Discount for Prior Owners
-
The new soundscape, the opening of doors, the ability to remove the weather pod, the tablet functionality, the fact that the TN version now has a corresponding cowl to go with the Tornado Alley turbo, the refined exterior and interior model, a fricken PT6 powered A36 which is its own exterior model in its own right. Absolutely a day one purchase for me and I totally get the statement that money is tight but maybe save for it. I agree with a lot of folks when I say that these are day one purchases and the value is an absolute steal.
-
@Black-Square money is tight for me and all your work is a no brainer to buy because they are so amazing, thank you for all your hard effort.
-
Let me start by saying that this is the kind of message that makes me drop everything I'm doing to respond, because I care so much about what my users think of my creations.
Given your appreciation for my existing aircraft, I find your "trust me, I spent more than 1000+ hours on each plane" approach to this one surprising. I'm not asking this to be facetious, but have you ever known me to disappoint with an aircraft that was not a noticeable improvement in quality above my previous offerings? If there is one thing I take extreme pride in with my creations, its the fact that I have found opportunities to improve almost every aspect of my aircraft year after year. Sometimes I wish I could leave things the way they are and be happy, but I have some kind of disorder that forces me to revisit features and always look for new nuances to add.
Given your remark about the 1,000hrs+, would I be correct to assume that you have read the "What's New?" documents linked on the Just Flight Store pages? Your claim that there is hardly more than new models/materials and sounds (two costly investments that were the most requested features after my Analog Series), seems to ignore the other 22 bullet points of new and improved features. Apart from the models and sounds, the tablet interface that showcases all of these features in a nearly one-of-a-kind format is also a significant selling point of my aircraft. Not to mention, some are very excited about the entirely new variant, the Turbine Bonanza, which I chose to include as a "bonus", charging no extra, unlike for the Turbine Duke. New walkaround features and MSFS 2024 compatibility alone have been a significant task, which I have offered as free upgrades for all my other aircraft.
I encourage you to watch the upcoming videos (this week) where I explore many of these new features, or watch some streamers/YouTubers who will also demonstrate them. Particularly in video, I think the improvements will become self evident when listening to the sounds of the engine start while watching on the tablet visualizer. If none of these features interest you, then I might ask what would? Again, not being facetious, but curious what I can add to my aircraft to improve the experience for even more users.
I must admit that I fail to follow your reasoning that offering a 20% discount on a new product equates to 77% depreciation on an existing product. I realize that my statements about doubling the code complexity of each aircraft and investing 1,000 hours to elevate my standards of quality did not satisfy you, but I might add this comparison too: The download size for the Analog Bonanza was 474MB. The download size for the Bonanza Professional is 4.32GB, or almost a 10:1 increase. Every byte in that download size was my hard work to deliver a vastly superior product to my users, because I wanted the quality of all my offerings to match or exceed what I produced for Starship and the Dukes.
Lastly, I was taking note today of how many favorable comments there were on videos, forums, and chats about the price of these aircraft, and "what a steal!" they were, so your message quite surprised me. Only one other time in my five years of aircraft development have I felt the need to defend myself like this after being accused of being a scam artist and a charlatan. Unfortunately, that individual deleted his account, and refused to engage further with the community's questions. I hope that you will answer my questions above about what you would like to see in these new aircraft that you did not find in the manuals or previews. From this, I can learn if there are new desires in the flight sim community that I should be focusing my efforts towards. Thank you for your consideration, and I hope to hear more from you.
@Black-Square Nick I was not intending to suggest you are a scam artist or charlatan, and no, I have not ever been dissappointed by a product of yours. Please do not take my comments personally. It's business. You are the best developer in simulation right now. Hands down. And I do mean that. But saying that in itself is not for me, a statement of immediately giving you money for everything regardless. How I spend is my choice. The phrase "it's a steal" is one opinion.
And no, I had not seen that "what's new" document. I watched the trailer posted by JustFlight and read the page that comes up with the link from their homepage. I was reacting quite specifically to this paragraph in the JustFlight page announcing the product, having first seen the short video yesterday:
Analog Baron/Bonanza Owners: While the panel of the both the Baron Professional and Bonanza Professional might look familiar, almost all other aspects of the aircraft have been rebuilt with Black Square’s current technology and high standards of quality. The major additions include a custom exterior model, custom sound package from Boris Audio Works, higher quality materials with modifications for each model of aircraft, fine-tuned performance tables, tablet visualisers with all the systems required to drive them, more avionics options and the reciprocating engine simulation that debuted with the Piston Duke. These expansions of the Analog Baron and Bonanza represent 1,000+ hours of dedication for each aircraft, and roughly a doubling of the aircraft’s code complexity. Once you experience Black Square’s latest technology in your favorite B58 and A36, the difference will be clear!
I think my logic around the discount value was pretty clear, but I'll explain. Having purchased the analog versions before for $57 total, I will never fly those again should I purchase this package next week. That is logically akin to trading them in, and the trade in value, which is, for me just like a car purchase, subtracted from the total price of the new car, is now stated as $13 (20% of the $65). Purchasing the new package locks in that value, and the old planes go to a virtual scrap heap (as deleted files). That's the way I see things anyway. I guess I am nuts. A friend of mine never bought these planes, primarily because he didn't have premium deluxe of MSFS2020, and therefore could only get the Bonanza and he didn't see the value in that plane .... despite how much I talked it up and told him he'd love it. So he's sitting there talking about the steal of getting both planes for $65 now, and I am thinking I already paid $57 for analog cockpit conversions (plus the difference for premium deluxe too, but ignore that), and now I need to drop another $52, and we are in the exact same place at that point, feeling a lot like it was less of a steal to me because I am in for $109 net, and he's in for only $65. The only way for me to extract more value out of the current modules is to hold on to them longer before upgrading to the new, and use them longer. Which leaves me with FOMO as the motivation to dump the analog versions now. My reaction is completely about that. And I am NOT suggesting you should give this away either - to be clear.
You seem to be saying the new aircraft are more than double the upgrade over the existing analog conversions, and to me, nothing jumped off that page telling me that. I didn't pick up on the turboprop variant for example. Re-reading, it's in there, but it's buried inside another paragraph half way down, not really emphasized at all. To me, that should have been a banner at the top. Lead with it would be my advice. All there is in bold at the top is under the discount statement, a comment about there being 3 modelled variants in the package - if you meant the turboprop is one of the three, say "INCLUDING AN ALL NEW TURBOPROP yada yada" Even the 3 modelled variants is arguably incorrect. It's 6 in the package with the turbo variants, etc now that I re-read it all. An all new variant is a big deal I agree. But you spoke more about it in your response to me than in that Justflight page. That I didn't pick up on it is what it is. But yes, in my case, I am just picking that up now. That helps but I don't have time to study this stuff like that. Previously all I had heard was you were going to do professional versions of these and had not heard much else about what was coming. I don't stare at every trailer watching it 17 times to pick up on everything and dissect it to figure out what is new. I used to, but that alone is too much time commitment. I'd rather study the aircraft itself - that's the fun for me of simming. How things worked, were designed, intent, etc. Not oooo look something shiny in a trailer, let me zoom in and look at every pixel to see more. I stopped doing that some time ago. I don't hunt for easter eggs or try to pick up on details from little teases. I guess some folks did and new it all and I am so happy for them. Last time I did that was the outro teaster for DCS World some years ago that showed coordinates for Bagram airbase in Afganistan and the internet went wild with speculation about is it an Afganistan map coming, or a C-130? Or what? I just don't have much patience for that. So I didn't pick up on things you apparently were wanting people to pick up on, and I reacted. I should not have done that per se. Though I stand by questioning if 20% is fair. You feel it is, I need to see more to feel that way too. Simple as that.
I've got over $3800 invested in software for flight simulation in MSFS, Xplane, and DCS World, exluding hardware for the PC, peripherals, etc. If I count that stuff, I am well over $10k. Products are being orphaned constantly in this universe. The point was entirely about 20% off, and not seeing stuff there making me feel like re-purchasing everything was justified, and I said that part out loud. Sorry if that offends. I am sure a bunch of people are going to flame me now and already are, which is why that other person probably deleted there account and never responded to you because they didn't want to deal with the hate. What idiot can't see that Nick products are worth 20 times the price!?!??!? What BS to suggest otherwise!??!??!? Gimme a break. I am not a fan of the "everything is awesome" echo chamber that youtube and the internet has become. Someone describing something as a STEAL means absolutely nothing to me. Show me it's a steal. I'll take a look at the other videos as you do them and reconsider. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and take that time. And if in the end, I feel like it's worth it, I'll freely admit it and eat crow as the saying goes here.
-
Thanks for your response. I'm sorry that you have to deal with any dissenters here, which is why I geared my questions towards the productive. I truly want to know what you would like to see improved in my aircraft that would make them worth the price, in your mind. This is true of big changes, and tiny improvements, and it's one of the reasons I like this forum so much. I have never been one to start conflict, and I try to avoid it at all costs online; however, I will defend myself when the worth of my work is put into question. Thank you for doing it respectfully, and on a platform where I could address your thoughts and concerns.
I would still love a clear answer to my questions, however. Are there some features that would justify this new purchase for you? I understand saying that I should lead with the new Turbine Bonanza (the first shot of my "First Look" video, the thumbnail of my second video, the first screenshot of my announcement article in February, the only Bonanza screenshot in my May article, and the full last page of my What's New? document). More can always be done, but I didn't want to alienate anyone who was only interested in the conventional Bonanza either. Only 0.3% of Bonanzas are Turbine Bonanzas, after all.
Since you hadn't seen the "What's New" documents, have you also read the announcement article from February, and skimmed the 200+ pages of new content in the manuals? Again, not facetious. I publish my manuals for free online, long before my products are released so that anyone can read them and see if they like the features they have to offer.
Returning to your assessment of depreciation, I would agree with you if you were purchasing a direct replacement for the Analog Series, such as only to achieve MSFS 2024 compatibility. That would be some 77% depreciation. However, you are purchasing a vastly improved product, with around 10x the content by one measure, with many new features only available in a new simulator. I see this as the equivalent of trading in a motorcycle for a luxury SUV and being surprised when the value of a used motorcycle is only 20% that of the SUV. Not to mention, the $44 difference between what you might pay in total and what you would pay today represents almost three years of enjoyment you derived from those original aircraft. Surely those years of enjoyment was worth something.
My Analog series, proud of it as I was, offered a single cockpit interior, with passable materials, and systems derived from the default behaviors. The new aircraft are completely new in every other aspect, with more new features than could fit on the store page, and all aspects of the originals were revisited and improved. Returning to my original question, if this is not enough improvement, then what would have been? I may be asking this question in service of my point, but I am also truly curious, because you may have the keys to unlock a new set of features for flight simulation that I haven't even considered.
I have no hard feelings, for the record, this is part of doing business, as you said. The way I look at it, perhaps someone else who is skeptical of these products will find this thread, read our justifications, and reach their own conclusion.
-
Thanks for your response. I'm sorry that you have to deal with any dissenters here, which is why I geared my questions towards the productive. I truly want to know what you would like to see improved in my aircraft that would make them worth the price, in your mind. This is true of big changes, and tiny improvements, and it's one of the reasons I like this forum so much. I have never been one to start conflict, and I try to avoid it at all costs online; however, I will defend myself when the worth of my work is put into question. Thank you for doing it respectfully, and on a platform where I could address your thoughts and concerns.
I would still love a clear answer to my questions, however. Are there some features that would justify this new purchase for you? I understand saying that I should lead with the new Turbine Bonanza (the first shot of my "First Look" video, the thumbnail of my second video, the first screenshot of my announcement article in February, the only Bonanza screenshot in my May article, and the full last page of my What's New? document). More can always be done, but I didn't want to alienate anyone who was only interested in the conventional Bonanza either. Only 0.3% of Bonanzas are Turbine Bonanzas, after all.
Since you hadn't seen the "What's New" documents, have you also read the announcement article from February, and skimmed the 200+ pages of new content in the manuals? Again, not facetious. I publish my manuals for free online, long before my products are released so that anyone can read them and see if they like the features they have to offer.
Returning to your assessment of depreciation, I would agree with you if you were purchasing a direct replacement for the Analog Series, such as only to achieve MSFS 2024 compatibility. That would be some 77% depreciation. However, you are purchasing a vastly improved product, with around 10x the content by one measure, with many new features only available in a new simulator. I see this as the equivalent of trading in a motorcycle for a luxury SUV and being surprised when the value of a used motorcycle is only 20% that of the SUV. Not to mention, the $44 difference between what you might pay in total and what you would pay today represents almost three years of enjoyment you derived from those original aircraft. Surely those years of enjoyment was worth something.
My Analog series, proud of it as I was, offered a single cockpit interior, with passable materials, and systems derived from the default behaviors. The new aircraft are completely new in every other aspect, with more new features than could fit on the store page, and all aspects of the originals were revisited and improved. Returning to my original question, if this is not enough improvement, then what would have been? I may be asking this question in service of my point, but I am also truly curious, because you may have the keys to unlock a new set of features for flight simulation that I haven't even considered.
I have no hard feelings, for the record, this is part of doing business, as you said. The way I look at it, perhaps someone else who is skeptical of these products will find this thread, read our justifications, and reach their own conclusion.
@Black-Square I appreciate the thoughtful reply! Thank you for your understanding. That you responded and listened all, I am grateful for.
Features that would justify a purchase ... that's tougher at this point as basically you are telling me it's a lot more than I thought it was. I think that was my point partially earlier. I have not read the manuals for the new aircraft, and I must have missed Feb content. As I indicated, I didn't catch the turbine variant in the video until today, and that is because you mentioned it. I have sort of tried to justify that with my statement concerning the DCS thing... those detailed investigations become all consuming to me, and I end up getting little out of it in the end, so I flat out refuse to dedicate the time to it. That's not to be taken personal at all. Your manuals are fantastic. But I'm only willing to dive in, once I have commited to diving in. I was looking at the first page there on the JF site as a executive summary and as I read it, not much caught my eye. Just being honest. That is one caveat in my career I find I am frequently up against as well. I've written 5 page documents in the past to explain a position I took in a meeting at request of a VP who disliked my position, only to have the whole document be dismissed when said VP read the first line in the document and said "oh okay - I agree now, makes sense and you used the right technique" (a boring statistical conversation about MTBF and failure probability and weibayes analysis). I wished I had just said "I used weibayes analysis to do the risk of product failure projection" and saved the 6 hours writing up a 5 page explanation. I think you can probably chalk this up to how you reach all potential customers. There is an art to the hook. I am no expert on the hook. But I am telling you, I didn't see yours. For all those that did, good for you. Gold star. Thumbs up emoji. I get the frowny face stamp special ordered from Germany. Let's move on with life.
I do think you are depracating the analog series a little strongly here. You were asking $57.75 for those in a bundle and still are ... and that work formed the foundation for everything you have built since, along with the Velocity XL and the other Analog aircraft in your line. Did it not? I think saying it's motorcycle traded for luxury SUV is a bit of disservice to those Analog versions. I do understand your point, but I don't really agree with the analogy. The dollars, are the dollars: $57 bundle for Analog, vs. $65 for the new product bundle. I am only comparing the dollars each costs. You are still selling the Analog bundle at that same price today. Keeping up with inflation, it's basically a wash comparing the too talking from 2023 to 2025. I do agree I got enjoyment out of them for 2.5 years certainly and that has some value. That is basically the meaning behind what depreciation is. But again, I wasn't suggesting free was the goal .... ever. I fully respect work did go into the new product, and I am conceding I underestimated perhaps how much work that was. I was just suggesting 20% of the new price is undervaluing to the earlier offering and customer relationship. It is beyond rare that customers for any product get the opportunity to provide feedback to a merchant that actually matters in anyway. And I get that I knew I was in the minority here, as I said right at the outset. I am the tail of a distribution here. If you had made the discount 40% right away, I'd give you my credit card number right now (well okay, the merchant site). And yes I know there is a degree of being cheap in this, by interpretation. Is walking out of a dealership to save another 0.5% on a car purchase smart? Or cheap? Or both maybe? I am wired the way I am, but that's how I think. And I have walked out of more dealerships over a couple hundred dollars on a $35k transaction than I have bought cars in.
The only other approach is I just never say anything, I never make the purchase either. In that case, you lose a sale, probably don't know about it, and don't know why. You might see some numbers a little below expectations if enough folks take that route. I guess the internet is happy with that, or maybe not because who else are they going to call names if I don't decide to put my foot in it. I know people that never bought the Analog version who by all indications, should have. That matters. Better to have some understanding why, is it not?
But regardless, I am apparently missing the boat on the value of this product offering. I'll watch some videos next week and see if my feelings change.
Regarding your question about feature set.... for the products you have in the past released as standalone that I own, which are the TBM, both Dukes, and the Starship as I said before..... I cannot think of many improvements. Navigraph feature set, and stronger integration with flight plans perhaps coming out of simbrief might be nice, but I cannot say I avoid or purchase addons like these due to that. I do frequently use navigraph for VFR planning too personally, though I feel like it's me and 2 other people maybe who actually do that. I will pick out waypoints as "POIs" from the map - you know, lakes, rivers and roads (IFR), and create the route. It would be awesome if there was a way to see that on the virtual EFB, especially for VR. Alt-tabbing stinks in that setting. Yes I know one can import the route info to the GTN or as equipped for IFR .... I am thinking more about VOR-VOR flying though (and ADF). I do create routes that way with simbrief, if I could view them on the EFB with the VOR references, that would be nice. The FSS 727 has that via the clipboard that lets you see the route info and VOR freqs on it along with lat-lon coordinates. That's a nice little QOA improvement. But I obviously purchased these above without this stuff.
What this probably speaks to is what is it that I do value about your products, and might be a better thought line. These are the draws as I see them:
-
Analog instrumentation with gauges that behave more like real world counterparts. I am not a huge fan of modern GPS. In the real world, those are awesome tools of course and I am sure that air travel is improved and safer and more efficient because of it. But I get that from my Airbus and Boeing stuff and the odd G1000 GA aircraft if I crave it, and it's not that interesting to me. What I adore about your aircraft is the needle bounce/inaccuracy at range simulation (whatever you call it), and the stiction in cold weather, coupled with analog instrumentation. Those I link all together because I find the learning of navigation from the radio nav era extremely interesting, and signal degradation / error in indication is a big part of the process. As I also do for celestial, INS, etc. I love learning about how stuff as this used to work before all the automation of today.
-
Failures .... I mentioned MTBF above because sadly, I work in principally reliability engineering. Have for 30+ years, and today run my own consulting company for same. So I natively get it. Some other sim devs do have that in some degree as well. Some even use the terminology. Notably I believe PMDG and Leonardo have it called out by name in their products, and I think Blackbird uses it behind the scenes. I respect the hell out of even including it. But I dare say your implementation is probably the best of all who have tried, and I love that it's there, even if I am not using it 100% of the time.
-
Quirks of aircraft systems in simulation ... your aircraft capture a lot of those quirks, probably most or all. That makes a module engaging and fun to learn. None of the defaults do that really much at all, and plenty of paid content is very weak in this regard. The more quirks in simulation - particularly of systems, the better for me. That speaks a little bit to #2 of course, though I mean unique characteristics of an airframe and it's systems that set it apart from others, which I liken to character. Character is very important.
-
Aspirational bent ... I am not a pilot. Just dream and put money into other things. But, the Starship especially is a plane I have LONG admired. I stared at the one at the Evergreen aviation museum out back there for about 30 minutes back in 2023 on a vacation. The Dukes are similar, if a little lower in my "man that's a cool plane" list. The next I cannot wait for is a Rockwell Aero Commander (yes I think I recall you are planning that one). So what I am describing here is a bent for specific types. Emotional. The TBM is fantastic as a product, but for me it's somewhat of a let down in this category. It's not something I am personally emotionally drawn too... but I do enjoy it more than I thought I would, primarily because of 1-2-3 above. The "850 mode" for example ... interesting quirk of operation.
You may note that models, sounds, animations are not listed. To me, they are just nice to have. I don't really care about them much. I know a lot of folks get bent about wing flex (pun intended). But a related I believe 5th item would be probably performance in the simulator. I'd rather have a smooth experience than give up any frame rate or worse, stuttering, for wing flex. It's not something I am drawn to much. I don't dislike nice looking stuff in terms of texturing and animations. But it's secondary to me in priority to all else. Failing the others but being really pretty is likely a recipe to avoid purchase for me.
I'll give you #4 is crap. I mean to say, it's personal ... it's what I like individually, and really isn't about something you can heavily control. But what I will say about this is as I mentioned - the TBM ... so if you had been to market behind the M500, and the PC-12, I probably would have bought one of those first. So there is a timing piece to it (but I do have the M500 because I also adore Piper for my own personal reasons). I wanted a good turboprop simulation to learn about that. I am not however beholden to a certain developer for that historically. But you arrived first, and therefore you won that one.
So back to the topic at hand, the Beech aircraft in analog form satisfy all the above as previously released I had thought and felt. The EFB is nicer, but I don't necessarily find the MTBF stuff being there ground breaking. It was already there in the weather radar I mean. Not to be dismissive of the EFB mind you for the engine and cabin pages. Those are cool visualizations. But is the visualization necessary in this case? To an extent (learning - see below). But it is a visualization. I had thought you had that code behind the scenes already there for the failure system on the engines. Granted you apparently have added things I was not aware at the time I wrote my initial concern yesterday. But my priorities above hold those Analog products in pretty high esteem already. So I think this comes down more to understanding what is really new for my part, and how that fits for me to justify value.
But I do have a thought or two on something that could really elevate things:
I currently am flying the Grand Duke around the world via the Ascenion Island route through southern US, Caribbean, with wear and tear and failures enabled at your default rates. This was after I had spent a month or two flying it around going through emergency procedures and practicing handling same. See I had done a round the world flight before (via Greenland route) in the Blackbird/Milviz C310R, and lost an engine on the 2nd to last leg and realized I didn't even have prop feathering properly bound on my Honeycomb so I didn't get it feathered in time, and ended up crashing due to the drag down low on approach to an airport single engine. So like I debriefed that because I am obviously not dead and it's a game, and I am also a sociopath. And then when I decided to start a new circumnav route in your aircraft, I picked the plane for somewhat similar reasons (twin engine, type, range, etc), but also for that reason from the debrief: do I believe the reasonablness failure system, and do I understand the steps I need to take? Can I train to do those things properly and not die (virtually)? Does the aircraft module give me the immersion to do that well (note that for this, texturing isn't relevant to immersion)? Those became all consuming, and the debrief sort of mindset took over. That logic then translated into a lot of learning more about the quirks of the aircraft. I was reading everything I could about the Dukes. The engines ... how they were reported to fail in various forums by owners, etc. If I knew an owner, I would probably bug them like they were a rock star. And ya, if a real world pilot takes off without even knowing how to feather a prop and they lose an engine at cruise and die it's clearly reckless or "poor preparation" and on them. But the crash bothered me a lot. Crashing on leg 48 of 49 played into that. Like blowing a lead in the 8th inning (sorry Seattle, sincerely). Though from a lot of NTSB reports, it seems to happen in general, frequently (mistakes and carelessness). Regardless, I was naive concerning that 3 years ago. The experience compelled me to learn some new stuff. Which is cool, but the flipside is, it was really hard to learn all that. It required a lot of googling, and reading other sources (in my view). That I took the time required a certain amount of OCD. And I doubt very much I actually am prepared. More prepared than I was, yes. But I feel like it's 30-40%. In the real world, that would just make me SUPER dangerous. My other friends, who do not flight sim, think I can land a real plane. Ya no. I am not that dumb to believe that.
Anyway - what I think would be next level is taking failures and wear and tear into even more of a tangible realm from an accessibility perspective. I think your MTBF solution in the EFB is the best I have seen to date as I said above. But it's still effectively a long list of things that can break and times to fail as MTBF. People don't learn from lists. And the MTBF value is just a probability of an event at any point in time (and is constant). Lists are reminders to prevent forgetting an item that is critical. Learning WHY is the key right? Right now, when something happens in wear and tear and random failures, I tend to open the EFB or the weather radar to see what the system says is wrong with it. That's not realistic at all (you would use the instruments and you know, potentially see what is wrong - like hey I think we just got hit by something), but it works in the simulator. So I wonder about a canned mission series instead - perhaps built into the EFB. Mission is not exactly the right word. But one hops in, click a button on the EFB on like a training page that says run mission for engine failure on takeoff. Auto pause at failure maybe is a check box option, and then then the simmer is prompted with training elements, step, and direct ability to read more. The relevant checklist would also immediately be displayed maybe on the right side of the EFB, to start to train the flow. This would feel more like a virtual flight instructor, albeit operating from a script and not per se adapting to Q&A on the fly. I guess you could use AI LLM of some sort to even process asks ... "why do I bring throttles to idle first" and then get a response. Sort of like FS Academy training missions which I enjoy, but like native to the plane. You could also compel learning about the various quirks of airframes through this as well. It would make depth far more transparent is what I am thinking, and start driving the specific behaviors in a very accessible way. I am opening the EFB to figure out what broke today, because I don't have the behaviors built into my brain. And that's because I am flying a chair to nowhere while playing make believe, and no one showed me how and why I was supposed to do it. I get of course there are 20,000 real pilots out there scoffing at this level of stupidity. You all already know the stuff and steps. It's 2nd nature to you now (real pilots) because you were trained. I am looking for the training. And I think at the type level, right? There are basics for sure, and there are specific things that pertain to a type. Otherwise, there would literally not need to be a thing such as a type rating.
If you have ever checked out Re-Entry (the space sim game available on Steam) ... the first Mercury mission I think does something with this in a very interesting way that was both fun and really engaging in my opinion. If you are not familiar, Re-Entry is highly procedural as well and simulates more or less the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions at this point, with detailed growth through the series of mission executions. You become the astronaut, and get a solid feel for it - from the seated at a desk perspective. It feels like the real deal, but it brings playing fake astronaut into the realm of plausibility. The author describes is as accessible and not full fidelity as I recall, but it's pretty damn detailed (the game). Every switch pretty much in each capsule works. People say it has a steep learning curve. But in my opinion, it's less steep due this mission centric features that throws learning opportunities at you, and they are specific to each vehicle. That said, yes it does get into some pretty advanced physics concepts. Orbital mechanics. I mean - technically, "rocket science." And condenses it to a game costing $29.99. I am not gonna give away what happens in that Mercury mission for those who have not flown it. But for me, it was like an "aha" that illustrated the depth of the systems simulation, showed me how to handle it, and prompted learning that otherwise might never have happened, and didn't require me to go read other content for 17 hours. I think this to me would be next level.
I guess other things might be like rivet pops. I mean that might be kinda cool. Visible damage when you dip a wing and kiss a runway. Prop strike damage. Flat tires. Flat spots on tires from skids (even if just sound and maybe a bit of vibration). If you ever do a taildragger, damage to gear structures from ground looping. Stuff like that.
I am not saying these are things required to get me to agree to purchase a Bonanza. These are just my ideas for taking simulated flight in a plane to the next level. I love learning. To me that's what it's all about. If one is into pretty scenery, and I am not dissing that, MSFS already has a bunch of decent defaults that work well for looking at the scenery and wondering how the hell they did all that.
I apologize for the drama. I should have held my fingers. And I am sorry for the book. If you want to talk more about an idea or two I am happy to talk offline, and should probably end this typing here now.
-
-
I have read every word, and I appreciate you supplying the exact kind of dialog that I was looking for. There is no need to apologize, because all is well that ends well.
Your list of most important features could almost read as a Black Square Manifesto, including your fifth point about performance. I spend a tremendous time worrying about performance, because I was once the person trying to run my favorite aircraft on older hardware, and never want to put someone through that myself. This means foregoing an extra 4K texture for the undersides of the seats in the cabin (I'm joking, but only slightly) optimizing all my meshes by hand, and spending half a day planning a new code feature to be as efficient as possible. Also, your "emotion" claim is far from crap. Any marketing executive will tell you that we purchase on emotion, and I also want people to feel good about my aircraft. Not in an altruistic way, but I want to play into those emotions, and if possible, make people feel like they are taking part in history by learning to fly these aircraft. Nowhere was that effect greater than for Starship.
If there is anything I feel like I should push back on in your message, it's simply your comment about the tablet visualizers, and purely for the sake of transparency for anyone curious about the process of making aircraft. Each tablet interface is about 5,000 lines of code, and another 1,000 lines that drive the data. While it might seem simple to convert an existing calculation of cabin temperature into a visualizer (that has to be designed in a vector graphic such that it makes sense, and functions programmatically), nothing could be farther from the truth. Of course, that all had to start with learning how to even code something like a tablet interface in MSFS, and then avoid countless bugs and holes in Asobo's lightweight SVG rendering library, and then test it all. If I sounded like I took offense to any of your statements, they weren't about the "value" of my products (that's in the eye of the beholder), but merely the amount of time and effort that goes into creating what you see. I like to make it look effortless, but I work about 3,200hrs/yr on my aircraft, and this has been a particularly tough two weeks of 18hr days getting the Baron and Bonanza ready, and also a hard disk failure on my video editing computer over the weekend. It's not a sob story, and I expect no pity. This is just a rare instance where I thought it was worth sharing what it looks like to create these virtual machines.
Your thoughts on failures and wear and tear (no wonder they matter to you so much, given your career), and practicing failures was a top notch contribution. I have pondered something like you describe for many years, going back to when I was learning to fly. I think the potential for everything you say and more is absolutely there. The showstopper is just the technical realities that you're up against. The simulator is quite sparse in its failure abilities, and it would be ideal to integrate and outside program that could produce scenarios in any aircraft, like you also mention. I could go on about why things like flat tires and popped rivets are also so difficult to achieve in MSFS, but I hope you will forgive me if I don't. They are all possible. It's just a matter of time to develop those features, and how much you're willing to fight with the simulator to get what you want. If I had all the time in the world, I would leave no good idea undeveloped. However, I can assure you that when I am thinking about what to do in future aircraft, your ideas will be ringing in my ears. That's how we've ended up with 90% of the features in Black Square aircraft that we have today. The ringing just kept getting louder and louder until I had to make the feature. Thank you so much for contributing.
In a final remark, given the passion you've displayed here for all the elements I try to weave into each of my aircraft, I hope that you will take a second and third look at these aircraft and honor their heritage with one of your incredible around the world flights. I've wanted to do an around the world flight in any of my aircraft for years, but this is the plight of the aircraft developer: I only get to enjoy my aircraft when they are either unfinished or broken. When I send my users custom code solutions for their home cockpits, just as much as when I code new failure features, I do so because I want everyone to have the best simulation experience possible that makes your heart flutter on the rollout from a difficult landing in the middle of the night. It's that emotional factor you noted above. Nothing would make me happier than to see you enjoy these aircraft to their fullest, because if I can tug on your heartstrings with them, then I will know that the late nights were all worthwhile.
Pardon me if I got a little poetic there are the end. There's something about the bond of man and machine that gets me every time. Thanks again so much for turning this into a great conversation. If you ever need anything regarding any of my aircraft, you know where to find me, and I'm always happy to help!
-
@Black-Square I appreciate the thoughtful reply! Thank you for your understanding. That you responded and listened all, I am grateful for.
Features that would justify a purchase ... that's tougher at this point as basically you are telling me it's a lot more than I thought it was. I think that was my point partially earlier. I have not read the manuals for the new aircraft, and I must have missed Feb content. As I indicated, I didn't catch the turbine variant in the video until today, and that is because you mentioned it. I have sort of tried to justify that with my statement concerning the DCS thing... those detailed investigations become all consuming to me, and I end up getting little out of it in the end, so I flat out refuse to dedicate the time to it. That's not to be taken personal at all. Your manuals are fantastic. But I'm only willing to dive in, once I have commited to diving in. I was looking at the first page there on the JF site as a executive summary and as I read it, not much caught my eye. Just being honest. That is one caveat in my career I find I am frequently up against as well. I've written 5 page documents in the past to explain a position I took in a meeting at request of a VP who disliked my position, only to have the whole document be dismissed when said VP read the first line in the document and said "oh okay - I agree now, makes sense and you used the right technique" (a boring statistical conversation about MTBF and failure probability and weibayes analysis). I wished I had just said "I used weibayes analysis to do the risk of product failure projection" and saved the 6 hours writing up a 5 page explanation. I think you can probably chalk this up to how you reach all potential customers. There is an art to the hook. I am no expert on the hook. But I am telling you, I didn't see yours. For all those that did, good for you. Gold star. Thumbs up emoji. I get the frowny face stamp special ordered from Germany. Let's move on with life.
I do think you are depracating the analog series a little strongly here. You were asking $57.75 for those in a bundle and still are ... and that work formed the foundation for everything you have built since, along with the Velocity XL and the other Analog aircraft in your line. Did it not? I think saying it's motorcycle traded for luxury SUV is a bit of disservice to those Analog versions. I do understand your point, but I don't really agree with the analogy. The dollars, are the dollars: $57 bundle for Analog, vs. $65 for the new product bundle. I am only comparing the dollars each costs. You are still selling the Analog bundle at that same price today. Keeping up with inflation, it's basically a wash comparing the too talking from 2023 to 2025. I do agree I got enjoyment out of them for 2.5 years certainly and that has some value. That is basically the meaning behind what depreciation is. But again, I wasn't suggesting free was the goal .... ever. I fully respect work did go into the new product, and I am conceding I underestimated perhaps how much work that was. I was just suggesting 20% of the new price is undervaluing to the earlier offering and customer relationship. It is beyond rare that customers for any product get the opportunity to provide feedback to a merchant that actually matters in anyway. And I get that I knew I was in the minority here, as I said right at the outset. I am the tail of a distribution here. If you had made the discount 40% right away, I'd give you my credit card number right now (well okay, the merchant site). And yes I know there is a degree of being cheap in this, by interpretation. Is walking out of a dealership to save another 0.5% on a car purchase smart? Or cheap? Or both maybe? I am wired the way I am, but that's how I think. And I have walked out of more dealerships over a couple hundred dollars on a $35k transaction than I have bought cars in.
The only other approach is I just never say anything, I never make the purchase either. In that case, you lose a sale, probably don't know about it, and don't know why. You might see some numbers a little below expectations if enough folks take that route. I guess the internet is happy with that, or maybe not because who else are they going to call names if I don't decide to put my foot in it. I know people that never bought the Analog version who by all indications, should have. That matters. Better to have some understanding why, is it not?
But regardless, I am apparently missing the boat on the value of this product offering. I'll watch some videos next week and see if my feelings change.
Regarding your question about feature set.... for the products you have in the past released as standalone that I own, which are the TBM, both Dukes, and the Starship as I said before..... I cannot think of many improvements. Navigraph feature set, and stronger integration with flight plans perhaps coming out of simbrief might be nice, but I cannot say I avoid or purchase addons like these due to that. I do frequently use navigraph for VFR planning too personally, though I feel like it's me and 2 other people maybe who actually do that. I will pick out waypoints as "POIs" from the map - you know, lakes, rivers and roads (IFR), and create the route. It would be awesome if there was a way to see that on the virtual EFB, especially for VR. Alt-tabbing stinks in that setting. Yes I know one can import the route info to the GTN or as equipped for IFR .... I am thinking more about VOR-VOR flying though (and ADF). I do create routes that way with simbrief, if I could view them on the EFB with the VOR references, that would be nice. The FSS 727 has that via the clipboard that lets you see the route info and VOR freqs on it along with lat-lon coordinates. That's a nice little QOA improvement. But I obviously purchased these above without this stuff.
What this probably speaks to is what is it that I do value about your products, and might be a better thought line. These are the draws as I see them:
-
Analog instrumentation with gauges that behave more like real world counterparts. I am not a huge fan of modern GPS. In the real world, those are awesome tools of course and I am sure that air travel is improved and safer and more efficient because of it. But I get that from my Airbus and Boeing stuff and the odd G1000 GA aircraft if I crave it, and it's not that interesting to me. What I adore about your aircraft is the needle bounce/inaccuracy at range simulation (whatever you call it), and the stiction in cold weather, coupled with analog instrumentation. Those I link all together because I find the learning of navigation from the radio nav era extremely interesting, and signal degradation / error in indication is a big part of the process. As I also do for celestial, INS, etc. I love learning about how stuff as this used to work before all the automation of today.
-
Failures .... I mentioned MTBF above because sadly, I work in principally reliability engineering. Have for 30+ years, and today run my own consulting company for same. So I natively get it. Some other sim devs do have that in some degree as well. Some even use the terminology. Notably I believe PMDG and Leonardo have it called out by name in their products, and I think Blackbird uses it behind the scenes. I respect the hell out of even including it. But I dare say your implementation is probably the best of all who have tried, and I love that it's there, even if I am not using it 100% of the time.
-
Quirks of aircraft systems in simulation ... your aircraft capture a lot of those quirks, probably most or all. That makes a module engaging and fun to learn. None of the defaults do that really much at all, and plenty of paid content is very weak in this regard. The more quirks in simulation - particularly of systems, the better for me. That speaks a little bit to #2 of course, though I mean unique characteristics of an airframe and it's systems that set it apart from others, which I liken to character. Character is very important.
-
Aspirational bent ... I am not a pilot. Just dream and put money into other things. But, the Starship especially is a plane I have LONG admired. I stared at the one at the Evergreen aviation museum out back there for about 30 minutes back in 2023 on a vacation. The Dukes are similar, if a little lower in my "man that's a cool plane" list. The next I cannot wait for is a Rockwell Aero Commander (yes I think I recall you are planning that one). So what I am describing here is a bent for specific types. Emotional. The TBM is fantastic as a product, but for me it's somewhat of a let down in this category. It's not something I am personally emotionally drawn too... but I do enjoy it more than I thought I would, primarily because of 1-2-3 above. The "850 mode" for example ... interesting quirk of operation.
You may note that models, sounds, animations are not listed. To me, they are just nice to have. I don't really care about them much. I know a lot of folks get bent about wing flex (pun intended). But a related I believe 5th item would be probably performance in the simulator. I'd rather have a smooth experience than give up any frame rate or worse, stuttering, for wing flex. It's not something I am drawn to much. I don't dislike nice looking stuff in terms of texturing and animations. But it's secondary to me in priority to all else. Failing the others but being really pretty is likely a recipe to avoid purchase for me.
I'll give you #4 is crap. I mean to say, it's personal ... it's what I like individually, and really isn't about something you can heavily control. But what I will say about this is as I mentioned - the TBM ... so if you had been to market behind the M500, and the PC-12, I probably would have bought one of those first. So there is a timing piece to it (but I do have the M500 because I also adore Piper for my own personal reasons). I wanted a good turboprop simulation to learn about that. I am not however beholden to a certain developer for that historically. But you arrived first, and therefore you won that one.
So back to the topic at hand, the Beech aircraft in analog form satisfy all the above as previously released I had thought and felt. The EFB is nicer, but I don't necessarily find the MTBF stuff being there ground breaking. It was already there in the weather radar I mean. Not to be dismissive of the EFB mind you for the engine and cabin pages. Those are cool visualizations. But is the visualization necessary in this case? To an extent (learning - see below). But it is a visualization. I had thought you had that code behind the scenes already there for the failure system on the engines. Granted you apparently have added things I was not aware at the time I wrote my initial concern yesterday. But my priorities above hold those Analog products in pretty high esteem already. So I think this comes down more to understanding what is really new for my part, and how that fits for me to justify value.
But I do have a thought or two on something that could really elevate things:
I currently am flying the Grand Duke around the world via the Ascenion Island route through southern US, Caribbean, with wear and tear and failures enabled at your default rates. This was after I had spent a month or two flying it around going through emergency procedures and practicing handling same. See I had done a round the world flight before (via Greenland route) in the Blackbird/Milviz C310R, and lost an engine on the 2nd to last leg and realized I didn't even have prop feathering properly bound on my Honeycomb so I didn't get it feathered in time, and ended up crashing due to the drag down low on approach to an airport single engine. So like I debriefed that because I am obviously not dead and it's a game, and I am also a sociopath. And then when I decided to start a new circumnav route in your aircraft, I picked the plane for somewhat similar reasons (twin engine, type, range, etc), but also for that reason from the debrief: do I believe the reasonablness failure system, and do I understand the steps I need to take? Can I train to do those things properly and not die (virtually)? Does the aircraft module give me the immersion to do that well (note that for this, texturing isn't relevant to immersion)? Those became all consuming, and the debrief sort of mindset took over. That logic then translated into a lot of learning more about the quirks of the aircraft. I was reading everything I could about the Dukes. The engines ... how they were reported to fail in various forums by owners, etc. If I knew an owner, I would probably bug them like they were a rock star. And ya, if a real world pilot takes off without even knowing how to feather a prop and they lose an engine at cruise and die it's clearly reckless or "poor preparation" and on them. But the crash bothered me a lot. Crashing on leg 48 of 49 played into that. Like blowing a lead in the 8th inning (sorry Seattle, sincerely). Though from a lot of NTSB reports, it seems to happen in general, frequently (mistakes and carelessness). Regardless, I was naive concerning that 3 years ago. The experience compelled me to learn some new stuff. Which is cool, but the flipside is, it was really hard to learn all that. It required a lot of googling, and reading other sources (in my view). That I took the time required a certain amount of OCD. And I doubt very much I actually am prepared. More prepared than I was, yes. But I feel like it's 30-40%. In the real world, that would just make me SUPER dangerous. My other friends, who do not flight sim, think I can land a real plane. Ya no. I am not that dumb to believe that.
Anyway - what I think would be next level is taking failures and wear and tear into even more of a tangible realm from an accessibility perspective. I think your MTBF solution in the EFB is the best I have seen to date as I said above. But it's still effectively a long list of things that can break and times to fail as MTBF. People don't learn from lists. And the MTBF value is just a probability of an event at any point in time (and is constant). Lists are reminders to prevent forgetting an item that is critical. Learning WHY is the key right? Right now, when something happens in wear and tear and random failures, I tend to open the EFB or the weather radar to see what the system says is wrong with it. That's not realistic at all (you would use the instruments and you know, potentially see what is wrong - like hey I think we just got hit by something), but it works in the simulator. So I wonder about a canned mission series instead - perhaps built into the EFB. Mission is not exactly the right word. But one hops in, click a button on the EFB on like a training page that says run mission for engine failure on takeoff. Auto pause at failure maybe is a check box option, and then then the simmer is prompted with training elements, step, and direct ability to read more. The relevant checklist would also immediately be displayed maybe on the right side of the EFB, to start to train the flow. This would feel more like a virtual flight instructor, albeit operating from a script and not per se adapting to Q&A on the fly. I guess you could use AI LLM of some sort to even process asks ... "why do I bring throttles to idle first" and then get a response. Sort of like FS Academy training missions which I enjoy, but like native to the plane. You could also compel learning about the various quirks of airframes through this as well. It would make depth far more transparent is what I am thinking, and start driving the specific behaviors in a very accessible way. I am opening the EFB to figure out what broke today, because I don't have the behaviors built into my brain. And that's because I am flying a chair to nowhere while playing make believe, and no one showed me how and why I was supposed to do it. I get of course there are 20,000 real pilots out there scoffing at this level of stupidity. You all already know the stuff and steps. It's 2nd nature to you now (real pilots) because you were trained. I am looking for the training. And I think at the type level, right? There are basics for sure, and there are specific things that pertain to a type. Otherwise, there would literally not need to be a thing such as a type rating.
If you have ever checked out Re-Entry (the space sim game available on Steam) ... the first Mercury mission I think does something with this in a very interesting way that was both fun and really engaging in my opinion. If you are not familiar, Re-Entry is highly procedural as well and simulates more or less the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions at this point, with detailed growth through the series of mission executions. You become the astronaut, and get a solid feel for it - from the seated at a desk perspective. It feels like the real deal, but it brings playing fake astronaut into the realm of plausibility. The author describes is as accessible and not full fidelity as I recall, but it's pretty damn detailed (the game). Every switch pretty much in each capsule works. People say it has a steep learning curve. But in my opinion, it's less steep due this mission centric features that throws learning opportunities at you, and they are specific to each vehicle. That said, yes it does get into some pretty advanced physics concepts. Orbital mechanics. I mean - technically, "rocket science." And condenses it to a game costing $29.99. I am not gonna give away what happens in that Mercury mission for those who have not flown it. But for me, it was like an "aha" that illustrated the depth of the systems simulation, showed me how to handle it, and prompted learning that otherwise might never have happened, and didn't require me to go read other content for 17 hours. I think this to me would be next level.
I guess other things might be like rivet pops. I mean that might be kinda cool. Visible damage when you dip a wing and kiss a runway. Prop strike damage. Flat tires. Flat spots on tires from skids (even if just sound and maybe a bit of vibration). If you ever do a taildragger, damage to gear structures from ground looping. Stuff like that.
I am not saying these are things required to get me to agree to purchase a Bonanza. These are just my ideas for taking simulated flight in a plane to the next level. I love learning. To me that's what it's all about. If one is into pretty scenery, and I am not dissing that, MSFS already has a bunch of decent defaults that work well for looking at the scenery and wondering how the hell they did all that.
I apologize for the drama. I should have held my fingers. And I am sorry for the book. If you want to talk more about an idea or two I am happy to talk offline, and should probably end this typing here now.
@t5s_blanco said in Discount for Prior Owners:
If you had made the discount 40% right away, I'd give you my credit card number right now (well okay, the merchant site). And yes I know there is a degree of being cheap in this, by interpretation.
Worth bearing in mind the old adage that if you make something of good quality and no-one complains your goods are too expensive, then they're too cheap and you need to put your prices up.
-
-
Just my two cents on the pricing: I think it would have been fair to offer a 10% discount on the bundle for users who already own either the SGOH Bonanza or the Baron. I bought the Bonanza on day one and was among the unlucky few who experienced the severe performance issues that caused the FPS to drop to zero, so I never ended up buying the Baron. The fact that I now get no discount at all and pay the same price for the bundle compared to those who own neither leaves a bit of a bitter taste in my mouth.
That said, I still think the bundle is reasonably priced, and I really want this series of GA aircraft to continue for as long as possible. If this helps make that happen, then I’m fine with it.
-
Just my two cents on the pricing: I think it would have been fair to offer a 10% discount on the bundle for users who already own either the SGOH Bonanza or the Baron. I bought the Bonanza on day one and was among the unlucky few who experienced the severe performance issues that caused the FPS to drop to zero, so I never ended up buying the Baron. The fact that I now get no discount at all and pay the same price for the bundle compared to those who own neither leaves a bit of a bitter taste in my mouth.
That said, I still think the bundle is reasonably priced, and I really want this series of GA aircraft to continue for as long as possible. If this helps make that happen, then I’m fine with it.
@Outermarker said in Discount for Prior Owners:
think it would have been fair to offer a 10% discount on the bundle for users who already own either the SGOH Bonanza or the Baron.
From this thread:
https://community.justflight.com/topic/9197/professional-plane-pack-discount-for-people-who-bought-bonanza-baron-separately/5
Discount - There will be a 20% discount on offer to previous owners and we're working on ways of ensuring that anyone who bought both original aircraft, as part of the bundle or separately, will receive that discount offer. That's certainly the intention. Emails carrying that information will be sent a day or so prior to the release.
So, admittedly, no discount on the bundle for owners of a single plane, but I think owners of both or the bundle would probably say that's only fair.
Also, buying the bundle is, of course, cheaper than buying both aircraft singly. -
@Outermarker said in Discount for Prior Owners:
think it would have been fair to offer a 10% discount on the bundle for users who already own either the SGOH Bonanza or the Baron.
From this thread:
https://community.justflight.com/topic/9197/professional-plane-pack-discount-for-people-who-bought-bonanza-baron-separately/5
Discount - There will be a 20% discount on offer to previous owners and we're working on ways of ensuring that anyone who bought both original aircraft, as part of the bundle or separately, will receive that discount offer. That's certainly the intention. Emails carrying that information will be sent a day or so prior to the release.
So, admittedly, no discount on the bundle for owners of a single plane, but I think owners of both or the bundle would probably say that's only fair.
Also, buying the bundle is, of course, cheaper than buying both aircraft singly.@Derek said in Discount for Prior Owners:
So, admittedly, no discount on the bundle for owners of a single plane, but I think owners of both or the bundle would probably say that's only fair.
Could you explain why users who receive a 20% discount for two planes might see it as unfair to offer only a 10% discount (half) to those who own one (half)? By that same logic, wouldn’t it also seem unfair to offer no discount at all to those who own one plane instead of none?
Like I said, I’m happy to pay full price and don’t care if I could save 5 bucks. But in my opinion, it's not a good look. -
@Derek said in Discount for Prior Owners:
So, admittedly, no discount on the bundle for owners of a single plane, but I think owners of both or the bundle would probably say that's only fair.
Could you explain why users who receive a 20% discount for two planes might see it as unfair to offer only a 10% discount (half) to those who own one (half)? By that same logic, wouldn’t it also seem unfair to offer no discount at all to those who own one plane instead of none?
Like I said, I’m happy to pay full price and don’t care if I could save 5 bucks. But in my opinion, it's not a good look.@Outermarker said in Discount for Prior Owners:
Could you explain why users who receive a 20% discount for two planes might see it as unfair to offer only a 10% discount (half) to those who own one (half)?
Not when you put it like that, no. However, if I said "Should someone who only bought one widget get a discount on two widgets when you bought two widgets and you only get the same?" they might have an issue. I appreciate you are suggesting different discount scales based on different levels of ownership. However, the problem with offering different tiers of discount and different rules* based on past purchases becomes complicated and difficult to administer. In theory, one could have a rule* that said if you bought the Bonanza you get 10% off the new Bonanza and if you bought the Baron you get 10% off the new Baron. That means the owner of both could get 20% off the SRP by once again buying both singly - but that wouldn't give them a discount on the bundle. This is because it's a bundle created in the cart from two unique products - not two bits of software made into one.
Sorry for the waffle, but we actually spend a lot of time arguing/debating these upgrade discounts for all our titles and always try to be as fair as possible. Zero consolation to you, unfortunately - fine words butter no parsnips - but the only other thing to add in our defence is that I can think of a few publishers/developers that wouldn't entertain the idea of any form of discount.*rule(s) as in cart coding, not as in 'law'.
-
Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. I don’t want to let it slide that, obviously, there would be a discount if I were to go with just the Bonanza this time around, so I appreciate that. As I mentioned, I think the bundle price is reasonable as is, so I’m not upset about it, but I hope you understand where I was coming from.
-
Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. I don’t want to let it slide that, obviously, there would be a discount if I were to go with just the Bonanza this time around, so I appreciate that. As I mentioned, I think the bundle price is reasonable as is, so I’m not upset about it, but I hope you understand where I was coming from.
As it happens, having gone over the internal discussions, I am now fairly sure the discount code you will get based on your ownership of a single product will work on any of the two single planes or the bundle (should you choose to buy). Scott's earlier post that I referenced was.... earlier. This is the worst of discussing the outcome before the event has actually taken place
There will be a full announcement once release is firm and then this debate can be revisited if needs be.
-
As it happens, having gone over the internal discussions, I am now fairly sure the discount code you will get based on your ownership of a single product will work on any of the two single planes or the bundle (should you choose to buy). Scott's earlier post that I referenced was.... earlier. This is the worst of discussing the outcome before the event has actually taken place
There will be a full announcement once release is firm and then this debate can be revisited if needs be.
@Derek I was hoping you might say that. Whenever matters like this come up on the forum, I am pretty quick to say, "give us a minute to talk about that", because it's rarely set in stone until release day (for fairness). Thanks for looking into this! I'm sure I will hear the details from Scott.
-
Well I feel I gotta jump in here. For starters I am a 767 line check airman. I do sim stuff because I love general aviation and always have. I do fly 172s and a turbo Mooney whenever I have the funds and time in the real world. For me flying a 767 and teaching people how to fly a 767 is how I pay the bills and put food on the table. But general aviation is where my heart is at.
So as a dedicated sim enthusiast with who know how many thousands of dollars wrapped up in this hobby, let me provide feedback for the developer. I love your products!!! Every aircraft I have purchased (and one I ended up buying twice lol). Ill cut to the chase- given the squabbling by some over a few dollars, I will purchase the Bonanza and Baron package full price with no discount*. Why? Because I want to show my appreciation for the hard work and QUALITY that I have found in Black Square products. Money talks, so I will say it as loud as I can- I WILL be paying full price! Thank you for such amazing and quality additions to this hobby. I mean that sincerely.
Now for wish list features that I would love to see.
- The ability to remove covers and chalks individually. That will make the walk around more immersive.
- The ability to do maintenance items such as change/ add oil, change individual brakes, replenish hyd fluids, etc.
- The ability to calculate performance on the tablet. Things like TO dist, accelerate stop, landing dist, etc.
Once again a genuine thank you for your hard work and dedication. The JF administrators can check that I will pay full price
If there are any other areas that I can help, please do reach out. For now back to my planning for what I'm gonna do for my day 1 purchase!*and no I aint rich, I wish I was. I just really really really do enjoy these products!
