I'm just asking the forum's opinion here.A couple of months ago I purchased the Eaglesoft LibertyXL for FS9. Now I see that to run it in FSX I will have to purchase the product a second time at 70% of the original price.This is not the same situation as the PMDG 737. The LibertyXL for FS9 is a new product that seems to run fine when dropped into FSX with the exception of the GPS, so I assume that all they needed to do was update their proprietary version of their GPS. The work updating the GPS would benefit their existing and future models that use the same GPS.So, does purchasing the same product with an update to run in FSX at 70% of what you paid already seem fair?

If you knew what goes on behind the scenes to update the aircraft to FSX standards, you wouldn't question the fairness of their pricing, trust me. It's not a simple port they're doing, but actually updating and enhancing the models with the newer graphical features available now. Also, some bugs in how the clickspots were handled in FS9 (or rather, how they weren't) have been addressed in FSX, meaning more research and recoding in order to get things working right again. I was in on the beta of FSX from the get-go, and I can tell you that a great many hours of work is required to do what they're doing. If you like the way the FS9 version runs in FSX, then go ahead and use it that way -- after all, it's free to do it. But don't imply that all they're doing is updating the GPS for the FSX version, or you're the one who's running the risk of being unfair. There's a lot more to it than that.

Sorry, But if they were developing this in knowing the release of FSX they were developing the aircraft for FSX not for FS9. The fac that this aircraft was being developed so close to the release does not mean the customer should pick up the slack. Either make one or the other but it definetly is a way to increase profitability while having what seems to be a good excuse.

I recall the time of change from FS2002 to FS2004. A LOT of developers were pretty customer friendly and offered free upgrades. A few perhaps charged a small fee. Perhaps a little more work is involved this time around. Not being a developer I freely admit, I don't know.Still, I do not like what Eaglesoft has done regarding the FSX Liberty upgrade pricing. I just purchased it not too long ago for FS9 and to me a 70% upgrade price feels like a gouge. I will not be buying the upgrade and I removed my 'Proud Eaglesoft Customer' sig banner(which I've used on here for a couple of years now). They can charge and do what they feel is right, and I'll do what I feel is right.Regards,Jim

>I'm just asking the forum's opinion here.>>A couple of months ago I purchased the Eaglesoft LibertyXL for>FS9. Now I see that to run it in FSX I will have to purchase>the product a second time at 70% of the original price.>You're not purchasing it a second time - you're purchasing a different product for FSX.>This is not the same situation as the PMDG 737. The LibertyXL>for FS9 is a new product that seems to run fine when dropped>into FSX with the exception of the GPS, so I assume that all>they needed to do was update their proprietary version of>their GPS. The work updating the GPS would benefit their>existing and future models that use the same GPS.>Irrelevant.>So, does purchasing the same product with an update to run in>FSX at 70% of what you paid already seem fair?>Yes. The original was sold as suitable for FS9 not FSX.

Ah, but you posit that by developing the Liberty near the end of the FS9 lifecycle, they somehow had access to information that would help them create the FSX version as well. This, my friend, is faulty logic. The point along the FS lifecycle curve at which an aircraft is developed has no bearing on the time it takes to create it, other than the experience gained with the current version of the sim. They still had to go back in and recode it once the FSX methodologies were revealed. I'm suggesting that no matter when the developed the planes, they took roughly the same amount of time to create. Hence, they are well within reason to expect to be paid for their efforts.By the way, as a third-party developer myself, I can tell you that releasing any FS addon near the end of the product lifecycle is a risky business. Many otherwise potential customers will sit on their wallets and wait for the next version to see how things shake out before buying. Far from being the path to riches, this kind of late-cycle release tends to be a bust, financially, unless the product sets the market ablaze with its brilliance.By the way, did you stop to consider that any customer buying the XL2 knew that FSX was coming out soon? They purchased with the full knowledge that they would probably have to upgrade the plane when the new sim was released, and as far as I know nobody from Eaglesoft ever said the upgrade would be free. Caveat Emptor! Don't ever forget it.

Since it has been stated that aircraft which complied with the recommended procedures for FS2004 aircraft creation would essentially work in FSX, there is some justification in feeling irate about not being offered a cheap upgrade to an FSX-optimised model.But, I don't think that a sweeping generalisation can be made on this point, and I would suspect that the level of customisation that has gone into creating an add-on aircraft would have some bearing on this matter. One can choose to view this in two ways: If there is little that won't work in FSX with an FS2004 aircraft, it could mean that it either doesn't have much custom stuff in it, or that it has something which still ticks all the boxes even if it is very custom-built.If all that is required to get an add-on to work in FSX is to tweek the installer paths and tweek a bit of custom code, charging a great deal for the FSX version seems hard to justify to buyers who essentially have already payed for much of the work (fair enough for new customers though), but by the same token, those tweeks don't do themselves, so one can hardly expect a freebie either.Therefore the only criteria which one can judge pricing by, is the amount of work you are paying for.Having covered all that, I imagine that charging a lot for a reheat/minor tweek of a product is unlikely to win much loyalty or admiration from many.But is it simply a tweek?.For me the PMDG 747 is a case in point here, it's apparent that a lot of work went into the original model, but although it doesn't fully work in FSX, you can still drag it in there and fly it (clearly not as effectively as the Eaglesoft aircraft however, which retains much of its functionality). None of the displays work on the PMDG 747 and none of the exterior of the model animations, with the exception of the undercarrriage work either. So clearly some work on the model - at the very least renaming the parts to recognise default animations - would be required. Likewise, the PMDG 747 systems may well be working in the background in FSX, but with no displays or switches working on any of the panels, this can't be checked by the casual user (and I have my doubts that they are, as the depth of the custom code for the 747 is well documented). VCs in FSX have upped the ante as far as standrds go in FS, and it seems unlikely that PMDG would allow their flagship add-on aircraft to manifest itself in FSX form without attempting to match these new standards (which again would require some work).I would like to think that there would be some discount for the FSX PMDG 747 for previous buyers, as would, no doubt Eaglesoft customers for their products, but I don't want something for nothing either, and in the case of the PMDG aircraft, it's apparent that to get an FSX version working is going to require a fair bit of graft, so in that case, I think I'd be reasonably happy to get an FSX PMDG 747 for 70 percent of the price I paid for the FS9 version, but if all that wasn't working on my FS9 version in FSX was the GPS, that 70 percent might seem a bit steep to me.To be fair though, without knowing for sure what's involved in doing the Eaglesoft converion, I have to admit that much of this is conjecture on my part.

>You're not purchasing it a second time - you're purchasing a>different product for FSX.I'm not going try and sit here and say that what you are stating is not true, but...I think you'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view. Eaglesoft was once a good friend and a cunning developer. Now they're twisted and evil, more money machine than men.Ok that last part was a joke. I don't not think of Eaglesoft as evil and I respect them as being human. However I regard their upgrade pricing for the Liberty as being a little twisted!Eaglesoft has every right to offer only a small break in price for upgrading the Liberty if that's what they feel is right. I don't think the original poster is questioning that. He's asking if you think that's fair. mgh, you have stated that you think it is. I have stated that I do not.I do feel that their upgrade price for the considerably older Beechjet 400A/Hawker 400XP is certainly fair.I will end by saying that I think it will be interesting to see what MasterBlaster decides! As well as other folks...Cheers

Hiknowledge is power. Wbat are the new documented features of the VC?To me without having a list I would say general all around clarity is one. Gauge fluidity seems to be better. What is the stated feature list or improvements for the FSX VC and of those features what is included in Eaglesofts offering?Is it possible that a plane can be ported with some form of backward compatibility resulting in either a lesser quality in one form or another than what is possible if the plane was build from scratch.I dont have all the answers but I certainly would like to become a little more educated. Bob

I think it is important to bear in mind that FSX has ONLY just been released. As Bill Womak states, things are not quite as they seem. Simply changing a few file naming conventions and shifting things about a bit does not make FS2004 aircraft fully compatible with FSX.Many developers have little more knowledge as at release date than some end users, since although they might have been on the Beta programme, changes do tend to occur right up to release.For some developers, welcome though it is, FSX is proving a big headache, because the overall market for addons is unchanged and now is shared between FS2004 and FSX, and that will continue until FSX is firmly established. Therefore developers are having to do a lot of work to capture essentially a static and unmoving market.We are barely out of the "let's tweak to get better performane" stage, let alone spotting all the subtleties which FSX brings in changes which I doubt have yet been fully recognised.This puts some developers in a very sticky position....the pressure to upgrade instantly on demand is very high, as my in-box confirms. As others have stated, FS2004 aircraft and addons were released "For FS2004". Whether or not developers offer free upgrades is up to them, but it should be understood that it is not quite the easy-peasy process it might appear.Rob Young

Like you I am in the same boat, but in defense of Eaglesoft, I knew going into the purchase of the Liberty 3 weeks ago that i would need to repurchase it at a discounted price for FSX. It clearly states that in their support forums. I wanted it for both versions anyway since I saw how poorly FSX ran and knew that FS9 would occupy space on my drive for some time to come. I'll buy it for FSX as well even though I know it will run poorly since there is no leeway for frame loss in FSX like there is in FS9. It's a fantastic plane and I can't see not having it in my stable. I'll just need to let the hardware catch up to the sim before I can really utilize it.

>I assume that all>they needed to do was update their proprietary version of>their GPS. The work updating the GPS would benefit their>existing and future models that use the same GPS.Your assumption is incorrect. Did you check out the outside glass? Did you check the prop rotation or the rudder deflection? There were a lot more changes/improvements aside from those... some 200+ hours worth in fact. :-sun1

I think they are trying to take advantage of their customers; me being one of them. Their work is outstanding but their aircraft eat up some fps and with FSX that's not acceptable.

>>I assume that all>>they needed to do was update their proprietary version of>>their GPS. The work updating the GPS would benefit their>>existing and future models that use the same GPS.>>Your assumption is incorrect. Did you check out the outside>glass? Did you check the prop rotation or the rudder>deflection? There were a lot more changes/improvements aside>from those... some 200+ hours worth in fact. :-sun1I'll back Bill up on this one as well. I've been in development for many years, and been through many transitions from version to version. FSX presents by-far the most effort to revise any existing aircraft. Specifically from a modeler and texture artist point of view, the workload has essentially tripled. Not only do we have regular, diffuse textures to generate (the actual paint you see), but also specular and bump maps. The animation system has been completely revised as well (not necessarily a bad thing), but with that change comes futher work to be done in the background to get things going again. The transition were much, much easier from FS 2002 to 2004, for example, and so-called "free" updates were justified in the relatively little time it took to do the update. This is not the case today. ACES has made a huge leap in technology, and with that leap much work is to be done "in the trenches."This is just speaking in terms of the aircraft model - I know there are additional changes/advances/etc. with regards to all other facets of the sim as well. The new sounds, and capabilities there present further complexity when it comes to generating a custom sound package. The list goes on... FSX presents a whole new ball of wax. I can only speak for myself in saying that I'm doing my very best to make any price paid for FSX-compatible wares worth the cost.Best regards,Owen

I'm going to ship you a whole box of the letter "c" so you can stop hording them when writing my name, Rob ;-) Be on the lookout for a rather large parcel soon.