General Category > General Discussion
blueprintsimulations with LAX
Didier Chabanne:
In my opinion it lacks airports Blueprint color
I think.
SirIsaac726:
--- Quote from: Bruce Hamilton on February 20, 2011, 04:18:13 pm ---
--- Quote from: SirIsaac726 on February 20, 2011, 02:38:20 am ---...what they are doing is extremely smart.
--- End quote ---
You're right, charging for default quality scenery is absolutely brilliant. NOT! ::)
--- End quote ---
You're only showing your ignorance, Bruce. It is definitely brilliant. They are obviously making money or they wouldn't still be producing sceneries. So tell me, if you are a business and your goal is to make money, how is what they are doing not brilliant? Before now, there wasn't anyone going after the, what I will call, simple-flyer market. Believe it or not, there is a market for the detail-level Blueprint is producing now. They didn't even have to create the market, like some businesses do (a perfect example, Vitamin Water and a few other brands created a ridiculous "specialty water" market).
And default quality... :D. Their scenery quality isn't impressive but it is most certainly above default. Their one scenery I have...the IAD scenery, has an extremely nice photoscenery ground texture, a perfectly done museum south of the field, and an okay representation of the actual airport. In fact, the only reason I am using the Imaginesim version rather than Blueprint is because I prefer the more realistic textures of Imaginesim.
virtuali:
--- Quote from: SirIsaac726 on February 20, 2011, 07:44:51 pm ---They are obviously making money or they wouldn't still be producing sceneries. So tell me, if you are a business and your goal is to make money, how is what they are doing not brilliant? Before now, there wasn't anyone going after the, what I will call, simple-flyer market.
--- End quote ---
Well, it depends how you define "making money" and what your expectations are.
We did a scenery for Cloud9 a while ago, KMCO obviously, which still looks very good today:
We used an approach similar to Blueprint's, a default AFCAD (which was *very* accurate anyway, just with a default texture), but we had a good photoreal background and the 3d modeling was very high quality, not much different that what we are doing now, with native FSX advanced materials on buildings, bump-mapping, specular reflections, etc. AND moving jetways, all things that Blueprint doesn't do even today.
We might say it wasn't a drastically different product than BP's KMCO, even if we believe our version still looks better, and it's light years better than default anyway.
JUST the fact that Cloud9 KMCO had a default texture for ground, resulted in sales which are, as of today, ONE TENTH of Zurich or JFK.
So, if Blueprint is making money selling that kind of stuff, then they are much better then we are, at least in marketing skills.
Or, they might simply not care, and doing this like a sort of a glorified hobby so their expectations are lower: we have more than one people in our team who pay all their bills with Flight sim stuff, and not doing any other jobs. If you ask around any Flight sim developer (just try on fsdeveloper.com), is not very common.
Or, is it a question of price ? Do you think if we lowered Cloud9's price, it would surge in sales ? We had several promotions on Cloud9 products in the past were it was possible to purchase everything at 40% less, but people keep buying things like KLAX, KDCA, EHAM or ENBR, which are more similar to what we do NOW. Even the little ENBR, which surely is far less important airport than KMCO, has outsold it...
So, as far our experience is concerned, the overall graphic look has a direct impact on sales, and putting some default elements in a scenery basically killed it in the market, even if the rest of the airport was (and still is) very good.
Bruce Hamilton:
--- Quote from: SirIsaac726 on February 20, 2011, 07:44:51 pm ---Before now, there wasn't anyone going after the, what I will call, simple-flyer market.
--- End quote ---
What is your definition of the simple flyer market? ???
To me, the simple flyer is someone who starts up the simulator sitting in the default airplane on the end of the runway with the engine running. Don't use AI other than default, don't use ATC, don't use checklists for realism, and they certainly don't care about payware scenery.
SirIsaac726:
--- Quote from: virtuali on February 20, 2011, 08:25:52 pm ---
--- Quote from: SirIsaac726 on February 20, 2011, 07:44:51 pm ---They are obviously making money or they wouldn't still be producing sceneries. So tell me, if you are a business and your goal is to make money, how is what they are doing not brilliant? Before now, there wasn't anyone going after the, what I will call, simple-flyer market.
--- End quote ---
Well, it depends how you define "making money" and what your expectations are.
--- End quote ---
Right, and that is something I don't know about Blueprint. What I do know is that they are making enough for their expectations. Whether there sales are strong and comparable to Aerosoft or FlyTampa or FSDT (I doubt it), we'll never know. But they wouldn't have started the business if they didn't expect to make money. That's the point in selling products...make money. Otherwise their stuff would be freeware. So clearly, since they are still producing and selling product, I think it is safe to assume they are making enough money for them to consider acceptable...which is all that matters.
--- Quote from: Bruce Hamilton on February 20, 2011, 09:01:44 pm ---
--- Quote from: SirIsaac726 on February 20, 2011, 07:44:51 pm ---Before now, there wasn't anyone going after the, what I will call, simple-flyer market.
--- End quote ---
What is your definition of the simple flyer market? ???
To me, the simple flyer is someone who starts up the simulator sitting in the default airplane on the end of the runway with the engine running. Don't use AI other than default, don't use ATC, don't use checklists for realism, and they certainly don't care about payware scenery.
--- End quote ---
Is that all you got out of that? ::)
By that, I meant that there is clearly a market for sceneries of a lower level of detail, or from my point of view, simple. Before now, not many people were selling sceneries for that market. So it seems like a smart decision to me. They may not be making as much FSDT or FlyTampa but they're obviously making a profit so it seems like a smart thing to me.
----------------------------
By the way, a lot of people seem to have a mentality that the level of detail in Blueprint's work is less than that of some freeware scenery designers and that is "deplorable" or somehow ridiculous. If that is the case, take a look at SunSkyJet's KPHL or KLGB (and even some of Shez's old work). Now take a look at FlyTampa. The level of detail is remarkable similar. The only difference is FlyTampa is selling their product and SunSkyJet is giving it away for free. How come no one is complaining about FlyTampa?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version