kingm56

With all due respect, you didn’t roll your eyes at posters who concluded it was amazing from a single (or limited) flight. Why didn’t you apply the same standard to those with views inline with your own?

Q8 Pilot is also doing a live steam; I find his reviews to be informed and fair.

I really enjoyed Air Hauler 2 at one point; however, I stopped using it because of two reasons: 1. Check rides are gimmicky and only consume time 2. The connection to MSFS is abrasive and outdated.

You made assumptions that are inaccurate. I am a developer and my market data supports PMDGs, aerosofts, etc comments. Everything I stated is factually accurate. Why are you so overly emotional on this subject? The emotion is not necessary as the large companies (eg PMDG, Aerosoft, etc) are unlikely to develop an eight 340 based on previous stated comments. However, a smaller company could develop the 340 to catch 100% of that market as there’s no competition. Additionally, a freeware developer could choose to mimic the A340. Thus, any discussion within this thread is not going to alter the trajectory of said developers. In short, our discussion will not determine whether or not they develop an A340. Therefore, there’s no need to stifle the discussion.

The viewpoint is predicated on explicit comments made by SEVERAL developers; for example, PMDG stated they lost money developing and selling the renowned MD-11. They unequivocally stated simmers are less apt to purchase aircraft they cannot see at thier home airports, which is why they explicitly chose not to port the MD11 to P3D. Also, you have no idea how well the aircraft you listed are selling...that's pure speculation on your end. If the DC-6 was a commercial success, why doesn't PMDG develop other aircraft from the same era? Instead, they seem fixated on developing commercially successful modern aircraft. The same is true for Aerosoft and Fenix. For the former two, they've been in this business for multiple decades and have copious amounts of market data. Obviously, they're going to chose to develop aircraft to achieve the highest profit margins. So, while the DC-6 may have sold well, there's no way it approached the PMDG 737 profit margins. I suspect the same is true for the BAe146 relative to the Fenix A320. Ditto FSL A320 vs Concord. Clearly there is no profit associated with flying simulated aircraft; what's odd is that you came to that conclusion...how bizarre. Profit, in this context, is clearly related to the topic and refers to the developers ability to model, market and sell thier aircraft to simmers; in that regard, the A320 and A350 are likely to be more profitable than the A340, based on explicit comments from PMDG, Aerosoft, etc. To my point, it's not about 'selling well', it's about profit margins. History has shown simulating a modern, commercially successful aircraft is going to outsell an aircraft that's considered a commercial failure, which is why the industry giants focus on the former.

I will take the opposite approach; please don't waste resources developing a plane that ceased production more than a decade ago, is being phased out by many operators, and failed to gain commercial success when in full production. Instead, I believe a A350 and/or A220 would be FAR more profitable than an A340 model. Also, Aerosoft never modeled the A340; they distributed an A340 modeled by other developers. For FSX/P3D, I believe BlackBird (formally PSS) 'developed' an 'advanced' A340 for FSX/P3D, along with some other 'lite' versions (e.g. JustFlight). I suspect this aircraft won't make it to MSFS.

I hope your windows 8 box is not connected to the internet as that operating system is riddled with vulnerabilities; Microsoft stopped patching Windows 8 more than 7 years ago. You can find the answer to your question here: https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/running-ms-flight-simulator-2004-on-windows-10-pc/c51eb23d-015d-480d-8772-b8fc23f0fe3b good luck!

Thank you for sharing, Birdguy. Some great perspective that I hope others will benefit from.

Hey! I went to a single aircraft pricing model; so, you do need to purchase each profile for $15 USD, or less. BTW, Next is MUCH better than Pro. Since I’m not doing this for the money, I can charge 50% less than the primary competitor, which is something I will ALWAYS do. Eventually, there will be an ultimate addition, which will include all aircraft for one price. If you’re looking for that now, MCE charges one price for all their supported aircraft. I bought MCE in 2012 for $59.99 and can still use that license today on MSFS. That’s 13 years of support, which is unheard of in the software industry. So, if FSFO isn’t your cup of tea, give MCE a look.

Hey Gerald! I'm the developer for FSFO; however, I have immense respect for MCE and your exceptionally fair pricing scheme. If FSFO doesn't meet my users' needs, I always suggest MCE. It's a great product with great customer service. Matt

I forgot to answer your AP question. If you don't want FSFO to engage/disengage your autopilot, go FSFO > ... > Configuration > SOPS and enter 0 in AUTOPILOT ON and AUTOPILOT OFF options. That tells FSFO to leave the autopilot alone.

Hey Regis! If you downloaded FSFO from .to, you're probably using an older version. Get the latest version here: https://flightsimfirstofficer.com/downloads/ If you wait until Friday, version 1.2.9.0 will be ready to use; you can use FSFOs default profile with any aircraft for free. Even as a free utility, you get a free Runway Advisory Alert System (RAAS), Pax/Cargo simulation, GSX integration (FSFO will control the GSX menu for you), full Log Book, passenger management (food, drinks, and seatbelts) and flight rating system. I'm also working on a full pilot career and company management module, which will integrate with FSFO and be free. If you're interested in FSFO's GSX integration, you can look below. Regardless, for your use, it doesn't sound like you need to pay for an FSFO aircraft profile...just use the free version...

What is it? It’s the most overused and inflated phrase in Flight Sim history. Even the most basic plane can inspire and capture a flight enthusiast imagination.

You're conflating FSX and P3D Capt Sim with thier current catalog; concerning the latter, they're a vastly different company today. To that point, you're paying for the external model only. The Capt Sim that productid the models you're referring to, which are now well over a decade old, are long gone. The new Capt Sim charges $15.00 for external models only, or $30 for external model that's tethered to the default 747 systems. There seems to be a fair amount to 'complain' over.

Chris. I appreciate the logical and unemotional response. I sincerely don’t want to upset anyone, but believe I have made some valid points regarding the future of V6. I would like to set the record straight, if you don’t mind. 1. I did not criticize P3D V5 in its current form; its a fine simulator that I used for many years. Instead, I challenged the viability of future versions without third-party support. I did directly challenge a user who made multiple fabrications to promote ‘his stimulator.’ I would do the same if a MSFS user claimed P3D is full of bugs, or incapable of simulating a realistic flight. Both are complete fabrications and should be challenged. 2. I don’t consider myself an MSFS user; truth is, I rarely have free time to fly these days. I’ve only made 8 flights since Jan ‘22; 6 in MSFS and 2 in P3D. My AVSIM posts reflect that level of activity, or in this case, inactivity…they’re way down. So to classify me as an MSFS user who just comes here to stir up trouble is a gross misrepresentation. What I did do was make two statements of facts: 1. Multiple high profile developers have already left the maker, leaving only a spattering of developers remaining. You even have developers on AVSIM telling us the market is dead: This is no longer a disputable topic 2. Every single public domain data indicates P3D market has shrunk to FSX and Xplane 10 levels. Even multiple virtual airlines who post this data validate the Navigraph data. For example, deltaVa: https://www.deltava.org/simversionstats.do 3. With the current market, P3D V6 is unlikely to be a commercial success; there’s simply no entertainment market left The question concerning HiFI was legitimate, and something all P3D users should be concerned with. Without additional revenue streams, or market, how much longer can they afford to pay for the data and bandwidth necessary to operate their software? HiFI is a business, not a charity and this is a business 101 issue. None of this has anything to do with enjoying V5 in its current form, just like FSX users enjoy thief preferred sim if it’s current form Im simply reflecting on the viability of the platform after version 5… Please let know if I got anything wrong or if my thoughts are way off. Thanks again, Chris.