Even x-plane has a 29.00 special with limited regional scenery. It's what got me "curious".  Again, I want to emphasize the need to get as many people as possible to try it and provide instant feedback.  It's good for morale and short term cash requirements.  It's software, so there's no manufacturing cost.  1000x $ 10= 10000.  200x $50=10000  Result: only 200 people get to provide good feedback. If it were me, I'd rather have 10,000 users out there.  As the example indicates, the $50.00 will not be sufficient to feed their families. The limited following of Aerowinx PS3 excellent and complete sim goes for $400.00. This price is more representative of a low volume, must make some profit software model.

tony

There are no manufacturing costs, but since the product is in early release, there are certainly development costs, which includes keeping food on the table and a roof over the heads of the developers, as well as paying for them to license scenery and other things to expand the sim. Why on earth would they cripple themselves with so many expensive things still left to do?

 

For one, many people are clamoring for ATC, which is not an inconsequential task of development. We also have other simmers asking for just about everything under the sun, from AI to moving ground vehicles, and oh, hopefully for free.

 

Apparently the developers are supposed to fund all of this on air.

 

I do believe that's why all the sims we've seen in the last few years are ESP/FSX with new coats of paint. There's just no way to fund a new project from scratch and afford all the things we want at the prices we want to pay. Still, amazingly, Ipacs is trying.

 

Heaven help them.

 

I myself believe cheaper would be a big mistake, and would just lead to gobs of people refusing ever after to pay full price, instead sitting and waiting for the next sale at a crucial time when development is at its fastest and possibly most expensive.

 

If sales tanked, I would consider it, but as they are doing well so far and getting great reviews, I myself see no need.

I don't understand people complaining about the price when the cost of a Carenado addon can be $40 for one aircraft.

 

For $50 we get numerous beautiful aircraft to fly over beautiful photoscenery.

are the airports all generic like fsx or look like the actual airport, like klax replicates klax, ksfo looks like ksfo etc

KLAX looks like KLAX and KSFO like KSFO, and they look really good, as AeroflyFS2 is aerial image based, Take a look at the AeroflyFS2 Steam page or some YouTube videos. There are no "generic" airports like in FSX/P3D being landclass based. Runways/taxiways are always where they belong. Of course the detail smaller airports are rendered with (buildings, markings etc.) differs.

 

Kind regards, Michael

The small airports have generic buildings, but most of the large airports have custom buildings and look realistic.

o

 

KLAX looks like KLAX and KSFO like KSFO, and they look really good, as AeroflyFS2 is aerial image based, Take a look at the AeroflyFS2 Steam page or some YouTube videos. There are no "generic" airports like in FSX/P3D being landclass based. Runways/taxiways are always where they belong. Of course the detail smaller airports are rendered with (buildings, markings etc.) differs.

 

Kind regards, Michael

 

 

ok i had a look, very impressive but what I noticed no taxiway signs at the major airports

 

ok i had a look, very impressive but what I noticed no taxiway signs at the major airports

 

 

That's kind of the whole point of early access.

 

For me its kind of like this: Civilian flight simming has been dead for years in terms of truly new choices. After a decade, I just keep seeing continually rewarmed versions of FSX.

 

Now a little company has stepped forward with a promising product in development, and asked those with an interest in flight simulation to invest in a possible future.

 

For me at least, (considering all the money I've blown over the years on all the addons that later went into storage to never be used again) 50 bucks is pocket change for a chance to work with somebody offering a fresh/modern new option to the community.

 

Now its just a question of do we seize that opportunity or not. Just as with my (kind of sheepish) decision to finally be a donor here, I stepped forward because I kind of think of it as putting my money where my mouth is.

 

What is Early Access?

 

Get immediate access to games that are being developed with the community's involvement. These are games that evolve as you play them, as you give feedback, and as the developers update and add content.

 

We like to think of games and game development as services that grow and evolve with the involvement of customers and the community. There have been a number of prominent titles that have embraced this model of development recently and found a lot of value in the process. We like to support and encourage developers who want to ship early, involve customers, and build lasting relationships that help everyone make better games.

 

This is the way games should be made.

Agreed 100% +100 Devon; well said.

This sim will make me look into VR when things settle down a bit. I hope the live long and prosper... they have my support!

+1

I agree it's worth the $50, but you need to be honest, it's missing A LOT of features relative to P3D (or even Xplane).  

 

Unfortunately this market is just too small to support so many "options" ... I think we'd all be much further along if there were just one flight simulator product and LM, LR, DCS, Aerofly, DTG were not fragmented and they combined into a single larger entity of pooled resources with no duplication of work.  There is only one way this could happen, a very large investor lures (read financial incentive) devs away from their respective companies/products into a single new flight simulation company.  But that would take an investor with big pockets (think $60-$90 million) and would be a risky investment.  Attempting to build a major new flight simulator "on the side" seems too daunting to me and couldn't possibly deliver feature for feature.

 

Don't get me wrong, competition is good, but when market share is small (relatively speaking), competition can actually stall progress.  I love what Aerofly have done ... they went straight for the visuals and succeeded ... but the big end user spenders in this market need a sim with depth and 3rd party support (lots of it) ... establishing a recurring revenue stream is VERY important.

 

My 2 cents, 

 

Cheers, Rob.

I agree it's worth the $50, but you need to be honest, it's missing A LOT of features relative to P3D (or even Xplane).  

 

Unfortunately this market is just too small to support so many "options" ... I think we'd all be much further along if there were just one flight simulator product and LM, LR, DCS, Aerofly, DTG were not fragmented and they combined into a single larger entity of pooled resources with no duplication of work.  There is only one way this could happen, a very large investor lures (read financial incentive) devs away from their respective companies/products into a single new flight simulation company.  But that would take an investor with big pockets (think $60-$90 million) and would be a risky investment.  Attempting to build a major new flight simulator "on the side" seems too daunting to me and couldn't possibly deliver feature for feature.

 

Don't get me wrong, competition is good, but when market share is small (relatively speaking), competition can actually stall progress.  I love what Aerofly have done ... they went straight for the visuals and succeeded ... but the big end user spenders in this market need a sim with depth and 3rd party support (lots of it) ... establishing a recurring revenue stream is VERY important.

 

My 2 cents, 

 

Cheers, Rob.

Rob agreed and  I just will add to visuals,  Flight Model and smooth performance.

I agree it's worth the $50, but you need to be honest, it's missing A LOT of features relative to P3D (or even Xplane).

 

To be fair though, those features took those sims several years and even iterations to acquire. I think of LM as essentially the 11th version of FSX, and DTG Flightsim will be the 12th.

 

Aerofly can't hope to match that, especially right away, or maybe even ever without our support, and the question that we have to ask is (to paraphrase Mr Trump) what the heck do we have to lose?  :wink:

 

I'm down for giving IPacs a fair jump at the hoop.

 

Unfortunately this market is just too small to support so many "options"

 

Is it? I have plenty of hard drive space left even after installing P3D and a bunch of other sims. And fortunately for Aerofly, they are getting a firm boost from the VR enthusiast market and others that want to kick back occasionally from study-sims. Hopefully that will tide them over if we decide to sit on the fence.

 

 

Is it? I have plenty of hard drive space left even after installing P3D and a bunch of other sims.

 

Hard drive space is not the issue, time is ... not many users equal time share all the available flight sim platforms.  But I think you are missing a key point ... duplication of work, many different "groups" essentially coding and implementing the same concepts with slight variants.  It would be much more effective if everyone was working on specific unique components rather than implementing the same components.

 

From an end user's perspective, do we really care who does it, so long as it delivers what we/users want, we'll pay for it.  24 Devs on one product are much more likely to deliver what we want sooner than 12 - 5 - 3 - 2 - 2 devs working on their own product.  But I don't think there is enough interest in flight simulation to come up with the $60-$90 million or provide sufficient return even if funding was there.  

 

LM currently have the highest chance of success given the dev team size and $$ flow, but I'd love to see them all work together as "one" entity.

 

Cheers, Rob.