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

[Piper_EEWL]

I voted yes. Why wouldn’t you if the project will not be completed to the normal standards anyways.

Branding them differently would address many concerns.
...

And I agree totally. Branding those “unfinished” projects differently will not lead to any confusion on what to expect compared to the regular Accusim line.

Go for it

[Ron Attwood]

Are we talking about bits of content not working or lack of A2A 'soul'? If there's no soul may as well be Caren......

[BrettT]

I voted Yes and No as I do not think it is black and white

I would think it depends upon how far off it is from meeting your standards. In that regards, I forces me to ask the question "Why not bring it up to A2A standards?" I would think if you felt there was a big enough market to warrant spending the extra resources on "completing" it to A2A standards then I would say Yes and finish the work. It is kind of the best of both worlds. You are able to leverage a past contract that you were paid for to make a new retail product". If there wasn't a big enough market to justify the additional work then I would say "No". It is not worth sacrificing your reputation.

Of the 4 aircraft that were presented in the May update I have the following thoughts

T6A Texan II - I think I would finish this one and feel there is enough of a market to make it profitable
New Spitfires - I doubt you would see the market necessary to make this worthwhile especially with new comers as they would likely choose one spitfire product over the other
Aerostar - Sounds like this is in the plans to finish and I think the market is there to make it profitable
T-38A - This would be in competition with the Milviz one. I have no doubt you could make it as good or better but I think the market would be limited due to this competition

Just my thoughts. Whatever your next release is, I look forward to it!

[Hook]

Yes. If it's good enough for the military, it's good enough for Aircraft Factory.

If it doesn't have Accu-Sim, then it's not an Accu-Sim plane. It should fit into the Aircraft Factory line.

Hook

[Josquin]

I don't see any issue if marketed accordingly.
But a A2A Starfighter, a big YES!

[lownslo]

No here.

As much as I'd like more A2A products, releasing "not complete" or aircraft not to your standard isn't worth your reputation. Right now you have scant little competition in the GA niche, and diluting your brand will only lower A2A to where so many other payware developers are today. Is that really where you want to be?

Greg

[Tomas Linnet]

As written on Facebook
Very difficult question.....I’ve been reading all the posts here and on the forum.... after a few hours of thinking, I’ll have to say, no. As many other I’m not sure what is missing from these aircraft. I bought the first A2A aircraft shortly after the C172 was released and the bar has been raised a little for every release since then. I own most of the Accu-Sim aircraft and would not like to see if the standard dropped, but as many others say, a release under the Aircraft Factory could be an option, but I would probably not buy any of them. You guys has simply spoiled me with the wonderful world of Accu-Sim.

[GunninGamerz]

Boy this is a hard one for sure. My Brain is saying sure why not under the Aircraft Factory name? But my heart is saying no because of the A2A reputation for perfection or close to it.

Too many people in the FS community would be foaming at the mouth as some say. If it was done it would have to be clearly marked and labeled as a product that was made and completed for the military and now it is available for civilian and may not be to the standards of a normal purchase.

With that being said I would probably buy them if available although it would most likely leave me feeling like i purchased a Carenado, something I wont do anymore, nice looking yet unfinished and no sole.

[wothan]

I vote "no".

Alot of people would not recognise that it´s a "half baked" product, and would chime in with alot of whining, which only would led to negative posts elsewhere, giving A2A aq bad reputation.

For me A2A has allways been a company delivering finished high quality products, with very few bugs and quirks.

Please don´t go down the road of "early acces", "open beta" or products not up to the current level of completeness and quality.

[SeattleSleeper]

Ha! I'm betting the internal discussion at A2A went pretty much the same way as this public discourse is going.

[Hook]

The F-104 is one that comes to mind as well.

Woah!! I missed this the first time I read through the post.

If the nay-sayers have their way and you don't release the F-104 (or any others) as a final product on the store page, can I still buy it? Or the Phantom?

Just... wow.

Hook

[Buffy Foster]

I think if it hurts the brand and reputaion that A2A has worked so hard to earn, I'd vote "no."

IDK if another brand for them would work or not? And there will be the Troll Armyâ„¢ that will use it to trash A2A and call it "cash grab", etc.

So, I think staying focused is better.

[Scott - A2A]

In Florida. Home Sunday PM. We'll talk.
D

Sounds good Dudley. I got your email.

Scott

[Scott - A2A]

Well I have to say I'm actually a bit surprised but as usual impressed with the comments. What about making a new line of "Official military trainers" which would be slightly different to our main GA and Warbirds standard. Still looks, flies, functions and sounds without compromise but without some features, like the maintenance hangar and walk around. We have poured more energy into these airplanes than ever in the past because these instructors need accuracy on a level never before delivered, even in multi million dollar sims. We are delivering this, but like we've said in the past, we only have one "bucket" per airplane.

I put the T-6a and a T-38a through Accu-Sim flight tests. We've built these engines brand new, from the ground up. The level of fidelity is crazy good.

The military has discovered Accu-Sim..... which means we have to expand to meet demand but we must find a way to get these airplanes to the public. I know there is a way to do this without compromising the A2A brand, and even enhance it.

I actually think the title I made here is misleading. I don't consider our T-6a incomplete. It just puts more focus into different areas the military needs. So it's a different product.

Scott.

[patful]

Ha! I'm betting the internal discussion at A2A went pretty much the same way as this public discourse is going.

Nah, nobody could hear anything over the guy shouting LANCASTER!