A2A to focus on MSFS for entertainment products

[GoranM 3,772]

8 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I suppose the question at the core of this discussion is which platform will make a developer the most money? I honestly don't know. With XP for instance, developers charge twice as much but do they sell more than 50% of the sales they would get in MSFS?

Oh I can answer that for you right now.  Overall, MSFS is where the most money is.  Anyone can see that.  If a dev wants to stay where he/she is, there's obviously a reason for it.  Maybe several reasons.  My point is, it shouldn't bother anyone whether they do or they don't.  

 

@Aamir 2 years??  That's it???  I can see why you chose MSFS then.  At least you had a foundation to build upon.  It took PMDG over 4 years to do the 747-400 for FS9 and 8 years to do the MD11.

Edited July 4, 2023 by GoranM

[jarmstro 2,405]

6 minutes ago, Aamir said:

It was actually not compatible, we spent nearly 2 years beating it into working with MSFS, hence the sim releasing in 2020 and us coming out in 2022. 

Are you going to beat it into working with XP? You can charge twice as much and you don't have to worry about what it looks like.😉

Edited July 4, 2023 by jarmstro

[lwt1971 7,456]

3 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Prosim is compatible with MSFS.  Fenix would be stupid to try and make their Airbus for something else if it wasn't compatible..

Prosim is no more or no less compatible with MSFS as it is with any other sim. It is independent code simulating systems.

In any case, I'll stand by my initial point which was only in the context of MSFS: a lot/most of the major 3rd party devs are now developing exclusively for MSFS, so if anything the "competition" is between them either intentionally or not, friendly or not (very likely the former).. and all that results in quality of add-ons choice for MSFS users. 
 

[Ricardo41 5,959]

43 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

The bottom line is that MSFS is the sim of tomorrow. If a developer wants to make products for yesterday's sims, they won't be very successful. Just common sense. 

I agree MSFS 2024 is the only future for flight simulation. Developers who don't realize this will soon be staring at empty bank accounts. 

[Aamir 2,907]

1 minute ago, jarmstro said:

Are you going to beat it into working with XP? You can charge twice as much.

Probably not, but perhaps if XP13 has something interesting! Never say never, as they say. No plans now though.

10 minutes ago, GoranM said:

Prosim is compatible with MSFS.  Fenix would be stupid to try and make their Airbus for something else if it wasn't compatible.

 

2 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Prosim is no more or no less compatible with MSFS as it is with any other sim. It is independent code simulating systems.

Kinda in between, here. ProSim is a platform agnostic software solution - but that does not mean it's particularly easy to get it working with X, Y, or Z sims. It just means the system simulation runs agnostic to whatever platform it's in, but this then poses some significant technical hurdles in building and packaging it for consumer purposes. Displays, being a major hurdle for one - as does flight dynamics, flight modelling, and any/all interactions with the sim. It's more or less the same deal as taking PMDG's 737 and porting it into MSFS from P3D. Just different challenges, but same principal. Platform agnostic doesn't mean instant compatibility with anything, and oftentimes something built to be agnostic is more challenging to shoe horn into a single platform solution. 

I guess, the point is - we could have done anything - built it for XP, built it for P3D, heck - even Flight Gear. Picked MSFS as it made the most sense. 

[Krakin 5,837]

5 hours ago, GoranM said:

Asobo that said MSFS has had 10 million DOWNLOADS.

 They never said that. They said it was 10 million PILOTS, as in, unique users. I've downloaded the sim about 3 times but I still only count as one lol. I think that's what you were getting at but the way you said it can be confusing.

[Aamir 2,907]

19 minutes ago, GoranM said:

@Aamir 2 years??  That's it???  I can see why you chose MSFS then.  At least you had a foundation to build upon.  It took PMDG over 4 years to do the 747-400 for FS9 and 8 years to do the MD11.

And how long did it take PMDG to build the 737 for MSFS? Probably better to go Apples to Apples here 😉

Edited July 4, 2023 by Aamir

[GoranM 3,772]

17 minutes ago, Aamir said:

And how long did it take PMDG to built the 737 for MSFS?

No idea.

17 minutes ago, Aamir said:

Probably better to go Apples to Apples here

FSLabs Airbus took 6 years.  2 years is an incredibly short time for an airbus.  I've been doing this for 14 years, so I know my way around.

tbh, I'm not really interested in prolonging this argument.  I simply wanted to make a point that some developers are happy with the ROI they are getting, and are not interested in going for the most money.  There are other factors, too numerous to mention.

I'm going to close off my part in this discussion.  Like I said, I've already been misquoted once.  

As you were, gentlemen.

I just read your post below, @Aamir

So, for a port, for what I assume is a new developer (as opposed to a dev with an extensive history with another platform), you chose MSFS.  

I think anyone who knows a sliver about business, knows you made the right decision.  If it was my first add on, and it was simply a port, OBVIOUSLY I would choose the most popular sim.  I'd be a boofhead if I chose something else.

As for the compatibility issue, hey, it's just what was spoken about around dev circles.  I hold no judgement, either way.

Edited July 4, 2023 by GoranM

[Krakin 5,837]

18 minutes ago, GoranM said:

@Aamir 2 years??  That's it???  I can see why you chose MSFS then.

"Oh ok, thanks for the clarification" That's all you had to say.....

[Aamir 2,907]

1 minute ago, GoranM said:

FSLabs Airbus took 6 years.  2 years is an incredibly short time for an airbus.  I've been doing this for 14 years, so I know my way around.

 

We ported into MSFS, took 2 years. PMDG ported into MSFS, took 2 years. Leonardo ported into MSFS, took 2 years. A pattern. No one is disagreeing with your original point, but you made a claim about my company and product saying it was already compatible with MSFS, it wasn't. Same case as PMDG and Leonardo, etc. Which is why it took a very similar amount of time to get to market. I fundamentally agree with your point about ROIs etc. 

[lwt1971 7,456]

18 minutes ago, Aamir said:

Kinda in between, here. ProSim is a platform agnostic software solution - but that does not mean it's particularly easy to get it working with X, Y, or Z sims. It just means the system simulation runs agnostic to whatever platform it's in, but this then poses some significant technical hurdles in building and packaging it for consumer purposes. Displays, being a major hurdle for one - as does flight dynamics, flight modelling, and any/all interactions with the sim. It's more or less the same deal as taking PMDG's 737 and porting it into MSFS from P3D. Just different challenges, but same principal. Platform agnostic doesn't mean instant compatibility with anything, and oftentimes something built to be agnostic is more challenging to shoe horn into a single platform solution. 

I guess, the point is - we could have done anything - built it for XP, built it for P3D, heck - even Flight Gear. Picked MSFS as it made the most sense. 

Thanks for the insights Aamir ... so you guys did not choose MSFS because it was easier to port Prosim for that sim vs other sims (and it apparently was not easy at all), always good to hear clarifications from the actual source 🙂
 

Edited July 4, 2023 by lwt1971

[regis9 4,034]

Anyway…fascinating discussion of x-plane in this thread for some reason, but how about that incoming  A2A aircraft for MSFS…I bet that’s going to be awesome. 🙂

[Sky_Pilot071 581]

You can talk about other sims all you want but the elephant in the room (and what draws dev resources) is XBOX.

sp

[lwt1971 7,456]

8 minutes ago, regis9 said:

Anyway…fascinating discussion of x-plane in this thread for some reason, but how about that incoming  A2A aircraft for MSFS…I bet that’s going to be awesome. 🙂

Indeedio! A recent nugget of extra info from Scott yesterday that just speaks once again to their depth of simulation: https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=74561&start=75 ... a good portion of their systems and engine simulation/physics is likely running externally of the sim in their AccuSim framework and looks like sound is too. Really interested and looking forward to their deeper dives into how it all works.

Aenigma wrote: ↑Yesterday, 16:10: Hopefully the engine sounds get sorted before release. The new sound system is hard to work with so I bet it has been a nightmare. Shutdown sound and prop syncing can be a huge pain.

Scott wrote: Yesterday, 17:51: We don't use the MSFS sound system, Accu-Sim has it's own sound system directly connected to the physics. Every sound is triggered by a physical event with per frame accuracy, there is no delay. You are mistaking a cockpit rattle that happened from compression kickback. It's like punching something, the energy goes into the thing you hit then it dissipates it by way of a rattle. This is how it happens in the real Comanche. All sounds don't immediately stop once the prop stops. It's when the energy stops and is then dissipated. So it's a feature, not a bug 🙂

Edited July 4, 2023 by lwt1971

[Bobsk8 12,842]

6 minutes ago, Sky_Pilot071 said:

You can talk about other sims all you want but the elephant in the room (and what draws dev resources) is XBOX.

sp

Can't be any worse than running a flight sim on a smart phone.