Ultimate 787 Update: Platform Announcement

Hello Simmers,

Why the change of heart?
There are several reasons for this, with the predominant reason being that our data for the Ultimate 146 dictates that the market for FS9 has declined (and will likely continue to). We cannot comment on what the market has been like for the few other developers that still develop products for both simulators, but our numbers indicate greater than 73% of our users are operating FSX.

While we had previously announced that we were going to develop the U787 for FS9, we also mentioned that the marketing for the product would be different than previous Ultimate packages that included support for both platforms in one package. Based on what appears to be a decreased market for FS9, the experience with the U146 has taught us Development Team members that it is just not worth the effort.

What's so different about the development of the previous Ultimate packages for both sims as opposed to the Ultimate 787?
Both the 757 and the 146 were originally developed for FS9. When the 757 was released, the FSX version was an FS9 product that was made compatible with FSX. It was not native, meaning it didn't have the level of visual detail that is only possible when a product is built specifically for FSX. The 757 was updated to be an FSX native model when Service Pack 2 was released. The U146 was also originally developed as an FS9 model. But we developed a Fully native FSX version prior to release.

Is your decision Final?
While it is unlikely that we will make an FS9 version of the U787, we MAY re-explore the work required for a conversion once the U787 for FSX is a stable product.

If this feels like the same old rhetoric that you've heard from other developers, that's probably because it is. We tried to support FS9 as long as we could, as even a few of us here at QW still have significant investments (financially and emotional) in FS9. But where there is smoke, there is usually fire. The smoke occured a few years back when developers started focusing their energy on FSX. Development for both platforms is no longer worth the adverse effects on our Development Cycle. Many of us on the Development Teams have had changing life situations. We're not the same people doing the same things we were doing 5 years ago when we got together. "Ridiculous" real-life things like careers and babies tend to get in the way :-)We need to be as productive and efficient with our time as we can and it has to be worth it for us as well (plain and simple).  

Edited by Corey - 20 Oct 2012 at 3:36pm

Good Call Quality Wings!

Stealthbird97 wrote: FINALLY. You might just be able to compete with PMDG now you aren't degrading the quality and functionality for the sake of the FS9 users.

It's interesting what the slogan does to some people lol. I just wish people would just be patient and see what we have in store. You'll know whether or not it will fit your needs.

Hi Guys,

Corey wrote: It's interesting what the slogan does to some people lol. I just wish people would just be patient and see what we have in store. You'll know whether or not it will fit your needs.   Re: whats different There is no difference in the level of systems programming between FS9 and FSX for the respective Ultimate products currently available. The level of systems depth between the U757 and the U146 is much different in that the U146 programming is much more in depth.   The FSX native differences are more in the visual and audio presentations in FSX...more so on the U146 than the U757.

I don't think what Ernie said was inaccurate. I'm simply stating that "Complexity Simplified" scares some folks unnecessarily.

ErnieAlston wrote: Air Holland wrote: Well guys iam verry disapointed that the B787 wil not be for fs9 anymore. A verry long time it was mentionted that the deveolpment of the B787 was also for fs9 probaly you schould announce it mutch earlyer, now you have given the fs9 users false hope Actually we said in April the FS9 decision would be partly based on how the FS9 version of the Bae146/Avro sold. http://forum.qwsim.com/viewtopic.php?p=30338#p30338 But afterwards people just kept assuming there would be an FS9 version. Really we kept convincing ourselves it was going to be worth it, we want to do an FS9 version.  But the realities of the Avro product have convinced us to do another product at that level of detail or higher for what the declining FS9 market will be by the time we release the FSX version may be too much effort for too little return. I'm a mostly FS9 user myself, we did not come to this decision easily. Regards. Ernie.

Corey wrote: ErnieAlston wrote: Air Holland wrote: Well guys iam verry disapointed that the B787 wil not be for fs9 anymore. A verry long time it was mentionted that the deveolpment of the B787 was also for fs9 probaly you schould announce it mutch earlyer, now you have given the fs9 users false hope Actually we said in April the FS9 decision would be partly based on how the FS9 version of the Bae146/Avro sold. http://forum.qwsim.com/viewtopic.php?p=30338#p30338 But afterwards people just kept assuming there would be an FS9 version. Really we kept convincing ourselves it was going to be worth it, we want to do an FS9 version.  But the realities of the Avro product have convinced us to do another product at that level of detail or higher for what the declining FS9 market will be by the time we release the FSX version may be too much effort for too little return. I'm a mostly FS9 user myself, we did not come to this decision easily. Regards. Ernie. If you folks only knew just how tough the decision really was.

Tough decision or not you guys got it wrong. Using the sales figures for an old regional aircraft that is being phased out of regular airline service wasn't the best metric to use for a brand new state of the art aircraft that will be used by 100s of airlines for years to come and a terrible one for was making a decision to abandon a substantial portion of your customer base. The 757 would have been a much better metric. Personally, I fly for a VA which has very few airlines that still use the 146 and that number continues to decline so FS9 or FSX I wasn't ever going to buy it. However, I was looking forward to the 787 because flights for that will increase as RW deliveries increase. Everybody keeps harping on how old FS9 is which is asinine because FSX is only 2 years younger. I would understand this decision if the FSX fanbase was a growing entity but lets face it Flight sim is a niche market and without anyone developing new platforms both the FS9 & FSX markets are basically fixed for all intents and purposes. So there won't be this huge influx of new FSX'ers that will make up for the lost revenue from the FS9'ers still out there who were waiting for the 787. In the end its your company and you'll do what you want but you guys just voluntarily pissed away money from the guys who still use FS9 who would have gladly forked over $50 - $60 for your product. Bad metric = bad call. 

Edited by xpara - 20 Oct 2012 at 5:25pm

We're not ready to divulge in all the information about the systems. You'll usually see a flood of information from us when we have something to offer.

xpara wrote: Tough decision or not you guys got it wrong. Using the sales figures for an old regional aircraft that is being phased out of regular airline service wasn't the best metric to use for a brand new state of the art aircraft that will be used by 100s of airlines for years to come and a terrible one for was making a decision to abandon a substantial portion of your customer base. The 757 would have been a much better metric. Personally, I fly for a VA which has very few airlines that still use the 146 and that number continues to decline so FS9 or FSX I wasn't ever going to buy it. However, I was looking forward to the 787 because flights for that will increase as RW deliveries increase. Everybody keeps harping on how old FS9 is which is asinine because FSX is only 2 years younger. I would understand this decision if the FSX fanbase was a growing entity but lets face it Flight sim in a niche market and without anyone developing new platforms both the FS9 & FSX markets are basically fixed for all intents and purposes. So there won't be this huge influx of new FSX'ers that will make up for the lost revenue from the FS9'ers still out there who were waiting for the 787. In the end its your company and you'll do what you want but you guys just voluntarily pissed away money from the guys who still use FS9 who would have gladly forked over $50 - $60 for your product. Bad metric = bad call.

Stealthbird97 wrote: xpara wrote: Tough decision or not you guys got it wrong. Using the sales figures for an old regional aircraft that is being phased out of regular airline service wasn't the best metric to use for a brand new state of the art aircraft that will be used by 100s of airlines for years to come and a terrible one for was making a decision to abandon a substantial portion of your customer base. The 757 would have been a much better metric. Personally, I fly for a VA which has very few airlines that still use the 146 and that number continues to decline so FS9 or FSX I wasn't ever going to buy it. However, I was looking forward to the 787 because flights for that will increase as RW deliveries increase. Everybody keeps harping on how old FS9 is which is asinine because FSX is only 2 years younger. I would understand this decision if the FSX fanbase was a growing entity but lets face it Flight sim in a niche market and without anyone developing new platforms both the FS9 & FSX markets are basically fixed for all intents and purposes. So there won't be this huge influx of new FSX'ers that will make up for the lost revenue from the FS9'ers still out there who were waiting for the 787. In the end its your company and you'll do what you want but you guys just voluntarily pissed away money from the guys who still use FS9 who would have gladly forked over $50 - $60 for your product. Bad metric = bad call.  I highly doubt anyone would spend $50-$60 on a FS9 Product. But a high quality FSX product with full functionality of systems could easily fetch $70-$80. It is true that people buy the aircraft they see regularly at airports or have large media coverage but to be honest it would be even worse a judgement if using the sales figures for the 757 as at the time FS9 WAS the primary FS and the FSX sales wouldn't have been incredibly high as the quality just wasn't there. Anyway even if the 146 is not a widely wanted aircraft. If the FSX sales figures were higher than the FS9 ones. Its clear what platform people want now.

Really???? And why would a person still running FS9 not buy the 787? That makes absolutely zero sense. I'd gladly fork over the money to fly the 787 in FS9 and so would all the other FS9'ers out there.

The argument isn't that the sales for FS9 or FSX were the same, the argument is that there will not be enough NEW FSX users to make up for the loss of revenue realized by excluding an admittedly shrinking but still significant portion of the marketplace.

Yes the fact that the 146 wasn't a widely wanted aircraft does make a difference when you are using it as a metric to predict future sales and the direction of a company. Its very simple, produce a product a lot of people want and can use and the sales will increase. The fact that its an aircraft that's being phased out is exactly why I and others like me didn't buy it. Hence lower overall sales numbers. 


Edited by xpara - 20 Oct 2012 at 5:40pm

Stealthbird97 wrote: Yet Like I said. More FSX users brought the 146 than FS9 users. That does NOT warrant to created for FS9 first then FSX. Resulting in a reduced quality and a reduce sales price.

Who said anything about what difference it makes which version comes first? That's not the argument at all and has nothing to do with anything thing I've said. I couldn't care less if an FSX version is first and then an FS9 version is released. I care that the announcement was FSX only.

Even though I like FS9 a lot, I don't have it installed on my new computer, because once you get used to the beautiful graphics of FSX, with addon scenery like Orbx and FSDreamTeam, it is hard to go back.

bye-bye QW...

Matt Tank wrote: Well thats a kick in the ass. The amount of money im going to spend on this plane has jumped from $50-$70, all the way up to $1800+ I have to build a computer thats runs FSX...  I Knew this day would come. Matt

Add-ons for this market(flight simulators), is definitely not cheap to start with and people who have been flying simulators can definitely agree with me that the costs and quality of these third party add-ons have steadily increased over the past few years. 

signmanbob wrote: Matt Tank wrote: Well thats a kick in the ass. The amount of money im going to spend on this plane has jumped from $50-$70, all the way up to $1800+ I have to build a computer thats runs FSX...  I Knew this day would come. Matt I think that is part of the big problem.  People using FS9 have clung to it so they don't have to spend money on upgrading their computer, but these same people are not willing to buy enough payware aircraft when they are available for FS9.  They stick with tons of freeware, then get upset when payware developers quit making products available for FS9. People that are willing to spend money upgrading their computers, buy payware for FSX.

Lars wrote: rustyshackelford wrote: First of all, you lied to your customer base by not supporting FS9 with this package.  I have written a long letter the BBB, which you think has no say in the matter according to your Facebook. QW, Let me educate you. The Better Business Bureau BBB, founded in 1912, is a nonprofit organization focused on advancing marketplace TRUST (You could learn something here), consisting of 116 independently-incorporated local BBB organizations in the United States and Canada, coordinated under the Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB) in Washington, D.C. The BBB also alerts the public to scams, reviews advertising, and assists when donating to charity. Scam much by misleading people with advertising for FS9??? Don't start the fire if you can't handle it. You can't silence my opinions about you shabby business practices. Tisk tisk. We will have a nice anti-QW group going before you know it.  So you signed up on the forum just for that?  Good luck with your endeavours!

My comment person, and the rest of the world. would have been better if they had taken for fs2004. was the last hope, Retired from QW...  Bye.

Edited by Odisk - 21 Oct 2012 at 2:05am