Should A2A release official trainers even if not "complete" by our standard?

[Ian Fisher]

No. Leave the mediocre to others, there are plenty of this type of aircraft out there. A2A is a byeword for quality, lets leave it like it.

[Eric Bakker]

I voted Yes because I think the A2A customers are smart enough to understand the difference. The people voting No here are just afraid of other customers than they are themselves. Please do not underestimate or look down on others by labelling them less 'smart' than you think you are.

To make the difference more clear I would suggest to sell the 'incomplete' training planes under a different brand name. Why not bring back ' Aircraft Factory' for this?

[ratty]

Interesting question. Maintaining your reputation is essential. However, I must admit that I'd LOVE to get my hands on even an "incomplete " A2A F-104.

I think there's a way to market such aircraft - with the right story. Real-world prototypes of aircraft that never went into production - that weren't complete - still have value, do they not?

[Paughco]

I'm not sure on this one. I guess you could try it. Maybe release as freeware on Sim Outhouse or AvSim. You might describe these aircraft as non-Accusim prototypes, possibly as "test pilot editions." You might also compare your prospective release to the Manfred Jahn C-47 to help decide if it's "worthy." Now there is some really great freeware! Test the waters. See the response. Take it from there. You could call it the "Y-series," as in YF-104.

Also, if you consider all the A2A Accusim aircraft, you can definitely see a progression in overall realism and polish as you go from the Cub and P-47, up through the P-40, P-51, up through the release date sequence of GA aircraft, all the way up to the Bonanza. Not sure where I'm going with that point, but have you ever thought about dropping some of the earlier models just because they aren't up there with the Bonanza? No? Maybe because each is a great aircraft in its own right, and it deserves to fly!

BMW Motorrad bills itself as a high-quality motorcycle company. They make some really great motorcycles, including the GS series, all the way from the airhead R80G/S, up to the new R1250GS. They've also made some serious duds (IMHO), like the R1200C cruiser series (ugly, underpowered, YUCK!). The R1200C series never diluted the high flyin' GS series. You still see some of those cruisers at rallies, but I don't know anybody who rides one. I know a lot of GS riders, and not one of 'em was deterred in buying a GS because of the R1200C.

EDIT: After reading your clarification in the other thread (viewtopic.php?f=23&t=68331), I vote YES!

Seeya
ATB

[Daube]

Depends on what "incomplete" means.
If it misses just some feature like the preflight checks (that we didn't get in the warbirds anyways for example), that would be fine.
If it misses the complete "Accusim" part, then it would just be a completely useless product to my eyes. You may release it as 'Aircraft Factory', or not release it at all.

Best would just be to present the product as it is in the forum, describe what's missing, and see how the members react. Then you can decide if it's worth it to release. At least that won't cost you much, will it ?

[Dominique]

There is no way to answer your question without knowing what would be missing. What does « partially completed » mean ? FDE, turbine simulation, weapon systems, navigation systems, exterior modeling, interior modeling etc. ? The first two are, of course, essential to be « completed » at your best !

[AviationAtWar]

I voted no if it were a black and white question, but it would depend on the completeness of the aircraft and what it is. If it's something done to Aircraft Factory level instead of Accusim that would be acceptable, at the right price point. If it's an Accusim aircraft that's missing and outside model or is missing systems for instance, then I'd say no. As much as I want a new A2A aircraft RIGHT NOW, I wouldn't want to see the company's reputation marred by anything substandard.

[vdublove59]

I would love to see some additional planes but if its missing items needed for flight then NO but if its weapons system or military related then why not offer it just disclosing that?

[alan CXA651]

Hi.
I have purchased a lot of aircraft over the years , A2A accu-sim are the only aircraft i enjoy flying , all the rest might get a flight or two , then discarded .
I am into ww2 mil aircraft at this time or aircraft like the conni , but dont drop your standards please.
regards alan.

[Tobus75]

Although slightly fuzzy on what "incomplete" means, I love a2a for it's detail and depth. It's what sets you miles apart from the competition. Closing that gap, to me, would mean partially negatin that wonderful distinction you now have. Therefor a NO.

[Jacques]

I voted “yes” with the caveat that any such release should spell out the incompleteness as clearly and accurately as possible.

CAPFlyer has a valid point about being able to recover some of the costs of development that would otherwise be lost....or inflate product prices in future. If this helps expand the dev team further to continue pushing back the boundaries on new projects (or bring older products up a level) then I’m definitely on board.

[trucker17]

Not to chime in a second time. BUT...LOL....
Thats why i am on the fence with this......A2A has set a very high standard for realism in an aircraft. Anything with ACCU-SIM is above top of the line mods....
And even with A F, their is a high standard. The attention to detail is beyond most available planes.
any other aircraft mod company out here is like 20 feet off the ground, while A2A enjoys the sites and sounds from making their home in the Stratosphere.
Just my opinion.
Craig.

[patful]

I voted yes. I don't think it would hurt to release them for folks that might be willing to settle for less, but I wouldn't buy one. I'm still hoping A2A brings the P-47 up to the same standards as the other P3D warbirds, full maintenance hangar, effects, physics, etc.. If you were to just make the FSX P-47 P3D-compatible without these full updates, I'd pass on that as well. I like what you're doing with the Cub. I've always said I wasn't interested in the Cub, but I'm considering it now with all of the updates.

[TreeTops]

Branding them differently would address many concerns.
My main issue is spending resources on these projects which otherwise would be going towards bringing the existing non P3D accusim planes up to speed. I worry that we will not see the Strat in P3D for several more years.

[Corsair015]

Hey, anything you guys make i'll buy. I don't care if it is sub par! Sub par in your case is often way better than standard by other developers!!!