40 minutes ago, FPVSteve said:

😂 you know fine well you'll buy it if it turns out to be better than expected. Fenix has plenty of issues, let's be honest. It's good for sure but it's not perfect.

"good" is incredibly reductive for describing Fenix's quality. 

If you like nitpicking, sure. You get the gist of what I'm saying though. It's not perfect.

9 minutes ago, FPVSteve said:

If you like nitpicking, sure. You get the gist of what I'm saying though. It's not perfect.

Nothing is. FSLabs has never done a "perfect" aircraft to my memory either. No reason to expect this one will be.

Statistically speaking, the difference in quality will have to be pretty extreme (and the price very attractive) to push a considerable number of people to make the jump from a full family of aircraft that also has consistency going for it to a stand-alone one from a brand that has certainly lost some of its presence in the flight simulation spotlight and some of its luster thanks to self-inflicted controversy (thankfully, some of that likely faded with the loss in spotlight, but it has not been forgotten).  

I wish FSLabs all the best, but I don't expect this to be particularly successful. Realistically, most of those who wanted a high-definition Airbus 321 CEO already have one. 

Edited November 16, 20241 yr by Abriael

10 minutes ago, Abriael said:

I wish FSLabs all the best, but I don't expect this to be particularly successful.

And ultimately, and more accurately, the market will decide.

And it's purely your opinion - you're guessing. You have no way of knowing that they'll fail you're just assuming that they won't do everything you say they need to do. You probably shouldn't ignore the fact that they've had 2 years of being able to use Fenix as a benchmark. I'm not sure they'd be dumb enough to release an inferior product so I'm optimistic that it will be really good given their past record. 

On the other hand - feel free to write it off if you like. Me, I prefer to be a bit more positive.

14 minutes ago, FPVSteve said:

And it's purely your opinion - you're guessing. You have no way of knowing that they'll fail you're just assuming that they won't do everything you say they need to do. You probably shouldn't ignore the fact that they've had 2 years of being able to use Fenix as a benchmark. I'm not sure they'd be dumb enough to release an inferior product so I'm optimistic that it will be really good given their past record. 

On the other hand - feel free to write it off if you like. Me, I prefer to be a bit more positive.

I have no doubt that it will be good.  I just don't see what they can improve on right now.  So unless something truly new is in there, I won't buy another A32X family of aircraft.  

Everything about the Fenix is so slick, the entire process of setting up a flight is just really enjoyable.  It's hard to beat.

23 minutes ago, FPVSteve said:

And it's purely your opinion - you're guessing. You have no way of knowing that they'll fail you're just assuming that they won't do everything you say they need to do. You probably shouldn't ignore the fact that they've had 2 years of being able to use Fenix as a benchmark. I'm not sure they'd be dumb enough to release an inferior product so I'm optimistic that it will be really good given their past record. 

On the other hand - feel free to write it off if you like. Me, I prefer to be a bit more positive.

They were dumb enough to ignore MSFS entirely, so there's that.

31 minutes ago, FPVSteve said:

And it's purely your opinion - you're guessing. 

There's a very big difference between a "guess" and a market analysis based on a number of very clear facts. 

They can't just get away with releasing a "not inferior" product to be successful and take back market share. They need to release a massively superior product at a very competitive price. All markets have inertia. When you go against it, you go uphill.

Edited November 16, 20241 yr by Abriael

1 hour ago, FPVSteve said:

If you like nitpicking, sure. You get the gist of what I'm saying though. It's not perfect.

nothing is perfect for flight sim airplanes.  But in terms of msfs/p3d (I don't know xp deep enough), I don't think any plane is better all in

1 hour ago, Abriael said:

There's a very big difference between a "guess" and a market analysis based on a number of very clear facts. 

They can't just get away with releasing a "not inferior" product to be successful and take back market share. They need to release a massively superior product at a very competitive price. All markets have inertia. When you go against it, you go uphill.

Market analysis? There's one study level Airbus in MSFS which is the Fenix, and it uses third party code for its systems.  However, what if there are fundamental issues making said code work with 2024? 2028? What if there becomes a time when Fenix are unable to fix something because ProSim either don't allow it, or don't see the problem? What if ProSim some day pull the license for further simulator usage - is it even approved for use in MSFS 2024? (I don't know the answer to any of those questions). 

It seems to me that there is a gap in the market for study level Airbus avionics where the company who is making the addon actually owns the intellectual property of the systems it depends on... perhaps that's also why it's taken four years to build. Perhaps they'll even build on that code to provide further addons (Neo variants etc). Perhaps now that they have fully developed and tested systems, their product line will grow quickly... 

 

There’s a gap in the market for Airbus aircraft from a company called FSLabs sold to nostalgic simmers who just aren’t happy with what probably most people would deem the best Airbus simulation ever sold for a sim at a very fair price by developers who are just very refreshing in their approach to the community and rather spend more money on a virtual Airbus that will probably not deliver anything beyond what we already have.

Seriously though, what are they going to do that Fenix hasn’t already done - deliver an actual A321 to my door? Include a full motion sim plus shipping and setup in the product?

I mean, the global market size for that gap is probably 50 people vs the 99.99999% who stick with what they already have but I guess that’s the beauty of a free market.

I don’t have anything against FSLabs, in fact I loved their products in P3D. I just wish they had devoted their efforts to something interesting like a NEO instead of duplicating something that is already of the highest quality.
 

 

32 minutes ago, FPVSteve said:

Market analysis? There's one study level Airbus in MSFS which is the Fenix, and it uses third party code for its systems.  However, what if there are fundamental issues making said code work with 2024? 2028? What if there becomes a time when Fenix are unable to fix something because ProSim either don't allow it, or don't see the problem? What if ProSim some day pull the license for further simulator usage - is it even approved for use in MSFS 2024? (I don't know the answer to any of those questions). 

It seems to me that there is a gap in the market for study level Airbus avionics where the company who is making the addon actually owns the intellectual property of the systems it depends on... perhaps that's also why it's taken four years to build. Perhaps they'll even build on that code to provide further addons (Neo variants etc). Perhaps now that they have fully developed and tested systems, their product line will grow quickly... 

 

History isn't made with what ifs, let alone marketing and market analysis. The situation right now is extremely uphill for FSLabs. They have a competitor that offers one of the best add-on lines in the history of flight simulation and that's the only firmly established parameter. At the moment there's zero indication that any of your "what ifs" is even on the menu. 

If someone is interested in airbusses for Microsoft Flight Simulator and wants study level, they already have it. It's really that simple. There maybe some isolated hold-outs (hold out for what?), but there can't be many. Their competitor had 2.5 years to own the market and own they did. Not only their product is high quality and complete, but it's also priced competitively.. 

FSLabs has literally nothing on its side. Its brand has lost its visibility which was already niche to begin with because it published its products on the most unpopular simulator in the history of civilian simulators (unless you count really small ones). Among those who even know who FSlabs is, a portion had their perception tarnished by controversy (and not small controversy). 

This thread is a pretty good indication of the sentiment FSLabs is facing on their arrival to market. Lots of skepticism and lots of people who have already pretty much decided, on top of a certain level of plain and simple hostility. There are some who are expectant, but they're far from a majority or more than a fairly small minority.

To be honest, the excuses you're making sound little more than wishful thinking. 

Would it be great if FSLabs had a product so incredible and competitive that they managed to earn plenty of market share? Yes. The more the merrier. But competitive pricing has never been their forte, and they have pretty literally everything to prove. 

The only way that I can explain them entering the market with something as odd as an Airbus A321 CEO is that they're running out of money and they have to put *something* on the market. I wish them well in that attempt, but at least I am aware that it's wishful thinking supported by nothing else than hope not to see a storied developer go out of business. 

Edited November 16, 20241 yr by Abriael

Well that's the thing - noone knows how good it is. But everyone seems to be assuming it won't be as good as, or better than, the Fenix for some reason. It might very well be. Question: will you still stick with Fenix just because they were first to market if, for instance, the FSLabs gives a 25% frame rate increase with equally good systems and EFB?

 

1 minute ago, FPVSteve said:

Well that's the thing - noone knows how good it is. But everyone seems to be assuming it won't be as good as...

"As good as" is not enough to move the needle in a solidified market. 

It needs to be *considerably* superior in a very obvious way *and* priced competitively.

As I said in my first post here, good luck with that. They'll need it.

Well the skepticism is because Fenix is so good. Imagine though, based on the 2.5 years head start Fenix has had, the FSLabs is actually better. Slow and steady wins the race, etc... The Fenix team say they have many improvements to make to their Airbus family still... what if FSLabs have done those things already? 

Anyway - let's leave it here. I guess we shall see!

All the best 🙂