Interesting new tidbits from FSL (Flight Sim Labs)

[abrams_tank]

9 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

(side note: On a previous thread post they since deleted they also said their first MSFS product will be out before MSFS 2024, i.e. <= November)

 

It's interesting that they deleted that post. FSLabs is pretty careful about what they say, so I was surprised when they said they would release their next add-on for MSFS 2020, before MSFS 2024 came out. Now it wasn't Leftaris that said this, if my memory is correct. Maybe it was just one of the FSLabs staff that was too optimistic.  But also if my memory is correct, that post that said they could release a product before MSFS 2024 came out, was posted within the last 3 to 4 months.  FSLabs is known for being notoriously slow, so I was very surprised when they said they could release a product for MSFS 2020 before MSFS 2024 came out.

[Fiorentoni]

In Fenix we trust. That's all left to say.

[abrams_tank]

@lwt1971,

At least FSLabs now realizes that they were very slow to get into MSFS, that they probably lost a lot of sales because of it, especially with Fenix taking their sales. It seems that Fenix is pretty late in the cycle with their A321.  If Fenix beats FSLabs with the A321, that's more lost sales for FSLabs. And of course, Fenix is also working on the A319.

Fortunately for FSLabs, it seems like they have deep enough finances to pay their developers and pay their business expenses, until the release of their first MSFS product.  IMO, if they could go back in time and redo this again, they probably should have shelved the Concorde project for P3D, and rushed to get the A321 or A319 out for MSFS, as it would have been a very tough race to beat Fenix in releasing the A320 for MSFS.  Nobody is doing a study level Concorde for MSFS so they could have waited indefinitely before starting on that project for MSFS.

They will also lose some of the A330 market to the iniBuilds A330 and Aerosoft A330. Granted, any A330 FSLabs does would be higher fidelity than iniBuilds and Aerosoft, but some people that are happy with the fidelity of iniBuilds and Aerosoft, could have been potential FSLabs A330 customers.

The market doesn't wait for you. And with MSFS, there are so many more add-on developers than in the past, the competition is so much faster. As MSFS users though, we should be happy with how strong the number of 3rd party add-on developers are, that are working on MSFS.  It appears that the commercial 3rd party add-on development community for a flight sim has never been as strong before, as it has with MSFS.

Edited August 15 by Ray Proudfoot
Long quoted post removed

[mspencer]

2 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

At least FSLabs now realizes that they were very slow to get into MSFS, that they probably lost a lot of sales because of it, especially with Fenix taking their sales. It seems that Fenix is pretty late in the cycle with their A321.  If Fenix beats FSLabs with the A321, that's more lost sales for FSLabs. And of course, Fenix is also working on the A319.

Fortunately for FSLabs, it seems like they have deep enough finances to pay their developers and pay their business expenses, until the release of their first MSFS product.  IMO, if they could go back in time and redo this again, they probably should have shelved the Concorde project for P3D, and rushed to get the A321 or A319 out for MSFS, as it would have been a very tough race to beat Fenix in releasing the A320 for MSFS.  Nobody is doing a study level Concorde for MSFS so they could have waited indefinitely before starting on that project for MSFS.

They will also lose some of the A330 market to the iniBuilds A330 and Aerosoft A330. Granted, any A330 FSLabs does would be higher fidelity than iniBuilds and Aerosoft, but some people that are happy with the fidelity of iniBuilds and Aerosoft, could have been potential FSLabs A330 customers.

The market doesn't wait for you. And with MSFS, there are so many more add-on developers than in the past, the competition is so much faster.

To be fair, there was a good 2 year period there where MSFS didn't seem ready for primetime. Now we're in the dawn of the golden age - it mirrors almost perfectly the switch between FS9 and FSX - plenty of devs were still releasing for FS9 well after FSX was out.

[ca_metal]

9 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

I do wonder if these new USPs mean they’ll retain P3D pricing habits or severely undercut the market to garner buyers. Curious of their economic strategy to try and make some ROI from the majority who already use Fenix. 
 
never the less, super curious to see what they have to bring to the table.

There’s the Xbox. Fenix is excluded from ~40% of the market (Xbox). There’s some potential in there. We will see.

[honanhal]

1 hour ago, mspencer said:

To be fair, there was a good 2 year period there where MSFS didn't seem ready for primetime. Now we're in the dawn of the golden age - it mirrors almost perfectly the switch between FS9 and FSX - plenty of devs were still releasing for FS9 well after FSX was out.

That's the thing, though -- business success often hinges on being able to predict (or simply guess!) correctly where the market is going, even when it's not crystal clear. FSL seemingly missed obvious signs that MSFS was the overwhelming future of the hardcore flight-sim market a long time (seriously, years) after that already seemed to be all but crystal clear...

They're right they need to set themselves apart from their competition, but they're now so far behind the curve it sounds like they may be deep in development for a four-year-old platform that's about to be superseded. Good luck to them. I wish their proven ability to develop a quality product was more closely matched by their business acumen. Without the latter, the former doesn't do too much good, unfortunately.

[Ray Proudfoot]

8 hours ago, B777ER said:

If it's the Concord, I'll be disappointed and won't be purchasing it. It is a niche of a niche aircraft that quite frankly would bore me.

Concorde boring? 😳 Really? The only passenger aircraft with reheats and capable of flying at Mach 2 12 miles above the Earth’s surface? Mach 0.95 to Mach 1.7 in under 8 minutes. Rotating at 187kts and 250mph as the gear comes up. Landing at 160kts with a 11° nose-up attitude.

If that’s boring I’d love to know what excites you.

[lwt1971]

Tough to see how FSL compels the customer and stands out against the current offerings for MSFS if it's an A32x, even if it's a NEO. Perhaps customers who don't already have the Fenix might be the initial adopters, but then again the price point better be at around current norms rather than yesteryear prices in the stratosphere 🙂 

Personally (and perhaps for their sake) I hope it's an A330 or something yet not available in high fidelity form for MSFS. If it's a Concorde, I feel even that would do better than an A32x as their first MSFS product.

But really really curious as to what they feel are "innovations not seen on the MSFS platform before" and the "unique selling points (USPs)" 🤔
 

Edited August 15 by lwt1971

[guenseli]

Anyone who is wondering about FSLs marketing mechanics and the usage of the word "soon" should not forget that FSL is a very close relative to PMDG!

[DavidP]

17 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

I hope it's an A330 or something yet not available in high fidelity form for MSFS.

I agree. If it was some sort of long hauler Airbus, I'd probably go for it. They'd be mad to try any sort of A32X family as one would think the sales volume wouldn't be there, but who knows?

[abrams_tank]

3 hours ago, mspencer said:

To be fair, there was a good 2 year period there where MSFS didn't seem ready for primetime. Now we're in the dawn of the golden age - it mirrors almost perfectly the switch between FS9 and FSX - plenty of devs were still releasing for FS9 well after FSX was out.

I think PMDG, Aerosoft, and other companies, helped cleared the minefield in the first 2 years of MSFS so that other developers (ie. FSLabs) had a more complete SDK for airliners, by 2022. PMDG with their DC-6 and 737, and Aerosoft with their CRJ, forced Asobo to change the SDK until it had what it needed, for high fidelity airliners to work in MSFS.  Having said that, PMDG and Aerosoft took the risk, but also got a very nice reward when the DC-6, 737, and CRJ were released.  As the saying goes, "no risk, no reward."  FSLabs didn't risk anything, and now one wonders, what reward they will get, especially with Fenix taking a lot of FSLab's rewards with the A319/A320/A321, and iniBuilds and Aerosoft taking the A330 rewards soon.

[outermarker]

Fenix have said multiple times that they currently have no plans for the NEOs, so I wouldn't mind an A21N from FSLabs, but I really hope they are full steam ahead on the A330 (which I doubt for some reason).

[abrams_tank]

38 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Tough to see how FSL compels the customer and stands out against the current offerings for MSFS if it's an A32x, even if it's a NEO. Perhaps customers who don't already have the Fenix might be the initial adopters, but then again the price point better be at around current norms rather than yesteryear prices in the stratosphere 🙂 

Personally (and perhaps for their sake) I hope it's an A330 or something yet not available in high fidelity form for MSFS. If it's a Concorde, I feel even that would do better than an A32x as their first MSFS product.

But really really curious as to what they feel are "innovations not seen on the MSFS platform before" and the "unique selling points (USPs)" 🤔
 

If FSLabs releases another A320 for MSFS, I really wonder how much money they will make from it. There are already 2 decent A320s in MSFS already (FBW and iniBuilds), and one outstanding A320 (Fenix) in MSFS.

A fourth A320? Well, I'm not going to complain about the lack of A320s if FSLabs releases a fourth A320 for MSFS 😄

[737_800]

We need an A321 long range - that has not been touched so far in the market - that would safe FSL for sure and bring the reward, since it's quite interessting aircraft with routes that can't be flown with the CEO and real world usage increases. Also there is no competetion insight, whereas an A330 will be a little challenging with the aersoft and default A330.

I hope they will bring out an A321 long range, so I don't have to struggle whom to support, I would love to keep using and supporting Fenix with their CEO and since they won't enter the NEO market support another dev who is knows for high fidelity. However, the competetion might also have some advantages for the customers. Anyway, what will come, we'll get another big player in the sim, I just hope they will leave the hacking stuff behind and adapt the prices to the market.

[Speedbird 217]

I loved the FSL in P3D but to all those saying it would make it tough to chose between the Fenix and a potential FSL A320 in MSFS - what exactly is it that you're missing from the Fenix?

There's really nothing I can think of that FSL could do with an A320 that would make me consider using that over the Fenix in MSFS. Even if they released an A321 today, I would not be tempted to buy that as the Fenix A319/321 expansion will come out at some point and I'm in no rush. Keeps the commonality with the existing A320 that is the most complete simulation available in my opinion. Plus, at least in my opinion, Fenix take a very refreshing approach to communication and pricing which is worth supporting for me - unlike some other developers.

The only thing I'd like Fenix to improve is an autocruise feature similar to the PMDG 777. Only having 2x available can still make those 4-5 hour hops on the A320 quite long during the limited hours I have for simming. So unless FSL release an actual A320 they physically deliver to me, I can't see any reason why I would chose them over the excellent Fenix.

Now, if they did the NEO versions, XLRs or other Airbus types that would be a completely different story...