3 hours 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). 

Hi Steve. ProSim have 'an interest' in Fenix, so it seems quite likely that third party support for Fenix will continue.....

26 minutes ago, rondon9898 said:

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.

This is a discussion forum.

The main reason we have to be here is literally discussing as a pastime. The intellectual exercise of discussing a topic may not entertain you, but it sure does me.

If you think P3D has ever been actually popular or more than super-niche, I can only say you haven't paid attention, even at the top of its very flat trajectory. But again, that's pretty moot. Plenty of developers have seen P3D's decline and MSFS's rise from a thousand miles away, and they took steps. The outcome was absolutely obvious the second Microsoft made its announcement in June 2019. 

FSLabs did not take such steps nearly as quickly as almost everyone else, and they're in a much worse situation for it. 

25 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Hi Steve. ProSim have 'an interest' in Fenix, so it seems quite likely that third party support for Fenix will continue.....

It is quite funny that someone thought that Fenix based its entire business on ProSim without having solid guarantees that the rug won't be pulled from under their feet. 

Edited November 17, 20241 yr by Abriael

2 hours ago, chapstick said:

Tavs painting for FSL's MSFS line confirmed 

haha. highly unlikely. I'm not a huge 321 fan, and I have the Fenix which is good enough for me.

4 hours ago, Abriael said:

Plenty of developers have seen P3D's decline and MSFS's rise from a thousand miles away, and they took steps. The outcome was absolutely obvious the second Microsoft made its announcement in June 2019. 

This! You very much did not need to be some kind of genius (or lucky) visionary to see the writing on the wall early. A lot of folks on these forums managed to talk themselves out of the obvious — and correct — conclusion that MSFS was going to absolutely devour the market, but in their defense, at least their business wasn’t on the line…

Some developers immediately bet everything on MSFS, some were more conservative. But (with respect to FSLabs) it takes a special kind of talent to pivot so slowly you end up not-quite-ready to preview a product *as the four-year lifecycle of MSFS comes to an end*.

Lets be honest I have my doubts as FSL will make a product for MSFS  but if they did it would be on top of the list but I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

6 hours ago, Abriael said:

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.

To be fair, FSLabs have apparently being doing next to nothing for the past four years, and yet they have not gone out of business either. That suggests to me that they have another lucrative product line that probably comes nowhere near the entertainment industry.

1 hour ago, Christopher Low said:

That suggests to me that they have another lucrative product line that probably comes nowhere near the entertainment industry.

When I suggested as much on their forum I was on the receiving end of a rant from Lefteris. A day later he hid the whole topic. I was astounded at his response.

I posted this in response. His reply isn’t visible of course.

 

12 hours 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... 

 

Hey - just wanted to clarify a couple bits here as I've also been slightly misquoted, so figured I'd keep things purely factual.

Firstly, for our intents and purposes we own the code running Fenix, and all works (fixes, improvements, additional features) are undertaken by Fenix in-house programmers, forked off from ProSim's codebase almost half a decade ago. Those same programmers have scratch-written large swaths of the originally licensed code to better suite our specific needs and goals, including our external engine model and custom FM, custom implementation of Airbus FBW, and specific system differences to support the A319/A321/SLs. These are all things the original codebase had no support for as the ProSim A320 suite is designed around a very different use-case, so five years in it's fair to say the code is more Fenix than ProSim. As for the licensing - I'm not going to go into detail, but we're not limited to any platform or variations upon our existing products - as before, for all intents and purposes, we're no more restricted than anyone else with what we do with our products and associated source code.

Now, with regards to the quote from me about Fenix being an unsustainable business - this is the danger of taking a snippet from a conversation rather than contextualising it, so allow me to do just that: Making a one time payment of £49.99 for an airliner add-on with a fully-fledged failures system, circuit breakers etc. and expecting that initial purchase to sustain continuous improvements, periodic full-rebuilds (see V2), and platform upgrades for 5-10 years, without producing and releasing another product, is precisely what is not sustainable. Given we still plan for FS2024 compatibility to be free to all customers, it's fair to say we're doing well enough for now. 🙂

Anyway, I very much look forward to seeing the FSL A321 - competition is good for everyone, and the market is certainly large enough to sustain it. I'm sure both our product, and theirs, will be better for their mutual existence.

5 hours ago, FNX_Dave said:

Hey - just wanted to clarify a couple bits here as I've also been slightly misquoted, so figured I'd keep things purely factual.

Firstly, for our intents and purposes we own the code running Fenix, and all works (fixes, improvements, additional features) are undertaken by Fenix in-house programmers, forked off from ProSim's codebase almost half a decade ago. Those same programmers have scratch-written large swaths of the originally licensed code to better suite our specific needs and goals, including our external engine model and custom FM, custom implementation of Airbus FBW, and specific system differences to support the A319/A321/SLs. These are all things the original codebase had no support for as the ProSim A320 suite is designed around a very different use-case, so five years in it's fair to say the code is more Fenix than ProSim. As for the licensing - I'm not going to go into detail, but we're not limited to any platform or variations upon our existing products - as before, for all intents and purposes, we're no more restricted than anyone else with what we do with our products and associated source code.

Now, with regards to the quote from me about Fenix being an unsustainable business - this is the danger of taking a snippet from a conversation rather than contextualising it, so allow me to do just that: Making a one time payment of £49.99 for an airliner add-on with a fully-fledged failures system, circuit breakers etc. and expecting that initial purchase to sustain continuous improvements, periodic full-rebuilds (see V2), and platform upgrades for 5-10 years, without producing and releasing another product, is precisely what is not sustainable. Given we still plan for FS2024 compatibility to be free to all customers, it's fair to say we're doing well enough for now. 🙂

Anyway, I very much look forward to seeing the FSL A321 - competition is good for everyone, and the market is certainly large enough to sustain it. I'm sure both our product, and theirs, will be better for their mutual existence.

I love you. All of you.

Thanks for setting the record straight and cutting through the FUD Fenix Dave! Always good to hear from *actual* devs, and *actual* experts, rather than those trying their hardest to cosplay those roles, or speak for them, or take their words out of context, etc.
 

10 hours ago, FNX_Dave said:

Hey - just wanted to clarify a couple bits here as I've also been slightly misquoted, so figured I'd keep things purely factual.

Firstly, for our intents and purposes we own the code running Fenix, and all works (fixes, improvements, additional features) are undertaken by Fenix in-house programmers, forked off from ProSim's codebase almost half a decade ago. Those same programmers have scratch-written large swaths of the originally licensed code to better suite our specific needs and goals, including our external engine model and custom FM, custom implementation of Airbus FBW, and specific system differences to support the A319/A321/SLs. These are all things the original codebase had no support for as the ProSim A320 suite is designed around a very different use-case, so five years in it's fair to say the code is more Fenix than ProSim. As for the licensing - I'm not going to go into detail, but we're not limited to any platform or variations upon our existing products - as before, for all intents and purposes, we're no more restricted than anyone else with what we do with our products and associated source code.

Now, with regards to the quote from me about Fenix being an unsustainable business - this is the danger of taking a snippet from a conversation rather than contextualising it, so allow me to do just that: Making a one time payment of £49.99 for an airliner add-on with a fully-fledged failures system, circuit breakers etc. and expecting that initial purchase to sustain continuous improvements, periodic full-rebuilds (see V2), and platform upgrades for 5-10 years, without producing and releasing another product, is precisely what is not sustainable. Given we still plan for FS2024 compatibility to be free to all customers, it's fair to say we're doing well enough for now. 🙂

Anyway, I very much look forward to seeing the FSL A321 - competition is good for everyone, and the market is certainly large enough to sustain it. I'm sure both our product, and theirs, will be better for their mutual existence.

Thanks for clarifying. 👍Had a feeling your bank account wasn't suddenly going to run dry. 

So to boil it down:

Selling a high fidelity airliner  for 50 quid is very much sustainable.

However not charging extra for future updates and major overhauls is not. 

The gamble was not the lower price tag of the A320, compared to PMDG or Leonardo for example, it was working almost 2 years on V2 and delivering it for free.

1 hour ago, Farlis said:

So to boil it down:

Selling a high fidelity airliner  for 50 quid is very much sustainable.

However not charging extra for future updates and major overhauls is not. 

The gamble was not the lower price tag of the A320, compared to PMDG or Leonardo for example, it was working almost 2 years on V2 and delivering it for free.

The point is more "without releasing another product" IMHO

At some point, they needed a new revenue stream because potential customers who want a full-fidelity A320 simply run out after a while, or at least slow down to a trickle. 

I imagine the 321/319 release provided that new revenue intake, and if I were a betting man, I'd bet they're already looking at their next product, if they haven't started already.

On 11/11/2024 at 1:34 PM, Ricardo41 said:

Too little too late. 

Agreed....unless, since they spent so much time waiting for 2024 hopefully A330 will available....as promised long time ago....but one can only hope...

On 11/11/2024 at 2:27 PM, Zangoose said:

I would be more looking forward to this if it was a NEO or A330. The pricing of this will be interesting, will they keep it high as their P3D products? Or make it more reasonable. 

I don't think I will buy it as I have a very good Fenix A321/20/19 as is. Will wait and see what they actually have to offer and the differences between this and Fenix. 

Only if NEO A320 or A330...Otherwise I see no point. They are good but Fenix looks and feels like premium product...