• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Anyone up for a Halifax ?

D

Deano

vertigostudios.co.uk
Lets hear your thoughts and suggestions.

Im not here to promote anything.. absolutely zilch.

I'll keep it short and sweet.

I would personally love to release a Halifax Bomber as my Great Uncle was a rear gunner who was assigned to special ops, lived throughout the war and became a field marshal.

Any takers ? historians, ARC's interested.. then please post your enthusiasm here.

Tell me what you would like to see in the aircraft and what you consider to be the most important.

Cheers Deano
 
I'd love a Halifax!

As for what I'd like it to have... one word and everything that goes with it- "Accusim" :mixedsmi:
 
yes your absolutely right
halifax31024.jpg
 
I'm still flying the old AS Halifax in Fs9 and would love to have a new one for FsX!

(It would fit well in the FCS line-up! :monkies: )
 
Add me to the list for a Halifax... They were used at Sleap for glider tug pilot training (and then as glider tugs) so a Sterling or Halifax would be very nice indeed!
 
What bugs me most regarding acsum is...


alot of people always say its good but not as good as acusim.. ok thats a fair enough argument..

So are customers actually willing to pay an additional $30 on top of the initial $30 to fly the aircraft isnt this just another means to suck more money out of the customer ?

We tend to offer some full real management, but not on the scale of accusim, is it really worth putting the additional time, effort and money in to something that would only suit some customers ?

Kiwikat said:
I'd love a Halifax!

As for what I'd like it to have... one word and everything that goes with it- "Accusim" :mixedsmi:
Click to expand...
 
Well, if you don't want Accu-Sim, you neither have to have it nor pay for it. It's an add-on, not an essential part of the pack. The aircraft without it are perfectly usable.

So, yes, if people are prepared to pay for the level of depth it adds (and many clearly are) then yes, clearly it's worth doing. However, if you don't want to then you don't have to either. Different things suit different people.
 
Deano said:
What bugs me most regarding acsum is...


alot of people always say its good but not as good as acusim.. ok thats a fair enough argument..

So are customers actually willing to pay an additional $30 on top of the initial $30 to fly the aircraft isnt this just another means to suck more money out of the customer ?

We tend to offer some full real management, but not on the scale of accusim, is it really worth putting the additional time, effort and money in to something that would only suit some customers ?
Click to expand...

i do have to agree with him 100% there..
 
Deano said:
What bugs me most regarding acsum is...


alot of people always say its good but not as good as acusim.. ok thats a fair enough argument..

So are customers actually willing to pay an additional $30 on top of the initial $30 to fly the aircraft isnt this just another means to suck more money out of the customer ?

We tend to offer some full real management, but not on the scale of accusim, is it really worth putting the additional time, effort and money in to something that would only suit some customers ?
Click to expand...

I think the fact that it only suits some customers is precisely why they offer it as a separate download.
 
IanP said:
Well, if you don't want Accu-Sim, you neither have to have it nor pay for it. It's an add-on, not an essential part of the pack. The aircraft without it are perfectly usable.

So, yes, if people are prepared to pay for the level of depth it adds (and many clearly are) then yes, clearly it's worth doing. However, if you don't want to then you don't have to either. Different things suit different people.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, but when people refer to a particular aircraft saying its good BUT not as good as a accusim model I fell like jumping off of a cliff :icon_lol:
 
Oh, that Halifax...

Just caught my eye, as I'm planning my flights to cross 'the pond' to finally check-out GEX Europe, and my first stop before heading up to Goose Bay is Halifax....the other Halifax... :icon_lol:
 
Exactly, its seperate for those that want it. Its modelled to the utmost outside of FSX so the words 'limitations of FSX' are not used during development much, but rather limitations of manpower and time are the issues at hand.

We have real warbird and normal pilots who like to use it and have requested it for actual training purposes with one order for non commercial use in the C97 so we are quite happy by how real we have managed to go with it.

You have to understand the customer bases, also we offer three lines for different customers, from ultra realistic to a nice model with a good FM for a good price.
 
Lewis.. you sound like a down to earth person.. how should a developer argue the fact that a customer is paying an additional $30+ to have additional engine management and a few additional sounds ?

Fsx limitations.. if its not within the FSX limitations then it wouldnt be already there...

Im trying to thing logically here.
 
Thats an easy one Deano, if Accu-sim is engine man and a few additional sounds to you then Accu-sim isnt for you.

The code that goes into it isnt a case of when gauge a reaches this point then fail componant a which affects componant b and may then fail depending on c, b. Its far more complex, an example is measuring air temps at various points throughout the engine, from entry to exit, it is at no point the same, neither is the pressure, the fuel burn rate etc etc etc. For obvious reasons I cannot go into full detail on exactly what happens but I am sure you get the idea.

Couple this with actual flight physic changes, eg the cubs side slip is a first for FS in regards true behavoir of the aircraft during all phases as the physics are done outside of the engine, then the full suite of sounds that add to the immersion from cockpit sounds to environmental sounds that are dynamic and with Heida some of the FS first true thinking AI (again outside of engine).

ill stop there as I could go on all day. And the limitations of FSX is something ive already seen other developers mention when errors are brought up by customers, so I feel strongly in this area that its worth mentioning, as when the people say we would but we cant due to limitations that makes me wanna jump of a cliff :engel016:

Accu-sim is aimed at the PMDG customer, those that want it 100%, Just as Alphasim has always been known to aim at the decent quality good price customer, decent models, ok VC's and FM's and a good price tag. We havent really ever been in compitition with Alphasim because we cater to different markets just like how the simplified justflight tube liners are not direct compitition to PMDG.
We are a niche market but you have to realise that even within the niche its split up so much into little sub groups Ideally you want to know which product to develop is aimed at which market.

And the price of admission? Well given the products we compete with in the ultra real market we are on a par with them when one includes the Accu-sim module. Without it,... well thats a whole different market and again we are just right in the price range IMO.
 
so what youve done isnt inside the fsx limitations ?

if not then how can it coincide

if product A is $30 and product B is $30 with the same level of management and then someone then compares product A to accusim (product c) for an additional $30 totally to $60 how is this equal, this is the reason on my post of accusim not to justify what the tempreture is at on the 1st of January at 0 altitude.
 
Deano,

Your initial post was to ask for everyone's thoughts on the release of a Halifax for FSX. Somewhere along the way, Accusim was introduced into the conversation and you expressed your concern with that as an additional cost to consumers. Lewis has given his side, you have made your side more than clear. Let's get back to the original subject matter, shall we?

Enough is enough:salute:
 
Hi Falcon.. Im just carrying on the subject from another users post?

But I totally agree, WAY off topic to much English beer angry emotions you know the rest.

The first words that came out of my wifes mouth was "you'll get banned now, well done" when I started onthe subject of marketing woes
 
I understand Deano, no problem. Let's get back to the Halifax, sounds like you have a lot of folks lickin' their chops over the possibilities. Good luck with it:salute:
 
Well for that Dean thats out of our hands what the customers compare stuff too, like the rest of us just grind yer teeth at certain points :kilroy::ernae:

...and more on topic, earlier in the year (2009) myself and a fellow from this very board went for a wonders around and inside the halifax at Yorkshire. Unfortunatly Real Life for both of us has kinda got in the way a bit. Who knows for 2010 though I know hes keen to do it.:mixedsmi:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top