The few addons I have from the X-Pilot store sum up as some of the best I ever purchased for XP, since XP9/10 times.

I haven't jumped into this CJ 525 yet, but it's the next on my 2-buy list among the 3 flightsims I now use.

Unfortunately, most airline pilots these days jump directly from their ATPL courses into the professional lives and don't have the chance to step through various important stages, but I know of at least one A320 / 21 LR and ex a310, L-1011, CJ various models pilot who is also an Xp11 user. He hasn't yet upgraded to Xp12.

@Sky55 is a Portuguese airline pilot, captain, and also a passionate simmer! with whom I've learned over some great phone calls or dialogues in a private Discord channel he runs for other passionate simmers, more than I ever learned about Airbus operations since I use flight simulators !!! And I though I had a PhD in Airbus SOPs and OPs, ... 🙂

If I ever get the chance to convince him to try this new Torquesim offer I am sure I'll be able to learn a lot from him again.

Edited December 26, 20241 yr by jcomm

Seeing how far we have come in nowaday‘s addons-simulation and having to face so many comments about the price, I was questionning if some devs would be interested in a 2-step-release of their addons in future: a first release with all basic-functionalities simulated (that means an addon like the FF777v2 would include VNAV right away), for a lower price like 50€. And later on releasing an extended version for an upgraded price (for ex. 40-50€ more) for those interested in very indepth-simulation. From my observation watching people using some very study-level planes, 90% of them seems to use it in a very basic way (flying from A to B with autopilot) and never diving deep into failures simulation and/or never using any of the many features from the FMC/MCDU or crew-interactions, complex loading features, CB’s or taking into account the time for the tires to cool down before launching a next flight etc.

I have the impression that many of us don‘t really „deserve“ some very studylevel-addons because they are using only about 10-20% of all its possibilities. Yet they will purchase it because they‘ve heard that it was good, whatever that means.

But I am not sure if this is doable from a dev-perspective because I guess some of the underlying systems have to be implemented right from the beginning to allow all of those fancy features later on?

Just some thoughts….

Being someone who started simming 36 years ago it‘s crazy to see the amount of very good addons we have nowadays. And this for the almost same price as the addons 10-15y ago that were simulating not even 1/10 of what they do today. But people expect the same price…

I also realize that some addons let me frustrated because I would like to be able to know them perfectly well and handle them in every situation but it simply needs too much time (best example: the CL650). Some of the best addons allow real pilots to train for their checkrides (or even allow full pilot-training) and this is just awesome for an addon that costs only about 120€ (being not even what 1 single hour in a level D-sim would cost!). But again, 99% of users don‘t use it in that depth. So there is some big discrepancy about the request for depth but at the same time not making use of it, then still complaining about the price…hence my idea to release 2 different kind of depth-level for 2 different user-groups.

I observe some streamers using studylevel addons for a few hours (just to fly from A to B) and then purchasing the next good one a few days later etc. without ever diving into them like they would allow. More like « use&drop ». For them a simple version of the addons would be enough…

Edited December 26, 20241 yr by Franz007

First of all, we all have to keep in mind that there are many different realities within our hobby, and within the same country there is an important difference between the money one earns working, the difference between countries can be abysmal.

 

I personally find it hard to save 90 dollars for an addon, so I understand those who see it as an expensive addon, but I also understand that people have the right to live from their work and addons sold in X-Aviation are generally addons with a lot of work behind, I have many of their planes and there is no store in our hobby that has given me more satisfaction than X-Aviation. (Sorry for my bad English).

Edited December 26, 20241 yr by Aglos77

It also surely has to have a big dependency on the net #sales ...

I believe stores / developers are nowadays selling in the order of at least 10s of times more, some hundreds or even thousands of times more in MSFS, than in any other platforms.

I believe XP12 and XP11 are presently way ahead of P3D, contrarily to what was typical some 5 - 10 yrs ago.

So, to survive in such a market, and not being able to have their teams 100% allocated to the XP addon development, both the price and the time taken to bring a given addon to a "study-level" mark.

It's evident on the price strategy that developers known to be pricey in the past, like PMDG and A2A, have considerably lowered their price tags with MSFS addons.

OTOH, while I believe X-Plane is far from "defunct", and I actually am rather convinced that with time, Xp12.2 and further updates, the number of active XP users will rise again.

I am really enjoying FS 2024, and I start it a lot more than Xp12, but I know that if I'm up to trying an helicopter or an Airbus flight arriving into an airport with significant weather, Xp12 is going to be my choice with the Toliss modules I own for it.

 

8 hours ago, Franz007 said:

Seeing how far we have come in nowaday‘s addons-simulation and having to face so many comments about the price, I was questionning if some devs would be interested in a 2-step-release of their addons in future: a first release with all basic-functionalities simulated (that means an addon like the FF777v2 would include VNAV right away), for a lower price like 50€. And later on releasing an extended version for an upgraded price (for ex. 40-50€ more) for those interested in very indepth-simulation. From my observation watching people using some very study-level planes, 90% of them seems to use it in a very basic way (flying from A to B with autopilot) and never diving deep into failures simulation and/or never using any of the many features from the FMC/MCDU or crew-interactions, complex loading features, CB’s or taking into account the time for the tires to cool down before launching a next flight etc.

I have the impression that many of us don‘t really „deserve“ some very studylevel-addons because they are using only about 10-20% of all its possibilities. Yet they will purchase it because they‘ve heard that it was good, whatever that means.

But I am not sure if this is doable from a dev-perspective because I guess some of the underlying systems have to be implemented right from the beginning to allow all of those fancy features later on?

Just some thoughts….

Being someone who started simming 36 years ago it‘s crazy to see the amount of very good addons we have nowadays. And this for the almost same price as the addons 10-15y ago that were simulating not even 1/10 of what they do today. But people expect the same price…

I also realize that some addons let me frustrated because I would like to be able to know them perfectly well and handle them in every situation but it simply needs too much time (best example: the CL650). Some of the best addons allow real pilots to train for their checkrides (or even allow full pilot-training) and this is just awesome for an addon that costs only about 120€ (being not even what 1 single hour in a level D-sim would cost!). But again, 99% of users don‘t use it in that depth. So there is some big discrepancy about the request for depth but at the same time not making use of it, then still complaining about the price…hence my idea to release 2 different kind of depth-level for 2 different user-groups.

I observe some streamers using studylevel addons for a few hours (just to fly from A to B) and then purchasing the next good one a few days later etc. without ever diving into them like they would allow. More like « use&drop ». For them a simple version of the addons would be enough…

I like your idea, though I fear you are also correct about having to do it right from the very beginning.

And to be clear, I'm not complaining about the price, per se. But rather what I get for the price vs other Hi Fi addons; i.e., Value.

I clarified that in several posts here: the TS 525 is clearly a High Fidelity addon and has many of the things I'm looking for (in particular the IRL jet).

And while I will freely admit I don't practice failures, I absolutely want the aircraft & simulator to punish me for mistakes I make - whether that's exceeding limits, or lack of knowledge, etc. So, yes, the flight model, systems, engines, avionics, etc. all matter greatly.

As does State Saving, persistence, wear/tear, and maintenance.

All of which are available elsewhere - for the same or less $$. This is a fact.

But as said, I don't feel like the price matches other addons of higher complexity, nor do I feel like it's features match other hi fi addons of lower price.

Doesn't mean I'm right, nor do I expect XA to accept my advice as it's just one customer's opinion. If XA have been in business for 16 years (I've only been in for 6 🙂 ), they're obviously doing more right than wrong.👍

 

Edited December 26, 20241 yr by UrgentSiesta

52 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

As does State Saving, persistence, wear/tear, and maintenance.

Absolutely. This is also something i enjoy very much.

53 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

All of which are available elsewhere - for the same or less $$. This is a fact.

But as said, I don't feel like the price matches other addons of higher complexity, nor do I feel like it's features match other hi fi addons of lower price.

Yeah I think we already had that discussion a few weeks ago and Cameron as a dev could explain it pretty good.  I hope that you can now at least understand why a product sold less will cost more from an economical perspective. Same as you will find cheaper articles in a hardiscounter than in a family grocery shop.

56 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Doesn't mean I'm right, nor do I expect XA to accept my advice as it's just one customer's opinion. If XA have been in business for 16 years (I've only been in for 6 🙂 ), they're obviously doing more right than wrong.👍

You are of course free to get those cheaper addons that will give you the same for less but I guess you are indeed wrong by expecting those same cheap prices (see above) for a product sold to a smaller market. Happy landings ✌️😊

1 hour ago, Franz007 said:

You are of course free to get those cheaper addons that will give you the same for less but I guess you are indeed wrong by expecting those same cheap prices (see above) for a product sold to a smaller market. Happy landings ✌️😊

To be clear, I've been comparing XP to XP here: FF 777 costs waaaay more to develop, and the AFL KA 350 costs waaaay less at a similar fidelity level with more QoL features.

And TBH I prefer the 350 to the 777, which might explain why I'm putting so much focus on the 525. 😁

While I respect XA's right to price however they see fit, I can't help but feel that the high price is self limiting.

And as I've said before, XA clearly wants to position themselves as a luxury flight sim brand, and that's where at least some of that extra cost comes in.

The first thing people need to understand is not everyone wants what you want. I for the life of me cannot understand why airport add ons spend so much time doing interiors, Get looked at once and than wow factor is over, a bit like plane cabins. Need accurate interiors so someone on you tube can show a wing view while landing.

As for maintenance and all that stuff, 90% of users dont care nor want, just add to the complexity but does little to add anything to flying. I love the Thandra planes but have never used nor can justify the ability to change things in cockpit, I can understand if you are a real pilot and want your plane to look like what you fly, but outside that, I cannot see the point, except its a good selling point.

Its become this never ending spiral into oblivion, people demanding more and more but wanting to spend less and less, its called scope creep.

22 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

Lo primero que la gente debe entender es que no todo el mundo quiere lo que tú quieres. No puedo entender por qué los complementos de los aeropuertos dedican tanto tiempo a los interiores. Si te miran de inmediato, ya no te sorprenderás, un poco como las cabinas de los aviones. Se necesitan interiores precisos para que alguien en YouTube pueda mostrar una vista de las alas mientras aterrizas.

En cuanto al mantenimiento y todo eso, al 90% de los usuarios no les importa ni les interesa, solo añaden complejidad pero no aportan nada al vuelo. Me encantan los aviones Thandra, pero nunca he usado ni puedo justificar la posibilidad de cambiar cosas en la cabina. Puedo entender si eres un piloto de verdad y quieres que tu avión se parezca a lo que vuelas, pero más allá de eso, no le veo el sentido, excepto que es un buen argumento de venta.

Se ha convertido en una espiral interminable hacia el olvido, en la que la gente exige cada vez más pero quiere gastar cada vez menos; se llama ampliación del alcance.

Failure modules for bad piloting, wear and maintenance are very popular and have been with us for years. I don't know where you get that nobody is interested in them, for me they give an extra sense to the simulation and a high component of immersion. It forces you to fly well, to be attentive, to make the pre-flight make sense, etc.

Simcoders, HotvStart, A2A, Leonardo, FSLabs etc etc etc.

What is true that I have seen especially in MFS are developers who focus on these modules I imagine to try to look like A2A and then in what is really important they fail in systems simulation and flight models.

 

27 minutes ago, Aglos77 said:

that nobody is

Where did I say "Nobody"???? In fact I loved the Aerosoft Twin Otter in FSX where so many users had engines catch fire due to running them to high to long on take off, Made you appreciate Turbprops.

Edited December 27, 20241 yr by mjrhealth

16 hours ago, Franz007 said:

Seeing how far we have come in nowaday‘s addons-simulation and having to face so many comments about the price, I was questionning if some devs would be interested in a 2-step-release of their addons in future: a first release with all basic-functionalities simulated (that means an addon like the FF777v2 would include VNAV right away), for a lower price like 50€. And later on releasing an extended version for an upgraded price (for ex. 40-50€ more) for those interested in very indepth-simulation.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and I appreciate the opportunity to address it!

The idea of a two-tiered release may seem appealing at first glance, but it’s not practical from a development perspective. The groundwork for advanced systems and features needs to be laid from the very beginning to ensure the product functions cohesively. Releasing an “incomplete” version not only risks creating a subpar experience for early adopters but also places immense pressure on the development team to deliver updates quickly, which can lead to rushed or compromised work. Projects of this scope take years to produce, and the impatience that sometimes arises (even for unreleased, unpaid products) would only escalate if consumers had already invested money in a partially complete version.

16 hours ago, Franz007 said:

Being someone who started simming 36 years ago it‘s crazy to see the amount of very good addons we have nowadays. And this for the almost same price as the addons 10-15y ago that were simulating not even 1/10 of what they do today. But people expect the same price…

I do agree entirely with your point about the historical pricing of flight sim add-ons. Despite significant advancements in complexity, the prices of these products have remained relatively stagnant for decades, even as development has become far more resource-intensive. Twenty-five years ago, similar prices were reasonable for hobbyists creating simpler add-ons. Today, with the level of detail expected, from custom systems to high-fidelity 3D modeling, the work requires very skilled teams with specialized expertise to do it timely or right. That expertise comes with costs, and the prices must reflect that to keep developers in the market. We don't see a ton of that happening, sorry to say, and thus you end up with never-ending beta products, or products riddled with bugs that the dev stops working on and moves to the next thing...or leaves X-Plane entirely!

While price increases are never popular, they’re necessary to sustain the quality and innovation that the community values and requires. Flight sim add-ons offer tremendous value for their price compared to many other real-world purchases. They give countless hours of enjoyment and immersion that lasts a ton longer than groceries and gas. But just like any other industry, developers need to make a living, and the pricing must reflect the effort and expertise required. I know I don't go telling the person who serves me at their place of work that they aren't worth it and should be paid less!

The MSFS 2020/24 volume dynamics appear to be letting those developers sustainably price lower thanks to onboarding so many new customers with the XBOX platform, and the overall quality of the streaming scenery experience. That's great! But, we like X-Plane and want to stay here, and prior to the success of 2020/24, much of the flight sim scene and attainable volume has been much the same.

Ultimately, we’re committed to delivering high-quality products that provide lasting value, even if that means pricing them appropriately to sustain the industry. Thank you for bringing this up. It’s a good discussion to have!

7 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

And to be clear, I'm not complaining about the price, per se. But rather what I get for the price vs other Hi Fi addons; i.e., Value.

While you’ve stated that it’s not about price, your comments often tie back to perceived value for cost. It’s important to understand that our pricing reflects not only the feature set but also the immense amount of work, expertise, and time required to produce a product of this caliber. While some addons may be priced differently, this often stems from developers subsidizing their work with other jobs or not conducting the level of business analysis needed to ensure fair compensation. Valuing our time and expertise is essential for sustainability in this field, and we believe it’s a principle that applies universally, no matter the profession.

 

7 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

And while I will freely admit I don't practice failures, I absolutely want the aircraft & simulator to punish me for mistakes I make - whether that's exceeding limits, or lack of knowledge, etc. So, yes, the flight model, systems, engines, avionics, etc. all matter greatly.

As does State Saving, persistence, wear/tear, and maintenance.

All of which are available elsewhere - for the same or less $$. This is a fact.

Regarding your point about wanting the aircraft and simulator to punish mistakes, it’s worth noting that real-world pilots are extensively trained to avoid these situations due to the significant cost and safety implications. By the time someone is flying a jet like the Citation 525, they’re expected to operate it with precision. If you enjoy this aspect for the game or challenge it brings, that’s perfectly valid, but it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison with real-world operations. I am not knocking you for valuing that. There are a number of people that do. There are also an insane amount of people (over majority) that hate those features. I do think such wear/tear and maintenance features are paramount in General Aviation piston aircraft though! Real world owners and pilots there have way more consequences on those types of aircraft since people operate them so differently than something that requires a type certificate.

To clarify, we already offer persistence in the CJ525. For example, switches and systems retain their state just as they would in real life. This is an area we recognize as important for immersion.

 

5 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

To be clear, I've been comparing XP to XP here: FF 777 costs waaaay more to develop, and the AFL KA 350 costs waaaay less at a similar fidelity level with more QoL features.

To address your point about development effort: it’s a misconception to assume that a smaller aircraft or a business turbine like the KA 350 inherently takes less time or effort to develop than a large airliner like the 777. When done right, the development time for most aircraft is similar, regardless of size. The systems, modeling, testing, and attention to detail required for a quality product are significant for any aircraft in this era of flight simulation. Assuming otherwise undervalues the work involved, and I caution you to suggest otherwise. It's dismissive of developers' really hard efforts.

 

5 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

While I respect XA's right to price however they see fit, I can't help but feel that the high price is self limiting.

As for pricing, I’ve already explained the economics behind our decisions, and the fact that most developers subsidize their work with another full-time job. Pricing ourselves lower would indeed be self-limiting. The assumption that reducing the price would lead to significantly higher revenue doesn’t align with the data we’ve collected over years in this industry. With 25 years of experience in flight simulation development (16 of those with X-Aviation) I’ve learned what works and what doesn’t for sustaining this business while delivering high-quality products.

 

5 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

And as I've said before, XA clearly wants to position themselves as a luxury flight sim brand, and that's where at least some of that extra cost comes in.

Finally, the notion that we’re positioning ourselves as a “luxury” brand isn’t accurate. I'm flattered if you think our products are worthy of that type of quality label, but It dismisses the rationale I’ve shared about the value we place on the effort, expertise, and resources required to create these products. Our pricing reflects this value, ensuring the sustainability of the team and the continued development of products the community enjoys.

I hope this provides additional clarity, and I genuinely appreciate the opportunity to discuss these topics openly.

Edited December 27, 20241 yr by Cameron XA

Just to add my thoughts, this is my first addon from Torquesim and I am very impressed. Tom compare it with, I have the 777v2, the King Air 350 and the Challenger as well and this one slots in nicely for me as it is a slower and smaller jet than the challenger but the real beauty is that you can set it up and get airborne very quickly. For that reason and as my free time is very limited at the moment i keep coming back to it for quick flights around Europe.

As said elsewhere, seems to be relatively bug free, and also they have added more features and a manual in 2 updates since release. A high quality addon.

Hi - posted in their forum....

Hi - nice plane, but VR performance is very bad, about the worst, if not the worst of all my addon aircraft.  I'm using the latest XP12 release (12/24/24) and your latest 1.0.2 version also released 12/24/24.  Quest 3 with airlink is an absolute no-go, and plugged in w/link cable is still very bad.

My machine specs:
13th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-13900KF   3.00 GHz, 64.0 GB RAM, Win11 home 12H2 build, and RTX 4070 GPU w/11 GB VRAM (I think that's the VRAM count) HDR is off.

Would replacing my GPU with a 4080 (or even a 4090) help performance?  My XP settings are all "average"/mid range for VR performance sake. 

Is anyone else experiencing such bad VR performance? (I installed the 4K textures, NOT the 8K ones).

Edited December 27, 20241 yr by SWVA4420

19 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

While I respect XA's right to price however they see fit, I can't help but feel that the high price is self limiting.

And as I've said before, XA clearly wants to position themselves as a luxury flight sim brand, and that's where at least some of that extra cost comes in.

I think Cameron already answered that and this is not the case. Since he answered in deep length I won’t add anything to what he said but I really hope you will start to realize that it is not as easy as you think. Btw. the market for a B777 is way bigger than for a business-jet.

7 hours ago, jcomm said:

It's evident on the price strategy that developers known to be pricey in the past, like PMDG and A2A, have considerably lowered their price tags with MSFS addons.

 

The fascinating thing is that MANY people complain about PMDG's new pricing model as being "much more expensive"! Where else can you get a Study Level modern tubeliner for $36...? The minimum cost of entry used to be $99...smh.

PMDG are a pricing outlier, though. What we're seeing from the established ESP tubeliner vendors , and other new ones like Fenix, is a price range of $65 (Fenix & iniBuilds) to $70-ish (JustFlight) through to $80-ish (Leonardo). So the MSFS Hi Fi teams are still in the "high price" category, and not too much less than what X-Plane tubeliner devs are charging.

A2A, however, are charging exactly the same in MSFS as they were in P3D, or about $50 USD per addon (with just one or two being $70 IIRC).

To be clear, A2A's pricing is entirely within reason for the products they're supplying. I.e., I consider them to be a "good value".