Interview with Scott (A2A)

Christ...the T-33 is STILL way off in the distance (and even then it sounds like still a **maybe**). The T-6 wouldn't be bad, but that sounds like it is months and months away (sounds like they haven't even nailed it down yet). Have their P-51 and B-17, and love them-- so they build great stuff. IMHO, lots of great talent-- being spent on a C-182....ooookay.

Kent
 
Getting another A2A deja vu here, how many moons ago did they announce the Phantom, then the Starfighter... I would prefer to see those birds materialize without accusim under their Aircraft Factory label and not wait indefinitely for Accusim versions.
 
hschuit said:
Getting another A2A deja vu here, how many moons ago did they announce the Phantom, then the Starfighter... I would prefer to see those birds materialize without accusim under their Aircraft Factory label and not wait indefinitely for Accusim versions.
Click to expand...

+ 1 :encouragement:

It's one thing to change the spark plugs, but a completely different league (and not that interesting one for me) to rebuild a turbine or xray for fatigue cracks. LOL!
 
Can't disagree with you about taking promising projects to the AF label, though at this point, IMHO the F-4 is quickly close to being OBE (MilViz). And judging by the length of time the P-51H has been in development (two years plus?), I'm not even certain moving things to AF is a solution. Don't get me wrong:

1. I love A2A
2. I know it takes a long time to develop the quality products like they develop
3. I recognize that whining about schedule won't make them be released any earlier

I guess my only .02 cents would be that A2A perhaps consider being clearer and more consistent about updating their customer base on current project lineup (to include what's been deferred/cancelled) and schedule progress [though nearly all developers seem to be schedule-phobic].

Kent
 
I hope then they just will back to "warbirds" line or "early jet fighter" now, the last 3 models (including C182) was only civilians planes (with Accu sim addon).
 
ColoKent said:
Christ...the T-33 is STILL way off in the distance (and even then it sounds like still a **maybe**). The T-6 wouldn't be bad, but that sounds like it is months and months away (sounds like they haven't even nailed it down yet). Have their P-51 and B-17, and love them-- so they build great stuff. IMHO, lots of great talent-- being spent on a C-182....ooookay.
Kent
Click to expand...
My days of spending large amounts on aircraft is over and that puts A2A at the top of the list. I have purchased quite a few of their fighters and bomber over the years but none are Accu-simmed. The T-33 would have been one I might have looked closely at, but my interest in Flight Sim is on the decline so I doubt I'll see that before I take my leave. We do however have this beauty (see below), which continues to hold it's own with the upgrade to native FSX and actually looks awesome in P3D_V2.4 as the screenshot shows. So we still have that airplane to keep us company for now.
 
This is a fight we have no chance to win.
A2A has realized that a Cessna 172/182 is:
- much simpler to model than any warbird
- much easier and much cheaper to access in real life for their analysis/recording/test flights/etc...
- much, MUCH more popular than any warbird. If I'm not mistaken the C172 sold much more than the Mustang ever did. It will probably be the same for the C182.

At this point, modelling a warbird, or a military jet, probably means additional workload, additionnal costs, and in the end lower selling volumes (less income).
The F-4 has been cancelled a long time ago, we can forget about it.
The F-104 has been replaced by the T-33.
The T-33 *might* happen in a few years, but the T-6 will come first.
The T-6 is not 100% sure to happen either, some other GA airplane might be shifted in front of it in the release calendar.

A2A is a company, and a company has to pay its employees. And they have more chances to do so by selling regular GA planes than by selling warbirds.
 
Yep-- don't disagree in the least that A2A has to pay their employees...and if they are essentially turning away from warbirds in favor of GA aircraft for the time being, they ought let the community know it-- i.e. keep customers fully briefed and in the loop on a regular basis ("I **might** do XYZ in year..." doesn't really count for much, IMHO). Not singling out A2A in the least (they are pretty straightforward in most respects of their approach...other than updates and plans), but my observation is that here is a whole "general lack of business acumen in the industry" discussion that could take place-- but I recognize this thread is not the place for that.

What can I say? Best of luck on the Cessnas...

Kent
 
'physical' seemed to be the magic word in the interview, as in the preview movie.

I too am a bit disappointed with the current GA trend, and especially with the 182. I mean, I didn't even know it existed, which shows my amount of interest in this aircraft. To me, it looks exactly like a slightly bigger 172, so no way I am going to spend any money on it. (Funny that, since I bought nearly all P-51's ever produced for FSX, and they look all the same too) A V-tail Bonanza, that I would have liked, and I am still hoping, very much hoping, for those T-birds (6 and 33). On the other hand, A2A has to build them, and in order to do it with the amount of detail they provide, they have to love what they are doing, because they are still on top of the game. At the same time it would be nice to make a buck, I can understand that. So let's hope they get the 182 out of the hangar quickly and that they proceed with the T-6, which will be a definite buy from me.
 
I mentioned this before, a long time ago now and as usual it was ignored, but even though this is the FSX Forum, P3D is what drives the GA push with A2A. They stand to generate much more interest and income catering to that market than they every will with us. We reap the benefits of course but Student Pilots and Flight Training Facilities present both an individual purchaser (students) and a commercial purchaser (Flight Schools) of their line of highly detailed and Accu-sim system specific General Aviation Airplanes. The very types used by both. As Lockheed Martin continues to improve on what they have already achieved (which is amazing really), the requirement for detailed, system heavy, GA aircraft will increase and A2A has the goods.

A T-33 would be awesome, beyond that I have no interest other than the F-100 (both are aircraft I had plenty of time on while Active Duty). I have plenty of GA aircraft and don't care about Accu-sim so for me it's a race to see what comes first. . .a T-33, an F-100 or me getting out of Flight sim.
 
falcon409 said:
I mentioned this before, a long time ago now and as usual it was ignored, but even though this is the FSX Forum, P3D is what drives the GA push with A2A. They stand to generate much more interest and income catering to that market than they every will with us. We reap the benefits of course but Student Pilots and Flight Training Facilities present both an individual purchaser (students) and a commercial purchaser (Flight Schools) of their line of highly detailed and Accu-sim system specific General Aviation Airplanes. The very types used by both. As Lockheed Martin continues to improve on what they have already achieved (which is amazing really), the requirement for detailed, system heavy, GA aircraft will increase and A2A has the goods.

A T-33 would be awesome, beyond that I have no interest other than the F-100 (both are aircraft I had plenty of time on while Active Duty). I have plenty of GA aircraft and don't care about Accu-sim so for me it's a race to see what comes first. . .a T-33, an F-100 or me getting out of Flight sim.
Click to expand...


A2A is indeed going with the money flow...P3D and the whole certified flight simulation software thing is paying the bills, so a 182 fits the bill. It may not suit all, but they did announce another GA aircraft for release this year, and a 182 goes in line with what students would fly as opposed to aging v-tailed Bonanzas....all of this said, I would love a T-6 or a T-33....FASA's T-6 is an improvement to the freeware T-6 but really is geared for the site racing activities (which support for registration, etc seems MIA) but it is a good product. I would love a few more warbirds, but I do understand their need to cater to the GA side as well.
 
hschuit said:
Getting another A2A deja vu here, how many moons ago did they announce the Phantom, then the Starfighter... I would prefer to see those birds materialize without accusim under their Aircraft Factory label and not wait indefinitely for Accusim versions.
Click to expand...

+1!

Announcing makes me think of politics. Loads of announcements, but nothing really tangible... Except for money misteriously leaving our pockets...

Take care,

Dumonceau
 
falcon409 said:
A T-33 would be awesome, beyond that I have no interest other than the F-100 (both are aircraft I had plenty of time on while Active Duty). I have plenty of GA aircraft and don't care about Accu-sim so for me it's a race to see what comes first. . .a T-33, an F-100 or me getting out of Flight sim.
Click to expand...

Well Ed...I don't even think that there is a contest there-- the MilViz F-100D seems to be maturing rather nicely and quickly-- so unless you are going to get out of the hobby by early next year (...a guess on the timeframe on F-100 release), the sequence you outlined above seems to be partially decided-- in your (and our) favor! :jump:

Kent
 
There's always so much focus on the reasons for their (A2A's) decisions on what to develop. As stated above, they have to love what they do altogether in order to maintain that sort of passion, but I think that part of that passion is in the recreation of the extremely small details, the things that are really only re-creatable with hours of real world testing. And of course their success has given them the money and resources to do just that.

After all, on the surface, a P-51 might be many times more interesting than a C172 or a Cherokee, but when you break down all the details into the basics, if you're the type of person to get excited by differences in prop blades or airflow over an aileron, it really doesn't matter what the big picture is. All you care about at that point is getting it right.

Which is of course is going to be appreciated by certain users more than others.

I'd love an Accusim'ed F-104. I'd buy it in a heart beat. But I already have the very excellent SSW version (albeit not the model I'd want), so I'd have no use for an Aircraft Factory version. The thing I'd love is the Accusim'ed part. And if A2A cares about the small details so much, cares about getting it 'right', you know that the more they focus on small minutiae, the less chance there is that we'll ever see it from them.

I guess I'm less disappointed by the fact that we'll see less and less exotic aircraft from A2A, because you know the ones that we will see will be very refined. I'm more puzzled by developers that don't hold themselves to the same high-fidelity standards continuing to push out run of the mill aircraft, when they are the ones that could easily be doing the really exotic stuff.
 
At the top of the interview is, what seems to me, a perfect candidate for A2A modelling. His own personal Commanche - much more interesting than a 182 with enough little quirks to appeal all the accusimmers out there.
 
An interesting interview, giving an insight into what appeals to the team. They also have to consider what will sell and if that means catering to the AVSim crowd instead of us then that's a business decision. This site is still SOH Combat Flight Center, the members generally still like warbirds and military aircraft and that's what still appeals to me, but I note not all these models sell well – a certain Stuka didn't. Sometimes hard choices have to be made. :banghead:
 
The P-40 still is and probably will be my favorite accusim plane for a while. It is rugged, with a unique personality. While I like the exotic planes too, I understand why A2A is going this route. Falcon is right, there is a proverbial 'gold mine' with the GA market, especially when it comes to trainers. If Westwind, ERAU, UND, ATP or some other big flight academy contracted A2A to do advanced training simulations for P3D, would you suggest A2A turn down such an offer? With the money they make from these big selling GA types, they can then afford the R&D for the exotic planes.

I know a C-182 isn't very exotic, but it has a purpose and offer us a role that hasn't been filled in quite a while. We now have a highly detailed accusimmed small bush plane. A plane that will go to most of those FTX-land backwoods airstrips that you wouldn't dare take a Bonanza or Comanche...or even a P-40:biggrin-new:....at least not in real life. We all have different personal tastes, personally, if they were going to do a small GA bushplane, I would have preferred a C-180/185, and if its going to be the 182 I would have preferred an early 60s Skylane. GAs of the 50s-60s always seemed to have a little more character to me. No doubt some talented painters will repaint the interior or this 182 with a more 'vintage' look. But a new 182 is what A2A had access to, and is an excellent airplane. Those who have flown a Skylane for real know what a capable 'Jack Of All Trades' machine it is, and that it is much more than just a bigger 172.

Cheers
TJ
 
pilottj said:
... We all have different personal tastes, personally, if they were going to do a small GA bushplane, I would have preferred a C-180/185
Click to expand...

I would of much preferred a C-185 as well. The Carenado bush package is still one of my all time favorite and go-to small planes in my hangar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top