How else do you pay a basement developer who may reside thousands of miles away ?

yea fair enough but really it`s not GST, if the developer is providing goods or a service then the price would incorporate the tax at POS(point of sale) then pay the collected revenue to the NZ Govt, not add on tax by a merchant in NZ, anyway for lack of hijacking the thread into oblivion it`s not fair on us the customers really.

The [aircraft] developers that charge different prices for different versions of their simulators still haven't explained to us, unless I missed it, what exactly these costs are and why they feel compelled to abide by such policies. Especially given that numerous other developers for aircraft, scenery, tools, etc., don't.

 

If someone learns a dangerous procedure in a training simulator, then uses it in a real airplane and causes an injury, he or she could then sue the developer, saying the training simulator was at fault.  The suit might not stand up in court, but it'd be expensive to defend.  If someone learns the same procedure in an entertainment simulator, there's much less chance you could proceed with a lawsuit ("you did something dangerous you learned from a game?  Well, that was stupid of you!")  It's all a result of the labeling - when you call something a training simulator as opposed to a game, you expose yourself to more legal risk.  So you have to be prepared to defend yourself.  Higher risk = higher cost.  Some aircraft developers choose not to cover the cost in advance - they're either more willing to take the risk, or they've decided it's less likely that their aircraft will be used for training.  Scenery and utility developers don't have the same risk - it's aircraft sims (because you're learning aircraft procedures and controls) that are most likely to open you up to litigation.  

 

Not saying any of this is the way things should be, but unfortunately it's the world we live in.

 

A general note about cost - the cost of all add-ons has escalated over time.  It's easy to say - but probably true - that the price has to represent value.  If you're going to get $100 or more worth of enjoyment from your $100 sim, then the price was worth it.  If not, then it wasn't.  Everybody gets to make that choice.  If the price is too high, then the developer loses sales, and maybe they lower the price at some point.  Just the marketplace in action.  But what that also means is that the product is priced out of reach for some people, simply because they don't have the $100 on hand, or have other things to spend it on.

 

My personal solution is to buy less crap.  I used to spend more than $100 at those holiday sales for aircraft I flew once, then deleted.  Now I pick my spots - which are usually more expensive spots - but I spend less overall, and I'm happier.

 

In this as in other things... your mileage may vary.

 

 

What a unit price.   10 sales = $1,000.   I'm in the wrong business!

 

Except that you then have to spread that across a development team... and it has to cover six years' worth of development.  At which point you're probably doing better in the fast food industry...  :wink:

you mean the short period? Didn't last long for you! For us ( people's in Can, Aust etc.. ) we always pay more so I don't feel sorry for you!

It lasted long enough that developers based in the US were changing their prices to Euros. Trust me, I'm not looking for sympathy from anybody. We can all either choose to spend the money or not. That's why it's called disposable income.

People are simply voicing their concerns about a product they are being priced out of, nothing wrong with that. Although I can afford it, I will wait (actually I don't have a choice) to see what it can do, as I won't be buying the FSX version anytime soon.

 

Looks amazing though.

I still don't get what is expected. "Priced out of"? How are people being priced out of anything? I again go back to my car analogy. I can't afford a BMW. But, I'd really like one. Does that mean they are pricing me out of it? The fact that they produce a quality product that costs that amount of money? So since I can't afford it, they should lower the price so I can? I wish it worked that way, but it doesn't.

 

 

I can't afford a BMW. But, I'd really like one. Does that mean they are pricing me out of it?

 

You're completely missing the point. There's a good chance a BMW might be out of many people's price range. So, what do you do? Ride the bus? No, you buy a Ford! That's what people will do, buy something they can afford (no pun intended). A hundred + bucks for some people is a big deal and I understand what these people are concerned about.

If someone learns a dangerous procedure in a training simulator, then uses it in a real airplane and causes an injury, he or she could then sue the developer, saying the training simulator was at fault. The suit might not stand up in court, but it'd be expensive to defend. If someone learns the same procedure in an entertainment simulator, there's much less chance you could proceed with a lawsuit ("you did something dangerous you learned from a game? Well, that was stupid of you!") It's all a result of the labeling - when you call something a training simulator as opposed to a game, you expose yourself to more legal risk. So you have to be prepared to defend yourself. Higher risk = higher cost. Some aircraft developers choose not to cover the cost in advance - they're either more willing to take the risk, or they've decided it's less likely that their aircraft will be used for training. Scenery and utility developers don't have the same risk - it's aircraft sims (because you're learning aircraft procedures and controls) that are most likely to open you up to litigation.

 

That's all a non-sequitur and not relevant to the point I was making (explain Aerosoft, for example). And I see no reason a scenery or utility developer couldn't be held to the same standard, e.g. "I thought that VOR was over there," or "TOPCAT usually indicated that that was enough runway length." Who knows.

 

 

There's a good chance a BMW might be out of many people's price range. So, what do you do? Ride the bus? No, you buy a Ford! That's what people will do, buy something they can afford (no pun intended). A hundred + bucks for some people is a big deal and I understand what these people are concerned about.

 

What is the point you're making? Are you indicating that there are inferior substitutes in one market but not in the flightsim world? And, specifically, within the Airbus simulation market? And, specifically, within the narrow-body Airbus simulation market? Well, it just so happens that there is (and I'm sure you knew that). So then people will buy the Ford/Aerosoft knowing that it's cheaper than the BMW/FSL but with requisite quality/depth.

If someone learns a dangerous procedure in a training simulator, then uses it in a real airplane and causes an injury, he or she could then sue the developer, saying the training simulator was at fault.

 

 Really, than why are PMDG not being sued by the families of those lost aboard Malaysia 370, or the airline?

If the developer actually had access to Airbus Industries data, then I can see the reason for charging more. But, believe me, they would be charging a lot more moo-lah than $100.00. They charge more because they can. They know full well that there's one born every minute. Fools and their money, etc, etc. I still look forward to seeing the end results of 6 years development. I have no doubt it will be an impressive piece of work.

$100 is a wake up call for me. I think it's time that I stop spending so much money on any add-ons for 32-bit platform. Especially at a crucial time like this when P3D, which I have, is working or will be starting to work on a 64-bit version soon. I'm not going to make that mistake again as I did when I purchased PMDG 777 when it came out on FSX, and then later released on P3D. Spending over $200 just to have pretty much the same thing in another platform which was basically the same, which I thought was robbery. I know it was my choice, and now I'm shooting myself in the foot and regret making that move. Which I'm not going to make this mistake again. I will hold off.

 

But I think I will save my money and invest on 64-bit simming such as X-Plane instead. I've already spent so much on such an old platform. I need to set a limit. So I don't think I will be purchasing this no matter how good it is. Instead going to save up for a 4K UHD TV and wait to see what good things come ahead for X-Plane and 64-bit P3D.

That's all a non-sequitur and not relevant to the point I was making (explain Aerosoft, for example). And I see no reason a scenery or utility developer couldn't be held to the same standard, e.g. "I thought that VOR was over there," or "TOPCAT usually indicated that that was enough runway length." Who knows.

 

 

No, actually it's a sequitur.  You said that developers hadn't explained what their costs were and why the prices were different for different simulators.  I gave you an explanation (higher prices in P3D to cover liability risk).  You may not like the answer.  But it was an answer.

 

Could a scenery or utility developer be held to the same standard?  Possibly, but the risk is much lower.  It's the airplane guys that are really exposed.

 

Aerosoft explained: their Airbus doesn't claim to be a professional-grade study sim (no abnormal procedures, for example).  As they've explained themselves, it's to simulate the work of a captain in normal line flying, which is fine, and you can use it in the non-entertainment sim to, say, learn about education or learn about the experience of being a captain.  But it's not modeling every system or every last thing that can happen on the flight deck.  A sim that does is more likely to be used in line training, which means there's more chance of consequences in real-world flying, which means the litigation risk goes up.  No slight against Aerosoft - their Airbus is great and does exactly what it sets out to do.  But a full-systems sim is at more risk.

 

 

 Really, than why are PMDG not being sued by the families of those lost aboard Malaysia 370, or the airline?

 

You'd have to ask the families, or the airline.  Insurance doesn't cover things that happen, it covers things that might happen.  If you have homeowner's insurance, and your house doesn't burn down, you could feel ripped off.  But if you're smart, you carry the insurance just in case.  Same deal here.  A developer might decide not to carry insurance.  Or a developer might decide to carry insurance and not pass the cost along to consumers.  They make their choices.  Then we make ours.  

Not familiar with FS Labs, what will this have over the Aerosoft version? 

Stick with the current airbus if you are not happy with the price! FSLabs owe you nothing! $100 for something you will use for a number of years is nothing in the long run of things!

Stick with the current airbus if you are not happy with the price! FSLabs owe you nothing! $100 for something you will use for a number of years is nothing in the long run of things!

Exactly. Cost me double that to service my car, and that is every 6 months.

No, actually it's a sequitur. You said that developers hadn't explained what their costs were and why the prices were different for different simulators. I gave you an explanation (higher prices in P3D to cover liability risk). You may not like the answer. But it was an answer.

 

You didn't attempt an actual answer until this post. Just because an answer is in your head doesn't mean your previous--and insufficient--answer wasn't a non-sequitur.

 

And boy gee golly I hope you're a lawyer either in-house or on retainer for one of these developers. Your ability to generally quantify risk on their behalf, given effectively zero precedent, is pretty astounding. Precedent aside (and Jazzfan's reference to MH370 is a poignant one) I'm glad you think scenery developers and Aerosoft, regarding their Airbus product, are exposed to less risk when any clown (or their employer) could claim that an accident was the result of experience with or training on a software product that is not approved for a type rating, recurrent, etc. If this weren't the case, negligent pilots and victims of air accidents (and/or their estates) would be suing developers left and right in this day and age given that some significant portion of pilots under the age of 40 have probably, at some point, used a software simulation product and could assign an element of fault. I can't emphasize this last point enough and sorry for not spelling it out to you sooner. If you were specifically referencing FSLab's Pro version--or whatever--with the "instructor's station" then it might make sense.

 

I'm moving on but again, I'd ask the developer for some concrete information justifying their decision to charge more. Ain't gonna happen but I can raise the stink regardless.

Hi all, not sure about the "perfection" of FSLabs and its new A320. They'll be on my watch and see list. Lucky enough we have the Aerosoft Airbuses!.

Cheers, Ed

This is a bargain after buying the Aerowinx PSX for $350.