Niche market?

[huub vink]

Good analysis Bazz. The world of the warbird flyers is small and in my opinion still shrinking. When Ferry had his eye opener at the Flightsim weekend I was there as well and had the same experience. The type of simmers we regard as "normal" is a minority. The number of people who only fly warbirbs is a minority from this minority.

I came from flight combat simulators and started to fly FS2004 next to IL2 when I thought CFS2 was reaching its end. I assume I would not be in the Flight simulator world (without combat) any more when there was a real good flightsim which would catch me like European Air War did in those days when ship where still made of wood and men from steel....

Nevertheless the efforts from those who want to provide models for this minority are still very much appreciated.

Cheers,
Huub

 

[Bone]

Just to clarify my own post...

When I refer to "Tubes"..I don't in a derogatory tone. I personally admire and respect ALL pilots from all genres of aviation paragliders,props,military a/c (my all time favourite aircraft is the Phantom),airliners .....even "egg-beaters" ;P :ernae:

Apologies if any of our resident airliner pilots feel slighted by my comments....that wasn't my intention.

No offense taken at all, KD. People call them "tubes" around here, so when in Rome....

 

[Henry]

I'd rather watch paint dry than fly a tube.

i hope i never have to make that choice
its all about, fantasy,imagination,personaly i have been knownto fly an ocasional 777
or airbus
H

 

[Bjoern]

I love the jet-set. Around the world in three days.



- E: And yes, I feel slightly offended by the term "tube".

 

[narah]

I wonder if quality might be an issue. To compete with the guys doing accu-sim aircraft is certainly a difficult task. This has limited my FS aircraft, meaning whenever a standard is raised, i am "losing" older aircraft. ...And rotorcraft, gliders, airliners and GA. Keeps FS Hangar small. (but expensive)

 

[hairyspin]

A long time ago I had subLogic's Flight Assignment: ATP. FS3 graphics with big heavies and I got quite into it. You just didn't set up for landing a 747 from 35,000 ft when you were only 10 miles from the runway, duh, you had to plan it out and start the approach from a lonnng way out and use the navaids. Mentally absorbing stuff which really made up for the FS3 graphics.

Now we have more eye candy than you can shake a stick at and I really like warbirds and historic aircraft. Contemporary commercials tend to blur to me, but you'd never confuse a Dragon Rapide with an Anson and the warbird scene is aeronautical history in alloy, rivets, wire and canvas plus so many are so beautiful. Modern avionics are great but I like the challenge of the old clockwork and steam-powered systems, while for mental absorption there's still gmax.

I'm happy in my niche :mixedsmi:

 

[ryanbatc]

I realize this is the SOH Combat Flight Center, but I have zero interest in old warbirds in FSX. I'm pretty sure I don't even own any. I love general aviation though, and came here because of some decent people, plus I always know what new product coming out because someone will make a thread

 

[robertorizzo]

Flightsimmer since old fs5.0 here.
I think i've flown everything, ga, concorde, constellations, jet fighters, helis, sailplanes, hydros...
I think i didn't fly flies.

 

[AndyG43]

I'm the polar opposite to Ryan; the chances of me ever flying an airliner in FSX are vanishingly small. Most of my FSX flying is done in Rob Richardson's Brit classics (the reason I bothered reinstalling FSX in the first place, afer it had gathered dust on my shelves for about 2 years - most of my real flying is still in FS9), and I have one or two pieces of payware; Razbam's TA-7, the Carenado Caravan - and that is about it.

I'm finding all this research fascinating, watching the publishers restrict themselves to smaller & smaller niches. I know a lot of people want more complicated, total immersion, every switch real simulations; but a fair few of us just want to kick the tires, start the engine & have some fun - and the more complex (and more expensive) you make it the less likely it is going to end up on my PC, and I doubt I'm alone in that.

Now I'll scuttle off back to my little hole.

 

[Roger]

Baz I feel for you. I know the sort of aircraft you like to model and to model for the market must feel a little mercenary. However we have seen your recent work and all are good to own and fly.
As to MS Flight and the ever present Stearman, I don't know but I suspect that if the sim hasn't been postponed (some suggest it has) it may be non-global (we've only seen Hawaii so far) or if it will be totally global then I expect it will be some while in development.
On a personal note, I rarely fly outside ORBX PNW these days and with an extreme amount of tweaking I can only fly low and slow on my elderly pc without the ground textures blurring up so I don't fly too many jets.

 

[Pips]

We have research from reliable sources that the FSX market is divided thus;

70-80% Airliners the rest divided between GA and Military.

It would seem that the general feeling here is the exact opposite. As always with surveys, it's the way questions are asked that affects the answers you get.

 

[bazzar]

Hi Rog

Oh it's interesting work and the children have shoes but I have to admit that I do like my old war machines.

Another element which severely affects devs building commercial is the sheer complexity of airliners. These days people want super realism (comparative) and to get that in an airliner is a massive task.

We have just completed an airliner for a well-known "customer" and in the VC there are over 700 individually animated, functional items. Behind those, and this is what people forget, is a mass of bespoke XML and C++ code to make it all work, which somebody has to write and match factory specification on most of it.

And all of this comes after a thorough study and understanding of all the aircraft systems and how they function. A typical airliner reference manual can run to 2,000 pages and more.

We are indeed lucky to get new products for this hobby at the rate we do.

 

[fliger747]

I had the Sub Logic Flight Assignment ATP and used it when I was first checking out in the 737 to run through a lot of the manuvers like the "High Dive".

I still think the various Corsairs have been my favorites!

Cheers: T

 

[bazzar]

It would seem that the general feeling here is the exact opposite. As always with surveys, it's the way questions are asked that affects the answers you get.

This is often true but in this case we are talking actual sales, which is the most accurate survey you can get. Remember this is primarily a warbird/ small aircraft site so does not reflect the open market. SOH also is home to a large number of people who don't buy payware but exist for their hobby on the generosity of others.

I think if SOH was the sole marketplace, you would probably not see sales above maybe a few tens of copies of a product and that would be on really good stuff and then mostly warbird/ga.

As Microsoft themselves have commented, there is a vast portion of their market that don't even know that you can get an add-on for their product. It is why we will see them move to the XPlane style, controlled on-line provision marketing. It should open up a lot of possibilities for devs, especially the smaller ones.

 

[roger-wilco-66]

[...]
I still think the various Corsairs have been my favorites!

Cheers: T

Same here, would be great if a capable developer would do a high class series of the different Corsair types like Warbirdsim did on the Mustang. The aircraft is very popular, and I think it would generate a decent revenue.

Cheers,
Mark

 

[Astoroth]

I know a lot of people want more complicated, total immersion, every switch real simulations; but a fair few of us just want to kick the tires, start the engine & have some fun - and the more complex (and more expensive) you make it the less likely it is going to end up on my PC, and I doubt I'm alone in that.

Nope, you're not! I'm the exact same way. Couldn't give a fig about systems and fmc and all that. I just wanna have fun. Heck most of the time I fly from a minipanel view, how much further away from total immersion can you get? lol

At the same time, I do still have fun flying just about anything, including airliners to ultralights, choppers to warbirds. You name it, I'll fly it.

 

[pilottj]

I think the word 'immersion' is sometimes overused in FS. We the simmer create a lot of our immersion level depending by how we fly.

Do you do a preflight? Do you follow checklists? Do you do a full instrument check prior to a flight into IMC? Do you do an engine runup? Do you ID navaids with their Morse Code identifiers before using them? Do you do your 'T' checks when reaching a waypoint(Time Turn Twist Throttle Tires Talk) Do you give position reports when flying into uncontrolled airports? Do you refer to an Airport Info source to determine proper pattern turns and altitude entry? Do you read NOTAMS?

When I flew for real, I did those things. In FS I don't do many of them and I bet a lot of FSers don't because they are for the most part inconsequential in the FS world. Accusim might force us to do some of those things but still our level of 'immersion' depends on how 'by the book' we do it. I could fly a default airplane and feel 'immersed' if I simulated doing all the little things that went into a flight.

If you go to a flight school, they will often put you in front of an computer trainer for simulated IMC practice. These machines aren't particularly great graphically but they do help keep your skills sharp.

Cheers
TJ