Jump to content

ahuimanu

Members
  • Posts

    128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ahuimanu

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

ahuimanu's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

35

Reputation

  1. It is what they are saying. I am impressed at how Lockheed Martin keeps improving the platform, so I, like you, will NOT be switching. However, we are now market minorities. The best bet is to continue to use your own monetary resources to reinforce your platform choice - not everyone has abandoned Prepar3d.
  2. This news is an honest statement from Aerosoft, so the direct approach is appreciated. As a bottom line question, perhaps you could charge for updates to defray costs? If you look at the features for 5.3, it is clear that LM is NOT giving up. I can think of at least one scenery developer that charges for any updates when a new point release for Prepar3d includes new features where time must be spent supporting them. With the approach you are taking, it would be a clearer signal to all of us if you would just exit the Prepar3d market entirely as we can't trust that you would remain committed to any platform; your approach is too ephemeral for platforms that remain actively developed. In the case of FSX, I understood as it was truly defunct - but a source of income for many years thereafter. However, not ALL of us will be migrating to MSFS, no matter how it progresses.
  3. Hello, the World Editor file included in the scenery actually has taxi routes, but they are not enabled. Can you provide an update where these are enabled please?
  4. The value of the data subscription is waning over the years as the product is more and more neglected. Meanwhile, Navigraph invests in Simbrief. I am disappointed in the erratic nature of the data service and general support for PFPX.
  5. It might be the case that t his problem has returned... I see no sigmet/airmet data in PFPX.
  6. Even if it is a small update, it is a sign of life. Also, there was a reply regarding the server subscription about a month ago. I too think that the software is under maintained (or at least under-communicated) , but I also recall a similar sign of life in late 2018 when 2.03 was released.
  7. Version number went from 2.03 to 2.04 a few days ago, perhaps not dead?
  8. Thank you Mathijs, Accordingly, you have my money for each. I will continue to consume, and appreciate, P3D addons.
  9. I see the writing, and I see the wall. Glad there's an SDK for P3D and XP11.
  10. Thank you Mathijs, The position is crystal clear and availability on a variety of platforms is appreciated. If the market makes you move away from LM, because of their missteps or because "casuals" don't have to work with P3D now that an entertainment title is again available, then P3D folks lose. As long as P3D lives, I'll protect my investments there. I am certain that is why a nagging FSX community lingered. The P3D product also accommodates learning uses, which are consistent with how I derive value from the platform. Looking forward to how it all pans out and hopeful that some commercial resonance remains for LM.
  11. Hi Mathijis, For clarity, which I could have done a better job on in my post above, I concur on the aircraft space and only mention aircraft as, once they exist, there will be ongoing interest in them. I should have specified that some scenery projects seem to die on the vine due to the content provider evaporating. Two examples come to mind: KSMF and EFHK. My advocacy is that, for as much as possible, IP move forward on platforms, which of course I see is happening with MSFS. Perhaps I should have advocated that more in-house development occur or that rights to moving forward on platforms be retained. Everything about MSFS says that it is rooted in its predecessor enough, at least scenery-wise, that products can be sustained. Very short version: develop more in house so the sting of developer dissolution/disinterest doesn't leave holes in airport coverage. It would seem that Microsoft has left the door open for airport scenery and aircraft in the new base product. The need is even greater with the "legacy" platforms. Thanks.
  12. Thank you both for your clear answers. It is up to LM to maintain whatever market share that suits their business model as well. For certain use cases, for the moment, I do not deem the latest Microsoft platform to be suitable. While there is nothing quite like the marketing prowess of a large company to really drive the market, I didn't imagine, given the long lead time for development projects, that Aerosoft would place all of their eggs in the basked that is the new simulator from Microsoft. However, it is apparent from your kind replies that this might be the case given you presently see no basis for "... any serious new project." In the end, those aren't my decisions, but one way to change a market is to deprive it of oxygen and that is how it seems you are interpreting the data. That clear and honest answer is appreciated. I agree with Dave's observations regarding the premature release of the latest version of P3D - Alas, I too am on 4.5HF3 for stability. However, I could make very similar arguments regarding MSFS. It would seem the difference is that anything related to MSFS is selling like hot cakes. In all cases, as you've both alluded to, "time will tell." The maturity of the ESP/P3D platform helps me make my own decisions, but I had hoped that a multi-platform strategy would be Aerosoft's position moving forward. Thanks for the replies!
  13. For the CEO... The space that Aerosoft occupies - retailer, curator, and developer - creates, at times, a conflicting posture. Often, projects are abandoned as it seems that aerosoft does not retain any rights to maintain a product as the underlying sim platforms evolve. It would be nice to see commitment to certain products across the evolutionary changes in the underlying platforms. I am not asking for a freebie in perpetuity here as I understand paying incremental fees to offset the development required. However, the product portfolio seems to ebb and flow and two things seem to be true in light of this: 1) once an aircraft exists, short of it not selling well for your, it is an item of interest, and 2) the underlying materials - models, textures, techniques - don't seem to change radically enough such that they don't retain enough residual value. I suppose what I am suggesting is that Aerosoft is mature enough as a company to move away from "curator" and take an active role in developing or at least sub-contracting where you retain rights to maintain and improve products. Thank you.
  14. Hello, it is a month or so since MSFS has been out. Has anything changed about your long-term plans to continue support for P3D 64-bit platforms? Unlike FSX, there seems to be intent that Lockheed Martin will continue with the platform and there are customers, such as myself, who will stick with that sim platform and continue to invest in it. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...