Very unimpressed with this "update"...I went back to the default Asobo version...

Imaginesim have been releasing a version of KATL for as long as I can remember...and other than freeware options, in all of that time I don't think there has been a "legitimate" payware competitor.

Have any of Imaginesim's releases over the years/sim iterations ever been true to the real ATL?

I think the last one I bought (probably FSX) didn't even have operating jetways...I said "never again!" at that point. (Although, I think my most disappointing scenery purchase ever was Skyline's KCVG for P3D 64.)

I, personally, cannot understand why the busiest airport in the world hasn't received commercial interest from quality (those very few top-tier) developers in all these years...I guess it is, what it is...the question for me: have they diluted the market potential for someone else to step in, or are detailed dimensions/photos/information for Hartsfield just too hard to come by?

 

11 minutes ago, rmeier said:

Imaginesim have been releasing a version of KATL for as long as I can remember...and other than freeware options, in all of that time I don't think there has been a "legitimate" payware competitor.

Have any of Imaginesim's releases over the years/sim iterations ever been true to the real ATL?

I think the last one I bought (probably FSX) didn't even have operating jetways...I said "never again!" at that point. (Although, I think my most disappointing scenery purchase ever was Skyline's KCVG for P3D 64.)

I, personally, cannot understand why the busiest airport in the world hasn't received commercial interest from quality (those very few top-tier) developers in all these years...I guess it is, what it is...the question for me: have they diluted the market potential for someone else to step in, or are detailed dimensions/photos/information for Hartsfield just too hard to come by?

 

It's a huge airport, the biggest in the world (by passenger numbers). That means a lot of work. And since there's already a very decent free Asobo version, the potential profit margin might just be too small (or better: smaller than doing any other airport). I can't think of any other reason.
Also many top tier devs in MSFS have just re-made their P3D version, which is a lot less work than starting from scratch on a new one (again, profit margin).

2 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

It's a huge airport, the biggest in the world (by passenger numbers). That means a lot of work. And since there's already a very decent free Asobo version, the potential profit margin might just be too small (or better: smaller than doing any other airport). I can't think of any other reason.
Also many top tier devs in MSFS have just re-made their P3D version, which is a lot less work than starting from scratch on a new one (again, profit margin).

Agreed!

In terms of area, and or complexity, I think KDEN is a much larger airport...that didn't seem to cause Flightbeam to shy away from tackling a complex airport...albeit, you can argue they already had the P3D version initially.

I can only assume margins for the top tier developers must be small (not discounting passion for a project in our hobby has to be a big driver for any developer!)...FlyTampa has indefinitely shelved CYUL after 2 new entries...one would've thought they were the incumbent for that scenery. (Truthfully, I would buy FT CYUL if it came to market even though I already have one of the others.)

Which leads me to believe that perhaps Hartsfield management is keeping their info (willingness to co-operate) close to the chest.

9 hours ago, DMullert said:

Same can be said of KDFW.  No one has decided to tackle either.

Absolutely. DFW is another one that really stumps me.

Cheers, Pete

18 hours ago, DMullert said:

Same can be said of KDFW.  No one has decided to tackle either.

Interestingly, DFW is slated for ImagineSim's next release according to their website. I seem to recall however that it's been up on their website for years...

13 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

Also many top tier devs in MSFS have just re-made their P3D version, which is a lot less work than starting from scratch on a new one (again, profit margin).

At some point they had to launch their original P3D versions though, and one could argue that starting a whole new project will be much more profitable for MSFS than it ever was for P3D. So if one were to start from scratch, I'd say the time is now.

14 minutes ago, threexgreen said:

At some point they had to launch their original P3D versions though, and one could argue that starting a whole new project will be much more profitable for MSFS than it ever was for P3D. So if one were to start from scratch, I'd say the time is now.

But that's not the actual decision to make. The two options are not making a whole new project for MSFS or making a new whole airport for P3D; the options are making a whole new airport for MSFS or making a known airport for MSFS. Neglecting other factors like airport popularity and already available (freeware/payware) versions of that airport, it's ALWAYS the more profitable option to make a known airport.

("known" in the sense of: Has all the data and/or has already built it in another sim).

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

But that's not the actual decision to make. The two options are not making a whole new project for MSFS or making a new whole airport for P3D; the options are making a whole new airport for MSFS or making a known airport for MSFS. Neglecting other factors like airport popularity and already available (freeware/payware) versions of that airport, it's ALWAYS the more profitable option to make a known airport.

("known" in the sense of: Has all the data and/or has already built it in another sim).

That's completely right. My point is simply it's not as much of a financial endeavor to develop from scratch for MSFS as it is for P3D because a vastly higher number of sales with MSFS will, by all accounts, yield far greater profit. So, while it's always even more profitable to convert existing products, the better time to develop from scratch is now compared to P3D times.

Besides, the top airports everyone loved in P3D are expected by customers to appear in MSFS too. I don't think there was ever a scenario in which top developers would not convert existing top products for use in MSFS, regardless of the economics.

19 minutes ago, threexgreen said:

a vastly higher number of sales with MSFS

Now that's another thing. About two/three years ago I heard voices from airport devs that their sales for MSFS were very underwhelming and only slightly above the P3D level (note: when MSFS didn't exist yet and P3D was the main sim).
Now I don't know if that changed in the meantime (possibly with the appearance of so many study level airliners?). Haven't had the chance to talk to another airport dev since then. Anyone with insider infos about the amount of sales of airport scenery?

I would be extremely surprised if sales of airport addons in MSFS are disappointing. Whilst it is true that the default scenery does not need much (if any) enhancement, the vast majority of airports certainly do.

27 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Now that's another thing. About two/three years ago I heard voices from airport devs that their sales for MSFS were very underwhelming and only slightly above the P3D level (note: when MSFS didn't exist yet and P3D was the main sim).
Now I don't know if that changed in the meantime (possibly with the appearance of so many study level airliners?). Haven't had the chance to talk to another airport dev since then. Anyone with insider infos about the amount of sales of airport scenery?

What Christopher said. 2-3 years ago MSFS was new and probably not the main sim yet, but that has obviously changed. The devs have virtually all left P3D for MSFS for a long time now. I can't imagine airport sales are underwhelming now. It also seems like airports are growing on trees these days/like airports keep getting released left, right and center. Developers have also said it's easier to develop for MSFS, which lowers development costs.

Well  Imaginesim has put up an early preview of DFW yet they cannot even offer up an update to the update. Sure home some developer is working on DFW in secret.  Imaginsim has put up an early preview of DFW yet they cannot even offer up an update to the update. Sure home some developer is working on DFW in secret. 

I wrote off Imaginesim early on in for MSFS.  Then I found myself willing to give them another chance with the Atlanta update.   They didn't deliver.  They are back on my do not buy list.  

Flytampa and Imaginesim are both a bit off their game in MSFS

What is it about FlyTampa that concerns you, Erich?