Bad precedent reagrding active gates

[RockmanO]

Since the development of AES (which I love), it seems that developers are no longer willing to include their own active gate docking systems for FS9 scenery.  Is it because they want us to spend more money by buying AES credits?  I don’t know, but I have some examples of how that may just be the case.

I bought the Sim-wings EGLL package, which I think is just amazing.  I would say I spent about $30 on it.  Only when I had it installed, I realized that in order to get the piers to dock, I had to purchase AES.  That was my introduction to this wonderful program.  But, I spent $22 on those initial credits.  So, I now have the fully functional EGLL add-on for $52!   How many mega-airports am I willing to pay that much money for?  Guess what?  Not many!  Especially when Sim-wings have their own active gate technology.  It came with the Paris-De Gaulle airport package, before AES was created.  So, why couldn’t they use it with EGLL?  I’m sure the technology could have been updated.

FSDT is certainly putting out their own high quality airports.  None of them have docking gates, unless you purchase AES credits.  Now, I may be a little off on my facts here, so please correct me if I’m wrong.  But, I understand that FSDT is a descendant from Cloud 9?  And Cloud 9 has active docking technology.  See where I’m going here?

And finally there’s Imaginesim, who has included an active docking system for every one of their airports….until now.   I noticed that it is conspicuously absent from their new KIAD package.

I consider myself a purist.  That means if the piers don’t dock, then what’s the point of buying the airport?  And if I have to purchase AES credits, on top of the already $30 plus dollars, then what’s the point in buying the airport? 

I’m sure there will be the argument that the migration to FSX has already moved forward, so we should feel lucky to even get an FS9 version.  But, and this is just one man’s opinion; I feel that FSX is turning out to be the new FS2000.  Meaning it’s just a marginal stepping stone to the next big version.  And considering that Microssoft has all but shut down the Flightsim division, there is going to be a long wait for the next FS.  So, FS9 still has a lot of life left yet!

I’m not knocking anyone’s sceneries.  I love them all!  I wish I could have them all!  However, I am questioning the development and pricing philosophies more than anything.  And, I am wondering just how much people are willing to pay now for fully functional airport add-ons?

Any thoughts would be most welcome. 

Discuss….   

Note: this has been posted to a number of forums.

[virtuali]

FSDT is certainly putting out their own high quality airports.  None of them have docking gates, unless you purchase AES credits.

ALL our airports have active gates, in FSX of course. And, on the last 2 scenery we released, JFK and Geneva, we have a very advanced parking system as well, which will be greatly expanded in the future, to cover all possible parking assistance methods, and much more.

Making active gates in FS9 was cumbersome and required to use a lot of legacy code, backdating even to FS2002. And, since in FS9 there's AES, we find easier to do that, but *just* because people asked for it, and we don't intend to waste any more time than what is strictly needed to have the scenery running in FS9.

We always said to be doing this: want an FS9 version of our scenery ? sure, as long as there's a market for it, but new developements, new ideas, new technologies, special features, etc, that would be on FSX only.

Even more so, in the light of the recent unfortunate events related to ACES: considering it might be several years before we'll see another flight sim release, it makes more sense to use our time and resources developing new technologies for FSX.

I really don't agree how you might draw such a conclusion that, since FS11 it's not coming for several years, this might be seen like some kind of benefit for FS9!

That's exactly the opposite: what's just happened with the closure of ACES, is that there's ONE sim that everybody thought that it would have been replaced the next year, has now some years of life ahead instead, and that's obviously FSX.

Your parallel with FS2000 doesn't really apply: it's easy to dismiss FS2000 now, because after only 2 years FS2002 came, which was extremely stable and well performing. But, if flight sim was cancelled after FS2000 was released, everybody be still using FS2000 TODAY!

Provided, of course, something better from a different source wouldn't have appeared in the meantime which, if what's happened to Falcon4 (no combat sim can still outmatch its *features*, 10 years after release) can tells us something, is not so easy. And FSX is today in a MUCH stronger position than Falcon4 ever been, because of the huge 3rd party support.

[JFKpilot]

Since the development of AES (which I love), it seems that developers are no longer willing to include their own active gate docking systems for FS9 scenery.  Is it because they want us to spend more money by buying AES credits?  I don’t know, but I have some examples of how that may just be the case.

FSDT is certainly putting out their own high quality airports.  None of them have docking gates, unless you purchase AES credits.  Now, I may be a little off on my facts here, so please correct me if I’m wrong.  But, I understand that FSDT is a descendant from Cloud 9?  And Cloud 9 has active docking technology.  See where I’m going here?

If I recall correctly fsdt didn't want to get involved in the complex steps required to make a fs9 jetway dock, especially when the popular, albeit slightly expensive AES program does this.  Fsx has the advantage of 'built-in' inverse kinematic jetways, which respond to the Ctrl + J command -- nice and simple, no changing NAV frequiencies or such.  Also, it is to fsdt's interest for users to migrate to fsx anyway, so here's another reason to do so.  

I’m sure there will be the argument that the migration to FSX has already moved forward, so we should feel lucky to even get an FS9 version.  But, and this is just one man’s opinion; I feel that FSX is turning out to be the new FS2000.  Meaning it’s just a marginal stepping stone to the next big version.  And considering that Microssoft has all but shut down the Flightsim division, there is going to be a long wait for the next FS.  So, FS9 still has a lot of life left yet!

I disagree.  With Fsdt, Aerosoft, ftx, megascenery, etc etc all pushing for fsx-only, you'll switch.  Fsx isn't nearly as bad as everyone says right now, and it'll only get better as hardware catches up.  The delay of fs11 will make fsx even better than imagined.  

Dammit Umberto you beat me to it!