FSX-MS FS Labs A320 FSX release set for 18 Aug

[Alan_A 1,650]

I think this feeds into the flight simmers fantasy that if they were every on a flight and somebody had to fly the plane due to crew incapacitation (and the door somehow opened) that you the flight sim hero would know exactly what to do. 

 

Either that, or - and this makes more sense to me - there are people who want to dig into every last thing the airplane can do.  That's not me.  I get more than enough friction in real life - I'd rather have my flight simming go smoothly.

[pete_auau 1,161]

I assume that there are A LOT of potential customers which will not buy the FSLabs at this price point (because they already own the other Bus and are not willing to pay $100+ just to get more complex systems). This is lost revenue for them. I'm very confident that they would sell more than twice the copies at half the price. By the way

 

maybe than you have to look at  how  the ngx  went  compared  to the other  737  on the market  that was released before the ngx

[cimgrp501 30]

Someone should have told them...

You seem to know so much more than the developers, including how many copies they would sell at half the price, so you know both their internal cost structure and market dynamics better than they do?  Amazing indeed!  At half the price, if indeed they sold twice the copies, that would likely just mean losing a lot of money rather than a modest margin at current pricing.

 

No one understood marketing strategy better than Steve Jobs, who once had about 60% of the mobile market revenue with less than 20% share.  He understood that the more narrowly you define your niche and value proposition, the better you understand your consumer and deliver on their unique expectations.  You also, over time, move more of the larger market to understand and pay premium for your uncomprimised unique value proposition.

 

Why you would assume that twice as many would buy at half the price, when they do not value what is unique about this product, and it's complications would just get in the way of their "turn the key and fly" expectations, is beyond me.  And as you point out, the market already has good options for lower systems and value expectations.  The developers are obviously smart enough to understand clearly their brand value, target market, and I have no doubt will do well rather than lose money and market value with pricing that says to their primary target looking for systems fidelity...sorry, not for you.  That is the true lost opportunity cost and unintended consequence for them, and they are obviously smart enough to avoid it.

[DavidP 1,412]

It's just simply some simmers wanting the fruits of someone's labour at bargain basement prices. As simmers, we are constantly wanting more and more realism, but many don't want to pay for it.

[jkeye 152]

I have the money but I'll not pay to be an early adopter/beta tester unless this is sold through flight one and has a refund clause attached.

Jay

[Boeing or not going 578]

Developing airplanes is a long process today. Even more when they are simulating all the systems. Prices are worth it, a night out for dinner and drinks can be 100 dollars. This airplane will give you years of entertainment. I fly the PMDG NGX and 777X and have since the day each was released. I am not familiar with Airbus systems, and will wait for a P3D version so I will not see out of memory problems, but if I was an Airbus fan I'd jump all over this. I'm saving up for the PMDG 747v3 for P3D that will get me to upgrade my FSX installation to P3D, or at least FSX Steam with better memory management.

[ErnieAlston 33]

As simmers, we are constantly wanting more and more realism.

 

And there's the rub.

 

People want more realism, for developers to provide more realism it takes more development time.  If project takes more development time, they need a to get a good return on their investment for the larger risk.

[Manny 1,293]

I saw this on their product page....Red flag all over.

 

"Be aware that running the simulator at screen resolutions higher than 1920×1080 will cause significantly increased VAS memory requirements and it is NOT recommended."

 

Hmmm..... Red flag!

 

Early adopters with three screen Surround, please report back...

[Boeing or not going 578]

I saw this on their product page....Red flag all over.

 

"Be aware that running the simulator at screen resolutions higher than 1920×1080 will cause significantly increased VAS memory requirements and it is NOT recommended."

 

Hmmm..... Red flag!

 

Early adopters with three screen Surround, please report back...

And they recommend not running FSX in full screen mode...

[Alan_A 1,650]

I saw this on their product page....Red flag all over.

 

"Be aware that running the simulator at screen resolutions higher than 1920×1080 will cause significantly increased VAS memory requirements and it is NOT recommended."

 

Hmmm..... Red flag!

 

Early adopters with three screen Surround, please report back...

Well, that's concerning.  Markus Burkhard, who's part of the beta test team, posted in this thread that 3440 x 1440 should be OK with reasonable settings.  But since I'm running that resolution on a Dell U3415W, I'm suddenly wondering if it might be best to let others rush ahead and be guinea pigs on this one.  I've raised the question in the linked thread - let's see what FSL comes back with. 

[airlinejets 709]

first video from a user, I guess a beta tester...

[speedyTC 195]

We finally hit the triple digit point in FSX add-ons. We all knew we were headed in that direction. FSLabs just happened to be the first to actually "pop that cherry".

These projects are a labour of love and maybe even with a bit of friendly inter-developer rivalry thrown in for good measure ("I'm as good as or even better than you!"). I honestly do not believe that developers expect to get rich or even earn a living off the add-ons they develop for a very small, very narrow-focused market such as high fidelity flight simulation products. The price simply reflects what they think their hours/days/months/years of work are worth. It's their valuation. Why are we questioning that?

We have a choice. Buy or don't buy. Arguing about the merits or demerits of a particular price point is an exercise in futility.

 

For those of us who cannot afford the $100.00 asking price right now it is a simple matter of saving up (perhaps one less store-bought cappuccino a day?). No dramas.

 

I will not be one of the early adopters but this aircraft definitely has a place in my virtual hangar. Aerosoft's A320 whetted my appetite. The FSLabs version will be my full course meal (with dessert).

 

Cheers!

[Manny 1,293]

let's see what FSL comes back with. 

 

I have 3 X 24" with higher resolution.resolution 6000 x 1200.. I have even tested my setup with 4 X 24" monitors.. Ha Ha!

 

My setup can take PMDG 777..so not sure why this would be different for this FSLabs A320. Why would anyone fly this aircraft with a tiny window? I don't intend to load all those 2 D Panels.. pure VC only.

 

Now, I have a reason to ###### and moan about this aircraft!     :mad: 

[Alan_A 1,650]

I have 3 X 24" with higher resolution.resolution 6000 x 1200.. I have even tested my setup with 4 X 24" monitors.. Ha Ha!

 

My setup can take PMDG 777..so not sure why this would be different for this FSLabs A320. Why would anyone fly this aircraft with a tiny window? I don't intend to load all those 2 D Panels.. pure VC only.

 

Now, I have a reason to ###### and moan about this aircraft!     :mad:

 

IIRC, there was a similar issue earlier this year when they updated their Concorde.  Was interested but had to pass, since in that case, I was given to understand that it absolutely wouldn't run on anything higher than 1920 x 1080.  On this one, they're sounding a little more equivocal, in the forums at least.  But that statement about system requirements seems pretty stark.  I hope they'll clarify between now and tomorrow, otherwise, given the price and the fact that it's not refundable, I'll hang back.

 

As to why - I'd love to hear their explanation.  Obviously it's a very demanding airplane to simulate, and for that reason it's likely to be a big resource consumer.  But the screen resolution requirement seems to disqualify a lot of real-world systems.  I guess, worst case, I can scratch my heavy iron itch with the PMDG 747... or just stick to the A2A Constellation, which is more where my heart is, anyway.  Too bad, though, if so... I do like Airbuses and it would have been nice to try one that's so deeply modeled.

[Manny 1,293]

 Obviously it's a very demanding airplane

 

On a tiny teeny window? doesn't make sense... Alright. My excitement over this is almost over! 

 

It doesn't make sense though..cause in VC, all that drawing needs to be done anyway...weather you are looking through a small window or a large window as far as the VAS is concerned., 

 

The program is not going to go..oh yeah,,he has a small window so let me unload the things he cannot see... Tsk Tsk!

 

The real info we need is... to load a default aircraft and note the VAS and load this FSLabs A320 in VC and note the VAS

 

Then do the same... with PMDG 777

 

all other things remaining constant.

 

and then compare. to see how much 777 takes up in VAS  vs this A32x. 

 

That would tell us the true story... I think to see how much more the A32x needs in terms of VAS and assess the situation.

 

Hmmm....