Why so few airport sceneries for FSX?

[virtuali 4,421]

>Read my post again. I say "or some scenery" as in "a">scenery. Not this one specifically, which actually improves>frame rates, I got it. Just generally speaking, no specific>scenery, no specific sim even. Let's just leave it at that.Well, I'm happy you finally come along, since you started by commenting screenshot of that specific scenery, stating that it's no use to post screenshot without AI at full. >One last thing, if it's not worth it to produce the same>product for both sims, why not produce different products.>Instead of Airport A for FS9 and FSX. Why not Airport A for>FS9 only and airport B for FSX only. No upgrades, no backwards>compatibility. Two separate products, full price.That would be even worse, because it would require exactly the double amount of human resources, so your costs would double. Or, with the same people, the number of products released would be halved, that's it's the same. The existance of two sim do not make automatically people buying more. Divided community also means divided sales so, it doesn't make much sense producing at doubled costs, if the *total* sales are the same.

[Mace 1,926]

>>Ahh... almost forgot: and about that solution of 100x100>meters max grounpolis that seemed to work?>Very nice :D We have just done the huge Rio's Intl' airport>for FSX and FS9...take a look at the airport area alone at>Google Earth, note the size of those runways....very cool to>reproduce all that amount of ground using just 100x100 meters>squares, doesn't it? :-cool >CarlosAre you saying that you have found that the best maximum size of a custom ground polygon in FSX is 100x100 meters?If so, I will have to remember that...RhettAMD 3700+ (@2585 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8 (1T), WD 150 gig 10000rpm Raptor, WD 250gig 7200rpm SATA2, Seagate 120gb 5400 rpm external HD, CoolerMaster Praetorian

[Coral Sea 0]

Hi Rhett, how are you?No, I've just said that this "solution" presented to us from ACES is something painful to do if you are developing a big airport like Rio, S

[Guest KaelO]

Loke,Love you ENGM. Is there a AFCAD (for FSX) for it yet?Kael

[Mike... 7]

>Well, I'm happy you finally come alongI'm happy that in your mind, I've finally come along.>>One last thing, if it's not worth it to produce the same>>product for both sims, why not produce different products.>>Instead of Airport A for FS9 and FSX. Why not Airport A for>>FS9 only and airport B for FSX only. No upgrades, no>backwards>>compatibility. Two separate products, full price.>>That would be even worse, because it would require exactly the>double amount of human resources, so your costs would double.>Or, with the same people, the number of products released>would be halved, that's it's the same. The existance of two>sim do not make automatically people buying more. Divided>community also means divided sales so, it doesn't make much>sense producing at doubled costs, if the *total* sales are the>same.Huh? The total sales wouldn't be the same. You would re-gain me as a customer. So that's at least total sales + 1. Presumably, all your FSX customers would stay with FSX, right? So starting with an FS9 line would have no effect on that, assuming that those people are gonna stay with FS9. It may be for a smaller crowd - although right now that's still very debatable - but producing for FS9 is also much less complex, so you could really crank them out. Hire one or two extra guys and it's easy money. Added to your FSX sales... Maybe not better, but even worse?! You continue to assume too much. You assume that everyone will switch, when everyone won't. Maybe you assume that people will be less inclined to switch if you were to continue producing FS9 products? What does that say about FSX?One last thing I don't get. You say it has to stay fun, but how can it be fun with such a cool approach to the businees and customers? Carlos on the other hand, he works more from the heart. Too bad I don't fly in that region, but he would have me as customer for life. No matter what products he'd put out and what state they were in (compared to competitors), well to a certain extent of course, I would want something resembling an airport. ;-DThe reasoning behind that is purely emotional. That's something Cloud9's "research" can't possibly comprehend.Talking about even worse. I do believe your case of last worditis is worse than mine.:D

[Guest Loke]

Hi Kael,There is no AFCAD yet, but I might try to setup Norwegian AI traffic later with ADE (and when I have found an AI package I like). For now, it works fine with the default AI traffic, but it is not very real, though.In a few weeks I will update this scenery with a complete custom made gmax model of the terminal and gates. You can get an idea how it will look like if you visit the Fly II section at my site.

[virtuali 4,421]

>Huh? The total sales wouldn't be the same. You would re-gain>me as a customer. So that's at least total sales + 1.Total sales would be the same, I guess that an FSX user will only buy FSX products, and an FS9 user will only buy FS9 products. But since the total number of users hasn't increased, it's quite clear any single product has now, more of less, half of the expected sales figues, comparing to a situation were all users were using the same sim. So, offering two separate products, one for FS9 and a different one for FSX, will have the same total sales, but at a much greater cost. Offering the same product for both sim, if you want to do it right, cost more, and the eventual advantadge of exploiting *some* of the commonalities between the two, is immediately lost by the fact that you have to offer free or very cheap upgrades, if the product it's the same.Users staying with both sims and *buying* products for both sims, are the exception. The typical FS9/FSX user, stays with FS9 with the things he *already* has, but buys mostly for FSX.>but producing for FS9 is also much less complexBut still it's quite complex, also because there are some many products available for FS9, that a new one should really stand out. >Hire one or two extra guys and it's easy money. Ah, if it was really *that* easy. Sales for FS9 products started to decline *sharply* as soon as FSX was announced. And this have nothing to do, as many might mistakenly think, with Cloud9 decision to not develop anything new for FS9, this was *way* before. The decision not to support FS9 was the logical consequence of these depressing sales figures, because, 6 months before FSX release, the only reason we could think of slowing sales, could only be the FSX announcement. It was thought that, once FSX would be adopted, sales would have go back to usual levels. Unfortunately, even if FSX sales didn't catch up as expected, it's not that FS9 sales were going up, not even slightly. While people were waiting an FSX improvement, they didn't buy more FS9 in the meantime.Unfortunately, FSX wasn't adopted as quickly as we hoped, and I'd say that FSX hasn't really "released" until SP1. But, since one have to PLAN in advance, there wasn't any other choice than jumping to FSX, regardless of how much imperfect it was in its first release. It takes a LOT of time to train people with new tools and techniques, and you have to start the earliest as possible.It doesn't matter if initial sales are not so great (well, that's not always the case. XClass, for example, has been a GREAT success, that shows that FSX community can be strong, given the right product), developing commercially is, like any other business, planning first, invest, work for some time at loss, and eventually recover after that. If we were after the "quick money", I guess we could have tried to bank on the initial FSX frustations, and releasing a couple of FS9 products, but that would have been shortsighted, because we couldn't concentrate so much on knowing FSX inside-out, so it would have been an error that we would have payed in the future.>assume that everyone will switch, when everyone won't.Yes, it's a bet. We are betting that *almost* everyone will switch, at some time. If in one year, 10% of users will still be using FS9, that's fine, but it's not a market that can sustain a product.>you assume that people will be less inclined to switch if you>were to continue producing FS9 products? What does that say>about FSX?Yes, I don't care if it might seem too much, but I think we are giving our small contribution to make FSX more attractive.>One last thing I don't get. You say it has to stay fun, but>how can it be fun with such a cool approach to the businees>and customers? Because you want to see only that way. What if I told you that developing for FSX IS more fun, because:- it's a new challenge- it forces you to learn new things- it has more ( a LOT ) more possibilities, as a platform- it allows far more artistic expressivity, with its new materials- MS is more open towards 3rd party devs than ever.Comparing to FS9, were the reason of doing something again for it would be ONLY money (little money, but...), this is perfectly in line with was I've said to Carlos.>The reasoning behind that is purely emotional. That's>something Cloud9's "research" can't possibly comprehend.That's exactly the opposite (see above). I'd supported FSX even if I was a freeware developer. A purely commercial approach, would have probably suggested being more cautious with jumping on FSX, like almost all other developers have been doing ( we were only the first to go into FSX-only mode, but everyone else is doing the same now )>Talking about even worse. I do believe your case of last>worditis is worse than mine.All right, that's why I needed to rectify it...:)