Question for Umberto regarding future developements

[cmpbllsjc]

Umberto,

We all love the work that your team puts out, however I have a question or rather an idea for the future that I was wondering if you would consider.

Since it takes a fair amount of time for your team to complete a major or mid size airport, I was wondering if you would ever considering doing some regional or "lite" versions of some of the smaller, midsize or regional airports. Or, you could do 4 or 5 lite versions and sell them as a package like what Aerosoft does with their German airport series.

For example, you could take California and do a package that has less detailed, but more aiports and put them in a pack. Maybe for California you could do Palm Springs (KPSP), Ontario (KONT), Burbank (KBUR), Van Nuys ( KVNY), Sacramento (KSMF) and package them as the California Lite Pack.

When I say a 'lite" version, I mean somewhere above what the default versions offer, but with a lot less detail than what your current packages offer. Less detail meaing without the photo real back ground and without a lot of the custom buildings. Maybe the team could use a bunch of the existing non descript hangers, buildings, and other objects they have already created and place them in these packages to avoid having to build a lot of models. Using the existing inventory of non descript models for the majority of details, they could just do custom models of the main terminals and maybe the runway/taxiway textures.

The reasoning behind this is that there are a lot of airports that I would like to see FSDT do, however I know that realistically they will never get done due to the amount of time and effort, plus the lack of man power to do 20 to 30 airports like what you have done so far, in less than another 5 years. However, if FSDT did some lite versions of many airports in addition to the full blown, highly detailed airports, I think that you could please a lot of people and generate extra income.

I know that this idea might be way off base and I am not suggesting it as a substitute to the main projects, but maybe as a way that we could at least get some upgraded versions of the default airports that your team will most likely never do.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to reading your thoughts.

Regards

[virtuali]

We will do something like that for Hawaii so, if we will continue doing this or not, will of course depends from sales.

However, I don't think it's a good idea doing what you are suggesting, like not doing custom and photoreal background or leaving out some buildings or making them using default elements. When we did KMCO for Cloud9, the ONLY thing "default" was the apron *texture*, but it had a photoreal background, it had all buildings in place, and it was a very important airport. However, because it had a default apron (which, incidentally, allowed for very good fps and rain effects too), people complained, and this impacted on sales, which were about 1/10th of KORD or KJFK.

If this was the effect of having *just* the default apron, on a big airport, I can only imagine how it would be on a smaller airport, and getting rid of photoreal background, not including all buildings and/or using default objects as well.

So no, the airport should be done properly, regardless of its size. There's are shortcuts.

[JFKpilot]

Not sure if my opinion is welcome in this thread...but here goes.

As far as lite sceneries go, I'm against it. Why? Umberto already covered it -- default aprons.
I NEVER considered KMCO because of afcad hard surfaces. As he said, the sales seem to back up that way of thinking.

And I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here. Fsdt already works at a very fast pace, relatively speaking. There's already 7 products on sale that have to be supported (and each airport has separate support for fs9/fsx), soon to be 2 more airports +"secret project", and theoretically support multiplies each time.

I know Fsdt is about profits, but if Umberto has pride in what he does he should maintain the "quality over quantity" approach.

My 2 cents...

We will do something like that for Hawaii so, if we will continue doing this or not, will of course depends from sales.

Can you give us more info on what we can expect for the "other" Hawaiian airports beside PHNL? Something like KMCO -- photoreal + afcad hard surfaces + custom buildings? Even more default? Obviously they're not going to be as detailed as PHNL, but I don't want to set my expectations too low or too high.

Thanks.

[Bruce Hamilton]

Obviously they're not going to be as detailed as PHNL...

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that the other airports would be separate purchases from HNL, why would they be less detailed?  Sounds to me like they learned from the low sales of MCO.

[JFKpilot]

Obviously they're not going to be as detailed as PHNL...

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that the other airports would be separate purchases from HNL, why would they be less detailed?  Sounds to me like they learned from the low sales of MCO.

Maybe you're right, Bruce. Forgot about that possibility. That's why I'm asking Umberto to clarify... 

[virtuali]

Obviously they're not going to be as detailed as PHNL, but I don't want to set my expectations too low or too high.

They will be made like any other airport we do. We'll just not go over the top with details, but the design method will be similar to our most recent works.

[JFKpilot]

They will be made like any other airport we do. We'll just not go over the top with details, but the design method will be similar to our most recent works.

That's great to hear. Thanks for the quick reply.

[cmpbllsjc]

Thanks for reading Umberto. I think I didn't explain very well what I meant as I was thinking faster than I was typing.

What I really meant was airports with custom taxiways/runway and terminals, but using existing objects you have already modeled for the fillers, such as fueling, GA and corporate hangers, trees, things of that nature.

Maybe as much as I hate to say it, but like a bunch of smaller airports with the amout of detail that a BluePrint design might offer. I know a lot of people aren't big on BluePrint stuff, but considering that they do smaller airports that no one else does I buy a few since I feel that they are better than just a default FSX airport.

Again, thanks for reading and I understand your decision to not do these, but I thought I would ask anyway. If there was a way I could buy slightly modified airports like some of the ones I mentioned I would. I already use Instant Scenery once in a while to add stuff, but I hate using stuff from the default library.

Regards

BTW, the Cloud9 version of KMCO was good in my opinion. Granted it didn't have custom runways and taxiways, but it was sure a lot better than the default KMCO. If you offered a lot of airports even at that level I would buy them because I hate the default versions.