Aeroplane Heaven

Looks great and I will certainly be in line to buy it.

And I hope you find time to update your C-47/DC-3 soon after.
 
I feel like I'm seeing so many non-traditional folks get into MSFS when I look at gaming forums -- people flying with Xbox game controllers, just learning how to fly, etc. -- that there's a decent market for planes that are light on systems. Basically, CTRL-Ez, but with a fully rendered cockpit. :)

Might be worth a try for AH to do a basic plane that looks great graphically and has a convincing flight model, and then follow up with full systems implementation, detail-simmer version that costs more. Spitfire-EZ and Spitfire-Pro.

(I know there are other issues, such as the SDK completion, but I'm just saying I think there'll be a decent audience for planes that don't go really as deep into the systems simulation as some of the Asobo stock planes.)

As for P3D, I fly it now for VR, but once I get my Reverb V2 and MSFS supports it, I can't imagine I'll be using it much, unless there's a classic plane in my hangar I have an urge to take up.
 
DennyA said:
I feel like I'm seeing so many non-traditional folks get into MSFS when I look at gaming forums -- people flying with Xbox game controllers, just learning how to fly, etc. -- that there's a decent market for planes that are light on systems. Basically, CTRL-Ez, but with a fully rendered cockpit. :)

Might be worth a try for AH to do a basic plane that looks great graphically and has a convincing flight model, and then follow up with full systems implementation, detail-simmer version that costs more. Spitfire-EZ and Spitfire-Pro.

(I know there are other issues, such as the SDK completion, but I'm just saying I think there'll be a decent audience for planes that don't go really as deep into the systems simulation as some of the Asobo stock planes.)

As for P3D, I fly it now for VR, but once I get my Reverb V2 and MSFS supports it, I can't imagine I'll be using it much, unless there's a classic plane in my hangar I have an urge to take up.
Click to expand...

Agree with a number of your points. Not sure about the spitfire-ez and pro though. Baz can chime in there. I know that the spitfire that is in the works is a little too detailed for an Ez at present. Baz is one of those " I think the ammo belt requires a little more oxidisation due to it being based in tangemere rather than biggin hill during the war and as everyone knows tangemere has an inversion layer that increases the dew point by 0.163 degrees as opposed to biggin hill so the ammo would have a 0.1 to 0.2 % more oxidisation chance than if the plane were based elsewhere "... I might be joking.:biggrin-new:

One thing though. A full cockpit in CTRL ezy is likely to never happen. Not the point of CTRL-ezy. Adding a full cockpit will raise the development time , research requirements and a number of other things. We want to keep the price point where it is and we want to make it still accessible to FSX which has that STUPID poly count/material issue. An xbox user is not going to care if the flare pockets on the mosquito are in the correct place and are in the correct shade of brown. They will however as baz has alluded to, be less willing to pay the higher prices for DLC that FS normally dictates.


To all :
To re-iterate this spitfire is going to be a full octane Aeroplaneheaven release being developed by a spitfire tragic ( love ya baz! ) for MSFS and possibly P3d if I can annoy/whine/cajole baz into letting the rest of us convert it. It is not going to be a CTRL-ezy Spitfire.
 
pilto von pilto said:
One thing though. A full cockpit in CTRL ezy is likely to never happen. Not the point of CTRL-ezy. Adding a full cockpit will raise the development time , research requirements and a number of other things. We want to keep the price point where it is and we want to make it still accessible to FSX which has that STUPID poly count/material issue. An xbox user is not going to care if the flare pockets on the mosquito are in the correct place and are in the correct shade of brown. They will however as baz has alluded to, be less willing to pay the higher prices for DLC that FS normally dictates.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand me. By full cockpit, I don't mean "every switch animated and functional even if it's behind my butt."

I mean "polygons all around me so when I look down at my butt by panning the view or playing in VR I don't see holes in the plane."

This has already been hashed out all over the place in the old Pucara topic, but what it boils down is many of us free-look around the cockpit, either via VR or mouse-panning, and just want something there to maintain the sense of disbelief. It can be the most basic cockpit-colored set of polygons, just not a big gaping hole. With the way the views are implemented in MSFS, I think even fewer people use snap views. People on a game controller have a panning view by default.

But those same Xbox players are likely to be happy with Ctrl-EZ levels of details on inexpensive planes -- this hardcore flight simmer is for many aircraft. :)

Your hardcore rivet-counter is going to be looking at stringers and control wires and all that crap. The vast majority of players are just going to be happy with something that looks convincing and complete and is exciting to fly.

In the meantime, I am very much looking forward to the detailed Spit. I have a bunch of those already between IL-2 and DCS, but I'll happily buy it to support AH's efforts because I've been a fan since I got my Gulfhawk back in the FS2004 days. :)
 
Another thing that I would look at with your CTRL+easy aircraft is performance impact on the sim. It appears that the complex aircraft systems take a toll on performance in MSFS. I can attest that the "Tubeliners" make a VERY large impact compared to the GA planes.
 
edakridge said:
Another thing that I would look at with your CTRL+easy aircraft is performance impact on the sim. It appears that the complex aircraft systems take a toll on performance in MSFS. I can attest that the "Tubeliners" make a VERY large impact compared to the GA planes.
Click to expand...

Did you install the mod that limits the FPS impact of the MFDs in the liners ?
 
pilto von pilto said:
...To all :
To re-iterate this spitfire is going to be a full octane Aeroplaneheaven release being developed by a spitfire tragic ( love ya baz! ) for MSFS and possibly P3d if I can annoy/whine/cajole baz into letting the rest of us convert it. It is not going to be a CTRL-ezy Spitfire.
Click to expand...

:encouragement::encouragement::encouragement:
 
DennyA said:
You misunderstand me. By full cockpit, I don't mean "every switch animated and functional even if it's behind my butt."

I mean "polygons all around me so when I look down at my butt by panning the view or playing in VR I don't see holes in the plane."

This has already been hashed out all over the place in the old Pucara topic, but what it boils down is many of us free-look around the cockpit, either via VR or mouse-panning, and just want something there to maintain the sense of disbelief. It can be the most basic cockpit-colored set of polygons, just not a big gaping hole. With the way the views are implemented in MSFS, I think even fewer people use snap views. People on a game controller have a panning view by default.

But those same Xbox players are likely to be happy with Ctrl-EZ levels of details on inexpensive planes -- this hardcore flight simmer is for many aircraft. :)

Your hardcore rivet-counter is going to be looking at stringers and control wires and all that crap. The vast majority of players are just going to be happy with something that looks convincing and complete and is exciting to fly.

In the meantime, I am very much looking forward to the detailed Spit. I have a bunch of those already between IL-2 and DCS, but I'll happily buy it to support AH's efforts because I've been a fan since I got my Gulfhawk back in the FS2004 days. :)
Click to expand...

The spitfire is a labour of love. There will ALWAYS be a spitfire available from AH. There isnt an MSFS spitfire right now. The likelihood of a spitfire coming to MSFS is low due to the communities almost dislike of warbirds or odd ball or vintage aircraft ( it is true a Cessna will outsell a spitfire 2:1 or even 3:1 ). And have you seen a spitfire ? It's pretty much the most perfect plane ever made , it's the jaguar e-type of aircraft. ( though I'm also partial to the hawker hunter and the brutish-ness of the p47 ).

As you say the CE has been hashed over in the pucara thread infinitum. The CE premise is likely not to change. CE products are probably not the products for you and that is ok. It's like cars you have the top end passionates who want performance,luxury and technical wizardry then you have the people who view it as an appliance for getting from A -> B, and then the people in the middle. No "tribe" is right or wrong.
 
pilto von pilto said:
The likelihood of a spitfire coming to MSFS is low due to the communities almost dislike of warbirds or odd ball or vintage aircraft ( it is true a Cessna will outsell a spitfire 2:1 or even 3:1 ).
Click to expand...

I'd be careful about making that assumption. I would guess the market has changed a lot for MSFS vs. the people who were flying the old sims. Lots of new blood, many of them coming from gaming instead of avaiation. And once the Xbox folks join in, more action-oriented planes might very well jump in popularity.

As for Ctrl-EZ, I keep tellin' ya, I am the market. :) I used to LOVE the old Alphasim planes -- good prices and enough detail to be convincing while I'm flying, but the cockpits on those old F7U, F4D, etc, planes were pretty darn simple. Bought most of them, though, and had no complaints. I'm happy with the cockpit detail below, for the most part, just don't want holes. :)

17-hn-airfix-spitfire-fmk22.jpg
 
You need to check out the pics of our upcoming Javelin for Ctrl/Ezy. You will see that we have listened to a lot of input over the months. Additionally, exterior-wise you get a 100 octane AH production model and full PBR inside and out.

The equation is a simple one. More detail = more build time. More build time = more build costs. More build costs = higher product price.

Ctrl/Ezy was created to deliver a basic simulation experience for those who don't bother about systems and want something to fly around the sky take screenshots and enjoy the scenery. We can build them faster which means more variety and Ctrl/Ezy delivers as intended for $19.95 regardless of the subject - fighter or airliner. We think that is not bad value by today's standards.

It's worked. We will not be changing much. :engel016:
 
The Javelin soon, can't wait.

Great to see some out of the ordinary planes are coming, I know the Crtl/Ezy concept has provoked a lot of discussion but if it provides the Jaguar, Javelin, Pucara etc. I am a happy chappie.
 
I don't profess to know anything about the market for add-on planes, but just speaking for myself, the Spitfire sounds like exactly the product I want for FS20.

Now, having made the above admission of ignorance, some thoughts on the market.

Warbirds and vintage are a niche in flight sims but it seems a valid point that FS20 has crossover appeal to the War Thunder and military gamer crowd that might augment the audience.

The complexity and resulting additional cost/time to develop addons is something we have seen with every new gen of flight sims. Each iteration further separates the men from the boys when it comes to developers, which is good news from the standpoint of less competition if you are one of the men.

The apparent difficulty (impossibility?) of fully converting legacy aircraft is also good news for developers since they will face less competition from port-overs of every payware and freeware plane ever released for FSX. And while that's frustrating for users in the short run, part of me is happy about it. I do not want thrice-warmed-over planes originally built for CFS2 in my FS20 - I'll keep P3D and even FSX installed indefinitely for those! - and I don't want the existence of those planes to stifle the development of great new FS20 planes.

Finally, Adobo/MS seem to have done developers of vintage/warbird add-on planes a big favor by providing no such types among the stock aircraft, and thus far displaying no interest in doing so. The field is wide open.

August
 
DennyA said:
I'd be careful about making that assumption. I would guess the market has changed a lot for MSFS vs. the people who were flying the old sims. Lots of new blood, many of them coming from gaming instead of avaiation. And once the Xbox folks join in, more action-oriented planes might very well jump in popularity.

As for Ctrl-EZ, I keep tellin' ya, I am the market. :) I used to LOVE the old Alphasim planes -- good prices and enough detail to be convincing while I'm flying, but the cockpits on those old F7U, F4D, etc, planes were pretty darn simple. Bought most of them, though, and had no complaints. I'm happy with the cockpit detail below, for the most part, just don't want holes. :)

17-hn-airfix-spitfire-fmk22.jpg
Click to expand...

Good grief!
Is that the ancient and awful Matchbox Spit 24!
:biggrin-new:
 
wombat666 said:
Good grief!
Is that the ancient and awful Matchbox Spit 24!
:biggrin-new:
Click to expand...

Indeed it is! I was a teenager still when I made that! I can now even start remembering the Humbrol enamel colour codes! 11 was for silver, 33 for matt black and 120 the light interior grey-green. Oh those innocent days!

You're right though, it was dreadful! The panel lines, even in the 1/32 scale were like WWI trenches deep.
 
Well, one thing is for sure.. I personally dont intend to spend my entire time in FS2020 flying a damned cessna, and this goes a very long way to correcting that glaring oversight..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top