What is your favourite aircraft?

[Goran_M]

Let's just say that's not something I believe a developer should do.

[SwissCyul]

Yeah, maybe.

 

I wasn't happy with that either. 

[Goran_M]

I remember the very first developers to start charging for liveries was PSS (FS2002) and they got crucified for it.  

[SwissCyul]

Yeah,

 

well i hope we have some good livery creators around to help us out

[TheSlasher]

Atr72 is from Aircraft manifacturer call ATR, 757 767 are Boeing and ERJ190 is Embraer

I know

[Orcair]

*sarcasm below*

 

What I enjoy is paying for packages that include fictional liveries. I want real ones, not Qantas.... however they are much better than the 777 packs 

[SwissCyul]

I think they should put all real liveries in one package, and then do more with fictional liveries. Not spread out over 10 packs… 

[Leen de Jager]

Let's just say that's not something I believe a developer should do.

This is a nice discussion.

I would say, WHY NOT, selling liveries is a normal commercial activity.

 

PSS (FS2002) did and they got crucified for it maybe, that was a long time ago.

 

Years later McPhatstudios started selling liveries for MSFS-airplanes ( in 2006 , I joined the McPhat-team the year before, *) and we ware applauded all over the world , McPhat sold many,many thousands of livery-packages and still do it this very moment.

I am not saying an aircraft should only have a handfull  ( four or five)  default-liveries in the package and I would not fancy to buy the rest.( I have no need to buy liveries.............)

BUT , we cannot expect a developer to provide his airplane with all liveries ( hundreds) included.

We cannot expect free-painters to produce all these liveries either. (these days its sometimes even complicated to equal the quality or the default-liveries.)

For many years default-liveries were not a serious issue for developers and many default liveries were hurting the eye , we`re talking 2013 now and things are completely different now.

 

Nothing wrong with extra liveries on a commercial base , its an extra service to the customer.

Under one condition !!!!!!  The original plane should always have a reasonable amount of liveries by default , in the first place.

 

The availability of many liveries free or pay always boosts the sale of the model.

 

Several publishers were happy to see my free-paints available for their models, they told me, they saw an increase in sales .

Well known publishers welcomed the commercial activities by McPhatstudios and they still do.

At first they were reluctant , later they were waiting at the doorstep with their new models. 

 

Pro or contra , its not really black and white.

Leen

 

.( * I left McPhatstudios a year ago, and started sailing along other shores, after six years it was time to make a change.)

 

Edited November 8, 2013 by Leen de Jager

[Liner45]

my favorite aircraft is ............

 

B747-8

A380

A340-600

B737

 

Wait...you have to PAY for liveries???

I believe Ramzzess said that creating planes was his job.

[clavel9]

Intriguing discussion that has veered somewhat off topic. I don't have a clear opinion (yet) on the pay-per-livery principle though it's hard on the customer if he or she has to spend (say) $10 for a pack that includes a single desired livery... The payware landscape is still developing in X-Plane: it's not really that long ago that the idea of payware scenery for a single airport might have been scoffed at. Now the standard is extremely high. The bottom line is that if customers are willing to pay for liveries, then developers are going to work the market as best they can. Leen's remark that the package should include a reasonable number of default liveries is one with which I would agree wholeheartedly.

[Leen de Jager]

I don't have a clear opinion (yet) on the pay-per-livery principle though it's hard on the customer if he or she has to spend (say) $10 for a pack that includes a single desired livery..

IF  the package is not to expensive its not a real problem.
Sometimes I buy a music CD because I like SOME of the songs on it.

THere is no need to like them all.

[Cameron]

The biggest difference, Leen, is the amount of time and detail in a product like that of McPhat makes the liveries a worthy buy. They go far beyond that of normal, default paint kits.

[Nicola_M]

My "go-to" aircraft

 

ND BK117 - cockpit realism

 

Dreamfoil JetRanger - smile factor

 

JAR Design AN-148 - only 3D cockpit heavy

 

FlyJSim Q-400 - cockpit realism

[Goran_M]

This is a nice discussion.

I would say, WHY NOT, selling liveries is a normal commercial activity.

 

PSS (FS2002) did and they got crucified for it maybe, that was a long time ago.

 

Years later McPhatstudios started selling liveries for MSFS-airplanes ( in 2006 , I joined the McPhat-team the year before, *) and we ware applauded all over the world , McPhat sold many,many thousands of livery-packages and still do it this very moment.

I am not saying an aircraft should only have a handfull  ( four or five)  default-liveries in the package and I would not fancy to buy the rest.( I have no need to buy liveries.............)

BUT , we cannot expect a developer to provide his airplane with all liveries ( hundreds) included.

We cannot expect free-painters to produce all these liveries either. (these days its sometimes even complicated to equal the quality or the default-liveries.)

For many years default-liveries were not a serious issue for developers and many default liveries were hurting the eye , we`re talking 2013 now and things are completely different now.

 

Nothing wrong with extra liveries on a commercial base , its an extra service to the customer.

Under one condition !!!!!!  The original plane should always have a reasonable amount of liveries by default , in the first place.

 

The availability of many liveries free or pay always boosts the sale of the model.

 

Several publishers were happy to see my free-paints available for their models, they told me, they saw an increase in sales .

Well known publishers welcomed the commercial activities by McPhatstudios and they still do.

At first they were reluctant , later they were waiting at the doorstep with their new models. 

 

Pro or contra , its not really black and white.

Leen

 

.( * I left McPhatstudios a year ago, and started sailing along other shores, after six years it was time to make a change.)

 

 

 

I don't like the idea of an aircraft add on developer charging extra for liveries.  If a livery specialist, such as McPhat, or yourself, decided to start making liveries of a payware quality, well, that's a completely different story and I have always supported that branch of development.  

[Leen de Jager]

OK.......... thats a different approach.

Nevertheless when a developer , has the means/opportunity to make a bizz out of liveries , why should`nt he.
Developers of payware are in bizz, so is selling skins.
Who says , developers cannot provide payware-quality skins.

 

Once I bought a sailing boat.
It came with one set of sails................the shipyard also offered several other sets.
I cannot see a difference.

 

Leaving the  "aftermarket" ,of your own product  to others, is an expensive hobby.

 

 

 

And yes Cameron , McPhat-liveries go far beyond a default paintkit, as many other professional or hobby painters  like me sometimes do.
They make their own paintkit.

Wich in fact every senoir-painter can do, for himself or for others.( including developers)

I do not say all developers should do their own commercial liveries.

BUT if possible it would be profitable for them.
 

Edited November 8, 2013 by Leen de Jager

[ointment]

I don't like the idea of an aircraft add on developer charging extra for liveries.  If a livery specialist, such as McPhat, or yourself, decided to start making liveries of a payware quality, well, that's a completely different story and I have always supported that branch of development.

But what's the difference really between the developer selling the liveries rather than a third party? Why does it matter who is doing the painting and selling? Your comment makes no sense to me.

[Goran_M]

But what's the difference really between the developer selling the liveries rather than a third party? Why does it matter who is doing the painting and selling? Your comment makes no sense to me.

 

It's not really a hard concept to grasp.  If it doesn't make sense to you, then feel free to continue supporting the idea.  

I simply don't agree with it.  

[ointment]

Thanks for your comment, Goran. However, you didn't answer the question. Why should a developer not be allowed to sell liveries? Makes perfect sense that a developer should be able to maximize his time and talent investment by selling additional products, be they liveries or expansion packs. Seems awfully short-sighted of a developer to cut himself out of a revenue stream.

Edited November 9, 2013 by ointment

[Cameron]

Thanks for your comment, Goran. However, you didn't answer the question. Why should a developer not be allowed to sell liveries? Makes perfect sense that a developer should be able to maximize his time and talent investment by selling additional products, be they liveries or expansion packs. Seems awfully short-sighted of a developer to cut himself out of a revenue stream.

Goran is entitled to his opinion just as much as you are. You don't have to agree with him for his opinion to be valid, and likewise of your own.

To me, the difference is that the tactic appears rather shady. This is my opinion. Liveries should be value added, I think, and help to sell the product itself rather than to drive up the cost of your product. The way these liveries are packaged force individuals into getting multiple packs if they only want two specific liveries spread across two packs. The next thing you know, the customer just paid $20 extra for two liveries...or didn't buy at all because they feel this is a rip off (the beauty of voting with your wallet). 

 

I applaud the efforts of those like McPhat and any other third party who wishes to create liveries that make otherwise bland liveries look much better, but to essentially sell 'default' liveries (and to pack your product with four liveries that few people would honestly want) is not exactly consumer friendly. If it works for them, then that's great. It doesn't work for Goran and I, and that's why the Saab was released with over 30 liveries for no additional charge.

 

Is there even a paintkit made available right now for the 757 to get around this?

[Goran_M]

I never said a developer should "not be allowed" to sell liveries.  I think you're taking my statements to a place they were never meant to go.  Other developers can do whatever they wish.  I simply do not agree with the practice.

Call it an act of good will between the developer and the customer.  Giving something for free when it COULD be charged for.  A way of saying "Thank you for purchasing my product!"

I'd much rather have someone say "Wow, they provided all those liveries for FREE?" rather than saying "Oh well, we have to pay for the extra liveries."

It's just a personal preference.

 

Is there even a paintkit made available right now for the 757 to get around this?

That's a very good question.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Goran_M

[SwissCyul]

I didn't find a paint Kit in the Download.

 

Thats why i purchased the Europe #3 Pack, to get the Icelandair livery. Still a little stupid, because now i have 10 liveries i don't want. 

[clavel9]

 

 

Is there even a paintkit made available right now for the 757 to get around this?

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=71722&p=775144 (Post no. 8)

Edited November 9, 2013 by clavel9

[Goran_M]

It's good to see it being made available now.  

Edited November 9, 2013 by Goran_M

[Michael_Chang]

There's no plane I enjoy more than my 787, even though it isn't finished, it has a fluid-like nature to its animations that I just can't find in any other jet.

 

If I had to pick a different top favourite set, the Sukhoi superjet (slightly corrected and re-animated) would be the only plane that makes the list...

[Vinny003]

Hi, guys!

My favorite aircraft is the DC-3 and the Saab 340A!

Cheers,

Vincent