19 minutes ago, FPVSteve said:

Well the skepticism is because Fenix is so good.

No. It's not just that. The skepticism is also because FSLabs made people wait too long while they faffed around with a complete waste of time and resources (Concorde for P3D), they have not been good at keeping in touch with potential customers with the result that a portion of their faithful have given up and new people don't even know who they are, they're launching with a very odd choice of debut product, and they fuc*ed over the trust in their brand by installing borderline malware on people's PCs. 

They have multiple factors against them, not just the quality of Fenix's product. I also expect them to price themselves out of the market out of pure arrogance, but they may surprise me here easier than on other issues.

Quote

Imagine though

I leave imagination for fairy tales, not flight simulators. If any of your wishful thinking comes true, some will reassess and some won't. That's the nature of market inertia. 

Edited November 16, 20241 yr by Abriael

24 minutes ago, Abriael said:

If someone is interested in airbusses for Microsoft Flight Simulator and wants study level, they already have it. It's really that simple.

You appear to have overlooked the fact FS Labs built their name on another aircraft and it wasn’t an Airbus.

For the last 15 years they have created the most realistic version of Concorde. Nothing else comes close. And I can say that with a degree of certainty because one of the chief programmers wrote the software for the Concorde simulator at Brooklands Museum near Heathrow.

The nearest is the Colimata version for XP and it just so happens I was with a friend today and we flew it on a route I’m very familiar with.

Whilst it was a half-decent offering it fell short of the FSL versions both the 32-bit launched around 14 years ago and the 64-bit launched last year.

So they do have a state-of-the-art aircraft. And they may add their Airbuses to that list in due course.

9 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You appear to have overlooked the fact FS Labs built their name on another aircraft and it wasn’t an Airbus.

For the last 15 years they have created the most realistic version of Concorde. Nothing else comes close. And I can say that with a degree of certainty because one of the chief programmers wrote the software for the Concorde simulator at Brooklands Museum near Heathrow.

The nearest is the Colimata version for XP and it just so happens I was with a friend today and we flew it on a route I’m very familiar with.

Whilst it was a half-decent offering it fell short of the FSL versions both the 32-bit launched around 14 years ago and the 64-bit launched last year.

So they do have a state-of-the-art aircraft. And they may add their Airbuses to that list in due course.

I knew I was literally summoning him, but what is life without living on the edge? 😂

The name they have built (and then damaged with their own two hands) doesn't have nearly as much oompf on a platform they have ignored for 4 years. Brand recognition goes only so far when you enter a new market that you have neglected allowing other brands to hog the spotlight. 

They may have a "state-of-the-art aircraft" but it's a relatively niche one and for now it's on the wrong simulator. We'll cross that bridge when we get there, if FSLabs gets there before they run out of money. I have a very strong feeling that this A321 is an attempt to avoid precisely that, but whether it'll be successful remains to be seen. I hope so. 

Edited November 16, 20241 yr by Abriael

6 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

You appear to have overlooked the fact FS Labs built their name on another aircraft and it wasn’t an Airbus.

For the last 15 years they have created the most realistic version of Concorde. Nothing else comes close. And I can say that with a degree of certainty because one of the chief programmers wrote the software for the Concorde simulator at Brooklands Museum near Heathrow.

The nearest is the Colimata version for XP and it just so happens I was with a friend today and we flew it on a route I’m very familiar with.

Whilst it was a half-decent offering it fell short of the FSL versions both the 32-bit launched around 14 years ago and the 64-bit launched last year.

So they do have a state-of-the-art aircraft. And they may add their Airbuses to that list in due course.

They have did more than what you posted but probably should not be discussed here. But you enjoy your addons in another simulator as no one here really cares for them and that is FSL.

On 11/14/2024 at 9:05 PM, John_Tavendale said:

I am sure many people care. They might just not be vocal about it...

Tavs painting for FSL's MSFS line confirmed 

46 minutes ago, Abriael said:

No. It's not just that. The skepticism is also because FSLabs made people wait too long while they faffed around with a complete waste of time and resources (Concorde for P3D), they have not been good at keeping in touch with potential customers with the result that a portion of their faithful have given up and new people don't even know who they are, they're launching with a very odd choice of debut product, and they fuc*ed over the trust in their brand by installing borderline malware on people's PCs. 

They have multiple factors against them, not just the quality of Fenix's product. I also expect them to price themselves out of the market out of pure arrogance, but they may surprise me here easier than on other issues.

I leave imagination for fairy tales, not flight simulators. If any of your wishful thinking comes true, some will reassess and some won't. That's the nature of market inertia. 

You're coming across as someone who took it personally that FSLabs didn't come to MSFS for four years.

In one of my last messages you asked me to provide proof of Fenix not being a sustainable business - I did so, using a quote directly from one of their developers. You didn't respond to that.

I'm pretty sure that FSLabs, for all their failings, has a great idea of their market, has a strategy in place to make it successful and sustainable and will execute upon it despite the naysayers. The fact that this discussion is 19 pages long on the basis of 2 leaked screenshots should tell you that the interest is there. There's also currently 146 commenters on the FSElite article about the leak - 90% of whom are being negative, 99.9% have no idea of any facts regarding the release and 90% who are already comparing it to the Fenix. 

Do you understand that the market is not binary? People can purchase one or more of the same addon types even if it's just to try it out and never use it again? I personally own every Fenix variation and barely ever use them - why? Because I prefer the flight dynamics of the ToLiss aircraft on X-Plane. If and when I purchase the FSLabs aircraft and find the flight dynamics is better than Fenix, I highly doubt I will use the Fenix again... it's not a religion. But all three companies will have my money - that is a market right there and Fenix hasn't cornered it in the slightest... it's just the only one on MSFS right now.

Fenix has nothing to worry about. But I don't think FSLabs do either - they're about to make bank and maybe, just maybe, Fenix will need to play catchup.

33 minutes ago, FPVSteve said:

You're coming across as someone who took it personally that FSLabs didn't come to MSFS for four years.

Nah. I'm just someone capable of distinguishing between their own wishful thinking and reality.

Quote

In one of my last messages you asked me to provide proof of Fenix not being a sustainable business - I did so, using a quote directly from one of their developers. You didn't respond to that.

I did. Perhaps you may want to look better. I'll repeat for your benefit.

Everyone seems to be "sustaining" very well, including Fenix.

"Our prices are so low they're not sustainable" feels like someone selling a product would say for brownie points. If they had trouble. They'd take action to avoid going out of business.

Quote

I'm pretty sure that FSLabs, for all their failings, has a great idea of their market

Such a great idea of the market that they literally wasted time and resources to release a niche aircraft for a simulator on its deathbed. 

Let's do a bit of cold hard statistics, shall we? It's a nice Saturday evening so plenty to go with. 

Volanta right now is tracking 3,693 flights from 5 networks including its own. That's plenty to be statistically relevant.

Of these, FIVE are Concorde. Four are confirmed on Microsoft Flight Simulator. One we don't know because it's on Vatsim and the simulator isn't displayed. This should give you a vague idea of Concorde's addressable market.

Of the flights tracked, 2076 are on Volanta's own network, which is the only one that reports which simulator they're in. Of these 59 are on P3D, 1735 are on MSFS. This should give you a pretty precise idea of P3D's popularity (or lack thereof). 

Are you seriously arguing that someone who wasted their time and considerable resources releasing an aircraft that niche on a simulator that unpopular, has "a great idea of the market?" 

Are you seriously arguing that someone who put borderline malware in their installer (obviously not thinking they'd be caught, or that it would have caused the controversy it did), has "a great idea of the market?"

I'm sorry mate, but with all due respect, you're coming across as someone who is going out on faith alone. 

Incidentally yes, all markets are absolutely a zero-sum game, because the money customers have is finite. You may be willing to purchase two of the same aircraft with prices that are far from inexpensive, but you shouldn't assume you're representative of any majority on that. 

Edited November 17, 20241 yr by Abriael

You're ignoring a direct quote from one of the developers. He didn't say it for "brownie points", he said it because he was being open and transparent. The Fenix business is not sustainable with the product at that price point. Granted, that may change - but they'll need another product to sell.

You're accusing me of using my imagination, yet you're basing your arguments on things you've convinced yourself of without seeing a product or having any actual facts in front of you. How is that any different?

The whole top and bottom of is it you're being a pessimist and I'm being an optimist.

FSLabs might release one of the greatest products in the history of flight simulation .. are you saying you won't buy it because Fenix is good enough? Well... fair enough! Enjoy the Fenix my man, don't be angry at the rest of us though.

14 minutes ago, FPVSteve said:

You're ignoring a direct quote from one of the developers. He didn't say it for "brownie points", he said it because he was being open and transparent. The Fenix business is not sustainable with the product at that price point. Granted, that may change - but they'll need another product to sell.

You're accusing me of using my imagination, yet you're basing your arguments on things you've convinced yourself of without seeing a product or having any actual facts in front of you. How is that any different?

The whole top and bottom of is it you're being a pessimist and I'm being an optimist.

FSLabs might release one of the greatest products in the history of flight simulation .. are you saying you won't buy it because Fenix is good enough? Well... fair enough! Enjoy the Fenix my man, don't be angry at the rest of us though.

You don't know what they said it for. What we *do* know is that they've been at it for 2 years and a half (plus development time) and they have not gone out of business, nor they have shown any indication at all of changing their business practices. As a matter of fact, they hired and invested. That tells me that the business isn't that unsustainable. 

I'm not interested in what FSLabs "might" do. I'm interested in facts. At the moment, there are zero facts playing in their favor. Not even one. What they have proudly shown doesn't even *look* exceptional in terms of visuals, which is literally all we have. 

I'm certainly willing to consider purchasing what they offer if it's so exceptional and competitively priced to make Fenix's offering feel obsolete, but that's an *extremely* high hurdle to vault. And not to boast, but my disposable income is pretty comfortable. Lots of people aren't in that situation, especially in this economy. Even more so with a brand-new simulator coming out in 3 days, which means that that a lot of people will have some additional expenses between the simulator itself and various upgrade prices.

One thing is for sure. You shouldn't talk for "the rest of us" because a quick look at this thread alone should show you that you're most definitely not representative of any majority.

A more appropriate way of saying it that you should feel free to be optimistic, but don't be angry at the rest of us for looking at things realistically. 

Edited November 17, 20241 yr by Abriael

I do know what they said it for - they were discussing their business model on the Discord server. Feel free to check it out yourself.

Here's one fact for you - Fenix have sustained a business for two and a half years with zero credible competitors. Now they have a competitor coming who is more than capable of matching and/or exceeding their product, the future is going to be very different for them.

You seem to be suggesting that noone should bother competing with Fenix because they were first and made a good product - to which I say, if it's that good, why are you so bothered about what FSLabs are doing?

 

I never understand anger with how add-on developers conduct their business. It’s not as if someone has paid FSLabs for an MSFS add-on and not received it.

They didn’t waste their time with Concorde - they began development on it when P3D was the main sim. They make very high quality, high fidelity add-ons, and it takes them a long time to do so. We should be encouraging any developer who wants to contribute to the simming world, not denouncing them. And if you don’t want to buy it when it comes, nobody’s making you. 

33 minutes ago, FPVSteve said:

I do know what they said it for - they were discussing their business model on the Discord server. Feel free to check it out yourself.

Here's one fact for you - Fenix have sustained a business for two and a half years with zero credible competitors. Now they have a competitor coming who is more than capable of matching and/or exceeding their product, the future is going to be very different for them.

No. Now they have a competitor that we *hope* will be credible. Whether they're "more than capable of matching and/or exceeding their product" remains to be assessed. So far we have seen only visuals, and the little we have seen not only doesn't exceed Fenix, but it's arguably visibly worse. Of course, visuals are not all, but that's not a great start.

Quote

You seem to be suggesting that noone should bother competing with Fenix because they were first and made a good product - to which I say, if it's that good,

You shouldn't replace someone's argument with your own version that does not match theirs.

I'm suggesting that a new entrant in the market (because that's literally what FSLabs is, right now) has a much better chance to succeed by aiming for the most potentially popular product they can do that has the weakest competition. 

If they looked at that and they identified Fenix as the best option to go against, they're likely to have a very bad surprise. The 321 is also far from the pinnacle of Airbus popularity. 

If they entered the market with a high-fidelity Neo line, going against opponents whose quality is much, much easier to match and exceed, the likelihood of success would have been much higher, since quality is usually their preferred battleground.

Once they have re-established themselves on the market and their finances are secure, then it'd be much more viable to go against a strong and entrenched competitor. 

Quote

why are you so bothered about what FSLabs are doing?

If you think anything I've posted here means that I'm "bothered" you need to learn to read. I'm not bothered at all. At least not yet. The only thing that would bother me is if FSlabs went out of business, and some of their decisions seem to be edging in that direction, which is concerning. "concerned" and "bothered" are two different things. 

I'm making a cold hard analysis of what we can see from the market. Sentimentalism has no room in it. You managed to put two strawman arguments in one post. Good job I suppose? 

25 minutes ago, rondon9898 said:

They didn’t waste their time with Concorde - they began development on it when P3D was the main sim. They make very high quality, high fidelity add-ons, and it takes them a long time to do so. 

P3D was already well on the way to be beaten by X-Plane when they started. P3D hasn't been the main anything for a long, long time. 

Lots of developers have abandoned development for P3D and pivoted to MSFS when they smelled the air. This allowed them to bring products to market in a decent time (since they did not start from scratch) and their wise choice has been crowned by success. 

FSLabs has chosen to continue to develop for an ultra-niche simulator a niche product that from every signal we can see has sold extremely poorly. The ROI from that time and resources is unlikely to have brought their bank account much relief. If they had pivoted and released it for MSFS instead as others did, it'd likely be already out now, and they'd likely be in a much more secure situation.

Edited November 17, 20241 yr by Abriael

Ok dude, you win. I'm off to bed 😂 I shall dream of an awesome FSLabs Airbus,, and be very happy about the possibility.

p.s. - perhaps their real competitor with the A321 is the yet-to-be-released Bluebird 757... you never know. 

Edited November 17, 20241 yr by FPVSteve

6 minutes ago, FPVSteve said:

Ok dude, you win. I'm off to bed 😂 I shall dream of an awesome FSLabs Airbus,, and be very happy about the possibility.

And I hope your dreams will be sweet.

Quote

P3D was already well on the way to be beaten by X-Plane when they started. P3D hasn't been the main anything for a long, long time.

That comment isn’t true. There is no evidence for that and demonstrates that you are just being deliberately contrary for the sake of doing it. You have no reason for being so animated or negative about an add-on developer’s method of conducting business; it’s futile. King Lear shouting at the storm.