Talk to the management? Here's your chance...

[Rob Ainscough 204]

Customers are people that buy products you publish, past, present, and future.

 

As I pointed out, updated development and new development is still being done on P3D.  Do you need more examples?

 

If you feel P3D is not viable, that's entirely your decision ... but such a decision is indicative that MSFS isn't providing sufficient funds to support bringing your existing P3D up to similar feature specification such as PBR, Sloped Runways, Material Scripting, Dynamic Lights, Dynamic Reflections, etc.  ... these features were provide a long time ago, but only your "new projects" (some not all) would leverage "some" of these features??  I'm a 3DSMax modeler and know enough about both P3D/MSFS workflows to know they aren't drastically different (sure some difference especially around texture sizes MSFS being much weaker in that regard).

 

Many existing products (long before MSFS was even on the table) were never updated, forever bound to FSX limitations, the LCD in development.  A few products were updated as paid "Professional" versions and still didn't leverage all the new features available in P3D ... and then you wonder why sales are not good??

 

Perhaps supporting the same features that exist in P3D that currently exist in MSFS would have helped with "sales" in P3D?  I have no idea why you didn't embrace these new features in P3D (PBR, sloped runways, material scripting, dynamic lights, dynamic reflections, etc.) that were available long before MSFS even hit the market?  The work effort to bring your existing products up to date with these features is a relatively easy process for any 3D modeler.

 

MSFS sales are better because of visuals, the same visuals P3D supports with one exception ... native Ambient Occlusion support.  You made no serious effort to bring P3D forward ... if you want an good example of just how good P3D can look, load up P3D FlyTampa PBR enabled airports ... IMHO, they look better in P3D (certainly texture resolution) than they do in MSFS.  Clearly the visual features where there and could be leveraged, but Aerosoft and those whom publish under Aerosoft seemed to just ignore them.

 

I get that you want ONE platform for all ... you made that clear many years ago during one of the FS conferences.  But if MSFS sales are "so good", then I'm certain you'd have the resources to bring your existing P3D customers up to similar visuals as your MSFS customers?  So either MSFS sales aren't good enough, or your pushing the ONE platform mission.

 

Rob

[BrianV 13]

Some Norwegian airports, Aspen Extended, and others, never made it to P3Dv4 or P3Dv5. I think we would all love to have them back in P3Dv5 so I am being a bit more careful in purchasing new airports for any sim as I would like them to keep active (even for a fee) in future versions. P3D is surely looking better and better and has the advantage of an already existing wide range of addons.

Keeping up with MSFS, XP and P3D must surely be challenging for any company, so I fully understand that hard decisions have to be made. Resources are limited and must, at least in its majority, be spend on what keeps the business going. 

[Aerosoft Team 51548]

Rob, I am just not sorry about what you want me to answer and pretty sure that nothing I will say will satisfy you.

 

Aerosoft is a company that needs to break even to pay for all costs and ideally make a profit to experiment, get new projects running etc. You simply have no idea about the costs, the profits or the losses. And even if you did, you are not my CEO and you would have no influence (other than any other customer has) on what we produce. I fully understand you are not very impressed by MSFS, that's fine!  

 

Aerosoft has two sections of development. Internal and External. I run the internal section and there unless you can guarantee me 30k sales for a P3D project I will simply not start on it because my CEOs will probably fire me. For the external teams, that decision is not in our hands, they make their own plans and offer us the projects they want to sell. We make the decision to sell them or not.

 

As I said many times. It is not Aerosoft who decides what projects we do. It is customers who decide what projects we start. And that is not only MSFS because we are still very happy about our X-Plane products. Do you know why? Because we still have a lot of X-Plane users who buy our products!

 

Rob, you seem hell bend on proving something. To be honest I do not really know what that is. But you do not determine what Aerosoft does. And we think we got far better information on what is involved than you have.  And that is why I close this discussion.

 

 

 

[Aerosoft Team 51548]

9 hours ago, BrianV said:

Some Norwegian airports, Aspen Extended, and others, never made it to P3Dv4 or P3Dv5. I think we would all love to have them back in P3Dv5 so I am being a bit more careful in purchasing new airports for any sim as I would like them to keep active (even for a fee) in future versions. P3D is surely looking better and better and has the advantage of an already existing wide range of addons.

 

All these projects were not started or developed internally.  Not delivering them for new platforms was simple not our decision. 

[Rob Ainscough 204]

I don't need to prove anything, the facts speak for themselves ... you've avoided my question completely.  Why didn't you embrace the same features now in MSFS that were in P3D BEFORE MSFS was released?

 

Visuals sell, P3D improved visuals and both internal and external and you did very little to embrace those visuals either by setting external "standards" or enforcing internal development of them.  

 

This is a feedback thread, I'm giving feedback, isn't that the point of this thread?  I haven't violated any ToS.

 

Rob.  

[Herman 1585]

18 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

I don't need to prove anything, the facts speak for themselves...

 

Rob.  

Borrowed from Queen Elsa: "Let it go."

[Aerosoft Team 51548]

23 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

This is a feedback thread, I'm giving feedback, isn't that the point of this thread?  I haven't violated any ToS.

 

Okay Rob, we have read your feedback and we are grateful for you insights.  

[keenrw 58]

How about looking at it like this … The reason you are not selling any more P3D stuff may be because most P3D users already have a lot of your products for it, It's been out a while so of course you're not selling any more stuff because there's nothing new to buy .... I bet if you were to make a new updated Gatwick that would really sell … i know a lot of P3D users that are crying out for an updated EGKK....check Vatsim or IVAO for busy Airports that are not covered by other developers or need an update then make them ... they will sell and MSFS sales are up because it's a new sim and users are wanting new Airports etc to replace the default so of course the sales are up for that.....

       I still can't believe there's no more updates to the Airbus, that was coming along so well ,…now just its been dropped while the other Airbus developer is still providing regular updates,  i wish i had brought that now instead of keeping loyalty to Aerosoft.

[Aerosoft Team 51548]

We have been making updates for our P3D product for close to a year after MSFS was released. The simply fact is that in all our market research we simply do not find new P3D customers.  The last few P3D products we released simply did not sell well. 

 

Please accept that we do not have serious preferences in what sim we work for. We are most likely the biggest developer for X-Plane add-ons at this moment.  We just create what we can sell. And 90% of what we sell is not created by us, but just published, in these case it is not Aerosoft who decides what to make, just our decision to sell it or not.

 

The latest versions of P3D are simply very very good. It's a shame it is not a commercial viable platform for most.

[Moach 97]

Do you have any intention of as much as just considering the cases made and suggestions put forth in the whole copyrights disaster thread?

 

 

There have been many valid points made, and I have personally gone as far as get specialized legal advice on the matter and ultimately found your problem, then offered a simple way to overcome the source for your concerns about sharing modded script files

 

 

 

Yet there has been no sign of acknowledgement, or even any indication that the thread has been read again since it was opened.

 

 

 

Can we get a statement on what, if anything, you intend to do to satisfy the many reasonable requests made on the subject?

Or are we just supposed to shout at a brick wall until we give up and go away? 

 

 

You folks desperately need to work on your people skills.  I'm trying to HELP you here and you're all making it very difficult

[Aerosoft Team 51548]

All we felt that was needed to be said was said Moach. I am sure you feel this is not the case. but the facts are simple, what was uploaded was illegal, we had it removed and we proposed ways so the tweaks could be shared without violating our copyrights. As you have seen, kind people have already done so. 

 

I made it very clear we would leave that topic open (as people said we closed everything) but would not comment on it. If you want to help us (and customers), share the tweaks without violating the copyrights!

 

If you want to discuss this with our legal department, and you are sure your arguments are valid under German law, just send them to support@aerosoft.com and I will forwards them to our legal representative.  Both my CEO's are fully informed about this issue and both of them share my idea that we welcome assistance but that sharing copyrighted files is simply not allowed under any conditions. 

 

And that closes the discussion here.  We offered you all a topic that would not be closed, where you can make your points as often and as long as you want. 

[DavidWS10 10]

Hi Mathijs.

 

I am the founder, janitor, head cook, and chief bottle washer at the recently resurrected fsinn.org. Anyways, I posted a review of the recently released Brussels National Airport and am hoping you might read that review and send me your comments. I'd greatly appreciate it.

 

David Schitoskey

news@fsinn.org

 

[Aerosoft Team 51548]

Thanks for the review, but if you want comments I would say it a bit short.

[Sadece Gerçekler 2]

Hello Mathijs, I love using your series from Airbus A318 to A321 in FSX. (I thought it would come with the A330, but unfortunately you didn't make it for FSX, which was a bit of a disappointment for us.) I have now purchased MSFS2020 (Steam) and eagerly await your release of the MSFS Airbus series. I wonder if these products are in your program, if so when will we be able to buy them? Kind regards,

[Herman 1585]

1 hour ago, Sadece Gerçekler said:

Hello Mathijs, I love using your series from Airbus A318 to A321 in FSX. (I thought it would come with the A330, but unfortunately you didn't make it for FSX, which was a bit of a disappointment for us.) I have now purchased MSFS2020 (Steam) and eagerly await your release of the MSFS Airbus series. I wonder if these products are in your program, if so when will we be able to buy them? Kind regards,

Follow this link and you'll see some good news...  

 

[Sadece Gerçekler 2]

Wonderful! I'm looking forward to it, thank you.

[Cpt.Kidd 2]

Hello Aerosoft MGMT. I am curious as to whether you are going to do the DC-8 for MSFS? That is hands down my favorite P3D addon and would love to have it in MSFS. I am not in the development business so I have no idea on the ROIs developers are seeing but it seems that MSFS sees an interest in the classics judging by the planes released thus far, many being ones never done as payware like the Boeing 247 and JU52 to name a couple. My dream is to see your DC-8 along with planes like the 707, Convair 880, 727, DC-10, DC-9, L-1011 to name a few. I know I am not alone in that desire.

[mopperle 4142]

3 hours ago, Cpt.Kidd said:

Hello Aerosoft MGMT. I am curious as to whether you are going to do the DC-8 for MSFS? That is hands down my favorite P3D addon and would love to have it in MSFS. I am not in the development business so I have no idea on the ROIs developers are seeing but it seems that MSFS sees an interest in the classics judging by the planes released thus far, many being ones never done as payware like the Boeing 247 and JU52 to name a couple. My dream is to see your DC-8 along with planes like the 707, Convair 880, 727, DC-10, DC-9, L-1011 to name a few. I know I am not alone in that desire.

You should post such questions/suggestions here:

 

[WalSch 485]

Good day dear Management,

 

I was just about to upload some new liveries here. Unfortunately your DM software has something against it. It allows a maximum data size of only 2MB per file, which is far too little in my opinion.

 

Please login to display this image.

 

 That's just approx enough for the main and the objects folder, the icon and thumbnail image and the half of one texture file of a livery.

 

Thanks in advance for an explanation on how I can get your software to let me share my work with the community.

Kind regards,

Walter

 

(Edit) Removed my previous annoyed undertone. Sorry, I apologize for that.

[WalSch 485]

Liebes Management,

 

Ich schreibe diese Anfrage absichtlich in Deutsch, weil nur jemand von Ihnen, dessen Muttersprache ebenfalls Deutsch ist, mir weiterhelfen kann.

Ich wollte im Deutschen Forumsteil auf einen Post antworten, aber Ihre Software hatte etwas dagegen.

 

Please login to display this image.

 

Darf ich Sie deshalb bitten, mir zu erklären, inwiefern der obenstehende und von mir formulierte Text in irgendeiner Art und Weise gegen irgendeine (mir bislang vielleicht noch unbekannte) Forumsregel verstösst?

 

Ich bedanke mich im Voraus für eine Erklärung.

[WalSch 485]

Am 21.3.2023 um 23:02 schrieb WalSch:

I was just about to upload some new liveries here. Unfortunately your DM software has something against it. It allows a maximum data size of only 2MB per file, which is far too little in my opinion.

 

Please login to display this image.

 

JFYI: It was not the first time that your forum software caused me this problem.

Therefore, it is perhaps understandable that a user might be a little annoyed by this.

Thanks

[Aerosoft Team 51548]

Sorry there was no earlier reply to this. But this is of course not a matter for management but for the forum administrators. I will have them check this out.

[Jonas S. 464]

On 3/25/2023 at 7:34 PM, WalSch said:

 

JFYI: It was not the first time that your forum software caused me this problem.

Therefore, it is perhaps understandable that a user might be a little annoyed by this.

Thanks

Dear Sir,

 

many thanks for your message. I'm sorry for this inconvenience. Can you quickly let me know where (in a private message, in a forum topic (if so, where?) or in our downloads section) you wanted to upload mentioned file?

[Jonas S. 464]

On 3/23/2023 at 3:21 PM, WalSch said:

Liebes Management,

 

Ich schreibe diese Anfrage absichtlich in Deutsch, weil nur jemand von Ihnen, dessen Muttersprache ebenfalls Deutsch ist, mir weiterhelfen kann.

Ich wollte im Deutschen Forumsteil auf einen Post antworten, aber Ihre Software hatte etwas dagegen.

 

Please login to display this image.

 

Darf ich Sie deshalb bitten, mir zu erklären, inwiefern der obenstehende und von mir formulierte Text in irgendeiner Art und Weise gegen irgendeine (mir bislang vielleicht noch unbekannte) Forumsregel verstösst?

 

Ich bedanke mich im Voraus für eine Erklärung.

Guten Tag,

 

ich bitte diese Unannehmlichkeiten zu entschuldigen. Die entstandene Fehlermeldung war bedingt durch die Konfiguration unseres "Wortfilters". Dieser hat fälschlicherweise ein Teil eines Ihrer Worte als unzulässig deklariert. Diesen Fehler habe ich behoben, Sie sollten nun in der Lage sein den gewünschten Text zu veröffentlichen.

[WalSch 485]

 

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Mathijs Kok:

Sorry there was no earlier reply to this. But this is of course not a matter for management but for the forum administrators. I will have them check this out.

I'm sorry I bothered you. But since the same problem was a matter for management on November 2, 2021 and at that time one of your forum administrators advised me to post the problem in this very thread 'talk to the management?', of course I did that five days ago too. And because back then in 2021 it was still a matter for management.

If I had known that a year and a half later that would no longer be the case, I would of course and certainly not have bothered you with the bugs of your forum software.

 

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Jonas S.:

Dear Sir,

 

many thanks for your message. I'm sorry for this inconvenience. Can you quickly let me know where (in a private message, in a forum topic (if so, where?) or in our downloads section) you wanted to upload mentioned file?

Hallo Jonas,

Ich denke, wir können in unser beider Muttersprache kommunizieren. Also dann, ich wollte meine liveries hier hochladen:

Please login to display this image.

 

Das selbe Problem hatte eure Software auch schon am 2. November 2021. Damals hatte sie sich jedoch in diesem Upload-Bereich an der Grösse meiner Zip-Datei gestört,...

Please login to display this image.

 

...und zwar weil, wer hätte es geahnt, ich damals ein Scenery Package (DSF) hochladen wollte.

 

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Jonas S.:

Guten Tag,

 

ich bitte diese Unannehmlichkeiten zu entschuldigen. Die entstandene Fehlermeldung war bedingt durch die Konfiguration unseres "Wortfilters". Dieser hat fälschlicherweise ein Teil eines Ihrer Worte als unzulässig deklariert. Diesen Fehler habe ich behoben, Sie sollten nun in der Lage sein den gewünschten Text zu veröffentlichen.

Darf ich freundlicherweise erfahren, an welchem Teil eines meiner Worte sich euer "Wortfilter" gestört hat? Nur so aus Neugier und damit ich es künftig vermeiden kann, den selben Teil eines Wortes erneut in einem meiner Texte zu verwenden.

 

Gruss,

Walter