Cameron XA

No, Goran isn't involved in this one. 🙂 Just Hot Start and Leading Edge Simulations for him.

Thanks for the support, Bob!

Happy to hear. You'll really enjoy it! 🙂

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. 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! 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Thank you for your kind words about the product and for recognizing the effort we’ve put into it! We’re thrilled you’re enjoying the aircraft. Regarding your marketing suggestion, we genuinely appreciate the advice. However, after 16 years in the market, we’ve found that most potential buyers are primarily interested in the overall experience and usability of the aircraft rather than the “under-the-hood” technical details. While showcasing those aspects can be fascinating for some, it’s not a primary driver for the majority of our audience. Our goal is to focus on the features and information that resonate most with our community and align with what helps us grow sustainably. That said, we always strive to strike a balance and will continue to evaluate how we communicate the value of our products. Thanks again for your feedback and for purchasing the CitationJet 525!

Thank you for your feedback and for recognizing the effort our team has put into this product. Allow me to address a few points. The market dynamics for a CitationJet differ significantly from those of a 777 or other airliners, yet the overall development time is often similar per aircraft no matter the model. While there’s some buyer overlap, commercial jets generally yield higher sales volumes due to broader appeal. Pricing reflects these dynamics, as well as the significant development effort involved in creating a detailed, custom product like ours. It’s worth noting that many flight sim developers work part-time, subsidizing their efforts with other jobs. Our team operates full-time, and pricing ensures fair compensation for the time, expertise, and passion invested. If priced lower, the per-hour earnings would fall below minimum wage when dividing between years to produce and amount of developers involved, which isn’t sustainable for us or the industry at large. We want these people to stick around and to continue making these products. Regarding QoL features and modernized systems: these are highly subjective preferences. Our CitationJet features a fully custom FMS and avionics tailored to replicate the real aircraft’s functionality. None of these systems are default, including the autopilot. Libradio is also integrated on the NAV side. Older systems can sometimes be more complex to develop than modern counterparts, and we aim to provide an authentic experience true to this aircraft. There's a lot under the hood that people don't consider or "see". You don't need to make it a $150 aircraft (as you tried to suggest) by adding RealityXP or TDS, and I also find that price logic strange considering those Garmin navigators work across a wide array of aircraft addons. GPS Roll Steering is controlled by the FMS, not the navigators. As for pricing, it’s informed by extensive market research and sales forecasts. Before launch, we modeled various scenarios, and at the one-week mark, our forecast was accurate within 22 units. Lower pricing would not yield higher revenue due to volume dynamics. We've already accounted for those that won't purchase at regular price, those that will, those that say they won't but actually will in short order, and those that will wait a few years to obtain it at a discounted price that provides perceived value to their situation (think Black Friday). I promise this has been carefully considered. Ultimately, we understand that not every product will align with everyone’s expectations or preferences, and that’s okay. We’re proud of this aircraft, and the value it represents reflects our dedication to creating something exceptional. If and when you purchase it, I am confident you'll love the experience of immersion it provides. We stand by what we produce in that regard. Thank you again for sharing your perspective. 🙂

Hey @jcomm, just a small correction! That's the default Citation X, not our CJ525. :)

For those not following the product closely, the 525 is feature complete in systems and circuit functionality, and bug free. We are adding new features (our update today added a performance calculator), but if you took the comment I've quoted above to mean it's missing functionality as is in the real aircraft, that's wrong. It's a true rendition to the real one, and a really good one at that. 🙂 The texture, 3D, and sound work is really immersive and stunning in sim. We're really thrilled our customers of this product have been echoing those thoughts as well! The only things it doesn't have is a maintenance system to "fix" your plane or have it break down over time, and no failures window to prompt failures to happen. Both of these things are simply nice to haves, majority of our customers don't care about these things, and we'll likely do some of this stuff in time to cater to those that do. Of course, you can pull some circuit breakers and fail systems that way. Everything is properly modeled for that. Pricing is subjective to anyone. We value our time and labor dedicated to making this product over a five year period, and we price these products in ways that allow us to ensure developers stick around and keep developing. And, while I understand some might feel it's high in price (I still maintain it's great value for tons of fun), I am at least quite confident that anyone who purchases it will love it. A big thanks to all those who have done so already! We've been seeing a lot of you. Your happiness in this product has been really fun for all of us. 🙂 Happy Holidays to all!

Can't you Just COMMunicate more clearly? Sheesh! 😇

I know you're posting your opinion, but just want to say these sounds are pretty dead on to the real aircraft. It's been a constant praise from our real world CJ525 pilot test base, including CitationMax. I'm happy you're pleased with your purchase!

Why don't you just get the $1 Game Pass trial from Microsoft and try out MSFS, along with installing the free X-Plane 12 demo?

The server was down for only an hour and a half of scheduled maintenance. Some things are a bit blown out of proportion in here. I don't think you guys are running into Gizmo issues, just this: https://support.x-aviation.com/knowledgebase.php?article=3

There's a lot on there, so right click them, copy the URL and paste them here. I'll show you exact ones you select. 🙂

Link me to the screenshots on the product page you'd like to see bigger and I'll happily post them for you.

This issue has been acknowledged by Austin, and it is, in fact, a bug originating from X-Plane 12. The resolution for this will come with a subsequent X-Plane 12 update.

Over the past 9 months, our focus has been on ensuring that the IXEG 737 functions smoothly with X-Plane 12. This has led to the addition of animated doors, a revamped GUI, a detailed 3D cabin, some system tweaks, enhanced XP 12 lighting, and the integration of X-Plane 12's rain effects. The aircraft has indeed been equipped with VNAV functionality for quite some time. Under numerous scenarios, it performs seamlessly. However, in certain situations—primarily when there are short distances between waypoints accompanied by significant altitude variations and constraints—the VNAV might exhibit inconsistencies. This is the primary area we acknowledge needs refinement, and it's likely the reason why some users feel the VNAV is not fully functional or reliable. For those facing challenges with VNAV, especially in these specific situations, the LVL CHG mode remains a reliable alternative. Our team is committed to continuous improvement, and we appreciate your patience as we work towards refining the VNAV and other features. Thank you for your understanding and continued support!

I'd like to clarify that our update is actually in line with our planned timeline. The announcement for this update was made in April of this year. Furthermore, X-Plane 12, which our update aligns with, wasn't even released two years ago. There's always been a lot of transparency around this product since day one. As each update was released, the list of what not to expect in the product was continually updated on the forums. No minced words about it! We appreciate your patience and understanding.

RWC has nothing to do with winds at all.

This is simply untrue. The script was removed from the org weeks prior to 3.2.1 being released. Again, we had zero to do with this. I am a very straightforward, no beat around the bush person. You can dislike it to your hearts content, but the answer will be one of direct truth. The topic had been dead horse beat long enough, so in truth my rather blunt post was meant to discourage further open discussion. Simply put, this isn't going to change. It makes no difference how much people want to debate it. It is a waste of everyone's time at that point.

You made the following comment on the org: "Agreed! I have no idea why they would go out of their way (removing the script from the .org, and blocking it with 3.2.1) to remove a user-made enhancement. I could understand if it somehow modified SMP files, but it just changes datarefs and is fully reversible. A sad and narrow-minded reaction from X-Aviation." Please don't go around spreading misinformation. We had absolutely nothing to do with the removal of this script from the org, I have no idea who authored it, let alone why it was ever removed. I'm going to assume it was an author decision or perhaps even someone at the org's decision. I literally don't know.

It's one of Heinz's models, not Ramzess.

This, and also situations where the CPU and GPU's were keeping up with one another fine, but not being asked too much of them potential wise. Fill-Rate/Weather/AA....all of it, really. There's a variety of setting adjustments in each test. Obviously 24 vs 40fps between the 980ti and 1080 shows the 1080 shining where the advertise it to do just that...on large resolution monitors with relatively heavy hitting settings! I tend to upgrade every cycle, if not just to keep up with the times. The jump from 980 to 980ti in X-Plane was practically negligible. Safe to say the experience from 980ti to 1080 is quite a bit more sizable and worthy if you're using a widescreen monitor or 4k display.

Hi Jim, Apologies for the delay. It's been busy here as of late! I have done some tests, and my opinion is very simple: Amazing. The 1080 is a large increase over the 980ti on my wide screen setup (3440x1440). I ran a series of pre-defined tests which differed from stressful testing to light testing. Tests where the cards are not being used to their full potential have the GTX 1080 and 980ti fairly close (1080 beating it by about 3-5 fps). However, in stressful testing with higher settings the 1080 begins to really shine. Increases were as high as 16fps. I have attached an auto generated chart to show you each test result in X-Plane. Best Regards, Cameron GTX_Tests.pdf

I had to take a trip out to California for the past few days, but since then at the office I have a few more variants of the 1080 now in possession. They are: EVGA/ASUS Founders Edition EVGA SuperClocked MSI Gaming X Gigabyte G1 Will be interesting to see how these aftermarket boards perform.