13 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

But the fact that FSimStudio is pricing it as $10.99 USD, wow, that's an excellent price, something I didn't expect.

Which makes 19.99$ for Kelowna a somewhat expensive proposition...

To clarify here - The price of Kelowna has been lowered following the Vancouver release to remain competitive. It was updated yesterday on our website and has been recently updated on our distributor's. 

18 minutes ago, virtuali said:

Which makes 19.99$ for Kelowna a somewhat expensive proposition...

 

8 minutes ago, fsimstudios_ said:

The price of Kelowna has been lowered following the Vancouver release to remain competitive. It was updated yesterday on our website and has been recently updated on our distributor's. 

Sorry, I checked the price on OrbX, which hasn't been updated on all pages, since it still shows 24.50 AUD$ on the north american airports page, and then 18.00 AUD$ if you click on it to see its own page.

So yes, the new 13/14 USD price is way better, but is still interesting that is more expensive than CYVR.

EDIT:

Emptied the browser cache, now it's 18.00 AUD$ on all pages...

Edited March 12, 20215 yr by virtuali

There was me thinking this thread was about FSim Studios Vancouver!
Not sure why a rival developer would think its good form to be talking about the pricing strategy of another dev, and especially of a scenery that is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
 

33 minutes ago, atco said:

There was me thinking this thread was about FSim Studios Vancouver!
Not sure why a rival developer would think its good form to be talking about the pricing strategy of another dev, and especially of a scenery that is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
 

I was merely pointing out the benefit of competition and yes, Kelowna is surely relevant, since because it's lacking competition, it still more expensive than CYVR from the same developer. 

As soon this thread started, some questioned if it makes sense having two payware sceneries for the same airport, then I say yes, IT IS good for users, both because they have a choice and usually a better price, but also because it forces both developers to keep improving their respective sceneries.

Edited March 12, 20215 yr by virtuali

 

28 minutes ago, virtuali said:

...........................Kelowna is surely relevant, since because it's lacking competition, it still more expensive than CYVR from the same developer. 
 

So what Umberto? I'm not sure why you think how another developer prices their products is any of your business? Do you ask other rival devs how you should price your own airports?
Your Basel scenery is twice as expensive as Zurich, its the same price as O'Hare which is a much bigger and more complex airport. Your little GA airfield Quiberon is the same price as the mega airport Zurich so perhaps that's really poor value for money if we use the same metric you are applying here, which seems to be that airports should be priced according to their size?

It's pretty apparent what you are doing here, attempting to de-rail the thread because sorry to say, your competitor's product is better. I'm not sure I've ever seen a developer hurl themselves into a thread about another dev's product like this before, you've taken it over and are now talking about how they price their other addons which, no matter what you say, is totally irrelevant to a thread about "FSim Studios Vancouver released".
You also need to stop claiming that your version has "updated everything to match current charts", which is demonstrably false. You should go look up Apron 6, it has existed since late last year but does not appear in your scenery. It's clearly marked on the current YVR charts.

Edited March 12, 20215 yr by atco

49 minutes ago, atco said:

Your Basel scenery is twice as expensive as Zurich,

Basel price includes BOTH the P3D and the MSFS versions. And it's a scenery made in 2020, made from scratch for modern simulators, in full PBR, not a ( albeit fairly good ) remake of 2007 Zurich that started as an FS9 scenery and doesn't even have an upgrade price for existing users.

The main reason why we priced Zurich so low, but with no upgrade price, it's because Esellerate deleted all customers data older than 10 years ( to comply with GDPR ), making almost impossible for us to offer an upgrade, since many users bought it in the first 2-3 years so, instead of finding some cumbersome way to offer an upgrade price, we just assumed everybody has it, and price it like that.

 

Quote

its the same price as O'Hare which is a much bigger and more complex airport.

Which came out for P3D only a year before for 34$ and since the update is not free ( like Basel ), we tried to price it as low as possible.

 

Quote

Your little GA airfield Quiberon is the same price as the mega airport Zurich so perhaps that's really poor value for money if we use the same metric you are applying here, which seems to be that airports should be priced according to their size?

Nowhere I said sceneries should be priced only according to their size but, more correctly ( which is what we try to do ), they are priced according to the time it took to make them.

Usually, the bigger the airport, the more time it takes, but this assume you are comparing airports made from scratch. When porting an existing work, it's different so, for example, Quiberon took about 3 weeks of work to be made from scratch, Zurich about the same to be converted from FSX, that's why they cost the same. Key West also took about 3 weeks to be made from scratch, that's why it costs the same as Quiberon and Zurich. 

 

Quote

It's pretty apparent what you are doing here, attempting to de-rail the thread because sorry to say, your competitor's product is better.

I would really hope something made in 2021 should be better than a remake of something made in 2013! 

 

Quote

I'm not sure I've ever seen a developer hurl themselves into a thread about another dev's product like this before, you've taken it over and are now talking about how they price their other addons which, no matter what you say, is totally irrelevant to a thread about "FSim Studios Vancouver released".

This thread immediately started on the issue about questioning if it's good or not having two payware products for the same airports so yes, no matter what you say, comparing other sceneries pricing was relevant, to point out the benefit of competition.

 

Quote

You also need to stop claiming that your version has "updated everything to match current charts", which is demonstrably false. You should go look up Apron 6, it has existed since late last year but does not appear in your scenery. It's clearly marked on the current YVR charts.

Yes, you are right about Apron 6, and also about the 3 gates on E and gate 28 that is no more so yes, we'll surely have a look at that, and fix it.

That statement was made in relationship to our old FSX version, because when it came out ( and still today, it seems ), many assumed it was just a straight port for MSFS with the airport in its 2013 status, which is not the case, since most of the of the gates and many buildings has been updated, some made entirely from scratch too, lots of taxiways changed so, it's *mostly* up to date and, we'll surely have another go at it, to make it 100% up to date.

Edited March 12, 20215 yr by virtuali

FSimstudios looks way more accurate than FSDT. That FSDT airside shot is very poor compared to the real thing.  The comparing shot where the WestJet encore Q400s park is quite telling also, the roofs aren't even peaked in the FSDT version. That said I don't personally care about Vancouver enough to buy the FSimstudio version.  

5 hours ago, alex91 said:

Here are some screenshots I was able to take today,

The screenshot you posted from the FSDT version is outdated and shows the first release which came out in October.  We had a substantial update in November, and the way you can recognize the old version is to look at  the ground markings for the parking spots: in the first version ( your screenshot ) they had yellow text over black triangles, the current version has black text over yellow pentagons, which is how they are in real life now.

Edited March 12, 20215 yr by virtuali

Sometimes it’s better to let the users play it out for themselves...

I really dislike the developers’ interventions here. Derailing a conversation that should really be lead by customers seems pretty cavalier.

If you have something against your competitors, make a blog post about it and state your facts in an official capacity.

5 hours ago, Keven Menard said:

Sometimes it’s better to let the users play it out for themselves...

Yes, you are probably right here.

 

5 hours ago, Keven Menard said:

If you have something against your competitors, make a blog post about it and state your facts in an official capacity.

I haven't said anything against them. In fact, quite the opposite: I said their CYVR is a very good deal for a new scenery. And users should thank competition for that, which was a question which was raised starting from the 2nd post of this thread.

Yes, very bad form from Umberto. Not impressed.

CJ

So, to drag this thread kicking and screaming back on topic...

Without mentioning the other scenery, has anyone bought FSimStudios' CYVR and liked it?

FSS version looks fantastic.  Great work and will get this as it looks better.   That said,  have FSDT version as well and have no regrets paying for it, since it was a great upgrade to what was default at the time.  Still deserved for the work into updating it for MSFS. 

Consider me perhaps in the minority.  These are community forums.  I think any developer has the right, as do we, to comment on any product.

Why does a developer not get to do that?   Virtuali is not posting on FSS website, but he would be free to post there too.  

We all have an easy way to know whose product is better....purchase it and see.

In the meantime, FSS can say why their product is better than FSDT and vice versa.  Frankly, let them discuss the differences...very educational.  And we get to call them out for wrong info.  🙂