Do you think airport sceneries are too expensive?

[Guest captaindobbin]

Yes, designing airport add ons does take a lot more work than most of us would care to endure. Still, that does not justify $30 when the entire sim itself costs $60. Granted Microsoft has the resources to make such things marketable, but spending a few months at most creating a basic enhanced airport is nowhere near the project level undertaken by each ACES professional over two years. Furthermore, replicating an aircraft involves an air file, model and textures for both exterior and interior, plus gauges which are often very complex. Therefore, a great aircraft is worth $30, and many, e.g. the Carenados, are not even that much. With that said, a number of fsx "compatibility updates" in this category are overpriced. As AFCAD work is simple, the creation of a single airport and some vehicles is only really tantamount to the second part of that of an aircraft i.e. the modeling and textures. This is due partly to the fact that the scrutiny placed on an add on aircraft as well is generally much higher - i.e. perfectionism seeking - than that on an airport. Understandably so since a pilot's experience lies first in the plane. It's one thing to approach freeware with extreme graciousness; products that ask you to pay for them, on the other hand, deserve merely conditional praise. In this case, common sense tells us that people will be greedy if they can get away with it. Notwithstanding, they would probably sell more if they lowered their prices, and the notion of inflation does not change the practical means of customers.

[LAdamson 240]

The possibility of hundreds of buildings, that replicate the originals. Completely redone runways, taxiways, parking lots, animated human figures, moving vehicles, enhanced ground textures, etc. & etc.Do you actually own one of these "high end" airport addons? And please, don't make an add on pricing comparison that generates revenue in the thousands, versus MSFS that generates revenue in the hundreds of millions. Talanted artist's, designers, and programmers need to be "paid" either way.L.Adamson

[Guest ArtieLange]

>Yes, designing airport add ons does take a lot more work than>most of us would care to endure. Still, that does not justify>$30 when the entire sim itself costs $60. Granted Microsoft>has the resources to make such things marketable, but spending>a few months at most creating a basic enhanced airport is>nowhere near the project level undertaken by each ACES>professional over two years. >>Furthermore, replicating an aircraft involves an air file,>model and textures for both exterior and interior, plus gauges>which are often very complex. Therefore, a great aircraft is>worth $30, and many, e.g. the Carenados, are not even that>much. With that said, a number of fsx "compatibility updates">in this category are overpriced. >>As AFCAD work is simple, the creation of a single airport and>some vehicles is only really tantamount to the second part of>that of an aircraft i.e. the modeling and textures. This is>due partly to the fact that the scrutiny placed on an add on>aircraft as well is generally much higher - i.e. perfectionism>seeking - than that on an airport. Understandably so since a>pilot's experience lies first in the plane. >>It's one thing to approach freeware with extreme graciousness;>products that ask you to pay for them, on the other hand,>deserve merely conditional praise. In this case, common sense>tells us that people will be greedy if they can get away with>it. Notwithstanding, they would probably sell more if they>lowered their prices, and the notion of inflation does not>change the practical means of customers. There is nothing default at Portland, and it took more than "a few months" to make. Products like Portland and Flytampa's stuff are not "afcad work", they have complete custom ground, runway, and taxiway textures. The SDK's have to be "hacked" to even acomplish this feat, things like jetways need several LODS to make it fps friendly. It's to bad you are to cheap to buy any of thses great products that devs put hundreds and hundreds of hours into making. The sim is nothing more than "an OS for flight sim" and the default airports and scenery sucks, plain and simple, but it your case ignorance is bliss.

[Guest]

There is nothing in fsx that even comes close to the quality of FS Portland. It and the dodo are the only reasons fs9 is still on my drive. Ultimate traffic, Flight Environment and Portland eclipse anything and everything that fsx has to offer in realism. Until fsx starts getting some support for decent 3rd party addons I will be using fs9 and portland for my training area. I am even planning a trip to portland this summer for a week to sightsee based solely on some of the beauty that i have seen in this addon. I plan to take a sightseeing flight from pearson to mt st. helens just like i do in the sim.________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 565/900 | Seagate 2x320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW | Matrox Triplehead Setup

[Guest captaindobbin]

I knew I would catch heat for this. Please read the following carefully. First of all, Flytampa's airports are much higher quality than those of UK2000 and cost only $20 a piece so they are not really relevant to the main argument anyway.Artie and L you misunderstood me. By afcad I meant that which tells the traffic and atc the layout of the airport, not the visual depiction of the airport itself. That's what an afcad bgl file is. The larger scenery bgl files control everything else. L: I said "GRANTED MICROSOFT HAS THE RESOURCES...". And in spite of this fact which I actually acknowledged, I'm talking about what the average person can afford to reasonably spend. As for moving gates, etc, that is all scripted model work, a lot of it to be sure, but found similarly in complex aircraft. Artie: Portland is an example of a complete package and is obviously not what i was talking about! I did say "SINGLE" airport. By the way, I have spent hundreds on fs2004 and fsx products. Don't call me ignorant. You didn't pay attention to much of what I said. Flytampa (which i know well) is one of the absolute highest quality sets of airport add ons, but I still am fairly certain an equal quality aircraft with advanced systems - for example the eaglesoft sr20 and 22 with the avidyne, or dreamfleet bonanza when you count the reality xp guages - requires more work nonetheless. Despite the SDK work arounds. REGARDLESS, Flytampa's airports are only $20.

[Guest ArtieLange]

>I knew I would catch heat for this. Please read the following>carefully. Artie and L you misunderstood me. By afcad I meant>that which tells the traffic and atc the layout of the>airport, not the visual depiction of the airport itself.>That's what an afcad bgl file is. The larger scenery bgl files>control everything else. L: I said "GRANTED MICROSOFT HAS THE>RESOURCES...". And in spite of this fact which I actually>acknowledged, I'm talking about what the average person can>afford to reasonably spend. As for moving gates, etc, that is>all scripted model work, a lot of it to be sure, but found>similarly in complex aircraft. Artie: Portland is an example>of a complete package and is obviously not what i was talking>about! I did say "SINGLE" airport. By the way, I have spent>hundreds on fs2004 and fsx products. Don't call me ignorant.>You didn't pay attention to much of what I said. Flytampa>(which i know well) is one of the absolute highest quality>sets of airport add ons, but I still am fairly certain an>equal quality aircraft with advanced systems - for example the>eaglesoft sr20 and 22 with the avidyne, or dreamfleet bonanza>when you count the reality xp guages - requires more work>nonetheless. Despite the SDK work arounds. REGARDLESS,>Flytampa's airports are much higher quality than those of>UK2000 and cost only $20 a piece so they are not really>relevant to the main argument anyway. The problem with European made stuff is the dollar has been tanking for so long that the pound is almost 2 to 1.Understood, and I was not talking about moving gates, I was talking about LODS. I think FlyTampa charges to little for there stuff, and no argument about planes being a tough task to build. I just got the impression that you didn't understand how much work goes into an airport.

[Guest ArtieLange]

>There is nothing in fsx that even comes close to the quality>of FS Portland. It and the dodo are the only reasons fs9 is>still on my drive. Ultimate traffic, Flight Environment and>Portland eclipse anything and everything that fsx has to offer>in realism. Until fsx starts getting some support for decent>3rd party addons I will be using fs9 and portland for my>training area. I am even planning a trip to portland this>summer for a week to sightsee based solely on some of the>beauty that i have seen in this addon. I plan to take a>sightseeing flight from pearson to mt st. helens just like i>do in the sim.>If you can, make your trip in August when the weather should be good, summer in the Pacific Northwest doesn't start until July 5th, you don't want it to look like today. http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/volcanocams/msh/

[Guest captaindobbin]

I know I was terse and a bit unclear. For that I am sorry. I should have used the eaglesoft and dreamfleet examples to begin with as well. What it comes down to, I think, (and this has already been said by the originator of this thread) is that more people would buy these products if they were cheaper. Several aircraft included. Aerosoft, for one, seem to understand this.

[Guest ArtieLange]

>I know I was terse and a bit unclear. For that I am sorry. I>should have used the eaglesoft and dreamfleet examples to>begin with as well. What it comes down to, I think, (and this>has already been said by the originator of this thread) is>that more people would buy these products if they were>cheaper. Several aircraft included. Aerosoft, for one, seem to>understand this. So do you think something like the Level D 767 is overpriced ?

[Guest wyoming]

Otherwise, cheap or not, I don't buy.

[Guest captaindobbin]

I don't have the level d 767. I've seen it very well reviewed but yes $40 is a bit steep for anyone who is not in love with the plane. The PMDGS are expensive as well, but again, they are so well done full simulations and have so many complex systems that it is hard to say it isn't worth it. Apart from the above, people are greedy sometimes. There is no doubt about that. For instance, the eaglesoft updates to fsx are only 30% off for owners of the fs2004 versions, even though they are exactly the same. I understand a small compatibility fee, but honestly. Another example is the fsd porter variants costing 20 bucks a pop when you already have one version for $28. Awesome airplane but the Carenado's stationair has all that included for $30. While I fully acknowledge the amazingness of Tongass and Misty Fjords (which I happily bought), FSCargo is more like souped up freeware; it shouldn't cost $20. One might as well save up and get Just Flight's Cargo Pilot. Some of the alphasims are great, e.g. the new apache and very accurate it seems sr71. Many are not so great; I'd rather just play LOMAC. Most of the stuff on the flight1 website have prices that should have been lowered dramatically a year ago. Added to this, i think anything made for fs9 should be discounted given that fsx is out. Such would happen it any other market.

[David Roch 1,982]

>>A reason for these prices, when buying products from companies>based in Europe, can also be a consequence of the weak dollar.>If we were in Oct. 2000, those 26$ would be $16, because the>Euro was 0.82$ back then, today it's 1.32$.>Come on Virtuali!! I love your products but in 2000 there was no Euro at all. It took place in early 2003.There is a serious increase in scenery prices that's a fact and it can't be explained by the USD/Euro conversion.I've also read from some developers that their prices are higher because of the additional features or amount of work involved in their addons. BS...because nowadays with tools like Google Earth and modern design tools for FS there is less research, less work to do then before.It's just a question of business strategy and of loyalty towards their customers.Cloud9, Fly Tampa, Aerosoft and of course Vauchez provide quality addons that are "normally" priced.Others are less scrupulous.No serious company works for free and no one wants to loose time and money that's obvious. But we, the customers, have to require quality versus money.After all, we decide :-)

[virtuali 4,421]

>Come on Virtuali!! I love your products but in 2000 there was>no Euro at all. It took place in early 2003.Even if the Euro as a physical currency came out in Jan 2002, its exchange rate was already fixed long before that so, even if we were still using Liras, Francs or Marks in 2000, their values were already fixed to the Euro, hence to the dollar, so the relationship I indicated is correct, because we were already living at "euro prices", even if we still hadn't actual euros in our hands.>There is a serious increase in scenery prices that's a fact>and it can't be explained by the USD/Euro conversion.Fact is: a 20 Euro scenery it's equivalent to 26$ today but it would have been 16 US$ 5-6 years ago.>I've also read from some developers that their prices are>higher because of the additional features or amount of work>involved in their addons. BS...because nowadays with tools>like Google Earth and modern design tools for FS there is less>research, less work to do then before.Doens't mean anything, because the quality allowed by new FS graphic engines and new hardware is much higher, hence the detail requested by users is higher as well. Is a design tool is more powerful, and it offers more chances, it simply means user expectactions are higher, because they *know* something is possibile, so they expect the new capabilities to be put at work.But in the end, it still takes about 6 months of work to release a good scenery product:- with FS4/ATP we were able to model an entire continent, I did the whole European scenery with several hundreds of airports in AS/ATP back in 1996, when we had an engine similar to FS4.- in FS98 we were able to model an entire country, I did the whole Italy for the then very successful Italy98 package, all 130 Italian airports in a single box.- in FS2000 we were able to model a collection of airports, for example the popular Airport 2000 by Wilco and similar.- in FS2002, in 6 months of work, you could do a single airport complete with static and dynamic airplanes and some scenery around, like my Honolulu scenery for FS2002.- in FS2004, some developers started to specialize so much in specific areas (some mesh/landclass, others did just AI), that airport designers stopped to include static or dynamic airplanes in the airport and stopped including nearby scenery or meshes, because user would prefer to use the better product coming from specialized developers, like Ultimate Terrain, Ultimate Traffic, FSGenesis, etc. Regardless of what one might think, no time was "saved", because is STILL took 6 months to do a good scenery for a big airport, sometimes even more, see the Vauchez example.- in FSX, there are so much more possibilities in texturing and modeling, and we are just *scratching* the surface right now, that we only have to hope that the better SDK we have now could offset the added time needed to do a proper job, with the quality that we *know* FSX can deliver.The availability of better aerial images, has only increased the workload, because so much more available information needs to be translated into actual scenery, and all users can simply go to Google Earth and compare it with the scenery offered, meaning they are more likely to complain if something is not right, something that before was only possible for users knowing the place very well. I wouldn't dreamed of having to match the proper asphalt colours in the Italy98 scenery, so probably all airports in that scenery had wrong colours anyway, but neither myself, nor our customers, had any chance to verify that, in 1998...>It's just a question of business strategy and of loyalty>towards their customers.>Cloud9, Fly Tampa, Aerosoft and of course Vauchez provide>quality addons that are "normally" priced.The definition of what a "normal price" is, it's difficult to asses. For a business developer, it should be somewhat related to the time needed to develop the product. But for the user's point of view, sometimes is difficult to perceive the value offered, and what might seem expensive is in fact very reasonable, and what seems reasonable it's not.

[virtuali 4,421]

>Added to this, i think anything made>for fs9 should be discounted given that fsx is out. Such would>happen it any other market. Have you noticed that Cloud9 has been offering for some months all their FS9 products at 50% discount (offer is still valid) ?

[Guest ArtieLange]

>Come on Virtuali!! I love your products but in 2000 there was>no Euro at all. It took place in early 2003.>There is a serious increase in scenery prices that's a fact>and it can't be explained by the USD/Euro conversion.Hey, the dollar has been tanking for so long that Virtuali has a valid point, 1 us dollar equals .51 pound right now.>I've also read from some developers that their prices are>higher because of the additional features or amount of work>involved in their addons. BS...because nowadays with tools>like Google Earth and modern design tools for FS there is less>research, less work to do then before.This proves that you are really, really, clueless as to what goes into to scenery design.>It's just a question of business strategy and of loyalty>towards their customers.>Cloud9, Fly Tampa, Aerosoft and of course Vauchez provide>quality addons that are "normally" priced.>Others are less scrupulous.>No serious company works for free and no one wants to loose>time and money that's obvious. But we, the customers, have to>require quality versus money.>After all, we decide :-)Since you think scenery design is so much easier these days, and most stuff is to expensive, now would be a good time for you to get into the buisiness. Think about it, you could crank out sceneries since it's so much less work theses days, undercut other people prices and make a killing.