It’s a nice price, considering it packs a ton more features than anything else on the market right now.
Considering that the package with all the CRJ for P3D costs 77€ (including VAT), that’s a bit less, and the option to buy it in two chunks isn’t bad for those who may not want the full thing.
I’m not sure their idea of a “modest” price matches mine, but it’s not a bad price at all for a package of this scope in a sim. 
4 Likes
Where is he announcing this EBBR stuff?
The only thing I can find is this months old post: https://www.aerosoft.com/en/flight-simulation/news/work-in-progress-brussels-airport-for-msfs
it’s literally linked in the post.
1 Like
It is a limit of the simulator. The flight models do not have any way to properly simulate the reponse to an aircraft when the slats are deployed, so they have used the same response as flaps give.
Apparently, previews seems to indicate that Aerosoft has found a way around this limitation.
So it’s not a limit.
Another example of what I was thinking, too. Just never understood why everyone was talking about developers needing the SDK to create their aircraft for MSFS. If they are building something with deep simulation of systems and deeper flight modeling, they aren’t using an SDK. They’ve got to CODE. Nothing wrong with that but it will take time and money to get it to MSFS. But when they do, it will be absolutely brilliant.
3 Likes
Pmdg, aerosoft, etc etc doesn’t matter. As long as its a realistic as it can get.
I’m happy to support everyone
6 Likes
The CRJ is “really close” according to the latest developer update.
2 Likes
I mean, it’s marketed as an educational tool, not a home simulator. Though I’m sure they’re aware that a lot of people use it that way.
Their terms of service even says you can’t use it as an entertainment tool. Since they bought the rights from Microsoft under an education licence.
I’m aware, but that doesn’t change my point, does it?
Wow the price is surprisingly low getting it the moment its released good bye A320 for short flights.Putting payware airports on hold just for this and I would not be surprised if this releases around the last week in December!
1 Like
LM could care less about home users. All of their revenue comes from Military and corporate users. Technically, they shouldn’t be supporting home users at all, but, they probably figure, “Heck. might as well take their money… Have fun!”
1 Like
I’m well aware of that. The issue is that the non-existent marketing leads to insignificant sales, which in turn leads to absolutely ■■■■■■ margins for add-on developers, that don’t have a thriving market to work with and can’t wait to jump ship as soon as their products are supported by a more successful and popular platform.
Whatever reason LM has for this is irrelevant to its effects, which Kok explains quite well.
1 Like
That’s the point. Even if they marketed, they wouldn’t get enough revenue to cover it, so, why bother? That’s just not part of their business plan. We’re talking about Lockheed Martin here. They invested in the simulator and development for very specific reasons. The last thing they could ever care about is the home consumer gaming market.
Is there some reason you have that they should change the focus of their business for maybe a $1/2M to $3M max revenue? It probably costs them that much just to think about that much revenue. (Obviously I’m pulling those numbers out of my behind, but you get the idea)
If marketed better with a more sensible pricing policy, it’d sell more, and create a better market for add-on devs.
I don’t have any personal interest in them changing the focus of their business, because I’m done with an obsolete platform that had run its course 5 years ago.
But we’re talking about add-on developers here, not what I personally want. Of course, they want a platform that can offer them a wide range of customers to sell to. If they don’t get it, most will simply move on to the platforms that offer that as soon as they can.
That was my point, “more” would likely not be “enough”, and it’s not the point of their business plan anyway. The best way to fail at any business is to veer off your business plan into a space you’ve never been before and for which you are not structured to support. When you sell “more” you have to support “more” and it just escalates from their. I think you’ll find most of the fixes they do are mostly for their military simulation customers and help them. They’re likely making gobs of money there.
Do you really think Lockheed Martin is going to bother to do things for people out of the goodness of their heart??
Sure. But this isn’t about what would make LM successful or not. Can’t honestly care less about them, since they’ve done nothing to push the hobby forward when they had the chance to and very little competition.
This is about add-on developers and what makes them support a product or another. I’ve seen people complain that P3D isn’t getting enough support to some devs, and that’s what directly sparked Kok’s post. The ones to blame for that is LM, not the add-on devs, who simply do what’s best for their business.
No. And add-on devs won’t keep supporting their product out of the goodness of their heart either.
Ok, sounds like we’re on the same page then. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying.
1 Like
No problem at all 