats couldn't really help you that much. On the other hand, I've heard many of those pilot say the planes were quite easy to land.

One pilot of the F-100 claims it was the easiest aircraft to spot land he ever flew.

So, it really depends upon the details.

Cheers,

Ken

tigisfat
March 14th, 2010, 22:14
One pilot of the F-100 claims it was the easiest aircraft to spot land he ever flew.


An old instructor of mine was an F-100 and F-105 pilot. He said that they used to plant those aircraft on so they didn't spend any time fooling around in ground effect. A few of those jets had 175KIAS approach/landing speeds, and most had primitive brakes, therefore they needed to get down. If you landed one to a full stall, I guess it could get ugly too. I think they had long legged struts with good damping to aid in the harder no-flare landings.

A cool video I just watched showed an F-100 pilot keeping the nose steady and throttling up over the chevrons to stay in ground effect, then staying about 5 feet up for 1,000 feet before chopping it and planting it on.

Shane Olguin
March 14th, 2010, 22:26
Where's this video?

tigisfat
March 14th, 2010, 22:34
hold your horses, I'll be right back with it. After not coming around here much, how do you show up right when I say your name? How in the.....

edit: here's one of them. There's a REALLY low landing that gets dropped on torwards the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95F5a2VrvjA&feature=fvsr

deathfromafar
March 14th, 2010, 23:37
Hard doesn't equal realistic. I may not have ever been an F-104 or F-105 pilot, but I am a pilot and those two flight models were garbage. As I understand it, there was a real F-105 pilot who insisted it be that way while Shane scratched his head. F-105s would have never been produced if they did rediculous things on final in anything but mild conditions. It's too bad I love the AS F-105....

Yes there was a Real F-105 Pilot involved in that, he flew 105D's in SEA/Vietnam out of Takhli RTAFB. He's a member here and there are a couple of old Thud Pilots who hang around in here. I got news for you, the stock FDE is somewhat watered down, with much of the nastier tendencies of the Thud filed to a dull edge. No offense to Shane's work intended but sometimes it is highly amusing to read such remarks about the realism of flightsim FDE's. I have a copy of a non-public FDE for the Alpha F-105 and it is far more realistic(tested exhaustively) than the stock airfile. The Thud and a few other of the aircraft of that era which sported thin steeply swept wings with high wing loading had their ugly aerodynamic idiosyncrasies like cross axis coupling/lateral divergent oscillations. The Thud had limits on AoA/banking/maneuvering (hi/low weights ) at slower speeds. Hamhanded handling in such regimes would result in a mishap and did more than a few times. These planes did do "ridiculous things" when handled in a ridiculous manner. No FBW FCS's with automatic limits or recovery built it, only the bare bones skills of a well trained Pilot made em go up and come back down in one piece. The Thud FDE isn't garbage, it's realistic enough to get some "real pilots" into trouble. The advanced FDE was already demonstrated to be too much for averaged and even some advanced flight simmers.

Regarding the Alpha Starfighter, I decided not to buy it because for one, I already bought the Captain Sim model and the Cloud9 version. I got to test the Alpha version and can say it is the easiest one of the 3 to fly. The Cloud9 being very realistic of the Zipper's nastiness. Cloud9 properly modeled the BLC system to a T and what happens if you fail to follow the manual on deployment of the BLC during approach. I wish that model would be redone for FSX but that isn't going to happen now :(

There's a few publications and videos about Century Series Fighters about. I would suggest a good study of them. Bob Hoover had some very interesting things to say about many of these planes he personally tested before he retired.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bZXPmiIBv0&feature=related

Lionheart
March 15th, 2010, 01:04
When I was testing the Epic LT, I had guys at Epic testing it also, (the makers of the real plane) and they said it was right on, especially with the Beta of the engine delayed 'kick'. They said the real one was like that because the plane was so powerful and light, it was especially 'difficult' for first time pilots, so they usually took them out onto the taxiways there at the factory and let them drive it around all day getting used to the spool up.

But..... When I released the Epic, people freaked out on that 'delayed kick'. The factory stood behind it, but man, the customers I had were freaking. I lowered the setting some, perhaps twice, and I still (now rarely) get a complaint.

But... Thats simming for you. In real life, trimming wing tanks that have a Left and Right 'only' selector (not a 'Both' means that as you burn fuel, the plane starts to want to pull in the direction of the heavy wing with most fuel in it. (one becomes lighter till you switch fuel feed to the opposite side to balance it). Again.. But... In FS, the 'pull' or roll enducement from weight is more sensitive to people in FS then in a 'real' plane. In a real plane, you simply deal with it and dont realise you are holding the yoke a bit to compensate the pull, (so Im told by 2 Mooney pilots/owners). I hate it and have made a 'both' selector now on a couple of planes.


Hard core realism will get tons of complaints, I have found. FS is more for people (on a large scale) that like to get in and fly. They dont have 3 hours to do a study on the manual. They dont have the 'knowledge' of aviation that will cause carburetors to freeze, fuel burn to pull left, delayed kick, lightness in the front tire to cause 'lite' steering on the ground when you land with low fuel and paylload in the back. People (the masses, not the experts) like a sim plane, not a real one. So I find, at least....

Now... Making a duel version, like A2A make, with their extreme realism package addons like on the Cub, I think is the way to go, as you end up teaching people 'tons' of how the real planes are. But if you sold 'only' that version to 'everyone', I think that might not work. I dont know. From what I have taken in with emails and complaints and all on my own humble fleet, thats the feeling I get from people. Make the plane extremely realistic and people will freak out (on the average).


my two cents on the subject..



Bill

MikeH
March 15th, 2010, 10:47
I have some pretty expensive add-ons in my virtual hangar but I keep on going back to Alphasim's Hunter.
The external modelling & texturing are superb - the view when looking from the cockpit down the wing and across the drop tanks is breathtaking - especially when the vortices form at the wing tips.

I have to agree in part with some of the cockpit comments though. If the cockpit in the Hunter was a little better i.e. more interactive & better detailed I doubt that you would get me flying anything else.

Have Alphasim thought about making two versions of each aircraft? One would be for the budget pocket & one would have more detailed cockpit/systems modelling - along the same lines as AccuSim. A download would upgrade the former to the latter when money allows.

Apologies if anyone in a previous post has already suggested this or similar but I'm tired and have to admit to not having read every single post on this subject.

Regards

Mike

PS Thankyou Alphasim for the Hunter.

centuryseries
March 15th, 2010, 11:19
Hard doesn't equal realistic.

Unless you are flying my SR-71 for the first time trying to get it to Mach 3 at 70,000 feet :icon_lol:

tigisfat
March 15th, 2010, 12:13
Unless you are flying my SR-71 for the first time trying to get it to Mach 3 at 70,000 feet :icon_lol:


Your SR-71 does have the capability to do wacky and possibly unrealistic things if taken outside of the normal flight regime. That being said, I haven't had any problems with it and I never thought it was unrealistic.


We talked about real pilots 'approving' of air models, but that doesn't mean much because perceptions are so different, especially if those RW pilots aren't sim pilots. They'll tell you it's right on every time.

I knew of a RW hornet pilot that flew the default one and said it was dead on. Sure, it may be convincing, but has anyone tried high speed rolls in the default hornet? Keep the roll input coming and wacky stuff happens.


If it's convincing and doesn't do stupid 'sim' stuff, like the default extra's 'flip-climbing' at low airspeeds, then it's good enough for me. For example, the IRIS and Aerosoft F-16s fly as different as night and day, and they are both good enough for me.

I just refuse to believe that real F-105s went all wacky with a slight crosswind.

guzler
March 15th, 2010, 12:19
I have some pretty expensive add-ons in my virtual hangar but I keep on going back to Alphasim's Hunter.
The external modelling & texturing are superb - the view when looking from the cockpit down the wing and across the drop tanks is breathtaking - especially when the vortices form at the wing tips.

I have to agree in part with some of the cockpit comments though. If the cockpit in the Hunter was a little better i.e. more interactive & better detailed I doubt that you would get me flying anything else.

Have Alphasim thought about making two versions of each aircraft? One would be for the budget pocket & one would have more detailed cockpit/systems modelling - along the same lines as AccuSim. A download would upgrade the former to the latter when money allows.

Apologies if anyone in a previous post has already suggested this or similar but I'm tired and have to admit to not having read every single post on this subject.

Regards

Mike

PS Thankyou Alphasim for the Hunter.

Quite agree, this gets some of the most flying hours in my FSX. I'll never get to know how real it is, but it feels mighty fine !

Sundog
March 15th, 2010, 15:23
Yeah, we've been through this with one of our planes. Many didn't like it because it was too hard to fly, but the main test pilot said it was spot on. Hell, we were going to make a Hurricane with all of the Hurricane pilots we had access to, but we decided not to, because we would want the FDE to be realistic and after talking with the Hurri pilots we decided it probably wouldn't sell because nobody would want to fly it if we modeled all of it's idiosyncrasies accurately.

However, I think many problems also come from the fact that we all have different joysticks with different configurations. I think that is one of the most difficult areas to deal with when developing FDEs. Because I know at times when we've developed FDE's, myself and some of the beta testers will have completely opposite opinions about response rates, etc. and it's largely due to different joysticks and settings.

Now back OT: Is the Jaguar out yet? ;)