It’s all a bit ambiguous, reading the marketing bumf (which seems to contradict itself) — Skytrails does NOT replace user or AI aircraft contrails — it just seems to draw random, lingering contrails and contrail extensions. Presumably, users of Tri Tri Sim’s GFX can simply turn off contrails but I don’t know whether the two would conflict in any way?
One of the most vague product descriptions I’ve ever seen, to be honest.
Its free if you oredered Simfx through //42 store, so might as well get it. I have TRi TRi sim and contrails look Ok my sky looks pretty busy using live traffic with BATC…see if it conflicts.
I have the same setup, but BATC lacks on long hauls and oceanic tracks. I would be very interested on your tests with GFX + skytrails.
Ok not done a Long Haul for a while due to work, dont think I will be able to test long haul for a few weeks, as on hols to Scandinavia. But will give it a go when get back, but sure other simmers will test it.
So what does it actually do? My impression is that it doesn’t replace user/AI aircraft contrails per se, but instead extends them so that they linger based on atmospheric conditions (or do you set these values in an options menu?). On top of that, the description hints that it generates ‘lleftover’ contrails that weren’t actually left by a physical plane.
I’m not sure if it extends the user/AI aircraft contrails but it surely adds contrails to the sky without actual planes flying there. In the options you can choose how many of them you want the program to generate and if they should be visible always or weather based.
The product description could certainly be more concise.
My concern is that this is a method for //42 to sell each individual effect as a separate, instead of as part of a more complete package. Their SimFX and separate airliner-specific packages were already getting expensive in FS2020…
And if that is their intention so what. They are a business that must produce profit to survive. No one requires you to purchase their products. You are not entitled to set the price as you wish. I bought their Chase Plane product and it is amazing and worth every penny.
Agreed it seems they’re charging for something they don’t really need too, but if it sells it sells so it’s their choice. I’m not gonna buy it however I do want to see better contrails but I firmly believe that’s something that Asobo should be improving upon.
It’s not a concern for the customer — we now have GFX — but //42 could find themselves in a predicament if they start charging £10 for each individual effect. Precedents are easily set in this game and setting the wrong one can be damaging. Most people won’t pay £100 for 10 different effects, no matter how good they are.
//42 already made the claim that these effects were not possible in FS2024 but, embarrassingly, Tri Tri Sim proved them wrong. And now their own product also questions that narrative.
Would it be such good value if each element had to be paid for separately?
I got this product free as I had the SIMfx for MSFS 2020
Exchange is a two-way mutually beneficial activity, so I’m not sure how this is relevant.
It’s relevant because lots of users are going to purchase and enjoy their product and not find fault with the cheap price tag and make public comments about what their pricing structure should be. The entitlement shown on these forums really gets to me some days.
Take it from a different point of view. I’m not interested in any expensive SimFX package with effects I don’t see from cockpit anyway. But surely I want to see much more contrails around me. So I’m happy with this product.
So I’m with @Azphilosopher on this. Any company adjusts their business model to keep them running. So it’s still get it or leave it for us consumers. Nobody is entitled to anything.
No one said they were entitled to anything. Expressing a different view on the value proposition of the product is not entitlement, and you can flip the point in the reverse: developers are not entitled to customer dollars, either.
I, myself, don’t know why would anyone pay ten bucks for something like this when AI traffic already makes lines, and see it as another of //42’s overpriced baubles that somehow have an audience
But I’m not a first-worlder and am a bit of a scrooge, so even Chaseplane is too expensive for me - clearly not the customer they want
I’ll try not to take it as an insult. I don’t understand so many things in this world but I was taught to let live. And besides, the AI doesn’t draw lines like this.
With all due respect, I’m one of the least entitled people, I think. I try to support all devs where I can but when one claims something is impossible — then starts to slowly churn out parts of previous products at disproportionate prices — I’m free to call it out.
I’m not suggesting people shouldn’t buy this — that’s up to individual users, and the product actually seems to do what it claims quite nicely — but it’s an objective fact that GFX is far better value at £14.50 than this is at £10. If //42 are going to continue charging £10 for individual effects, I think they will lose a lot of customer support. You claim devs need to make money but Tri Tri Sim seem to be doing okay with a far more comprehensive product (that, according to //42, shouldn’t even exist) at a much more competitive price. Stating that you feel something is overpriced for what it offers isn’t entitlement.
I don’t see how expressing my opinion here has led to criticism of me as a person. Seems an excessive and quite unreasonable reaction to me.
GFX is for airliners. Many people don’t fly airliners, so they don’t have any interest in all those other effects that, even they flew airliners, they would only see if they were outside the aircraft. Should they pay more to have effects they will never use instead of paying less for the effect they will use and which, by the way, looks better than the GFX contrails?
I bought this and I’m very happy with it, contrails now look like real contrails. If you don’t need it or don’t like, don’t buy it. Simple as that.
