Jim:I'm gonna call you on that last statement:"For all readers, please know that I am a huge fan of the add-on developers and my point is this. I know (because it is my business to know) that lower prices lead to exponential increases in sales and profits (go check the financial histories of, say Dell and Wal-Mart for examples) and that compatibility is the key."I'm assuming that you are a fellow MBA, if it is your business to know and you should know that 'economies of scale' TOTALLY negates that statement.Low prices do not necessarily lead to 'exponential increases in sales and profits', which is why $99 airfares are running the airlines out of business. Likewise it costs Cisco about $500 to build a router and they sell them for 1000% profits in many cases! In your examples above: Dell is not making billions because the are selling $300 Home PC's, they are making billions because they sell those same $300 PC's in a Corporate box with redundant power supplies for $4,000. Home PC's have a notoriously narrow profit margin (sometimes >5%) and the trick is to make your money in the corporate space. If all Dell was doing was selling home PCs they would not be the corporate darling that they are today.In the same token, Walmart has the scale to purchase in such quantities that they are able to make a profit because their supplies give them the best prices. AND most of their products are not make by skilled labor but rather garment workers and others who make notoriously low wages. Additionally, a good deal of their goods are made outside the USA where the cost of goods is even lower so when we think that we got a bargin on a nice $10 shirt, it cost $1.00 to make and $3.00 for Walmart to buy.These economies of scale work poorly in the FS market segment because there are not millions of FS users buying add-ons (unlike Dell and Walmart). If add-ons were $5.00 you would have very few 3rd party developers which is the exact reason that the average price is between $25 and $50. So that means if add-ons were $5.00 we all would be using the default aircraft because there would be very few alternatives!!!Economies of scale totally reverse our conventional way of thinking since they bring to the table their own complexities.I'd love to sit and have a beer with ya sometime! Best regards,Mike T.

Mapping incompatibilities are addressed by both FSUIPC and the GF mapping software. Both allow profiles to be set up that are user selectable (in the case of FSUIPC by linking a profile to a specific aircraft, in case of the GF mapping software by loading a different profile from disk manually).The aircraft that work without any mapping all use ONLY the default FS autopilot.This is (usually) good enough for light aircraft but for heavy metal it's deficient (like I said especially in the descent and climb phases).While lower prices may lead to higher sales, the potential market for addons is too small to make prices that would cause such an exponential increase in sales possible a feasible proposition.Your average decently selling addon may sell a few thousand copies. Some may reach 10.000 or a bit over.To reach the $5 pricepoint and still make the same profit sales would have to reach 50.000 on average for all addons. That's simply not feasible given the total size of the addon market which is not much more than that in total (so every single potential buyer would have to buy everything that is offered to them, highly unlikely). The higher prices mean not just lower sales in numbers but also lower support cost. As the number of users declines so does the demand those users place on the support infrastructure.This effect isn't seen in the market where Wallmart operates. They don't have a support infrastructure, and are not in the market of selling things that don't generate repeat sales (I may come back to the supermarket next week to buy that same soup if I liked it, I won't buy another copy of that same addon unless I loose the CD it shipped on maybe).Don't think that addon producers don't do market research to determine the potential sales volume at different price points and offset that data to development and support cost before determining how to price their products.They do (or the smart ones do, the rest just follow the average price set by the smart ones and hope), and the conclusion seems to be that $25-$40 is the price that will work best from a business perspective.See, you're not the only one who knows about marketing :)

I read this thread with great interest so I thought I would just through my 2 cents worth.The problem is more generic. It's not just GoFlight and the other commercial hardware products. For those that can't affort spending a lot of money for ready hardware, they have a choice of freeware solutions!Such solutions are the FSBUS and IOCards. Both are free, they do require basic electronics knowledge, but the result is nothing less compared to the commercial solutions available.Now, even those free hardware DYI solutions are not working properly with complex add-on aircraft like the PSS series and the PMDG 737NG series.HOWEVER, they CAN work with the newly released LevelD 767 as the LevelD team heard our cries and have released a basic SDK that allowed communication of the complex panel and custom made software.But not all the developers provide SDKs. Why? I can't say. You can ask them and each one will give you a different completely stupid (IMO) answer!!!I think this plea was for those developers to reconsider and do provide some kind of SDK so that an external program can communicate with the complex panel code.Fly Safe,George DorkofikisAthens, Greecehttp://online.vatsimindicators.net/811520/1704.pnghttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/betaimg.jpg

<>Mike, "significant" and "large" are relative terms. I gave one specific example which presumed that the GF user base was actually VERY small but where the rewards for a developer would be "significant." But again, you state that the GF user base is not large, so kindly satisfy my curiosity. What is the size of the GR user base?<As I stated, it's not a matter of developers deciding to support GF or the other way around. They each have somtimes unique and often chaning was to accomplish certain tasks outside the MS code base.And there already has been some movement along that front in the form of keymapping.But the most direct answer to your question is that such things take time to evolve. Consumer PC-based flight simulation is in its infancy.<>Right. As I thought I made clear, I was referring to traditional consumer "land line" telephones where compatibility issues were resolved long ago.<>Well, since "utopian" means a belief in the "impossibly ideal" and since standardization in tehcnology is not only NOT impossibly ideal but rather the norm...over time...then your assesment of my objective is incorrect by definition.It is interesting that there are always nay sayers as technology...and everything else in society...evolves. Do you recall when, at the dawn of the internet age, that many highly technically skilled people stated that the internet would NEVER be used by the "mainstream" population because so few would own personal computers in the first place and those that owned them wouldm't have the time or the inclination to figure out how to navigate within that ASPECT of the internet referred to as the World Wide Web?I will conclude with this. If I was running any major add-on developer I would FIND OUT what the installed base of GF and CH products (and others) is and THEN I would make a decision as to what advantages I might be able to achieve to working toward total compatibility.Conversely, if I was running a hardware vendor, I would FIND OUT what the installed base of the top dozen or so add-ons were for exactly the same reason. THEN I would decide what the economic advantages might be before deciding whether standardization was a utiopian notion or not.I appreciate your views as well.Regards,JimRegards,Jim

<>First, thanks for your contribution to this thread. I own one of your outstanding Citations and will be one of the first to buy your Cirrus when it is ready!I imagine that you wouldn't refuse such input and I further imagine that not refusing it would evolve into an active effort to create a more proactive relationship (as you and other developers have done with Reality XP, for example) depending on the installed base of GF products.Just using a wild example to prove the point, I imagine your level on interest in working cooperatively with GF would become quite aggressive if their installed base was, say, 100,000 users.Here's my point. If the installed base of a given hardware product reaches a certain critical mass, then a MARKET has been created within its user base. If "compatibility" is the key to capturing that market (which it is)then an alliance between the hardware/software providers becomes economically viable and in fact, the growth track of BOTH communities will depend upon it.The most stark example of that reality is PC vs. MAC. Without PC compatible software, PCs are paperweights and Dell wouldn't exist. Conversely, given Apple's election to maintain a proprietary operating system, it relegated itself to a tiny minority of the "personal computer" market.Remember, Apple never thought that its proprietary OS strategy would condemn it to "also ran" status and in fact, they utterly believed that their OS was superior and would therefore, "win the race." (NOTE: I don't know if MAC or Windows is the superior OS and don't care and don't want to get into that rat's nest!)But since "IBM compatible" (DOS)hardware had a much larger initial installed base, more software aps were written for that platform which caused more hardware to be sold which caused more software to be written, which caused more hardware to be sold ad infinitum. In this dramatic example, it is clear that hardware was the "dog" and software was the "tail" and the dog wagged the tail, all to Apple's grief.The bottom line...at least my bottom line... is that mouse clicking all over a video monitor to set radio freqs., altimeter settings, heading bug movement, nav idents etc. etc. etc. is a MAJOR "buzz kill" in the form of "reinstating disbelief" and I, for one, would quit the hobby were it not for hardware (and I don't care if it is GF's our anyone else's).I can set two nav and two com freqs., a txpdr code, arm my autopilot, set its altitude pre-select and course heading, for example, in about 15 seconds and do so exactly the way I do those things in real airplanes.Those who don't use hardware (if they can afford it)are missing out big time on the "as real as it gets" aspect of this hobby and longer term, my bet is that a true collaboration between the hardware and software sides of this market will result in true dominance. That was cleary true with the personal computer market as a whole and it will be true of all subsets of that market as well...over time.THANKS for your input.Regards,JimPS: I have NOTHING to do with GF, but they have a new box...the GF-46 that with a single "toggle button" transforms itself into almost any "avionic" you want it to be...i.e. poof, its a txpdr...poof it's a comm radio...poof it's a nav radio...poof it's an autopilot etc...for about $140.00.

<>Exactly. Thanks for your input.<>Right, and it seems not impossible (but I have no clue about the CURRENT economics) for developers to offer CHOICES regarding hardware compatibility just like many offer VC and NO VC versions of their aircraft.Regards,Jim

<>Mike, we went to different schools. Wal-Mart is the most dramatic example in the history of world commerce, proving that my statement is exactly correct. Sam Walton's MAIN INSTRUCTION to his colleagues was to LOWER their gross margins!! LOWER THEM Mike.Admittedly, as you should know, the leverage to sales with declining prices assumes (and I didn't think I had to mention this) that the commodity in question has a high degred of "price elasticity to demand." Most commodities are price elastic but some...like the Polio Vaccine for example, was destined to achieve X sales regardless of price.But lower the price of most commodities and you will FOR SURE sell a LOT more product. Of course, the issue is can you get your COSTS low enough to make a profit and that is a company-specific issue. Do you think that Wal-Mart became larger than its top 4-5 competitors COMBINED because they charge higher prices?<>Mike, you have that exactly backwards. What drove most of the majors into bankruptcy is that their prices WERE TOO HIGH! Southwest is, in fact, one of the few majors NOT in bankruptcy or nearly so specifically because their prices, on balance, were LOWER...for YEARS.Of course, they figured out how to charge lower prices and still earn a profit with their short hops, fast turnarounds etc. I didn't mean to imply that high sales, in and of themselves yield profits...and again, I didn't feel the need to re-state the obvious.<>No they don't. "The same PC's". Not a chance Mike. Do you think that corporate IT professionals are that stupid? They're not!<>So? What do you think the operating margins are in, say, the supermarket industry? At Kroger, for example, that figure is less than 3%. But they experience high volume and high inventory TURNOVER which proves my point....LOWER prices yield HIGHER sales...all other things being equal....PERIOD (except in fairly rare cases as cited above).<>EXACTLY Mike.<>That is no different than is the case with any other major retailer but the last part of your statement is demonstrably incorrect.In fact, Wal-Mart's average GROSS MARGIN is less than 23%. Look it up.<>You are missing the point entirely... or, more properly, you have it backwards. If, in fact, all the top add-ons were priced at $5.00 then there wouldn't be any default aircraft...or at least no one would use them. Why do you think that so many FS users fly the defaults? Because they are BETTER or because they cost so little? (no, they are NOT "free". Their existence is priced into the selling price of the sim).At SOME price (I don't know if it's $5.00 or $2.00 or whatever) but as SOME price, the Flight 1 C172 would entirely supplant the default Skyhawk.I don't know how many active FS users exist but just say, for example, that the user base is 1 million. Now ask Flight 1 if they would be willing to offer downloads of that add-on for $2.00 if they knew they would get half the market to buy the product.The answer would not be "Yes"...it would be HECK YES!<>Roger that! I live in Nashville and my e-mail address is [email protected],Jim

<>Of course they have a support infrastructure and a HUGE one at that. They have customer service counters in-store, friendly employees walking the floors...often 24/7 and a massive corporate staff that supports not only their customers, but their suppliers as well.<>Sure they do...and so do the add-on vendors...in the form of "upgrades" or new generation versions that often have an extra cost associated with them.:)>>Certainly not.Regards,Jim

Hello George.<>YES..and a trip of a thousand miles starts with a single step doesn't it? (:<>Actually, I think it is a two way street wherein the hardware and software communities will begin to work more closely together in pursuit of standardization.However, Microsoft is the huge variable in the equation because the add-on developers must either/both conform to Microsoft code structures or work around them. To the extent that future versions of FS are made more functional, the need for workarounds would decline and "standardization" would become less of an issue.In reality, I suspect that over time, FS will become more functional and the add-on developers and hardward vendors will adopt more standard workaround solutions.The WINNERS, of course, will be us, the users, who someday my be able to dispense with our mice altogether!That goal, "utopian" or not, is why I have taken the time to raise these issues.THANKS for your views.Regards,Jim

I remember (I think) the good old days before USB's plug and play! The problem is when you get to my age with DIY solutions ie: simkits, flightdeck solutions and PFC etc. it bcomes more of DYI (Do yourself an injury))Ian:+

All points well made and if the assumptions are factual, would on the surface at least, seem very worthwhile.We simply stated that our limited R&D schedule is already overworked and understaffed and really haven't the time to track down hardware vendors who may or may not be interested in working with us.We do find it interestiing that our affiliate page includes other hardware builders because they contacted us. On the other side of the coin we have NEVER been contacted by the builders of Go Flight Hardware so must assume they aren't interested in working with us.:-)

Hello All,I have to agree with Mike and the majority. Go flight in making its hardware and software should make it user friendly for MSFS, in doing that, it works with FS9 and with any add on aircraft that is developed for FS9.For a hardware company to develope a item of hardware which will only workwith certain aircraft in MSFS is not too awful bright, in my humble opinion.best to all . . . even you too, Mike, Clayhttp://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...ers/Dopke01.jpgClayton T. Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"

I agree that is GoFlight who needs to go out of their way to make sure what they sell will be compatible with the addon planes...it is the ONLY reason i have not purchased from them...afterall i have no intention of spending something like $1,000 on their product only to find out im stuck using it with only the defualt MS aircraft which are terrible examples of simulated aircraft for most serious users......and lets face it is it ONLY the serious user, the same ones who buys from all the payware plane developers and uses only 3rd party addon aircarft who would consider spending GoFlight type bucks in the first place...so something doesnt make much sense (to ME anyway, and thats why ive stayed away from GF products)...and ill continue to avoid them at least until their products will function 100% with the type of planes that their target market uses nowdays.Dave Kalin

Without doubt there are SOME exceptions, but in general: the combination of GoFlight units, the registered version of FSUIPC, and a helpful program called Key2Mouse, will enable you to map just about anything to just about anywhere as far as the GF units are concerned. Have fun!Jaap Verduijn.

Hi Ian,<>Financially possibly. While I can't speak for the others you mentioned, I've had a PFC rig for quite a while (yoke, hydraulic rudders and twin power quad with gear and flap switches) and it has worked flawlessly.Regards,Jim