They’ve set a new bar for laziness. I thought they couldn’t get worse🤣 Whoever is running that place needs to understand it’s time to pack up and go. 

It’s a shame what this company has become.

Disgusting. 

Edited April 11, 20224 yr by Ridvan Celik

A new time low, CS you have no shame.

19 minutes ago, skully said:

I think it's an inside over / under bet on how many of these things they could actually sell without it even having a cockpit in it.

Igor- "Hey Vladi, I'll bet you I can sell 1000 versions of our crappy old C-130 in msfs and not even put a cockpit in it!"

Vlad- "Nyet! You're on"

I'd say they're getting some good laughs out of this.

I bet you're pretty close to the mark on this.  Can you check a few casinos and see if anyone is running odds on this? 🤣

I'm surprised we haven't seen any repaints for it yet on flightsim.to. 😂  Bless their hearts, but I wish all the painters who grab CS products and paint the KRAP outta' them and post them there would just not paint any for 1 month after release, then watch the sales of the CS shell dry up quickly to the point where CS will move on to the next project.

They WILL eventually run outta external models to port over from 2004/FSX/P3d.  Then they'll have to close shop or find another way to scam the simming community.

LoL....they are even getting lambasted over at their own forum....CS is offline now...go read the comments before he deletes them.   

 

Edited April 11, 20224 yr by Steve Dra
additional comments

Microprose had a flight simulator that worked as an external plane and a simple hud panel. We're going back to the Apple II days some 20 years ago.

What??  Not even a default 747 panel ??!!

/snark

3 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

What??  Not even a default 747 panel ??!!

/snark

That was the point I made earlier. This freeware C-17 did it a year ago, before a better WiP  offering came along.

(I say "better" but I'm only now about to try it out!😁).

I thought this was an April Fool's posting - No cockpit of any sort? 

 

I've posted this elsewhere but I think this is a potentially wise business decision in light of the massive new market that seems to have appeared with the Xbox and Steam release of MSFS. If you are part of this or a similar community, this product is not for you. Period. This product caters to the new casual user who doesn't have brand loyalty or knows company history, and is looking to fly a pretty plane around pretty scenery, and that's perfectly fine.

We all use MSFS (and similar) in different ways, and I don't recall anyone setting a minimum standard regarding what qualifies as "flight simulation". The user base here and elsewhere trends toward those who have been simming for decades, and/or is looking for a product that simulates an aircraft at or near 100%. Different devs, even longstanding ones, have different markets and may shift markets. With what I suspect is the loss of one or more systems/avionics oriented developers that I think the CS team had, this decision maintains an income stream from those casual users. Why care about the loud hard-core forum base when they may be making just as much income...if not more... by pushing something like this out. 

We've seen other developers who have openly marketed products as less than 100% systems sims continue to get trashed here and elsewhere for releasing products that aren't at the "FSLabs/PMDG" level, with a complete lack of understanding that different markets exist. Hopefully a high-fidelity dev will come along with a fully featured C-130, but that's obviously not what CS is aiming for here. They are aiming to make use of the new and casual market. 

4 minutes ago, STK said:

I've posted this elsewhere but I think this is a potentially wise business decision in light of the massive new market that seems to have appeared with the Xbox and Steam release of MSFS. If you are part of this or a similar community, this product is not for you. Period. This product caters to the new casual user who doesn't have brand loyalty or knows company history, and is looking to fly a pretty plane around pretty scenery, and that's perfectly fine.

We all use MSFS (and similar) in different ways, and I don't recall anyone setting a minimum standard regarding what qualifies as "flight simulation". The user base here and elsewhere trends toward those who have been simming for decades, and/or is looking for a product that simulates an aircraft at or near 100%. Different devs, even longstanding ones, have different markets and may shift markets. With what I suspect is the loss of one or more systems/avionics oriented developers that I think the CS team had, this decision maintains an income stream from those casual users. Why care about the loud hard-core forum base when they may be making just as much income...if not more... by pushing something like this out. 

We've seen other developers who have openly marketed products as less than 100% systems sims continue to get trashed here and elsewhere for releasing products that aren't at the "FSLabs/PMDG" level, with a complete lack of understanding that different markets exist. Hopefully a high-fidelity dev will come along with a fully featured C-130, but that's obviously not what CS is aiming for here. They are aiming to make use of the new and casual market. 

But an aircraft needs a cockpit. This is not asking for too much

7 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

But an aircraft needs a cockpit. This is not asking for too much

I think that's been the norm, but there's no rule saying as much, especially with the focus on the console market. There is no "need" here. Some people want to look at a plane flying over pretty scenery. There's no minimum standard regarding what an aircraft needs to be in the marketplace or available for sale, as far as I know. 

Market dynamics are changing, and I think we'll see more of this. Aeroplane Heaven tried a product line (their Pucara) with just the front part of a VC (meant to be used like a 2D panel) within the past year or two. There are no standards - it's what the market supports. 

Edited April 11, 20224 yr by STK

I think this just confirms the rumors that CaptainSim doesn't have any more true developers left on their team. All there doing is repacking their old stuff. Anything that requires coding hasn't happened for some time. That explans why the 767 project never finished and updates for older products stopped. They can't even bring in their own VC's into MSFS2020. 

Edited April 11, 20224 yr by Wise87

Haha last time I got a plane without a cockpit was in fs9 with ProjectOpensky models and guess what they even had stock 2D panels from default planes, I think at one stage some models came with a VC 🤣 they were FREE.

What are these guys thinking?

26 minutes ago, STK said:

I think that's been the norm, but there's no rule saying as much, especially with the focus on the console market. There is no "need" here. Some people want to look at a plane flying over pretty scenery. There's no minimum standard regarding what an aircraft needs to be in the marketplace or available for sale, as far as I know. 

Market dynamics are changing, and I think we'll see more of this. Aeroplane Heaven tried a product line (their Pucara) with just the front part of a VC (meant to be used like a 2D panel) within the past year or two. There are no standards - it's what the market supports. 

Exactly what I had eluded to earlier.  The CS folks reading this thread may be grinning all the way to the bank. We will never know the numbers, but I now realize/imagine there is an ever expanding significant console base that fly the aircraft from the exterior views. In my 30+ years of flight simulation, I have never imagined the sole exterior view as a way to fly in the sim, but times are changing. As STK says “it’s what the market supports”. 

3 hours ago, Steve Dra said:

go read the comments before he deletes them. 

Too late...they are gone.

Believe it or not, the infamous CS "basher" that I am, as long as they clearly state there is no VC in plain site on all their sales/marketing pages, I really don't have a problem with this.  They could sell a flying sea turtle with no VC for all I care, as long they clearly state it. 

The biggest problem I've always had with them is their deceptive marketing tactics and verbiage which was purposely written with vagueness, and fancy (and meaningless) market hype to lure naïve new simmers to buy thier stuff, only to learn afterwards that what they saw on the sales pages was not exactly what they god in MSFS.

Anyway, they will run out of old models to port soon, so hopefully by then they'll fade into oblivion and this community will be done with them.

Edited April 12, 20224 yr by Steve Dra

Is there another C130 available for MSFS? I do not know, but if I loved that plane and this was the only choice then I might buy it. I like flying in external view checking out scenery and do not care about cockpits or soap dispensers in virtual aircraft bathrooms. I have simmed for many years too. I also think CS have described the product accurately and have mislead no one. So give them a break. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything.