Will Shared Cockpit Compatiblity sell Aircraft?

[Guest Shalomar]

A post in the Multiplayer forum gave me the idea for a survey, but I have no idea how to do one on Avsim... Help :-)I consider compatibility with Shared CockpitA:) *Very* importantB:) Nice but not really a factor in pulling my credit cardC: Not important at allTo give an example, the ATR-72 works in FSX without shared Cockpits. Suppose Flight 1 reworked it or another aircraft dev you already owned reworked their plane for Shared cockpit. (Microsoft has released instructions for sharing custom guages, the Twotter is the first out to benefit).A: Terrific!!! I would be glad to pay extra for a shared cockpit compatible versionB: Bah Humbug! Only if it's free.C: I wish my devs would put their effort into something else.My answers are a *strong* A for both...Best Regards, Donald Traill :-waveFLYing? It's cool. Trillions of birds and insects can't be wrong.

[Ramasurinen 0]

Absolutely "A" for both. I would be prepared to pay more for shared cockpit compatible aircraft and in some cases I haven't purchased planes that I would like to fly simply because they're not compatible with that mode. I spend 100% of my FSX time in multiplayer, have since release day, and it's a fantastic feature. Aircraft like the Flight1 Pilatus PC-12 or Digital Aviation Cheyenne scream out for the shared experience. Both would be great training aircraft for IFR and complex flight.Can't fault developers for not bothering with shared compatibility so far, they didn't have the data to share local variables until recently. But now that they do? Pretty please? :)There's another upside to coding gauges for Shared Cockpit friends/junkies like myself and several of my online friends. Whatever aircraft they buy, they buy *two* of them. ;)Cheers,-mike

[Guest]

For the highend addons, it won't do a thing.The customers for those aren't the people you find on gamespyware using shared cockpit.For the lowend offerings like Wilco's fleet aircraft, maybe it would help some sales, but even then it's unlikely as the people who'd buy it would probably buy it anyway.

[Guest Shalomar]

And so your answers are?Maybe we can both learn something instead of jumping to conclusions... :-)Best Regards, Donald Traill:-waveFLYing? It's cool. Trillions of birds and insects can't be wrong.

[Ramasurinen 0]

>For the highend addons, it won't do a thing.>The customers for those aren't the people you find on>gamespyware using shared cockpit.>For the lowend offerings like Wilco's fleet aircraft, maybe it>would help some sales, but even then it's unlikely as the>people who'd buy it would probably buy it anyway.Your response illuminates a bit of a chicken and egg problem doesn't it?You won't find people using shared cockpit in high end complex aircraft on 'gamespyware' as you put it because most complex aircraft don't work in shared at all.By the way, Shared Cockpit works perfectly in direct-ip connection, using the gamespy network is not a requirement.I can think of no better use for shared cockpit than flying truly complex aircraft, aircraft that would not only benefit from two heads and four hands, but by law require them in real life.-mike

[Guest]

No, most people interested in things like shared cockpits are IMO not the kind of people who are interested in complex addons.So it's not a chicken and egg scenario, it's two completely different markets with little overlap.So while you may sell a few more copies if you include the option, it's unlikely to be enough to recover the increased development cost of the product.

[Guest Shalomar]

If that is true, the survey will show it.One more post without addressing the survey; and the mods get an alert...Your answers???This ain't helping...Best Regards, Donald T. :-waveFLYing? It's cool. Trillions of birds and insects can't be wrong.

[GHarrall 494]

Did you not know that jwenting's opinion is law?Shame on you all for not recognising the legend in his own mind that he is.......;-) FWIW, there seems to be plenty of 'serious' private sessions showing up in the FS multiplayer lobby. It's not all kids if you know where to look, and it requires a lot less hassle and software than VATSIM.

[Guest Shalomar]

So can I assume your answers are "A" for both? I'd rather not assume... :-)I am really curious as to the outcome of this survey. Over 50 views and so far one person responded to the survey in a useful way.Any more serious consideration of the survey?A personal flame war, or observations without scientifically valid answers to the survey is *not* what I'm after.Best Regards, Donald Traill:-waveFLYing? It's cool. Trillions of birds and insects can't be wrong.

[Guest SIDDickDastardly]

A+A for me....and I agree wrt the complex aircraft that they're the ones that need this feature most. I may be wrong, but I've always had the impression that services like Vatsim are dominated by the heavy iron pilots who are much more interested in realistic interaction with others than someone who's just tootling along in an ultralight admiring the scenery. It's only really the complex aircraft whose workload requires more than one person in the cockpit, and I think many people who buy them would jump at the chance of flying as first officer with an experienced pilot to show them the ropes -much easier (and more fun) than wading through several hundred pages of manuals.Also, I use the shared cockpit feature to divide the workload between two PCs, with one mostly just drawing the scenery and the other drawing my GPS and gauges. As a result I get almost double the fps on the scenery PC that I would do if it was handling everything. Again, it's the complex aircraft which would most benefit from this kind of load sharing.Cheers,DD

[Ramasurinen 0]

>So it's not a chicken and egg scenario, it's two completely different markets with little overlap.I dunno mate, it seems like a mighty big assumption given that there are no data points to collect from, ie: no complex addons that work in shared. The Aerosoft Twotter, lovely as it is and an aircraft I enjoy flying very much, doesn't quite count in my book as 'complex'. I don't see it as the difference between two markets, I see it as a market that hasn't been created yet, one with a high degree of potential. What if the Level-D 767 worked in shared mode? I don't even like airliners and I'd buy it!I don't think it's fair to assume that those who engage in shared cockpit flight aren't the sort of 'serious' simmers who purchase complex high end addon aircraft.I take my flying very seriously in reality and in the sim, and half of the dozens of people I fly online with regularly are either current or retired pilots. We all love complex highly realistic addons, and we love multi and shared flight. For us they are not mutually exclusive. The possibilities for a combination of complex and shared are just awesome. We'd love to have that cake and eat it too.Last time I checked every ride I had with my instructor when I was acquiring my PPL was a pretty good shared cockpit experience too. ;)Maybe you're right, maybe there's little overlap, but my gut feeling is that just the opposite is true. I guess we'll see when the first truly complex addon supports it.Shared cockpit compatibility was the reason I bought the Aerosoft Twotter, and I told them so.-mike

[GHarrall 494]

My answers would be B+B

[Guest Shalomar]

So far there is more evidence on our side, but let's get some more responses for validation...I don't mind the discussion or repeat posts, but everyone in this thread should answer the survey at least. That is the scientific way.P.S. I sent you a PM.Best Regards, Donald T. :-waveFLYing? It's cool. Trillions of birds and insects can't be wrong.

[Guest PPSFA]

First to the survey, since I am the biggest proponent of this and have made many posts, including the one the OP referenced...Most definatly A+A !!!!!Now to some assumptions made by another....I'm not sure who 'high end' users are by definition, but I certainly consider myself one. I buy EVERY addon that improves FSX, both for my own enjoyment and to support the efforts made by developers, those that take the time to 'do it right'.I fly ONLY in multiplayer, and most times in 'shared cockpit'. I have stopped buying aircraft that are touted as FSX ready, unless they specifically say they have been tested in shared cockpit. I have a hanger full of planes that don't work, and since MP/SC is a feature of FSX, I consider it false advertizing to claim a plane FSX compatible yet not enable this feature in addons.The reasons are many, but for me, realizm is paramount. And to model a plane that in real life requires 2 pilots, yet in FSX doesnt allow it, flat out sucks. Not only does having a second pilot add to the realizm, but it also allows us to train others in systems and aircraft they are not familiar with. As mentioned earlier in another post, SC guarentees at least 2 sales per cockpit, and with the group I fly with, many more. Developers that do not address this market are losing sales, plane and simple (pun intended).Another benefit that I have discovered, and completly blows me away is meeting people that I would never have known, through MP. Everytime we add another user to our group, we have a 'requirement' that they must take us on a flight around their home area. This usually involves up to 10 aircraft, and I now know more about South Africa, Turkey, Australia, and many other parts of the world than I ever did, not to mention making some wonderfull new friends!Those that have not started flying in MP simply do not know what they are missing, and I hope many more take the time to try it, its an eye opening experiance.JayCPL/SEL/MEL/ISTFS Addict

[ramsa329 0]

I wholeheartedly agree with PPFSA that shared cockpit and multi-player capabilities are without a doubt one of the most important breakthroughs in FSX.I consider myself a high-end user. In fact I consider myself a high-end buyer also.As do all of my clients and the people I fly with.And I am sure that such capabilities would impact sales and increase profits for developers.So for the sake of this poll:A+, A+Michael Greenblattwww.fs-gs.com