ahuimanu
-
Posts
130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by ahuimanu
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
If Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 turns out to be our "No Man's Sky," I'll at least be entertained.
Its a shame that P3D4x didn't take us where we thought we were headed. I remember the heady days of the 64-bit onset of P3Dv4 in 2017 and thought we'd finally have a settling in period. Then XP11 took off. The add-on market feels less settled as a result. MFS2020 is being made out to be the second coming, I hope all eggs aren't going into a single basket. Microsoft is certainly going to deflate P3Dv5 and I can't see how folks will shell out to realize their sim dreams in Prepar3d, XP11/12, and MFS. That'd be like getting the same game for Playstation, Xbox, and Sega (or whatever).
The baby buses seem to be in good enough shape and provide more value than other alternatives.
-
Hello Aerosoft,
I am what I consider a "good" customer as I have spent a reasonable sum of money across an 8-year period with Aerosoft and I am, on the whole, a satisfied customer. I have no idea if my $4,044.87 across 117 orders is high, low, or in the middle, but it suggests a high year of $753.81 and a low year of $205.01. Put another way, I feel that I have yielded a decent amount of discretionary spending in support of my own hobby desires, and thus also in support of Aerosoft. I only quote my Aerosoft expenditures above, the figure across other markets and vendors is obviously higher. Generally, while these expenditures entitles me to use of the products purchased, and nothing else, generally, many in business do want good customer relations, hence this very thread. I offer some perspective on two areas of your business below.
It is in more recent years that I am spending less money with Aerosoft as I find Aerosoft to acting in a confusing manner as the simulation environment evolves. I am mainly speaking about how P3D is being handled and how you act as a reseller of 3rd party titles. As P3D continues to evolve, and provides what feels like the best environment moving forward (FSX lineage with good innovation and a very clear path for developers), Aerosoft's overall response in recent years is challenging for me as a customer. Frequently, Aerosoft employees will maintain "we are just the publisher", or "we are just a retailer." Be that as it may, it does not feel like the same customer experience that made Aerosoft dominant in the height of the FSX era. Incidentally, this FSX era is when I was offering a much greater patronage. Now, I realize that the P3D platform may be difficult as the 1.4 to 2.5 to 3.3.5 transition was a moving target. However, I wonder why you do not commit resources to co-evolve with P3D? Did it require the 5-7 years of "stagnation" from 2007-2014, before FSX Steam and P3D 2.0+ arose, in order to be as prolific with FSX boxed titles? If the development cycle is that difficult, it would be nice to know.
My inquiry today addresses just a small portion of your business: P3D (the worst section of the shop as it does little to distinguish for the customer when/where support is for 1.4, 2.5 or 3.x in any consistent manner) and your reselling of 3rd party content. As a side note, the US version of your shop is also the worst: it is frequently not up-to-date and is the lesser eCommerce experience as compared to what seems the the european version of the shop.
A trigger for my inquiry (and occasion for writing in this thread) is a specific instance of the "deal with it, we're just the messenger" approach I more recently encounter (indirectly as I don't write on the issue as much) in terms of customer service that is evident in this thread:
While the specific matter is closed (along with the thread), it raises questions. I feel that I am shopping at a different Aerosoft recently than just a few years ago. I feel as though the product base is somewhat "scattered" and my own sense of "caveat emptor" is higher than ever.
Thus, my observation is that Aerosoft, as a company, has a more diffuse focus than would have been the case a few years ago for some of the following reasons:
P3D Support
- Aerosoft seems to be largely ignoring the trend towards P3D among the MS Flight Simulator crowd. I have to believe that this "thread" of simmers must be, traditionally, your largest. Perhaps they are still on FSX, but it feels like FS2004/FSX tandem support was far more common than FSX/P3D support. This is so even as, for the large part, the SDKs from Microsoft/Lockeed Martin, respectively, make for a reasonable possibility of support.
- This seemed ignorance of P3D is in the face of the following marketing materials straight from the front page of Lockheed Martin's website for Prepar3d: "Prepar3D furthers the development of Microsoft® ESP™ while maintaining compatibility with Microsoft Flight Simulator X, allowing many thousands of add-ons to be used within Prepar3D."
- If you would like for me, the customer, to support upgrading and testing efforts to ensure product stability in P3D - as you may recompile older products - then I would understand and support that. However, for large segments of your FSX products, there is little indication that these products will see the light of day. Perhaps, our ecosystem isn't ready for quick change? The time spanse from FS2004 to FSX was 3 years; it took from Fall 2013 to Fall 2015 between versions 2 and 3 of P3D. Is P3D a target that moves to quickly? Or, is P3D just a non-concern as its market is too small to support?
3rd Party Reselling
- Your forward support of 3rd-party titles you sell through your store can be poor: my examples are not only the thread I've referenced above with regards to the Polish Airports title from Drzewiecki Design, but also with Carenado products . Specifically, as another illustration, why is there no discount or even availability for the C90 GTX KING AIR HD SERIES product as a result of having previously purchased the C90B?
Focus
- Your diversity in simming endeavors gives the impression that you are willing to go shallow in some of your fundamental business sectors - I am again alluding to lukewarm and lackluster P3D support as compared to FS2004, FSX, and even X-Plane.
My incentive to buy any title from you that you have not developed in house is now absolutely zero at this point, which is fine as I am sure you operate in markets where your conveyance of these 3rd party products is convenient in that market. Honestly, some of your competitors, who at one time I felt were inferior to you, offer a much greater level of service AND seem to be attracting many of the developers willing to serve what is marketed as a truly cross-platform segment: the FSX/P3D "realm." Notwithstanding the volatility of P3D itself (the June 2016 stunt Lockheed Martin pulled where they crippled old scenery for about a week or so), the P3D segment of simmer, who incidentally may also represent those who more readily spend money on sim addons (consider the price of the product itself), seems to be mostly passed by at Aerosoft. To be fair, most new titles are cross-platform, but it feels like many old titles are forgotten. Do we need to subsidize these with a fee for the cross/upgrade? Please just say so. I would understand and pay. Let's use the example of Mega Airport Dusseldorf. Why a P3D 2.5 installer and not one for 3.x? Since I understand an employee must create a new installer, do you need me to help pay for that? If so, just ask.
On the whole, I plan to continue to support you as many of your home-grown products, the Airbus 320 series comes to mind, offer INCREDIBLE value. Further, I don't think you are an inherently "bad actor" by any measure. Thus, I do not want to paint you with a broad brush that says "Aerosoft sucks" as that isn't true and isn't how I feel. Rather, I ask why some aspects feel somewhat neglected or out of step with what I consider to be, on the whole, a very healthy company and force in the flight simulation community.
I will conclude with questions:
- Why is an upgrade of your FSX product line (particularly German airports) to P3D not an apparent priority for you?
- Why do you seem to act in what appears to be customer unfriendly ways when you resell 3rd party products?
- Where is your leadership in informing customers about platform support? Specifically, if you have some inherent problem/reservation in supporting P3D, what is that problem? Is there something about that platform that you have reservations about?
Thank you for listening.
JB
-
6
-
I love Aerosoft airports (both internal and published), and I've spent a fortune on them to prove it. Alas, I can see now why we'll rarely get any USA airports. The level of access you need to an airport, and the level of paranoia present in the USA means that we're out of luck.
-
Yes, that's what I stated here days ago: http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=40007&view=findpost&p=266305
When the ground is "flatten", means that the tunnels are filled with "dust", the first thing to check is a different Afcad/AFX file in the area.
In case of use of Mytraffic, first check the Mytraffic\Scenery Folder for any EDDM related file and remove thatone. (or rename it to *.OFF)
where is this FSX version for sale? I don't see it on the main Aerosoft site.
-
Just adding in a vote FOR the A319/A318. After all, it is a family of aircraft. You should be able to chop the fuselage and change the engine characteristics and be done with it.
Thanks for considering a higher-level bird.
-
I have this problem, but it exists only going from 1.30 to 1.41 (both downloads from the Aerosoft site via my profile). I have the exact same error messages about allocation and "can't find WorldEditor.dll"
I did get the challenge to re-register and I did, but it hasn't worked since.
-
I'm a prospective customer and a voracious buyer of Aerosoft-published sceneries. I've known of and admired Mr. Pabst's "under the hood" work for many years. I am sorry to see that the community is more of a mess now than it's halcyon days - perhaps a community like fsdeveloper.com (where I found a message to come here to support Oliver) is a good place to change tone. I do recall that the freeware ethos was more alive 10 years ago versus now. I think the add-on market is, well just that, a market, and less so a community. I look forward to supporting AES soon as my collection of airports supported by AES is quite large now.
-
Airbus X does have a clear identity. It is a realistic simulation of the airbus, where the little things that you don't really use are cut back on, and the user is aided with some calculations in the FMC. This is a lite as it gets. But those little bits of help is what will make this appeal to a large market.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate your enthusiasm as a tester and, like I said, I will likely chance the product. I do find some contradiction in the above statement given that the MCDU/FMC is appreciably curtailed. I would think that the MCDU/FMC is hardly a "little thing," and that cutting back on it is part of the problem. I recognize that the demand for "airliner without the details" is apparently stronger than I realized - I'm just perplexed. The details is what is remarkable/awesome about an airliner - commercial flight at the level of the A32x is not a "kick the tires and light the fires" affair. In fairness, I will withhold further judgment until we have the 'bus in hand. I am not optimistic for an "advanced" version though... Mathis just doesn't give out the vibe that he believes the market exists.
-
2
-
-
The whole preflight is pretty realistic, we only skip the fake INS things as those are just nonsense in FSX.
The whole of the "sim" is fake, so why is the process/procedure of setting up an INS system nonsense? Why include radios? Why have an INS page in the MDCU? Why fully animate the doors? Why show chocks (the plane won't roll away on its own and the "chocks" won't stop the plane from rolling)? It is your product, so you can of course target the market you think appropriate, but I don't understand this push/need for "lite" and watered-down airliners. The joy of a simulated airliner is the ability to cheaply and leisurely learn how to operate a simulation of the aircraft. Why not just make a Piper Cub if simplicity is what is desired.
My point is: it is difficult to call the threshold of "nonsense" in FSX when just about all of it is fake.
I felt the need to comment as the statement I quote above seems out of touch with the following from the first post in this thread: "Startup from a fully cold aircraft fully realistic"
I think part of the reason that the A320 is going a little overtime is that the product has a bit of an identity problem - it's not sure if it wants to be a full-fledged simulator or a "lite" product.
It looks good and I'll likely chance it, but some of the design decisions are somewhat odd (esp. those related to the MCDU - viz. "Fully updatable nav database (navigraph)," followed closely by "SIDs & STARs and airways not supported;" very odd and somewhat contradictory.
-
3
-
-
He is saying that PMDG is just aimed at a very small group off potential customers.
I realize that you are quoting Mathijs, but I wonder how this claim can be substantiated? I do not have the facts either, but PMDG's ongoing success couldn't possibly have come about by servicing a 'very small group' of customers. I've seen the sentiment that simmers can't handle full and in-depth realism in many forums and in the advertisements for many new products coming out for FSX. I wonder why everyone is so intimidated by complexity when many of these aircraft are so automated to begin with? Honestly, with something as incredible and ground-breaking as the A32x series, why not take it as far as you can go?
If we want a simpler model in the sim, then why not model a simpler aircraft?
I am looking forward to Aerosoft's airbus and believe that the offering will mature nicely, but I wonder why there is such a strong perception that the market wants "light" versions?
-
3
-
-
-
I am writing here as I am unable to get a response from usa@aerosoft.com regarding order number: 5420725380
I have ordered FS Global 2010 and would like some indication of the order's status. I've enjoyed the customer support on the download side, but I've found the box side disappointing thus far.
As my original confirmation email contains the following language, I would assume that my order was well underway: "Your order at Aerosoft USA has been processed and confirmed. Please see your order details below."
Sorry to turn to the forum for this, but it feels like my inquiries to the USA office are going into a black hole.
Thank you.
Aerosoft Airbus future plans
in General chatter (NO SUPPORT)
Posted
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.