Maxime

Peter Hager A380

119 posts in this topic

Cameron,

Balance, in a word. Anything looks bad if one only focuses on weaknesses. It is entirely possible there may be $65 of value locked into the rest of the product.

J

Sorry, I disagree. If this product was priced at $20-25, you'd be seeing less of this "focus" on the weaknesses. The only $65 value in this product is what Peter values himself at...which is completely acceptable..to HIM. If you're going to compare it with what the rest of the market offers, then this is a very overpriced product. That's the simple explanation of it all! His other products appear to be more fair priced (and are told to be more complete than the A380), and as such, you don't hear the complaints. Adding an obj model to your product doesn't instantly make it worth $30 more in majority of the markets eyes...as seen with most posts here.

The A380, I'm sure, is probably still an entertaining product (even at that price). It's just very poor value for money.

Exactly what I've said in an earlier post.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having a really hard time pulling the trigger on the A380. I think Peter needs to take a look at X-Aviation. Their most expensive product is $30 and it's a damn good one. Hopefully most people aren't buying the A380, which might make him lower the price. Is the A340 that he makes as good.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have read:

Peters simulations side of things is fairly top notch. His 3d isn't and the a380's model was bought in and then converted for use in x-plane. This made the model inefficient in sim and resulted in no 3d cockpit.

If you are into high-sim and fly with 2d panel, and really want an a380, then this is probably of value to you - get it.

If you are used to MSFS add on standards, and want the 'whole package' including 3d pit, then you're going to be disappointed with it at the price - but there is no A380 to compete, so if you want that plane and money is no object, this is the one to get currently.

I think peter would do well to team up with a modeller in the way that Anton works with Javier and Goran/Theo's programmers work with them. This would allow his to put out a complete product and stay competitive as the x-plane add on market matures and moves on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have read:

Peters simulations side of things is fairly top notch. His 3d isn't and the a380's model was bought in and then converted for use in x-plane. This made the model inefficient in sim and resulted in no 3d cockpit.

If you are into high-sim and fly with 2d panel, and really want an a380, then this is probably of value to you - get it.

If you are used to MSFS add on standards, and want the 'whole package' including 3d pit, then you're going to be disappointed with it at the price - but there is no A380 to compete, so if you want that plane and money is no object, this is the one to get currently.

I think peter would do well to team up with a modeller in the way that Anton works with Javier and Goran/Theo's programmers work with them. This would allow his to put out a complete product and stay competitive as the x-plane add on market matures and moves on.

Not sure what you mean in the last paragraph: Peter does work with a modeller. That's who made the A380 model.

As for lack of a 3D cockpit: Peter's argument is that good 2D panels are better for practicing to use the real thing than 3D cockpits. Considering that real life Airbus pilots use his planes to practice flying, I'd say he makes a pretty good argument.

If you want an Airbus model which simulates the real thing very closely, i.e., it flies and handles right on the numbers, then it's a good buy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean in the last paragraph: Peter does work with a modeller. That's who made the A380 model.

Can you share where you have received this information? All other readings I have done indicate the model is purchased.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean in the last paragraph: Peter does work with a modeller. That's who made the A380 model.

Can you share where you have received this information? All other readings I have done indicate the model is purchased.

I have also read that he payed a modeller to make him the body of the A380 unfortunately I don't remember where I read this  :-\ I think it was on his website, I'm gonna search to try to find the info.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean in the last paragraph: Peter does work with a modeller. That's who made the A380 model.

Can you share where you have received this information? All other readings I have done indicate the model is purchased.

Huh? Peter works with a modeler, and pays the modeler for his time. How else would one team up with a modeler?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? Peter works with a modeler, and pays the modeler for his time. How else would one team up with a modeler?

And that's exactly my question to you. From where did you hear Mr. Hager is teamed up with a modeler? This is far from what I have interpreted based on the many reports the model was purchased.

Perhaps you have never heard of sites similar to TurboSquid? I'm not insinuating this is the place of purchase for Peter, however, I do question where you may be getting complete opposite information of what already three other people in this thread have heard.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean in the last paragraph: Peter does work with a modeller. That's who made the A380 model.

As for lack of a 3D cockpit: Peter's argument is that good 2D panels are better for practicing to use the real thing than 3D cockpits. Considering that real life Airbus pilots use his planes to practice flying, I'd say he makes a pretty good argument.

If you want an Airbus model which simulates the real thing very closely, i.e., it flies and handles right on the numbers, then it's a good buy.

I mean work with a modeller, not buy a model - Peter bought the model and then reduced the complexity, added animations etc in x-plane himself. It would be better for the model to be built for x-plane by someone working with Peter, and for me - including a 3d pit. Same goes for the textures.

I don't think Peter thinks that the absence of a 3d cockpit is a feature. I'm saying Peter haz mad skills™ but they don't appear to lie in modelling and texturing. Partner with someone who does and the products could be amazing. Might not be worth it economically for him yet though.

The point about real life airbus pilots is an argument from authority and is irrelevant, it needs to stand on it's own merit. I'm not an airbus pilot and whether they do or not (or use another sim altogether) has no bearing on my enjoyment of, or how complete the product actually is.

I also disagree with this, as I think trackIR + 3d pit (done well) is way better than 2d panels for immersion.

Regards,

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? Peter works with a modeler, and pays the modeler for his time. How else would one team up with a modeler?

And that's exactly my question to you. From where did you hear Mr. Hager is teamed up with a modeler? This is far from what I have interpreted based on the many reports the model was purchased.

Perhaps you have never heard of sites similar to TurboSquid? I'm not insinuating this is the place of purchase for Peter, however, I do question where you may be getting complete opposite information of what already three other people in this thread have heard.

On Peter's website, during the making of the model, he talked about working with the modeler, the changes he requested, the changes to made to the model afterwards, etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point about real life airbus pilots is an argument from authority and is irrelevant, it needs to stand on it's own merit. I'm not an airbus pilot and whether they do or not (or use another sim altogether) has no bearing on my enjoyment of, or how complete the product actually is.

If you're talking about actually simulating an aircraft, then it is the ultimate test. If you're talking about something else, then it has less to do with it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Peter's website, during the making of the model, he talked about working with the modeler, the changes he requested, the changes to made to the model afterwards, etc.

Not sure about this one. Peter has always been quite upfront about the situation, partially because of the explanation for the very high poly count with the model itself.

The explanation from Peter that I recall is the exact same that Kesomir has posted above your post.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Peter's website, during the making of the model, he talked about working with the modeler, the changes he requested, the changes to made to the model afterwards, etc.

Not sure about this one. Peter has always been quite upfront about the situation, partially because of the explanation for the very high poly count with the model itself.

The explanation from Peter that I recall is the exact same that Kesomir has posted above your post.

Well, my impression was that Peter contracted with the modeler, gave him specs, supervised the project and, afterwards, made some changes. To me, that's working with. Perhaps we have different definitions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my impression was that Peter contracted with the modeler, gave him specs, supervised the project and, afterwards, made some changes. To me, that's working with. Perhaps we have different definitions.

When someone comes out to say they bought a model and did the best they could personally do to reduce the complexity of the model (note that Peter has mentioned doing this himself in the past when it comes to the A380, including animations) as mentioned by Kesomir above, I certainly don't interpret this to be working with anyone. ;) Odd that you would.

Thanks for pitching in your $0.02 anyhow.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for lack of a 3D cockpit: Peter's argument is that good 2D panels are better for practicing to use the real thing than 3D cockpits. Considering that real life Airbus pilots use his planes to practice flying, I'd say he makes a pretty good argument.

If he's only aiming for sales to a smaller group like real life Airbus pilots, then that's his decision. But it's still going to mean fewer sales than a model with a 3D cockpit could have had, I think. There are people who use TrackIR, and who simply won't buy payware that doesn't include a 3D cockpit (I'm in that category). Free head rotation means one less button I have to push to change view, or zoom in and out, and I can focus 100% on interacting with the cockpit controls.

Even for people who don't use TrackIR, a 3D cockpit has become a marker for quality, like it or not. It's one of the things that separates good payware from good freeware, regardless of the model's accuracy in other respects. Just my opinion... but I don't understand the decision to release a major payware plane these days without a 3D cockpit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point about real life airbus pilots is an argument from authority and is irrelevant, it needs to stand on it's own merit. I'm not an airbus pilot and whether they do or not (or use another sim altogether) has no bearing on my enjoyment of, or how complete the product actually is.

If you're talking about actually simulating an aircraft, then it is the ultimate test. If you're talking about something else, then it has less to do with it.

Since this is in relation to 2d vs 3d panels, your point is moot because there would have to be otherwise identical models, one with 2d panel only, 3d panel only and both then a clear preference for said airbus pilots in purchase to the 2d panel only model.

In actuality, this is the only game in town and you claim that airbus pilots using it validate the choices made by the aircraft designer - specifically the choice not to model a 3d pit.

Peter contracted with the modeler, gave him specs, supervised the project and, afterwards, made some changes. To me, that's working with. Perhaps we have different definitions.

Yes, we do too. I call that contracting, not working with. It's like me paying you to install my bathroom. I picked the suite and paid you to put it in. Afterwards, I repainted the ceiling. You worked for me, not with me.

Working with would be like Javier and Anton or Goran and theo's relationship - they build with lots of feedback between them, a change is needed, they both work together to fix it.

That's what I think would do wonders to supplement Peter's skills.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for lack of a 3D cockpit: Peter's argument is that good 2D panels are better for practicing to use the real thing than 3D cockpits. Considering that real life Airbus pilots use his planes to practice flying, I'd say he makes a pretty good argument.

If he's only aiming for sales to a smaller group like real life Airbus pilots, then that's his decision. But it's still going to mean fewer sales than a model with a 3D cockpit could have had, I think. There are people who use TrackIR, and who simply won't buy payware that doesn't include a 3D cockpit (I'm in that category). Free head rotation means one less button I have to push to change view, or zoom in and out, and I can focus 100% on interacting with the cockpit controls.

Even for people who don't use TrackIR, a 3D cockpit has become a marker for quality, like it or not. It's one of the things that separates good payware from good freeware, regardless of the model's accuracy in other respects. Just my opinion... but I don't understand the decision to release a major payware plane these days without a 3D cockpit.

For the record, Peter's already stated it's by far the best selling plane he's ever made.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for pitching in your $0.02 anyhow.

Pretty sure you didn't mean it, but that came across as very condescending.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, Peter's already stated it's by far the best selling plane he's ever made.

And while this is true, and considering Peter has yet to produce a 3D cockpit for any of his products (not saying it's good or bad), this still doesn't negate Paraffin's remarks.

sure you didn't mean it, but that came across as very condescending.

Nope, sure didn't. I asked you a question, you answered your thoughts, I thanked you for chiming in.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It said it requires 9.45, but would I get away with 9.60.

Should be fine. 9.45 is the lowest version of X-Plane Peter supports.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It said it requires 9.45, but would I get away with 9.60.

Works fine in 9.60, I own it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for the quick reply!!! I'm about to get it.

Expensive but worth it, I love flying it

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.