Author Topic: blueprintsimulations with LAX  (Read 32906 times)

Bruce Hamilton

  • Beta tester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1779
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #75 on: February 21, 2011, 12:26:12 am »
...they're obviously making a profit so it seems like a smart thing to me.

How would you know they're making a profit if you're not a team member?  I think Virtuali hit it, they're hobbyists who really don't care.

...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.

I have several of the FT sceneries, as well as Shez's KPHL, and I don't see them as that similar.  I would compare KPHL to sceneries like FRF Studios or Mach1 Design Group.  If Shez thought he was comparable to FT, he'd be charging for it and recouping some of his investment.
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 #76 on: February 21, 2011, 12:40:47 am »
...they're obviously making a profit so it seems like a smart thing to me.

How would you know they're making a profit if you're not a team member?  I think Virtuali hit it, they're hobbyists who really don't care.

...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.

I have several of the FT sceneries, as well as Shez's KPHL, and I don't see them as that similar.  I would compare KPHL to sceneries like FRF Studios or Mach1 Design Group.  If Shez thought he was comparable to FT, he'd be charging for it and recouping some of his investment.

How would you know they're hobbyists who really don't care if you're not a team member?  Once again, your ignorance is showing mate.  Tell me, if they aren't making a profit, why would they continue to sell their scenery (which costs them in server space, business taxes, etc.) if they could just upload it to AVSIM for free (both to them and the user)?  Something tells me they aren't stupid. ::) ;)

And you seriously consider Shez and Ian's KPHL on the same level as Mach 1 Design Group?  Both are good but to say they are on the same level is absurd.  And no, Shez and Ian wouldn't be selling it just because they are on par with FlyTampa.  They don't view it as a business whereas FlyTampa and many others do.  They are content with providing sceneries for free as what they do is solely hobby work.  FlyTampa and others have taken the opportunity to make it a business.  It has nothing to do with the quality of work.  It has to do with the mindset.

---------------------------

First image attached: KPHL
Second image attached: KMHT (the latest release from Mach 1)

KPHL (SunSkyJet): just about everything is custom...custom textures, custom buildings, custom vehicles, custom buildings outside the airport perimeter
KMHT (Mach 1): other than custom buildings and a few custom vehicles, everything is default...nothing done outside the airport.

Now, let's discuss the third image.  This is KBUF, by George at FlyTampa.  Just like SunSkyJet, everything custom and some work done outside the perimeter fence.

So, you still think SunSkyJet is on the level of Mach 1 and FRF?  If so, then you've lost every ounce of credibility.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 12:43:31 am by SirIsaac726 »

Bruce Hamilton

  • Beta tester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1779
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #77 on: February 21, 2011, 01:12:16 am »
Whatever, Mister Blueprint.  I'm done with this thread.
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 #78 on: February 21, 2011, 01:20:38 am »
Whatever, Mister Blueprint.  I'm done with this thread.

 :D

If defending a developer because they are unnecessarily bashed on countless forums makes me Mister Blueprint, so be it.

777captain

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #79 on: February 21, 2011, 01:21:47 am »
Whatever, Mister Blueprint.  I'm done with this thread.

Admit it. He proved you wrong.  :D

newmanix

  • Beta tester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 759
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #80 on: February 21, 2011, 06:19:38 am »
Here comes a long one guys. This post took 5 minutes from my life. For starters. I do think making a comparison from Shez's KPHL (his work is VERY good though, lacks AES) and FlyTampa is a very big long shot.  Just my opinion. Another opinion I will add is about the screen shot from Mach 1. What I will say about Mach 1, is they do a better job with texturing then Blueprint. My next opinion, Shez's work is far, FAR better than Blueprint. Shez puts pride in his work, something Blueprint seems to lack. I use Shez's KLGB and am super happy with it. Again, you can see the pride done in the work. I just think with freeware sceneries like:

http://jgabbert.wordpress.com/
http://www.lkpr-scenery.wz.cz/en/index.php
http://www.sunskyjet.com/
http://www.avsim.com/greece/scenery/index_main.htm
http://www.greekairportsproject.gr/site/
http://dl.flightsim.ro/details.php?file=210
http://lszh.aviation-art.ch/

And that is just to name a few!
These developers produced work far better than Blueprint's quality and gave it away for FREE! To me what Blueprint is doing is no better than if Mach 1 were to start charging $17.50 for their stuff. There would (believe it or not) be folks that would buy it and at least Mach 1 does a better job at texturing their work! My other issue with Blueprint is their disdainful behavior as if they are the best developer on the market. It's their prideful behavior, quality of work, and outrageous price that disgust me.  Really, charging for BOTH FSX and FS9??

For those of you defending them, please explain why Blueprint is stating on their webpage: "
"At Blueprint Simulations we are committed to producing scenery add-ons for the Microsoft Flight Simulator of the highest-quality possible..."
That statement is proven untrue!!
"Blueprint Simulations version of KLAX is by far the most detailed and accurate rendition ever attempted for this important airport...
Again NOT TRUE!!
"Blueprint’s version of KMCO offers the most accurate, up to date and detailed rendition ever offered..."
Maybe it is more up to date given the C9 version is a few years older, but that would be the only accurate statement there.
Blueprint is playing both sides of the fence. They are saying:
 "At Blueprint Simulations we are committed to producing scenery add-ons for the Microsoft Flight Simulator of the highest-quality possible..."

Then, because people know their work is very bad for the price they charge, they cover their tracks on the other side of the fence by saying: "We did not embark in this adventure to improve or replace what other developers are already offering..." Or that they know how their work compares to others... If their work didn't suck, there would be no need for that statement on their webpage. Yet, for some reason, they seem to be producing sceneries FSDT and other developers are currently working on, or already recenty did. If they are not trying improve or replace other developers work, why do them? Why not stick to stuff no one has done yet? But to create 2 sceneries previously done by Cloud9 and say "BluePrint Simulations version of KLAX is by far the most detailed and accurate rendition ever attempted for this important airport... "Blueprint’s version of KMCO offers the most accurate, up to date and detailed rendition ever offered..."

It sounds to me like Blueprint IS improving and replacing what other developers are already offering... At least by their standards.
If the quality of their work actually reflected how they advertise it, or stop advertising their work in such a manner, I would shut my mouth. Otherwise, I really feel bad for those folks who shoveled out so much in desperation to have an airport they love not modeled in the world of FS at such bad quality. What Blueprint is doing today is barely equal to what Simwings was doing 7 years ago. Someone posted that Blueprint's business strategy is very good idea. I agree!!!!  I believe it is Blueprint's marketing strategy to target these people, and given the fact that they roll out so many a year by creating poorly modeled and textured buildings etc. is a great money making strategy with little and quick work. It is obvious which developers are here because they love the hobby and who is here to make money. That is their right. I just feel bad for Umberto, Kappa, George, Martin and several other developers to see competition like this. But no worries, these guys are getting my money. :)

And to Virtuali's earlier post, I bought KDCA last year. It's old and it doesn't have AES sadly, but the quality is DAMN good for such an old scenery. I would like to hear just one person say that about one of Blueprint's NEW sceneries. Even the folks defending them think their work is weak.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 06:27:36 am by newmanix »

newmanix

  • Beta tester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 759
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #81 on: February 21, 2011, 06:37:23 am »
BTW if it seems like I am angry, please understand it's my passion for this hobby that is speaking not to mention thousands of dollars. I may not be a developer but if I were on Umberto's team, I would be very annoied with all the hard work that goes into KLAX just to see these guys whipp it out so quickly when it was known for such a long period of time that FSDT was going to make it. BP is trying to corner the market. I am not saying what Blueprint is doing is wrong thats capitalism at it's finest it's also very unethical to charge what they are charging for it.

Done.

SirIsaac726

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 667
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #82 on: February 21, 2011, 06:45:13 am »

These developers produced work far better than Blueprint's quality and gave it away for FREE! To me what Blueprint is doing is no better than if Mach 1 were to start charging $17.50 for their stuff. There would (believe it or not) be folks that would buy it and at least Mach 1 does a better job at texturing their work! My other issue with Blueprint is their disdainful behavior as if they are the best developer on the market. It's their prideful behavior, quality of work, and outrageous price that disgust me.  Really, charging for BOTH FSX and FS9??

I have a question for you...

If all those freeware developers didn't exist - we didn't have all those great works they produce - would you still feel the same way about Blueprint?  I ask that because, many people (not necessarily you as the rest of your post explains), complain and their biggest complaint about them is that there is freeware work that is better than what they produce.  Well, stop comparing them.  All those freeware designers chose not to charge for their work when they could have and if I was them, you can bet I would be.

Quote
For those of you defending them, please explain why Blueprint is stating on their webpage: "
"At Blueprint Simulations we are committed to producing scenery add-ons for the Microsoft Flight Simulator of the highest-quality possible..."
That statement is proven untrue!!

I guess it depends on your definition of quality.  To them, what they produce is high-quality stuff.  Believe it or not, some people don't care about all the realistic texturing and impeccable detail you get with FlyTampa and FSDT (I know I once didn't care about it when I first started simming).  But I agree, not exactly a true statement.
Quote
"Blueprint Simulations version of KLAX is by far the most detailed and accurate rendition ever attempted for this important airport...
Again NOT TRUE!!

Definitely agreed.  It is not the most detailed.  The C9 version put out many years ago is far more detailed.  Accurate?  Well, maybe.  I haven't compared the C9 version and the BP version to real life but I know since the C9 version, there have been many changes at LAX and if BP represented those, then that would hold true.  But yeah, the statement as a whole is not true.  Completely agree with you there.

Quote
"Blueprint’s version of KMCO offers the most accurate, up to date and detailed rendition ever offered..."
Maybe it is more up to date given the C9 version is a few years older, but that would be the only accurate statement there.

Again, I agree.  It could be the most up to date (I'm not familiar with the airport) but as for most detailed, maybe not.  The C9 version is quite detailed and there is a freeware version out there that is also very good (I believe it is Mach 1).

Quote
Blueprint is playing both sides of the fence. They are saying:
 "At Blueprint Simulations we are committed to producing scenery add-ons for the Microsoft Flight Simulator of the highest-quality possible..."

Then, because people know their work is very bad for the price they charge, they cover their tracks on the other side of the fence by saying: "We did not embark in this adventure to improve or replace what other developers are already offering..." Or that they know how their work compares to others... If their work didn't suck, there would be no need for that statement on their webpage. Yet, for some reason, they seem to be producing sceneries FSDT and other developers are currently working on, or already recenty did. If they are not trying improve or replace other developers work, why do them? Why not stick to stuff no one has done yet? But to create 2 sceneries previously done by Cloud9 and say "BluePrint Simulations version of KLAX is by far the most detailed and accurate rendition ever attempted for this important airport... "Blueprint’s version of KMCO offers the most accurate, up to date and detailed rendition ever offered..."

It sounds to me like Blueprint IS improving and replacing what other developers are already offering... At least by their standards.
If the quality of their work actually reflected how they advertise it, or stop advertising their work in such a manner, I would shut my mouth. Otherwise, I really feel bad for those folks who shoveled out so much in desperation to have an airport they love not modeled in the world of FS at such bad quality. What Blueprint is doing today is barely equal to what Simwings was doing 7 years ago. Someone posted that Blueprint's business strategy is very good idea. I agree!!!!  I believe it is Blueprint's marketing strategy to target these people, and given the fact that they roll out so many a year by creating poorly modeled and textured buildings etc. is a great money making strategy with little and quick work.

Again, for the most part, I agree with you.  (Surprise Bruce, I'm not a "fan boy."  I notice the flaws in Blueprint and I don't defend them over everything.)  Their marketing is false and possibly misleading, although they do provide so many screenshots no one can claim you didn't know what you were buying.

I think part of the problem is the definition of "quality."  I think to them they think what they are making is high-quality but our definition of high-quality is quite different.  And when they saying they aren't trying to improve or replace...again, I think they are trying to express that they know they aren't going to get customers like us that strive for the detail level of FSDT or FlyTampa.  They know that and they accept it.  But that is just my interpretation.

Quote
It is obvious which developers are here because they love the hobby and who is here to make money. That is their right. I just feel bad for Umberto, Kappa, George, Martin and several other developers to see competition like this. But no worries, these guys are getting my money. :)

And that is exactly what you should do; vote with your dollars.  If you don't like it, don't spend on it.  If enough people don't vote for BP with their money and not enough people do, then they won't be selling their product anymore.

Quote
And to Virtuali's earlier post, I bought KDCA last year. It's old and it doesn't have AES sadly, but the quality is DAMN good for such an old scenery. I would like to hear just one person say that about one of Blueprint's NEW sceneries. Even the folks defending them think their work is weak.

KDCA is one of my favorites from the FSDT/C9 crews.  Mostly because of the unique location of the airport but they did a bang-up job on that airport and for such an old scenery, it really doesn't show its age.

And no, you don't really sound angry.  As you said, you said rather passionate, especially about LAX, which if I recall, you work there right? ;D  (Sorry, I had to work that in once more.)  You are absolutely right...capitalism at its finest.  Unethical?  I disagree.  I actually think their price point is rather fair, maybe slightly high, but really not as bad as some people claim.

Anyways, hopefully my quoting worked right and I don't have any of my comments stranded in quote tags.

newmanix

  • Beta tester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 759
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #83 on: February 21, 2011, 08:14:28 am »
Yep you were right on the money. I guess the only thing I can counter with your responce is the quality issue. I would say that BP's definition of quality seems to be different from the current "industry standard" set by FSDT, Aerosoft and their inside/outside developers, German Airports Team FlyTampa, TropicalSim, UK2000, and Simwings. Did I leave anyone out?? So when they speak of their "high quality" this is what it is being held up to at that price. If this were 7 or even 4 years ago, I would be buying their sceneries as other then Cloud 9 which was the highest quality developer besides FlightScenery at the time, BP's quality was the standard then. But as you said, there are screenshots to view prior to purchase so the user knows what their getting despite the false wording.

Cheers  ;)

PUP4ORD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 957
  • UA777
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #84 on: February 21, 2011, 02:54:35 pm »
A soon to be released by FlightBeam Studios,KSFO :)
« Last Edit: February 21, 2011, 04:11:54 pm by PUP4ORD »
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......?????????

Anders Bermann

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #85 on: February 21, 2011, 08:09:28 pm »
A soon to be released by FlightBeam Studios,KSFO :)

Wow! You got this from a reliable source? :)
(or are you "just" speculating?)
Best regards, Anders

Deltalpha

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #86 on: February 21, 2011, 09:05:48 pm »
A soon to be released by FlightBeam Studios,KSFO :)
You're a little late...:D

Anders Bermann

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #87 on: February 21, 2011, 09:51:24 pm »
A soon to be released by FlightBeam Studios,KSFO :)
You're a little late...:D

I'm sorry, but what exactly do you mean? :)
Best regards, Anders

PUP4ORD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 957
  • UA777
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #88 on: February 22, 2011, 02:43:12 pm »
A soon to be released by FlightBeam Studios,KSFO :)
You're a little late...:D

I'm sorry, but what exactly do you mean? :)
From FlightBeam Studios website.....Where did you think I meant >:(
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......?????????

Anders Bermann

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 216
Re: blueprintsimulations with LAX
« Reply #89 on: February 22, 2011, 04:20:47 pm »
A soon to be released by FlightBeam Studios,KSFO :)
You're a little late...:D

I'm sorry, but what exactly do you mean? :)
From FlightBeam Studios website.....Where did you think I meant >:(

Never mind! I sincerly apologize for my 'ignorance'!
(there's no need to put up, that kind of smiley... :) )
Best regards, Anders