Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
abrams_tank

Strong sales of CRJ may lead holdout devs to prioritize MSFS

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

But that's what PMDG did though, compared to say, Aerosoft.  Aerosoft had always made getting their CRJ out for MSFS a priority and they were prioritizing their CRJ since last fall.  From the comments last fall, PMDG seemed to imply they would shelve their efforts on MSFS, citing the SDK as the reason.  What's interesting is that Aerosoft didn't really say the SDK was a huge impediment to their efforts but PMDG did (I recall Mr. Kok of Aerosoft saying there were some issues with the SDK but nothing so severe that Aerosoft needed to stop their work on the CRJ).

Of course the release of the CRJ changed PMDG's tune all of a sudden.  I don't doubt that the SDK improved for WASM over the last few months. But as the WT devs and FBW devs have said all along, the tools are there to create high fidelity aircraft provided the developer is willing to use new coding methodology (ie. Javascript & HTML).  In any case, companies base their decisions on $$$ and it's entirely logical that PMDG saw the $$$ that Aerosoft made on the CRJ and this factored into PMDG's decisions to prioritize MSFS again.

Come on, unless you are in the inner circle at PMDG that is pure, unfounded speculation. There is no way of knowing what goes on behind the scenes there and what they needed from the SDK.

Edited by DavidP
  • Upvote 1

David Porrett

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DavidP said:

Come on, unless you are in the inner circle at PMDG that is pure, unfounded speculation. There is no way of knowing what goes on behind the scenes there and what they needed from the SDK.

Of course it's speculation.  I pretty much implied that from the original post.  I also said in my original post that perhaps some of the SDK issues were resolved since last fall for PMDG.  But it's also a reasonable inference that the CRJ sales from Aerosoft may have nudged PMDG further.  That's perfectly reasonable given that PMDG is a business and they are in it to make money.

  • Like 1

i5-12400, RTX 3060 Ti, 32 GB RAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MatthewS said:

Why doesn't PMDG release a "Lite" version ASAP with excellent 3D modelling + basic systems?  737/777/747/DC3 surely it's not too hard to "recycle" those already excellent 3D models for use in MSFS?

Then release a "Pro" version later, with the study-sim systems we are used to... 🤔

I've not spent a cent on PMDG (for P3D) since MSFS came out and I never will again... only interested in MSFS now-a-days. 🤷‍♂️

They did 'Lite' ages ago with the smaller planes 1900B and C but that was before they were the established brand of creme-de-la-creme simulation I think. Those planes were not that exciting.

The J41 was also a ''learning experiment" for the Boeings coming to FSX later. It had its problems but was fun to fly but despite promises never been updated. Maybe now is the time .... as another 'experiment'. 

If you take PMDG's exquisite systems and flight modelling out of the equation you're left with a VC and exterior model that can be equalled or  surpassed by other developers. 'Lite' planes is not what they're about and would be dangerous for their brand. Sometimes I can't help thinking that they deliberately take more time to release than they need so as to help strenghten that brand. The best wine needs many years before you can open the bottle.

And they are very good at keeping the suspense in the meanwhile on their forums. I remember very well some years ago how good when they had this 'huge' announcement to make leaving many speculating for months. Turned out i was not in the right target group for what it was (some sort of collaboration tool where you can take over the aircraft's state as left in by previous user?) And I believe I was not the only one. Makes me wonder if they're still making the right decisions. A re-focus primarily on P3D, if true, in this day and age strikes me as odd.

 

 

Edited by avhpilot
  • Like 2

Antoine v Heck
---
Ryzen 5800X3D, 32Gb DDR4 RAM@1600 Mhz, RTX3090 (24GB VRAM). 2TB SSD - VR with Quest 2 via link cable 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Concodroid said:

IMO, to compete, XP 12 needs to have somewhat comparable graphics, and much more realistic default aircraft... and they might need to release sooner, rather than later, as MSFS development is quite rapid

XP12 won't beat MSFS on the graphics / scenery part - even if they do some things better, it's still about the same level and XP is late to that party. They will sure keep their loyal community, but won't attract much new players - that was the golden age of a aging P3D.

  • Like 3

Happy with MSFS 🙂
home simming evolved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, blueshark747 said:

Do you foresee hardware devs ever making XBOX compatible yokes/sticks/rudders/throttle quadrants?

What do XBOX console users have so far?

A gamepad and keyboard?

g

Edited by wim123
not needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, tweekz said:

XP12 won't beat MSFS on the graphics / scenery part - even if they do some things better,

I don't see how they would even have the resources. Doesn't MSFS make use of a gaint microsoft server park with Azure AI to do what it does now? Or they would have to collaborate with another party that can.

Anyway, we would all benefit from competitive upgrades to XP and P3D. Not for our wallets persé but a monopoly of MSFS is never a good thing.

Edited by avhpilot

Antoine v Heck
---
Ryzen 5800X3D, 32Gb DDR4 RAM@1600 Mhz, RTX3090 (24GB VRAM). 2TB SSD - VR with Quest 2 via link cable 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, avhpilot said:

I don't see how they would even have the resources. Doesn't MSFS make use of a gaint microsoft server park with Azure AI to do what it does now? Or they would have to collaborate with another party that can.

XP will most likely go the procedural generation route. Basically autogen with better data input (OSM). Can look plausible, but not realistic. XP should stay focused on the aerodynamic simulation. That's what they do well.


Happy with MSFS 🙂
home simming evolved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, tweekz said:

XP will most likely go the procedural generation route. Basically autogen with better data input (OSM). Can look plausible, but not realistic. XP should stay focused on the aerodynamic simulation. That's what they do well.

The amount of soul-searching that you guys coming from the XP world  do on this MFS forum about your former love sim amazes me  🤣.   

  • Like 1

Dominique

Simming since 1981 -  4770k@3.7 GHz with 16 GB of RAM and a 1080 with 8 GB VRAM running a 27" @ 2560*1440 - Windows 10 - Warthog HOTAS - MFG pedals - MSFS Standard version with Steam

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MatthewS said:

Why doesn't PMDG release a "Lite" version ASAP with excellent 3D modelling + basic systems?  737/777/747/DC3 surely it's not too hard to "recycle" those already excellent 3D models for use in MSFS?

Then release a "Pro" version later, with the study-sim systems we are used to... 🤔

I've not spent a cent on PMDG (for P3D) since MSFS came out and I never will again... only interested in MSFS now-a-days. 🤷‍♂️

I think the problem with this approach for PMDG is the effectiveness of getting those lite sales to upgrade to the full version.  Lets say they sell 100,000 versions of a 737 lite for $60. It does the basics very well but no failures and no link to their upcoming Global Flight Ops.  Now wait 6 months or a year and they release the full version and ask for another $80.  I would bet that a lot of the original purchasers of the lite version will not upgrade.  Alternatively if they release the full version for $139 they may not get 100,000 copies sold but they are still better off if they get a portion of those sales at full price.

  • Upvote 2

Mark W   CYYZ      

My Simhttps://goo.gl/photos/oic45LSoaHKEgU8E9

My Concorde Tutorial Videos available here:  https://www.youtube.com/user/UPS1000
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out from a marketing/business perspective. 

The recent release of the Aerosoft CRJ - incomplete, at least two steps back, not feature rich, but feature lacking, bascially a "spruced" up version of what they had in their hangar for at least 15 years - might indicate, in my opinion, that the era of "big addon companies" is coming to an end. 

One can also see a shift in how customers are treated: just compare WT's discord channel with Aerosoft's "support forum". 'nuff said.

At any rate, my money is on FlyByWire, WT, etc. 

 

Edited by Ricardo41
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out from a marketing/business perspective. 

The recent release of the Aerosoft CRJ - incomplete, at least two steps back, not feature rich, but feature lacking, bascially a "spruced" up version of what they had in their hangar for at least 15 years - might indicate, in my opinion, that the era of "big addon companies" is coming to an end. 

One can also see a shift in how customers are treated: just compare WT's discord channel with Aerosoft's "support forum". 'nuff said.

At any rate, my money is on FlyByWire, WT, etc. 

 

By definition your money isn't on anything then because they are free.  I get your point though.  The old guards of this industry will certainly be challenged from new directions going forward.  


5800X3D, Gigabyte X570S MB, 4090FE, 32GB DDR4 3600 CL14, EVO 970 M.2's, Alienware 3821DW  and 2  22" monitors,  Corsair RM1000x PSU,  360MM MSI MEG, MFG Crosswind, T16000M Stick, Boeing TCA Yoke/Throttle, Skalarki MCDU and FCU, Saitek Radio Panel/Switch Panel, Spad.Next

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

One can also see a shift in how customers are treated: just compare WT's discord channel with Aerosoft's "support forum". 'nuff said.

 

I’ve also noticed a marked improvement in customer service with MSFS, especially with freeware developers compared to payware.  XP has a few payware developers whose customer service skills are inversely proportional to their coding ability.  


Gary

 

i9-13900K, Asus RTX 4080, Asus Z790 Plus Wi-Fi, 32 GB Ram, Seasonic GX-1000W, LG C1 48” OLED 4K monitor, Quest 3 VR

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

One can also see a shift in how customers are treated: just compare WT's discord channel with Aerosoft's "support forum". 'nuff said.

 

One is driven by passion for the community and the other is driven by arrogance and money, plain and simple. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D, 64GB DDR5 6000MHZ RAM, RTX 2080Super 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Concodroid said:

I don't want to come off as rude here, but this sort of thing exists in every single debatable topic, and yes, there are XP players that believe the same thing. Might be fewer of them, but I have no numbers. But it's the same story with mac vs windows, xbox vs playstation, IOS vs android, etc. This is by no means MSFS specific, so saying it... well, doesn't really mean much, in the end

I have to disagree. I still believe that we can respect each other's views and experiences without being word not allowed. I'll give you an example. Today I opened the forum to write that I had the smoothest imaginable flight over Rome and then a great, great experience in the sky of Malta, 30 fps stable, with all ultra settings, and not a single problem or stutter or anything else. Aircraft was as usual the Cessna 172 w. steam gauges.

This happened Saturday. So, yes, it is possible to have a great flight with ultra 4K settings over a dense photographic area with MSFS.

Yesterday I tried it again and it was smooth. Then I tried the Sidney approach from activities, and it was plain horrible. Stutters, pauses, scenery loading too late, and in general a very bad experience. I am using the FBW 320, but so I was ten days ago when performance was ok.

I'm adding these as elements for those who can find an explanation. 

I believe that a Forum should be that place where people exchange experiences: good and bad. You will never convince me that I should choose a team and call idiots the "others". There are no "others": we are all here for a passion that keeps us together and makes us very much alike.

Call me a romantic, but I think that  repeating this simple concept is not useless at all.

Regards

Andrea

Edited by ADamiani
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

The fact that now they are resuming their efforts on an airliner for MSFS and even prioritizing it is almost a 180 degree turn from their comments last fall.

You can characterize it as that if you're looking to start controversy, but as PMDG properly said, a lot has changed in MSFS since that post last year. As they noted, both statements can be accurate if taken in context with the situation at the time they were made. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...