Continuing the Conversation. . . .

[falcon409]

The thread for the Interview with Scott from A2A seemed to be moving in another direction and so I thought I'd start a new thread to continue the "other direction", lol. . . .before the original theme was completely lost!

"JimmyRFR" mentioned something I thought was worth pursuing. . .his statement was; "I guess I'm less disappointed by the fact that we'll see less and less exotic aircraft from A2A, because you know the ones that we will see will be very refined. I'm more puzzled by developers that don't hold themselves to the same high-fidelity standards continuing to push out run of the mill aircraft, when they are the ones that could easily be doing the really exotic stuff."

Not sure if there is a specific developer he was eluding to, or just payware developers in general. I think most can agree that what was payware 3 years ago would pass for decent freeware today. Expectations have soared where payware is concerned and the prices have soared as well. Intricate details abound in most payware products now, almost everything that would be moveable in an airplane is animated now, developers continue to search for ways around coding restrictions and push the bounds in modeling, all in an effort to please the most discriminating customers. Everyone has become a beta tester, whether they are on the team or not. If a developer posts WIP shots. . .they will get all the critiques they ever wanted, lol. In the end, those developers will produce the highly detailed aircraft, the ones with every rivet and every screw in place, every castle nut showing at least 2 threads and cotter pin inserted correctly and every safety wiring job with just the right number of twists and pig-tailed end. Every system functions correctly and flight dynamics tested by a certified RW test pilot. Customers will gladly pay for the precision and attention to detail.

On the other hand I tend to be perfectly happy flying the other kind of airplane. . .the Aircraft Factory style airplanes that have really nice detail, nice bump mapping, good sound sets and fly straight and level unless I change that with stick inputs, lol. I've flown four airplanes in my life and three of those for no more than 30 minutes. . .a Cessna 150 (flight training in that one), an F-100, F-16 and a Focke Wulf P 149D. Aside from the 150 I didn't care at all how any of the systems worked, I didn't care to know what would happen if I did this, or didn't do that. . .I was enjoying the moment. . .I was the one flying that airplane, something very few "civilians" would ever be able to say they did. I take the very same approach with flight simming and that probably makes many of you cringe. I simply want to fly, enjoy the scenery I design, the regions I fly over and the ability to soar with the birds and for that reason. . .there is still a place for developers who develop basic aircraft. I hesitate to call them "run of the mill", but maybe, based on the immense detail built into many that are being produced these days. . .run of the mill is appropriate and I think they also fill a niche for many of us.

[Bjoern]

I like that attitude. It's a good attitude.

Screw the check list humpers, button lickers, rivet counters and spark plug foulers. If it's as good as the default stuff, it's good to go.

[falcon409]

I like that attitude. It's a good attitude.
Screw the check list humpers, button lickers, rivet counters and spark plug foulers. If it's as good as the default stuff, it's good to go.

Bjoern, if there was a "like" button on here somewhere. . .I'd give you a like, lol. I agree!

[Wizard]

I agree! I really don't care how precise a plane looks or how pretty it is - what I care about is - does it fly correctly. I have found that every payware plane I bought with a check list is a royal pain.... engines running without power or fuel, or cockpit lights that don't turn on when I switch on the battery. And god forbid if you do something out of order in the checklist.

I would like the realism, but they don't simulate chip lights, so what's the point?

I make my ship platforms with so few polys it's almost funny, but I don't care - as long as the platform resembles what it looks like. If you get close enough to start counting rivets, you're too close. By and large freeware works for me, as long as I can tweak the .air and aircraft.cfg file to make it more realistic I'm happy.

Keep flyin'

[CodyValkyrie]

"Being good is not enough when you dream of being great"

[DaveB]

I'm with you 100% there Ed. Much of what is thrown into models these days (fully detailed cabins.. hot'n'cold running water e t c) doesn't bother me at all. I like to know that what I'm flying is a good representation of what it's supposed to be.. it looks as it should, it sounds as it should and it flies like it should and that's about it. Throwing switches for cold'n'dark starts.. err, no. While I've no objection to folk wanting all this and more, it doesn't really interest me.

Back in the dark days of FS9 (and before where the excellent 2D panels ruled).. I used to fly 'by the book'. I have 3500hrs VA flying and the vast majority of that was done from inside.. in FS9.. with 2D panels where you could see most of what you needed in one eye movement. FSX killed that making it necessary to have such exotic addons as TrackIR.. that or fumble around using the POV hat and to this day, I STILL move the hat switch the wrong way a lot of the time. A trade off of this meant that I spent less time 'inside' and more time 'outside' admiring the superior mapping on FSX models and superior (after 3rd party scenery had been added) scenery and weather.

So.. with A2A 'seemingly' moving head first into Accu-sim fitted GA 'for their professional customers'.. this is fine but not for me. I already have a shed load of nice Carenado GA.. bought at some cost and never used so the chances of me buying more are zero. Forced by FSX into a different way of virtual flying.. this level of authenticity is, to me, as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.. less in fact.

You mentioned customers expectations going up and prices going up accordingly.. it's a vicious circle I'm sure but those two elements are reversed.. I think. As prices have risen, customers expectations have also risen and what was an acceptable release 'faux pas' years ago is no longer tolerated by Joe Public and rightly so. Oh how I wish Alphasim would return. We dripped and moaned, sure but we knew what we were going to get at a price that didn't break the bank. That takes me a little OT in that Virtavia are still selling stuff that should have been freeware years ago. I picked up the Javelin after reading JY had released an AI pack and to be honest.. JY's AI model is superior. That aint right but that's another story For A2A.. as long as they keep AF going (as Carenado do with Alabeo).. I guess the world aint all bad.. as long that is as AF don't start kicking out cheap Cessna's!

ATB
DaveB

[glh]

"Being good is not enough when you dream of being great"

"Dif'rnt strokes for dif'rnt folks!"

[JimmyRFR]

Not sure if what I said was interpreted correctly - it seems to have been understood that I have no use for the developers that produce planes based on the default FSX functionality.

That couldn't be farther from the truth.

Although I could see how it could be read in a negative way, the fact that some developers (and of course I almost solely mean Carenado/Alabeo, although others fit the role as well) don't try to reproduce high-fidelity details is not in any way a bad thing.

Indeed, planes based on the default FSX functionality, the ones where I can hop in if I have 30 minutes, hit CTRL+E, use the same mappings from within FSUIPC for all functions, they have an extremely important place in my simulator. I don't always have the time nor energy to mess with little details, sometimes I just want to fly. Some of Carenado's older releases, namely the F33 and the C-185, are amongst my favorite planes, and are definitely go-to items, even with all the other fancy stuff I might own.

The negative aspect only comes when these developers, who I see as 'freed' from some of the constraints of trying to get every little detail right, don't bother with some of the more rare and exotic types, and keep putting out more of what has already been released (run of the mill). For example, the early releases from Alabeo were really, really neat. They covered a wide variety of aviation, all with basic, get in and fly functionality. However, lately it seems they've been pushing away from that to produce more generic GA.

I'm much more excited by stuff that isn't as common, and I feel it's easier for the developers that don't hold themselves to perfectly realistic features to deliver in that area.

[Alan_A]

Interesting topic and a good discussion to be having. Clearly we all have our preferences, but we also have realities we have to deal with, and for me, that means that sometimes my aspirations for realism clash with my limited schedule. Several times I've bought airliner study sims but I've broken down trying to learn them. I simply don't have big enough blocks of time in the day to do them justice. For similar reasons, digital cameras saved my photography because I don't have three-hour blocks to work in the darkroom, but on a computer, I can work productively for little 15-minute bursts and over the course of several of them I can get something done.

On the other hand, there's a polish that comes with some of the in-depth offerings that I like, even if I don't use all the depth. The flight modeling is often better, the sounds and atmosphere are better, and it's nice to have at least a few consequences as a result of running the machine.

So I guess that makes me a middle-of-the-road type. Manfred's C-47 is in many ways the perfect aircraft for me - great modeling and flight model, terrific sounds, and some detail and discipline in operations, without their becoming overwhelming. Similarly, I've come to like the A2A warbirds because they're richly atmospheric (I love the way A2A uses sounds to fill in what's missing because of the lack of physical sensations) and the operation takes some thought, but on the other hand they're pretty robust and you can get them into the air quickly (in some cases you have no choice but to do that - Spitfire, anyone?)

I've bought the A2A GA offerings and will continue to, though I'm not sure how much use I'll get out of them. Two reasons - one, I sometimes find that the walk-around is the one thing too many, it becomes a barrier to my starting up the sim in the first place. The second reason is probably related - I no longer aspire to own and operate an airplane. I once did, but life hasn't taken me in that direction, and now, that factor, coupled with ease of use, means that I'll often choose to invest my time into some other kind of flightsim experience. I understand completely the value of the walk-arounds and enjoy doing them when I'm in the mood. This is all very much a personal matter.

Life being what it is, I also like to fall back on aircraft that are even easier to get up and running, but even in those cases I'm looking for atmosphere and character rather than something more generic. Examples - Ant's Tecnams and his T-28's. I'll jump into those when I want a faster or less demanding launch.

Other examples - in airliners, Aerosoft's latest Airbuses are a perfect balance. So is their Twin Otter Extended. Real Air also gets a nod - actually much more than a nod, what they do is superb, but the fact that they do only some, not every last aspect of system simulation adds to the appeal, though the amazing flight modeling and gauge-craft is really the clincher.

Final note for this round - I've learned through experience that just because I like an aircraft type doesn't mean I'm going to like the simulation of it. The sim version has to be good. The converse is also true - if the sim version is good, I may wind up enjoying an aircraft type I hadn't thought about that much. I never flew much multi-engine 'til A2A's B-17, and I shied away from their Accu-sim fighters at first because I found high-performance aircraft too stressful for late-night flying. But more recently, as noted, I've found my way into them. So I'm willing to follow A2A and others into some (for me) unusual avenues.

Really short version - I like stuff that's good. My definition of what's good varies from time to time... and probably from yours, too.

Hope this helps... or at least sparks some more conversation.

[pilottj]

So what if A2A has chosen to do highly detailed GAs for the training market, if you were running a business like A2A, wouldn't you tap into that market too? I don't see what the shock is nor do I see any harm to our hobby if one developer chooses to shift it's focus. Its not like A2A has completely given up warbirds either, they got the T-6, T-33, and other 'secret' projects in the works. A2A is also not the only virtual warbird producer. Warbirdsims, Milviz, VRS, Razbam, FR, CH, Aerosoft...etc have all produced, and continue to produce great warbirds for this community.

There are developers who produce easy to fly, simple beautiful looking planes. There are developers who produce extremely detailed checkride level planes. There are developers who produce planes that are have a nice balance between those two extremes. We have developers who produce fantastic freeware planes. We have choice, which is a very great thing, considering all our different tastes in this hobby. If super detailed systems isn't your thing, thats great, there are plenty of other developers producing addons to suit your tastes. That is the beauty of this hobby, there is something for everyone. Judging by the sales of super detailed addons, they obviously do very well, and those developers will likely continue to strive for more detail.

As far as A2A's commitment to 'as real as it gets', I hope they continue to push the envelope. Scott had a great answer when asked about the Skylane's oxygen system, considering it has the power to reach the very high MEAs in the western US/Canada. Oxygen wouldn't be modeled right away, at least not until Scott can buy a real Oxy system for his Comanche and test it for himself. lol, if that isn't dedication to 'realism' , I don't know what is.

For those of us who are certified pilots, but can't afford to fly now, these uber detailed GAs are a godsend, they help us keep sharp on aircraft systems/operation, so when that time comes when we have the money to fly again, we will be ready for the written/oral checks and make it that much easier to become current again.

Cheers
TJ

[Alan_A]

So what if A2A has chosen to do highly detailed GAs for the training market, if you were running a business like A2A, wouldn't you tap into that market too?

Agree completely. From a business standpoint it'd be insane to do anything else. Think of the scale - instead of unit sales and one-off support, you sell X number of licences at a time (20? 50? 200? depends on the size of the client), and your support is delivered to a professional IT unit handling a standardized set of installations. It's wholesale instead of retail. Whether it's popular in the hobby or not, this is the future of flightsimming - the professional market generates volume, and we get the dividend.

Am not sure if my post above was clear enough, so just to reiterate - I think A2A's move into GA is a great thing, and features like the walk-arounds are exactly the right offering for the professional market, individual pilots (whether active or grounded by circumstances), aspiring pilots, and hobbyists who like that aspect of aviation. If I choose to focus on their P-51, it's because as a recreational user, I'd rather get airborne fast and operate rules-free, instead of trying to work out the procedures for operating into and out of the DC SFRA. Once I did (well, that was in the days before there was a DC SFRA, but you know what I mean). And maybe, once I'm equipped withe Skylane and a GTN 750, I'll get engaged with that again.

So yes, it's nice to have different "grades" of product available, and it's nice to be able to choose what's right for a particular mission, or night away from the TV set, or however you choose to conceive it.

[Daube]

I agree! I really don't care how precise a plane looks or how pretty it is - what I care about is - does it fly correctly.

I strongly disagree with this statement.
We not flying FS9 anymore. I want my payware plane to:
- look like the real plane as much as possible
- fly like the real plane as much as possible
- and especially, I want it to WORK like the real plane.

So far, A2A is the only payware editor which is "close enough" from these three criteria, thanks to their Accusim module. And even their very first Accusim plane is very far away from the best freeware plane ever made.

I'm not interested in the planes that are made to start with CTRL+E, or the planes that look like the Alphasim planes from the FS9 era. I don't want to spend a single penny in these. These kind of planes are not the reason I use my sim.

I agree with a part of Jimmy's statement quoted by Falcon in this topic. Editors should/could have continued with "exotic" planes. Alabeo, when it appears, sounded like "Let Carenado do the boring planes, we'll do the rest". Now they make Cessnas... A2A started with excellent warbirds, now they do Cessnas as well. I'm ok with Cessnas. You want to build a Cessna for the GA fans ? Why not the C-195 ? Want to do more GA planes because the C172 was very successful ? Why not the Spartan, or the Beaver, or the Staggerwing, or any of these beautiful planes that the users keep posting screenshots/pictures about ?
Who posted a C172 saying: whoa, look at this beauty, so impressive, much legend....

[falcon409]

. . . . . . . . A2A started with excellent warbirds, now they do Cessnas as well. I'm ok with Cessnas. You want to build a Cessna for the GA fans? Why not the C-195? Want to do more GA planes because the C172 was very successful? Why not the Spartan, or the Beaver, or the Staggerwing, or any of these beautiful planes that the users keep posting screenshots/pictures about?
Who posted a C-172 saying: whoa, look at this beauty, so impressive, much legend. . . .

Very true and exactly why I mention that A2A builds planes now that are geared towards the training market. . .precisely why they don't do aircraft like you mention, those are not mainstream GA aircraft. They may eventually go back to those aircraft types but they are doing aircraft that are readily available and that fit the market where the money is. They obviously have a following for these airplanes within the sim world, but the student pilots and flight schools are a bigger market and that market calls for the more traditional Cessna's and Piper's. . .not the Spartan, Beaver or Staggerwing.

Just to be clear here, I am not berating A2A for the direction they have taken. Nothing in anything I've stated here or in the A2A Interview thread can be interpreted that way, so lighten up. I am one person with an opinion. . .at the stage I'm in with Flight Sim after 16+ years I find the high wing Cessna's to be over done, much like the Mustangs. . .but honestly. . .who cares? Just because I state an opinion doesn't mean that the entire face of the Flight Sim world is suddenly going to change. A2A makes beautiful airplanes, Scott and the crew at A2A are highly skilled and very accessible whenever questions or problems arise. . .all excellent qualities. They're great folks. Back to the discussion.

[ksheadley]

I must say that I do agree with the simpler side of flight sim....sometimes all I want to do is fly, not preflight, checklist, etc. I have plenty that will do just that. I also appreciate the GA side of A2A in that proficiency stays higher for me personally. Depends on my mood, do I want to jump in the super cub and do some low and slow or do I want do it by the book? I would like to see Alabeo go back to some more refreshing offerings and other developers as well. Some freeware is better than payware quality, and some payware doesn't really meet freeware standards. I guess it boils down for me to preference, and how much time the wife will let me stay on the computer before fussing

[Firekitten]

Exotic is nice... rare is nice.


Sadly business isn't.

End of the day, exotic aircraft A, may sell 20 copies

Common aircraft C, with awesome new feature will sell 2000 copies.

One of them puts food on the developer's table... and FSX development is not a goldmine...no matter what some might think.


I totally agree that A2A Had an awesome thing... classic, rare, wonderful recreations were spectacular, but they also need to put food on the table to LET them create these awesome ships... a few cessnas, pipers, and others, will serve commercial clients and allow them to pursue the aircraft THEY want to make... which are probably what you want them to make too.

[DaveB]

.. and allow them to pursue the aircraft THEY want to make... which are probably what you want them to make too.

One would certainly hope so or the whole exercise would be pointless. Anyone with a modicum of common sense upstairs understands the requirement for a business to be profitable so I think that can be put to bed.

Looking at their portfolio since the days of Shockwave, model-wise.. I think it's shrunk and importantly, much of what is available now are new versions of their older models. While there are many of you who 'need' the latest and greatest version, there are a great many who remain happy with their previous latest and greatest. WWII Fighters came with all but one model (as far as I remember) that wasn't able to be patched to FSX.. the Zero.. leaving the Spit, P51, Me109 and whatever else it contained working just fine and dandy. So what do A2A do.. they make another Spitfire, another Mustang, another Me109 et-al under the WOP3 banner lobbing it out to the general public at $29.99 a shot. If you want Accusim, it can be bundled at time of purchase for a further $19.99 ($44.98 in total) or if you want Accusim later.. bang another $24.99 onto your $29.99 bringing your new model up to the best it can be for a mere $54.98. Many of us simply can't justify lobbing $29.99, $44.98 or dare I say it.. $54.98 at a new version because we also need to put food on the table.

Perhaps A2A may have been more successful in taking my money off me by producing new types and not simply new versions of existing models. I still use my perfectly acceptable FSX patched WWII Fighters and WOP2 B17.. the only 'new' model I have is the WOP3 P47 and ALL (note) Aircraft Factory releases. Add Accu-Feel to these and Bob's your proverbial uncle In the end.. it IS possible to have too much of a good thing

ATB
DaveB

[Bjoern]

I make my ship platforms with so few polys it's almost funny, but I don't care - as long as the platform resembles what it looks like. If you get close enough to start counting rivets, you're too close.

Ah, the developer's mantra.

So much to do, so little time to make it all unnecessarily detailed.

"Being good is not enough when you dream of being great"

"If you can't be good, be colourful."

[pilottj]

One thing to remember too, the CEO of A2A is a pilot himself, so he may also look at projects from the perspective of doing planes that he can actually fly himself (via pilot certificates/endoresments/ratings held, and can afford flight costs for XYZ airplane). This same discussion goes on at Avsim about PMDG's path. PMDG makes what it's CEO is rated to fly. As much as I would love to see a PMDG AN-124 or something, I don't think Mr Randazzo's team would be able to produce an exotic plane like that with the same level of depth we have come to expect from them.

Another thing, A2A is making us think like pilots/aircraft owners with this GA fleet. We had a choice between highwing or low wing entry level planes...or both. Eventually we will have a choice between bush flying with this 182 and whatever the next GA project is...probably high performance retractable ala V35/Comanche. It's like we are moving progressively from the simple training/first owner plane, and will soon be able to decide what direction we go. Some owners would prefer to go camping with their plane, some would prefer speed....that's great, those are decisions that real aircraft owners have to make.

Maybe don't see the 182 as 'another Cessna', but think like an airplane owner looking to move up in the world. Are you an outdoors backwoods type of pilot or are you more of a A-B speed pilot...or maybe you want to experience both. I mean the 182 is a great airplane in real life, there is a reason it is one of the most popular GAs ever made, probably Cessna's best all round design. It hauls a good load, out of short strips, with reasonable speed and economy, yet small enough for sight seeing and affordable and easy enough for the average GA pilot to operate and fly. If you are a A-B speed guy, just wait a little while for the next project lol.

Cheers
TJ

[Alan_A]

So, punchline, after all that rigamarole I wrote up above, here I am, all set up with the 182 and the GTN 750, running my first test flights, doing the walkarounds and mapping out the gates to the DC SFRA.

Damn you, A2A and my complete lack of sales resistance, damn you both!

She's a beauty, by the way, nice and solid and totally different from the 172, which is totally different from the Cherokee.

Will be doing some cross-countries this week.

Maybe outbound in the 182, and back home in the P-51?

Or the B-17?

Or Manfred's C-47?

Grrr....

[Snurdley]

I don't begrudge anyone doing more in-depth aircraft, what does irritate me is the attitude of some of the "real" sim pilots who seem to think that if you aren't using the sim as they are, you aren't "serious" about FS. Nothing could be further from the truth. I simply don't have time or desire for systems and being more visually inclined, am always pursuing the most realistic looking sim. So my money goes for well-modeled aircraft with good texturing inside and out. I do have A2A's Corsair and love it, but doubt I will ever purchase the Cessna.

[mmann]

Talking about different strokes; the only addon aircraft I have on my system right now is the Finney Ground CrossHairs Plus which spends 99.9% of the time in slew mode. I wouldn't say that it "flies" realistically, but it most certainly is appropriate for scenery development.

[jmbiii]

Talking about different strokes; the only addon aircraft I have on my system right now is the Finney Ground CrossHairs Plus which spends 99.9% of the time in slew mode. I wouldn't say that it "flies" realistically, but it most certainly is appropriate for scenery development.

I loved that one in FS9, but haven't been able to get it to work in FSX. Is there a way ?

[TuFun]

I loved that one in FS9, but haven't been able to get it to work in FSX. Is there a way ?

I don't know if this has been repackage with a fix, but may want to check this out.

http://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/thr...-2#post-150485

[Stickshaker]

I prefer, and want to pay for, planes that are as realistic as possible in all aspects. True, I hardly ever use all bells and whistles, but I take comfort in knowing that they are there if I want to use them. Sometimes I read something about a plane in an aviation book and I want to try that particular feature out. Very gratifying. And one aspect if paramount for me: flight modeling. Id a plane does not fly correctly (as far as I am able to judge) I do not care how nice it looks or how realistic the systems are. Fortunately, as was mentioned above, ‘realistic’ planes are often good in many aspects: visually, FM, systems (some of the MilViz planes come to mind). So I would always prefer a ‘hardcore’ plane over a mid-range one, assuming that chances are that whatever I want from the plane, quality will be good.<o></o>
That being said: I have to admit that if a plane cannot be started up by ctl-e, that is a barrier to flying it, unless I like the plane so much that I want to learn how to operate it and fly it frequently enough to remember how to. The main plane that qualifies for me in that respect is the A2A P-51D.<o></o>

[huub vink]

Don't we all look for the things we like in this hobby and isn't our taste different as there is a difference in how much value we give to things?

Personally I don't feel the urge to convince people that the way I handle this hobby is the correct way.

What A2A does or other designers isn't really my business. I regret the way A2A went from affordable (vintage) military models to expensive GA models. But I think that is logical when you are a regular visitor of a site which has "Combat Flight Centre" in its name. Next to "not my taste" and too expensive their current ask far too much time for me to learn to fly them in a comfortable way.
Its a pity A2A told us they would do a FW190 Dora, F-4 Phantom and a Starfighter and never kept this promise. It doesn't really matter, as I have a great Dora and would most probable never have bought the jets. Its also a pity they never updated Bf109 Emil, other they said they considered to do so. It would have been a "definite must have" for me. But as said by several others, its their business and my for me its a hobby. I'm convinced there is more money in the GA part of this hobby than in the "Combat Flight" part of this hobby.

For me flightsimming is purely a hobby and don't regard it as a religion.

Cheers,
Huub