RealAir, TJ (ROTW) and the Seneca five

[LAdamson 240]

FWIW----- I just downloaded a 4 engine commuter jet for FS2002, in which the air.file "sucks". I'll admire the beauty of it's lines and paint job, & then OFF the HD she goes!!! Like previously mentioned, there are a few specialist's who program 3rd party aircraft for MSFS, and have had years of experience doing so. In the end, it really shows! Of course many are attracted to FS because of an interest in flight, but have no real idea of how a plane flies. You should see all the complaints because the single engine aircraft drifts to the left during takeoff & climb, or that it has no performance when the mixture is left at full rich with higher altitudes. L.Adamson

[michal 44]

>>this is an unfair statement to make,Tony, if I may ask what is 'unfair' here ?These are only some of the issues that never got fixed dating all the way back to FLY2k. I think it is only fair to point out that before one sets out to introduce and/or improve algorithms one does not forget about the basics. Before I fix A/C in my car I tend to make sure the engine can even run. Or is such plain truth too offensive to some ? Please.. this publisher stuff has been tossed so many times I am getting a bit tired of this argument. In fact there is no evidence before me that TRI even acknowledged above problems and hence given however many more months would bother to fix them.Michael J.

[Guest]

Michael,Many of your points are correct, and there were many lingering issues after the Fly! II release that simply required resources and time we did not have to devote. The bulk of issues that were of a more technical nature that were carried over from Fly! 2K but were not expanded or "corrected" were primarily for the reason that we wanted to spend more time in Fly! II on issues that the more general consumer would critique us on, such as visibility distance, generic scenery, etc. Supporting all the A/P modes on the EFIS display didn't rank high for 99.9% of the users, so for Fly! II we put those as low priority. We skewed Fly! 1.0 so much in the opposite direction, we scared many users away because it was so difficult using our aircraft (users who would jump straight into the Hawker had no idea what they were asking for).Rich

[michal 44]

Rich,In the retrospect, I think that introducing the heli in FLY2 sapped too much energy from Russell who otherwise might have had time to correct numbers of these issues. Whether they could be classified as very technical and therefore low priority I would have to differ here since the best of FS add-ons make now a point of having all this stuff fully working.Again, playing the 'wise' guy I have to say that the helicopter decision was an unfortunate one since I doubt it gained TRI any major points with the flightsim community but certainly was a mjor drain on energy.Michael J.

[Guest]

Hi Rich,Some thoughts... I have been with Fly! from the beginning and have participated in beta testing fly2 and the PMDG products. I have always been attracted to the Fly! series precisely for the reasons you have mentioned. It is not as much a game as it is a simulation. As the Fly! community has shown, there is a marketplace (and I suggest a viable economic marketplace) for software of this kind. I believe this is where the problem lies. It is very difficult to create a product which can fulfill the expectations of both the novice and the hardcore simmer. I would also suggest that a product trying to do both will do neither well (to many compromises in design and functionality). IMHO, the current lack of interest in Fly2 is due to the problems with the product rather than interest in a sophisticated simulation engine (to many patches, to buggy, etc.)Let's start at looking at it from a marketing perspective. Does a simulation product have to be targeted at the mass market to be economically viable? Rich, as you mentioned in your example concerning the aircraft manufacturer, Fly2 is extremely sophisticated for a desktop product. Why not market it that way? Although the market may not be as large as the mass market, I believe there is a group of consumers, which have yet to be tapped. These consumers currently look at desktop simulation products as just another "PC Game". I have spoken with many Airline and Commercial pilots as well as one aircraft manufacturer about Fly2 and its functionality. Most of them had never heard of the product. Based on their limited experiences with MSFS, they don't believe that a PC can provide an environment for a sophisticated, professional simulation. One chief pilot I spoke with joked that it was harder to land the 172 in MSFS at Miegs than it was to land a business jet at minimums. As you mentioned, your contact was not familiar with the sophistication of the Fly series. A few years back, before a commercial flight, I had a wonderful discussion on a 767 flight deck with the Captain and F/O. They were amazed at the level of knowledge I had accumulated just from using Fly and the PMDG products. They had labeled PC simulators as games and never bothered to check one out. After the discussion the Captain actually wrote down where he could purchase Fly! and the PMDG products.I believe I could be a typical "Hard Core" simmer. I am an aviation enthusiast, looking for more sophisticated functionality. I will probably never get the chance to actually experience a professional full motion training simulator let alone ever fly a larger jet aircraft. So, I look to these types of products to provide a small window into an ATP's world.Why not market a product as a sophisticated simulator for the consumer looking for "As Real As it Gets" or as real as current desktop technology will allow us to go. Specically stating that the product is not for the consumer looking for a game. Set expectations up front that one will not be able to just jump into the Hawker and take it out for a spin, unless they go through a learning curve. Pricing... well because this would not be for the mass market, I would expect to pay more. But my expectations would be higher as well. I would want all of the systems sophistication (and more) as we have today, combined with accurate flight models, accurate weather conditions (real time), accurate VFR scenery, accurate nav, and FS2K2 eye candy. I realize I am asking a lot, but I don't believe Fly2 is very far off, and I am willing to pay more.So in summary, does a flight simulation really have to do everything and try to please everyone? Why compete with MSFS or the X-Box consoles? There seems to be a number of economically viable hardware vendors out there currently creating very sophisticated (and expensive) guages, panels, yokes, etc. Who are they selling to? IMHO there is a viable market out there for a product if we narrow the field a bit and set expectations of the developer, publisher and consumer up front. Market the product in a different manner (flying mags, aviation manufacture and engineering trade mags, etc.) Provide the sophisticated sdk and technical support to third party software and hardware developers. State clearly that the product is not meant to be a game, but an accurate sophisticated aviation simulation engine, which is only restricted by the current state of desktop technology. Comments?George

[LAdamson 240]

>Comments? >George Yes I have a comment......... or two. Just about everything you've suggested has been covered with MSFS. With an extensive navigational & airport database, MS has covered this area on their end, including aircraft that are not too sophisticated for the novice. On the other end of the scale, we have 3rd party additions such as PIC767 that really are intended for the hardcore simmer or someone who wants to learn the finer workings of this type of aircraft. And then of course, there is everything in between including very respectable real life panels & flight modeling!As to a commercial pilot having trouble landing a simulated 172 at Meigs.................... this means absolutely nothing when talking controllability of the simulated aircraft. It only means that this commercial pilot is not use to the smaller movements & controls of our various hardware setups, which usually leads to over control. The same will happen if this commercial pilot first tries his/her hand at radio control. This has been demonstrated over & over! I'm a pilot who also flies R/C as well as many years of P/C simulations. Landing a simulated 172 at Meigs is far easier for me than than landing a real business jet a minimums :)You want this "new" product to not be labled as a game. While quite frankly, FS2002 which already exists can be far from a game itself. It's quite sophisticated when it comes to the airport, nav, taxiway, & topography data-bases. And with lots of third party help, freeware & commercial.............. it just gets more accurate & sophisticated!Now think about it----------------- FLY was headed in that direction just a few short years ago. The 3rd party freeware as well as a few commercial add-ons such as PMGD was simply amazing! This place was a buzz with something new every few weeks. It just didn't continue for all the known reasons. Trouble is.................. you seem to only know about the "gamey" aspects of FS2002 without realizing just how sophisticated it can be for such a relatively cheap price. Or at least your not mentioning it. I only saw the "eye candy" part which is certainly a very "false" assumption. And with FS2004 just around the corner, it just gets better & better! A nice idea, but probably not economically viable considering all the offerings already out there. Your assumptions and ideas seem to be based on FS2002 being marketed as only a game to consumers. But in reality it's getting just about as sophisticated as P/C desktops will allow..L.Adamson

[Guest]

The helicopter was a MAJOR piece of work for Russell. You are correct that it dominated his time for Fly! II, and in hindsight time might have been better served elsewhere (though to Russell's credit, most of the glass display work was on me and Matt's shoulders for 1.0, so freeing up Russell wouldn't have necessarily addressed those areas.)Rich

[michal 44]

George,Excellent and well thought-out post. I basically agree with everything you said. However when you state "I would expect ... accurate VFR scenery" then this alone could be a big stumbling block. TRI has no resources to do it. Nor any other hard-core simulation product (eg. Elite) cares too much about scenery. I would remove scenery from this list otherwise it would not be doable. There should be "some" scenery but definitely not accurate, world-wide VFR scenery. Even FS2002 does not meet this objective. Maybe some limited scenery centered around a few airports. Frankly if this product was marketed for advanced users its main appeal should have been flawless execution of aircraft & systems, complete navaid database and perhaps some very good weather. Even if the product was meant strictly for IFR flying to "avoid" looking at the ground the above short list when well executed could have been a blast.We can obviously write about it and engage in all kinds of "what-ifs" but most likely marketing this as anything but a "game" was not in the cards. TRI is a gaming company and this is what they do best. Developing & marketing FLY as something else than a mass-market oriented flight simulator could not have been done within their existing business plans.Michael J.

[Guest Jan]

I'm very happy TRI decided to implement a helicopter for FlyII.It's nice tothink in new directions somethimes.There isn't many civilian helo simsout there,and for me there is only FlyII,and perhaps SARII and III that isinteresting.Many, many thanks Rich and Russel. :)Have a nice flight.Jan

[falcon999 24]

Hi Larry,Thanks for the response... My comments were not meant to discount MSFS at all. IMHO, the Fly! series has done a better job at panal/system and flight models. I am an avid user of both products (including PSS Airbus and PIC 767). Again IMHO, they both have their respective strength and weaknesses. My comments were not meant to start a discussion of which simulation is better. That topic has already been discussed at great length. ;-)My points concerning the people I have spoken with, are centered around how some aviation professionals seem to view PC based simulations. I was also giving another perspective on Rich's comments concerning:>This is why products like Crimson Skies and combat sims will continue to do well in the >retail sector, while GA products continue to diminish and take a back seatI agree that there may be a wide variety of reasons behind why some professionals have these perceptions, but perceptions and expectations are typically what drive sales. My thoughts were more around that they have these perceptions, and that there may be an untapped market which could assist in making a case to continue development of a sophisticated GA simulation.>A nice idea, but probably not economically viable considering all the offerings already out there. I am a believer in competition. I believe Fly! is one of the reasons behind Microsoft continuing to push MSFS limits. IMHO there is room for more that one product (IMHO Fly! and Fly2K proved this).George

[Guest]

Hi Rob,While that may be true, I for one plopped down my $16 for your Citabria/Decathlon package and would have gladly paid twice that! After all, I did get two planes. Both of which are superior to anything else I've flown. It's unfortunate that the Fly! II user base didn't have the mass to keep you guys fed, clothed, and sheltered. So, I completely understand your position. And wish you guys the best of luck in future. And who knows, maybe the SF.260 will make enough money to fund the Lear. :-) It could happen...All the best, Tony

[Guest]

I have a suggestion. Instead of competing in the General Market compete with Elite and other upscale simulators but on a lower cost scale. The present product according to your post comes pretty close to that according to your post. It could be an entry level simulator selling for 70-100 dollars. Your said yourself you are already a niche product, go all the way.In the marketing effort I would emphasize the realism and system modeling available in Fly II. and above all TERRASCENE.This allows me to create very accurate roads in Michigan where I fly the most.During the final illness of my love I spent many after she was asleep hours in Fly 2K to help me keep my sanity during the last years of her life. Titus Mendell

[Guest Josve]

Very wise words Laurent!!Any chance of seeing the 152 for Fly2??Johnny"I'LL BE BACK"[div align=center]http://www.avsim.com/hangar/fly/josve/fly2/vas.gif][/div