Author Topic: blueprintsimulations with LAX  (Read 33494 times)

Bruce Hamilton

  • Beta tester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1779
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #60 on: February 20, 2011, 12:57:12 am »
ROFLMAO@U!

Back at ya, Blueprint fan boy.   ;D
Intel Core i7-4790 Haswell 4.0 GHz EVGA Z97 Classified EVGA Supernova 850 G2 G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB Western Digital 1TB GeForce GTX 780 Superclock

SirIsaac726

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 667
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #61 on: February 20, 2011, 02:38:20 am »
ROFLMAO@U!

Back at ya, Blueprint fan boy.   ;D

Still ROFLMAO@U!

If you were smart, you'd realize I'm not a Blueprint fan boy...if anything, I'd consider myself a business fan boy because what they are doing is extremely smart.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 03:25:29 am by SirIsaac726 »

newmanix

  • Beta tester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 759
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #62 on: February 20, 2011, 03:34:20 am »
LOL!! But good point too! I think having a beta testor who does't like their work could make very good contributions too.

Very true, if they were looking to improve the level of detail.  In that case, someone like me who isn't a fan of the work would be extremely valuable.  But when they are content with the level of detail they provide and do not want to change markets, then someone like me who would focus on the level of detail wouldn't be a great candidate.

Well hopefully in the future they will desire more from the work they produce. At least that's how I feel about my hobbies and career. Getting better. There is always room for improvement. Hopefully they will at some point decide this too... Or at least start a second product line of high quality sceneries if they are actually capable of doing so... Something makes me feel they are currently working at the best of their capabilities though... Wonder if they will ever show otherwise.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 04:05:56 am by newmanix »

pride545

  • Beta tester
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 124
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #63 on: February 20, 2011, 10:44:11 am »
Why don't you children drop it!!! This is the dreamteam forum!!
Moe Works

JamesChams

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #64 on: February 20, 2011, 01:46:38 pm »
Why don't you children drop it!!! This is the dreamteam forum!!
:D ;D LOL - LMAO :D ;D - Now that's another funny joke! ;)
"Walk with the wise and become wise; associate with fools and get in trouble.” (Prov.13:20 NIV)
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
From,
  James F. Chams


Bruce Hamilton

  • Beta tester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1779
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #65 on: February 20, 2011, 04:18:13 pm »
...what they are doing is extremely smart.

You're right, charging for default quality scenery is absolutely brilliant.  NOT!   ::)
Intel Core i7-4790 Haswell 4.0 GHz EVGA Z97 Classified EVGA Supernova 850 G2 G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB Western Digital 1TB GeForce GTX 780 Superclock

PUP4ORD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 957
  • UA777
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #66 on: February 20, 2011, 04:23:37 pm »
Why don't you children drop it!!! This is the dreamteam forum!!
This discussion is about the body of work of BP's LAX version and I said this in an earlier post when I saw the screenshots,YUK :P
KENNETH M."PUP"CRADDOCK II
Ladies and Gentlemen please fasten your seatbelts for a short ride......
http://pup4ordfsxmore.blogspot.com/

ALIENWARE AURORA R4 MSWIN7 64BIT  As for the rest of it......?????????

newmanix

  • Beta tester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 759
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #67 on: February 20, 2011, 04:42:36 pm »
Why don't you children drop it!!! This is the dreamteam forum!!

Retired?? Compaired to you everyone is a child eh?  ;D  This is a respectful discussion we are having here. Are you from Blueprint??

Didier Chabanne

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #68 on: February 20, 2011, 06:35:19 pm »
Blueprint begins to airports that are best done before but when

 we say that uses the same color to make the terminals and towers

 control
I like to fly to Paris CDG and also flights to EDDF.
With Air Transat but B777-200ER/LR B777-300ER
FS2004

newmanix

  • Beta tester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 759
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #69 on: February 20, 2011, 06:41:05 pm »
Blueprint begins to airports that are best done before but when

 we say that uses the same color to make the terminals and towers

 control


??

Didier Chabanne

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 108
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #70 on: February 20, 2011, 06:44:21 pm »
In my opinion it lacks airports Blueprint color

 I think.
I like to fly to Paris CDG and also flights to EDDF.
With Air Transat but B777-200ER/LR B777-300ER
FS2004

SirIsaac726

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 667
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #71 on: February 20, 2011, 07:44:51 pm »
...what they are doing is extremely smart.

You're right, charging for default quality scenery is absolutely brilliant.  NOT!   ::)

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

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 41752
    • VIRTUALI Sagl
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #72 on: February 20, 2011, 08:25:52 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.

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.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 09:13:55 pm by virtuali »

Bruce Hamilton

  • Beta tester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1779
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #73 on: February 20, 2011, 09:01:44 pm »
Before now, there wasn't anyone going after the, what I will call, simple-flyer market.

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.
Intel Core i7-4790 Haswell 4.0 GHz EVGA Z97 Classified EVGA Supernova 850 G2 G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB Western Digital 1TB GeForce GTX 780 Superclock

SirIsaac726

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 667
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #74 on: February 20, 2011, 11:14:25 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.

Well, it depends how you define "making money" and what your expectations are.

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.

Before now, there wasn't anyone going after the, what I will call, simple-flyer market.

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.

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?
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 11:17:45 pm by SirIsaac726 »