Missing the new release banter

[Roadburner426]

I love speculating myself, but I also try not to bug them to terribly much since if they have to spend time here policing us it is less time for them on the projects. Plus with the release of Skyforce and most of the sceneries I have bought slowly getting converted over the P3Dv4 I have been to busy fine tuning things on my end to get it just right to worry about a new release. The only thing that I am hoping is with the redoing of the P-51 the civilian version finally gets the external fuel tanks. I have to agree with just wanting the old stuff ported over, but all good things take time. I have been having a blast flying the Comanche in P3D at least. I do look forward to whatever the future brings though.

[bladerunner900]

Well, in view of all the vagaries and lack of any firm information, they've (A2A) left things open to speculation in my view. Time will tell of course.

[ryanbatc]

New stuff IS on the table and in fact in development as we speak.

Old stuff would be nice...Spitfire, P3D?

That would be cool. But I'm also hoping for some sort of GA... potentially a Bonanza (as we thought would have been earlier from a Cessna promo video)...

[shortspecialbus]

Product announcement as I'm sure everybody knows (or hopefully understands anyway is a delicate matter. Naturally we don't want to let the cat out of the bag too early for obvious competitive reasons. Every developer faces this same dilemma and we're no different in that department

Dudley Henriques

This surprises me in a sense. I can see that for features and stuff, but I'd assumed there would be at least some coordination between developers so that 3 main developers don't all come out with, say, a brand new DC-3 all at the same time. I guess maybe someone would rush to beat to market, but I think most people already have a favorite developer and so in the rare case that let's say A2A announces they're releasing a DC-3, another dev sees this and decides to snipe them by rushing a product out, since A2A already announced it publicly then people will just ignore that one and wait for the A2A one, I'd think.

It's possible I'm not understanding some component here. In fact I'd say it's all but guaranteed. But for something like "we're doing this aircraft" with no more details than that, I'm surprised it's not in everyone's best interest to do that sort of thing.

-stefan

Edit: This is completely discounting customers whining about where the product is when it's delayed. It's more to avoid market saturation since most people won't want to buy multiple versions of the same plane at around the same time, so that's where I'd think the coordination would come in. But, like I said, I could easily be missing something here.

[Oracle427]

Such communication could be very easily abused for competitive advantage and it could also lead to disputes if plans change or delays pop up due to unforseen hurdles. As a consumer I would also be worried about the loan of innovation and competition that could arise from such a practice.

[shortspecialbus]

Such communication could be very easily abused for competitive advantage and it could also lead to disputes if plans change or delays pop up due to unforseen hurdles. As a consumer I would also be worried about the loan of innovation and competition that could arise from such a practice.

I can understand the "change in plans" being a thing, kind of, but "abused for competitive advantage" doesn't explain how, say, A2A announcing that they're creating a DC-3 gives any of their competitors a competitive advantage. Maybe I'm missing something obvious? It's just a vague term by itself. I wholeheartedly understand not talking about new features, but how does anyone benefit at all from multiple companies accidentally working on the same planes at the same time? Arguably consumers do because of choice, but if the purpose of not announcing is to prevent competitors from taking advantage somehow, I don't see how it accomplishes that to risk 2 nearly identical aircraft being released around the same time. I'm not saying companies should get "dibs" or anything, but how does it hurt anyone to know what's in development?

Airbus doesn't suffer because they know what Boeing is making.

-stefan

[Oracle427]

If A2A data they're building something just to place a hold on it while they with on something else that could hurt the other company. How would one keep everyone honest?

[shortspecialbus]

It wouldn't be a 'dibs' situation, as I said, but reputable companies like A2A aren't going to pull that crap anyways. They're also not really competing with certain unnamed developers that do quantity over quality that might be the sort that would quick rush one out to try to capture early market share - would A2A's sales really suffer if one of those companies quick spits one out?

It gives the reputable companies something to consider when deciding what planes they're going to make, because A2A doesn't want to put out the same DC-3 that say PMDG would. I still don't see the competitive advantage. I'm not saying it's not there, but I don't see it.

-stefan

[Oracle427]

Well what takes place behind closed doors is a whole other matter. As long as everyone plays nice they can say and do and coordinate as they wish to.

It's also my background in financial services speaking here. I don't trust anyone.

[shortspecialbus]

Yeah, I really don't know either. I just question the blanket acceptance of the "competitive advantage" explanation because I truly can't see what it would be for a company like A2A. I don't see their main "competition" (or what's left of it) trying to rush an identical aircraft to market.

It's also possible I'm writing off those bulk developers more than I should be. At this point there's only like 3 developers I even consider buying planes from, what with RealAir's abrupt departure and nobody really stepping up to take their place. A2A's quality has spoiled me and really limited my potential market for purchases, haha.

-stefan

[Skycat]

To me, "for obvious reasons" means that A2A has learned to keep projects close to their vest until they are absolutely sure they are nearing a release date. People start getting excited about Work in Progress announcements, and consequently feel a deep disappointment when those projects are put on hold without further explanation. I hate to illustrate my point with examples, but...

F4 Phantom (August 2009).
F-104C Starfighter (2011).
Spitfire Mk.V (2011) -- much community discussion.
T-33 "Shooting Star" (January 2014)

This certainly isn't to say that some or all of these projects will never be revived; only that we as a community become impatient and expect what we see in WIP updates to be released in a very near future, not delayed months or years or indefinitely.

Regarding losing a "competitive advantage" by providing product developments, I agree that many of us are A2A loyalists and would choose its interpretation of 'x' aircraft over most competitors. Certainly they have found commercial success with well-worn addon standards like the P-51D and Spitfire, and with aircraft already included as default in FSX. Using your DC-3 example, I think the precedence has been set that A2A's (hypothetical) version would thrive despite the FSX default, existing payware and high quality freeware versions already available. But I suppose that once we step outside the proprietary Accusim technology for FSX/P3D and look towards other flight simulation platforms/applications, A2A has to be careful to prevent other developers from underbidding them or rushing a substitute product to market.

Just my thoughts only.

[addman]

To me, "for obvious reasons" means that A2A has learned to keep projects close to their vest until they are absolutely sure they are nearing a release date. People start getting excited about Work in Progress announcements, and consequently feel a deep disappointment when those projects are put on hold without further explanation. I hate to illustrate my point with examples, but...

F4 Phantom (August 2009).
F-104C Starfighter (2011).
Spitfire Mk.V (2011) -- much community discussion.
T-33 "Shooting Star" (January 2014)

This certainly isn't to say that some or all of these projects will never be revived; only that we as a community become impatient and expect what we see in WIP updates to be released in a very near future, not delayed months or years or indefinitely.

Regarding losing a "competitive advantage" by providing product developments, I agree that many of us are A2A loyalists and would choose its interpretation of 'x' aircraft over most competitors. Certainly they have found commercial success with well-worn addon standards like the P-51D and Spitfire, and with aircraft already included as default in FSX. Using your DC-3 example, I think the precedence has been set that A2A's (hypothetical) version would thrive despite the FSX default, existing payware and high quality freeware versions already available. But I suppose that once we step outside the proprietary Accusim technology for FSX/P3D and look towards other flight simulation platforms/applications, A2A has to be careful to prevent other developers from underbidding them or rushing a substitute product to market.

Just my thoughts only.

Personally I can't see why, at this late stage in development, the almost finished GA aircraft can't be announced and shown off a bit. Also, there's no way ANY other developer has the capability or manpower to just *POOFF!* spit out the same aircraft that A2A is making. That's not how development works, most other developers are knee-deep in their own development cycles and like Milviz for example, they are busy with many different projects all at once. As to "underbidding" A2A, I found that remark rather humorous since in order to underbid you have to be, at least, on par with your competition. You can't just release a semi-decent product and say "hey! it's nowhere near as good as the competing A2A product but it's cheaper!" who'd buy that? And the fact is, objectively, no one is on par with A2A when it comes to the COMPLETENESS of the products they release. People go on about how marvelous accu-sim is, and it is, that a lot of people forget how absolutely fantastic A2A manuals and documentation are for example. Some developers just give you a performance sheet or sometimes nothing at all. Just the A2A manual as an example, you get the complete history of the aircraft, history of other aircraft, actual useful handling and maintenance tips and so much more. Sounds, 3D-models, performance and on and on I can go.

I've banged on about it before but I'll say it again, no other aircraft developer releases such complete packages as A2A and certainly not to such a high standard. And to think some people complain about the pricing when Carenado, fps killing hangar queen toy planes, goes for roughly the same prices. Laughable. So no, there is no competition for A2A and showing off the next accu-sim aircraft won't change that...so show it! Scott.

[Skycat]

You can't just release a semi-decent product and say "hey! it's nowhere near as good as the competing A2A product but it's cheaper!" who'd buy that?

The Government.

But seriously, imagine a development update where A2A said, for example, "For the first time we're adding a feature no othe simulation has -- AccuPen! Now you can write notes directly onto the windshield glass. We've modeled three brands of dry erase marker in several colors... and watch what happens after you wipe away your notes with your hand and then the window fogs up. See? A latent image of your notes remain. That's AccuPen!"

But then AccuPen isn't part of the final release; or they only can provide one color of ink instead of three; or Vis-a-Vis pulls out as a sponsor; etc., and factions of the community are disappointed because they construed BLUE INK as a promise; and 'I only bought the new A2A Aero car for the AccuPen window fogging and it's not happening...'

A silly example I know. (Or is it? Hmmmm...)

[shortspecialbus]

As I mentioned, I understand not talking about features. I can see competitive issues there for sure. I'm yet to see a real explanation of how announcing a particular aircraft gives a competitive advantage to other companies, though.

As far as users whining, they're going to do that anyways. Look at this thread, for example

-stefan

Edit: I should make clear that I don't feel that A2A owes us anything, and it's absolutely their right if they don't want to talk about upcoming projects. A++ perfectly fine - not upset at all. I just don't understand the 'competitive advantage' argument for announcing an aircraft.

[AKar]

I'm yet to see a real explanation of how announcing a particular aircraft gives a competitive advantage to other companies, though.

RealAir Cessna 172 was reportedly, in part at least, cancelled due to A2A having one in late development at the same time. I don't know much about dynamics of the FSX/P3D addon market, but they seem fairly territorial. Big players avoid each other like wolf packs, but eat smaller ones by lunch if targeted head-to-head.

The user base is also somewhat diverse: some like features such as hands-off IFR glass all-supported, some like those failing being simulated. Announcing a product development too early might lead into someone else also being in late development stating that they do this and that more. And then starting working on the promised features... If A2A announced now that the F-4 release was imminent...well, I'd probably get that for the sim platform anyway, but I wouldn't be too excited. It is announced for the DCS anyway, where I can employ it better.

Anyways, now, bring that next release to us!

-Esa