Future MSFS product’s availability?

[Anirbinna Roy]

Like what?  We’ve heard this before from other developers, and it’s 50/50 whether that’s true. 

Four years of MSFS on the market and we have no idea what you’re working on, what could be innovative, nothing to get excited about and nothing from you guys about anything.  
 
You can say what you want about how you want to communicate with customers and “protect” things from other developers, but honestly I can’t even imagine what you mean.  Nobody else is developing a Concorde. Nobody is gonna steal your ideas for that.  The A320 has been done to the Nth degree by Fenix and I personally would have a really, really hard time buying another one since that one is so good.  They’re coming out with the 319/321 at some point and I imagine the majority of people who want those will buy them, and there STILL won’t be an offering from FSLabs.

So what are we waiting for from you guys?  A340?  That’s about the only Airbus that isn’t in some sort of high fidelity development right now.  
 
But again, we don’t know.  Nobody has the slightest clue what you’re doing over the past FOUR YEARS.  
 
Why should we even be excited about anything you guys are “innovating” when we don’t have the slightest idea of what it could be? 

Well, FSLabs has a track record of coming up with quality, so I’ll wait. And yeah, once they come up with their titles, at least after seeing Andrew’s post, I am very confident they’ll disrupt the market!

Everyone’s frustrated here, including myself, because of the lack of communication from their end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob Zolto]

As time goes by without anything from FSL, more and more of their previous customers will give up waiting and move on.  Newer simmers  who have never even heard of FSL or P3d, may not even give it a glance when and if it comes out.

[Markus Burkhard]

1 hour ago, Bob Zolto said:

As time goes by without anything from FSL, more and more of their previous customers will give up waiting and move on.  Newer simmers  who have never even heard of FSL or P3d, may not even give it a glance when and if it comes out.

Why so dramatic Bob? We never told our customers to wait for us. Do we mind them flying the competition while we build ours? Of course not! Will all of our P3D customers buy our first MSFS title? Probably not, but we're very confident that many will try ours once available, because, like Andy said, we'll bring things to MSFS that were not available at this level of quality/realism before. 

 

But why would people who have never flown P3D not look at ours once available? There's this thing called marketing one can do to make people curious about something they don't know yet Look, we know we're late to market. But we still think we'll have lots to offer that no one else does, and no we don't get offended if you wait with getting excited until you see the evidence  

[Steve Prowse]

“But why would people who have never flown P3D not look at ours once available? “.  Markus Burkhard
 

The point is, where would these new customers look?  Seemly FSL have no presence within the MSFS community ie discord, other forums, expo, and net mags etc.  FSL are, more or less, anonymous to the wider MSFS community.  Arguably, that is what FSL have strived to obtain…total anonymity.  I would opine, FSL have achieved that; total anonymity.  Surely FSL should be, at least, concerned?

[Anirbinna Roy]

On 8/5/2024 at 10:13 AM, Steve Prowse said:

“But why would people who have never flown P3D not look at ours once available? “.  Markus Burkhard
 

The point is, where would these new customers look?  Seemly FSL have no presence within the MSFS community ie discord, other forums, expo, and net mags etc.  FSL are, more or less, anonymous to the wider MSFS community.  Arguably, that is what FSL have strived to obtain…total anonymity.  I would opine, FSL have achieved that; total anonymity.  Surely FSL should be, at least, concerned?

 

Dear Steve,

While I respect your viewpoint, I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with you. Those who haven't flown buses from FSL might not fully appreciate the quality they offer.

Although FSL may have taken longer to release their products, one thing is certain: their commitment to quality and delivering fully finished products is unmatched. They prioritize thoroughness over rushing,sadly people nowadays prefer rushed,unfinished ,gimmicky products(may not be you but i know people who do) 

Like many others, including yourself and me, I am frustrated with the lack of communication from FSL. It's VERY clear they need to improve in this area.

When it comes to flight dynamics, FSL has nailed it, especially with the flare behavior of their buses. Unlike others, there's no need to adjust the flare multiple times or deal with a floaty feel with updates.

I own both MFS and the competitor's product, and I've flown both extensively. The flight dynamics in FSL's offerings are simply superior. 

Ironically, most of the negative comments come from those who haven't even flown/own the A320 that FSL offers currently for P3D

To be clear, I'm not trying to start a debate here.

 

[Matt Crick]

1 hour ago, Anirbinna Roy said:

Like many others, including yourself and me, I am frustrated with the lack of communication from FSL. It's VERY clear they need to improve in this area.

Alas, between the NDA's that we individually sign when invited into internal testing and the "commercial sensitivity" (as Andy mentioned) behind as yet non-publicly available product(s), our hands are well and truly tied for the time being.

Generally speaking I've certainly noticed a correlation between developers who are (as yet) uncontested within their respective spaces. This lack of competition presumably allows them to take a more "open" approach towards development/communication to some extent.

I'm sure folks would prefer that FSLabs continue to release products for years to come. To accomplish that, there needs to be enough USP's (unique selling points) to set our products apart from other addons on the market, and to that end a certain amount of secrecy is required around what those USP's might be.

Please try not to misconstrue any of the above as us being disrespectful towards you all as valued customers, or that we're "not listening". We all very much hope that your patience (and loyalty) will continue through to MSFS, as well as being an opportunity to attract new custom.

Everyone's continued patience on the matter will eventually pay off for all concerned. We are still focused on bringing the very best products to market and I know we all look forward to the day when we're able to share more.

[Steve Prowse]

I’m sorry but I’m not even remotely suggesting FSL do not give us excellent simulations, moreover I’m not even going down the road of time frames. I’m however simply saying a huge number of MSFS owners have no clue about FSL. It doesn’t matter if you think you have a great product, if you are the only one that knows about it, that’s why some bright spark thought up marketing, advertising and engaging with possible interest groups; isn’t it?  

[Norman Blackburn]

Just now, Steve Prowse said:

It doesn’t matter if you think you have a great product

And with (released) products comes word of mouth - the best form of advertising.  Ever.

[Lefteris Kalamaras]

2 minutes ago, Steve Prowse said:

I’m sorry but I’m not even remotely suggesting FSL do not give us excellent simulations, moreover I’m not even going down the road of time frames. I’m however simply saying a huge number of MSFS owners have no clue about FSL. It doesn’t matter if you think you have a great product, if you are the only one that knows about it, that’s why some bright spark thought up marketing, advertising and engaging with possible interest groups; isn’t it?  

Dear Steve,

when we release for MSFS, I am thinking there will be enough customers who will find out very quickly about FSLabs, should they not already be aware of us due to only starting flight simulation with the MSFS 2020 platform. Otherwise, thank you for your feedback, it's always welcome as I've said many many times before.

[Andrew Wilson]

6 minutes ago, Steve Prowse said:

It doesn’t matter if you think you have a great product, if you are the only one that knows about it, that’s why some bright spark thought up marketing, advertising and engaging with possible interest groups; isn’t it?

Steve, I suggest you revisit my post. It seems you may have overlooked our reasoning for not showing anything at this time. Matt Crick has also explained this very well in his latest contribution to the discussion. While I understand your desire to see previews, please keep in mind that we are running a business, and such decisions require careful consideration.

[Steve Prowse]

I wish all the very best for FSL…..but remember word of mouth is a double edged sword.  Thanks for everything.

[JackBeloff]

The big question is (which i'm pretty sure I won't get an answer to) is if the new products fslabs is working on (a320neo, a330) will become available in P3D before or after existing products become available in MSFS

[Jarga Mboge]

13 hours ago, Andrew Wilson said:

Steve, I suggest you revisit my post. It seems you may have overlooked our reasoning for not showing anything at this time. Matt Crick has also explained this very well in his latest contribution to the discussion. While I understand your desire to see previews, please keep in mind that we are running a business, and such decisions require careful consideration.

Good evening, I am still confused about the approach fslabs is taking. You already announced you are bringing the A330, Concorde and other existing titles. I don't understand what the secrecy is about  . Unless you surprise us all by releasing a nuclear submarine. What is wrong with communicating with your customers. I for example bought the Concorde re installed p3d because we were promised that a msfs version would be coming. Used Concorde for about a month then deleted p3d. I wanted to support my favourite addon maker . It's been over a year now and nothing. Even a basic road map would be welcome.  Again this is coming from someone who purchased every fslabs product that have been released. The way customers are just ignored is really disappointing. There must be a balance on your keeping your competitive edge and answering your customers demand .  But this equation is very one sided indeed . Again am not asking for detailed info . And people are really becoming fed up to be honest . 

[Ryan Argue]

It’s not even a demand.  It’s a very basic “this sim has been out for four years and we have no idea what you’re making for it.”

In a little while, there’s going to be a whole A319/320/321 out that, honestly, I can’t see any reason why I’d replace it with FSLabs, because anything “innovative” is just…. What?  Fenix models ice building on the upwind fan of an engine and not on the one shielded by the fuselage.  So what are we waiting for? 
 

An A330?  That would’ve been fantastic last year.  Now it’s a default aircraft, built by a good developer, for November.  Gonna beat that out?  Doubt it.  
 

Concorde?  That would be great.  I’m stoked for it, always have been.  NO idea when we get to fly it in MSFS.  
 

I can’t imagine I’m the only one frustrated and annoyed here, because like I said earlier, nobody has a clue what you’re working on.  Is there anything releasing for MSFS, because 2024 is here in three months, and I guarantee it replaces MSFS on a massive scale (again), so are you behind the curve already?  
 

We’re frustrated.  Confused why we don’t have a roadmap.  Nothing but “NDA” and that’s not a problem for any other developer.  Nothing to say “that looks cool, but I’m gonna wait for FSLabs to release theirs” because there is zero clue about anything going on.  

[Matt Crick]

9 hours ago, Ryan Argue said:

It’s not even a demand.  It’s a very basic “this sim has been out for four years and we have no idea what you’re making for it.”

We know. And multiple people from FSLabs have gone into as much detail as we're able to in this thread, to explain the communications silence regarding development as it stands

9 hours ago, Jarga Mboge said:

There must be a balance on your keeping your competitive edge and answering your customers

And this is exactly what our interactions on this very thread are attempting to achieve. I'd far rather attempt to say something, even if it's not to the level of detail as customers would otherwise like... Than say nothing and be accused of ignoring the topic entirely, fuelling the fire further.

9 hours ago, Jarga Mboge said:

What is wrong with communicating with your customers ... Even a basic road map would be welcome

Simply put...

On 8/2/2024 at 10:34 AM, Norman Blackburn said:

it wouldn't only be prospective customers we would be updating

In this internet-connected age that we live in, "leaks" are rife. "But Matt, leaks can also be a clever marketing ploy to not only let the community that a developer is alive and well, and in itself, drives hype around forthcoming releases"...

Yes, but going back to my earlier point regarding USP's, in a hypothetical scenario where developer A announces features "x,y, and z", publicly or otherwise. Developer B gets wind, and introduces that into their product. Is there any reason to buy Developer A's product anymore, aside from the fact that Developer A has historically always been your "favourite" developer? To that end, there's a certain element of commercial sensitivity around our product(s) currently, to which I hope you all understand. 

As an example of both technology, and development surpassing itself; now that Asobo's v2 A32N is released, is there any reason to continue to fly the "default" A32N? Probably not, and this is just within the freeware marketspace.

9 hours ago, Ryan Argue said:

Is there anything releasing for MSFS, because 2024 is here in three months, and I guarantee it replaces MSFS on a massive scale (again), so are you behind the curve already?

We are developing for the current version of MSFS.

However, as far as Asobo have communicated, aircraft developed for the current iteration of MSFS, should continue to work in 2024. Based on this, and to directly answer your question/concern regarding "Is FSL behind the curve again"; I don't believe so, and no more than any other MSFS developer.

According to the announcement they made at FSExpo, they said the SDK is likely to be made available to developers in December September 2024. We'll know more upon the sim's and the SDK's release. Until then, it remains challenging to comment.

On the general comments around being "behind the curve", I too was there (as a customer) when many P3D developers announced they were discontinuing support & development over P3D. I was there for the backlash, the hurt and borderline betrayal over said standpoint, especially as (in my eyes), little could pull me away from P3D. Looking back retrospectively, these developers are undeniably reaping the benefits of said decision from a commercial standpoint. They had a head start on retooling, head start on being the first to release to market, arguably learned many important lessons very early on, helped feedback to Asobo regarding core sim issues that their product potentially exacerbated, and generally helped made the sim what it is today.

In contrast, FSL stuck firm with their promise to deliver Concorde for which I, and I'm sure many others are grateful for, but still find ourselves in a situation where we seemingly "can't do right for doing wrong". To a certain extent, there's an element of being "generally behind the curve" as a result, but we're doing our utmost to make up for "lost" time. On the flip side (to all those early adopters), we're developing on a much more stable platform than presumably they were in the early days, so it truly is "swings and roundabouts".

Once we have a product released to market, I'd imagine that transparency around updates for said product will return to the depth and frequency that we'd all like.

[Alex Pugh]

1 hour ago, Matt Crick said:

they said the SDK is likely to be made available to developers in December 2024.

*September

[Matt Crick]

1 hour ago, Alex Pugh said:

*September

My mistake, having rewatched the stream the Marketplace lass did in-fact say September, which in hindsight makes way more sense given the target release date of November. Thank you for the correction.

[Ray Proudfoot]

3 hours ago, Matt Crick said:

In contrast, FSL stuck firm with their promise to deliver Concorde for which I, and I'm sure many others are grateful for, but still find ourselves in a situation where we seemingly "can't do right for doing wrong".

I am very grateful for FSL delivering on their promise. But … and there’s always a but … the lack of further bug fixes in the last nine months is disappointing.

When can we expect those to be addressed? Only after the MSFS Concorde is released? Or sooner?

On a more positive note the discovery of Steam’s Frame Generation has doubled my frame rates even at Simwings Heathrow with 220+ Ai.  Concorde is now eminently flyable.

[David Arthur]

Okay; personally , I think this thread has been informative and productive for myself and the community and I’d like to thank the FSLabs devs for contributing to it and in my view giving us some convincing insight into their current reasoning.

From my experience of observing the PR, marketing or whatever you want to call it on other forums, by other developers, public pronouncements of future development seems to me very much a double-edged sword.

The FSLabs team are obviously working hard on future releases and I for one look forward to seeing their products on MSFS.

Best wishes guys…

 

[Jarga Mboge]

4 hours ago, Matt Crick said:

We know. And multiple people from FSLabs have gone into as much detail as we're able to in this thread, to explain the communications silence regarding development as it stands

And this is exactly what our interactions on this very thread are attempting to achieve. I'd far rather attempt to say something, even if it's not to the level of detail as customers would otherwise like... Than say nothing and be accused of ignoring the topic entirely, fuelling the fire further.

Simply put...

In this internet-connected age that we live in, "leaks" are rife. "But Matt, leaks can also be a clever marketing ploy to not only let the community that a developer is alive and well, and in itself, drives hype around forthcoming releases"...

Yes, but going back to my earlier point regarding USP's, in a hypothetical scenario where developer A announces features "x,y, and z", publicly or otherwise. Developer B gets wind, and introduces that into their product. Is there any reason to buy Developer A's product anymore, aside from the fact that Developer A has historically always been your "favourite" developer? To that end, there's a certain element of commercial sensitivity around our product(s) currently, to which I hope you all understand. 

As an example of both technology, and development surpassing itself; now that Asobo's v2 A32N is released, is there any reason to continue to fly the "default" A32N? Probably not, and this is just within the freeware marketspace.

We are developing for the current version of MSFS.

However, as far as Asobo have communicated, aircraft developed for the current iteration of MSFS, should continue to work in 2024. Based on this, and to directly answer your question/concern regarding "Is FSL behind the curve again"; I don't believe so, and no more than any other MSFS developer.

According to the announcement they made at FSExpo, they said the SDK is likely to be made available to developers in December September 2024. We'll know more upon the sim's and the SDK's release. Until then, it remains challenging to comment.

On the general comments around being "behind the curve", I too was there (as a customer) when many P3D developers announced they were discontinuing support & development over P3D. I was there for the backlash, the hurt and borderline betrayal over said standpoint, especially as (in my eyes), little could pull me away from P3D. Looking back retrospectively, these developers are undeniably reaping the benefits of said decision from a commercial standpoint. They had a head start on retooling, head start on being the first to release to market, arguably learned many important lessons very early on, helped feedback to Asobo regarding core sim issues that their product potentially exacerbated, and generally helped made the sim what it is today.

In contrast, FSL stuck firm with their promise to deliver Concorde for which I, and I'm sure many others are grateful for, but still find ourselves in a situation where we seemingly "can't do right for doing wrong". To a certain extent, there's an element of being "generally behind the curve" as a result, but we're doing our utmost to make up for "lost" time. On the flip side (to all those early adopters), we're developing on a much more stable platform than presumably they were in the early days, so it truly is "swings and roundabouts".

Once we have a product released to market, I'd imagine that transparency around updates for said product will return to the depth and frequency that we'd all like.

Hello Matt and good afternoon. I want to thank you for explanation. We are all angry not because we hate fslabs , but on the contrary we love fslabs. We travelled together, fslabs has given us hours and hours of entertainment. And you answering us and not automatically locking the thread is a good start . I really do hope you all will have a rethink based on the customer feedback and shift a little bit . It doesn't have to be like this . 

[Johannes Lehmann]

10 minutes ago, David Arthur said:

Okay; personally , I think this thread has been informative and productive for myself and the community and I’d like to thank the FSLabs devs for contributing to it and in my view giving us some convincing insight into their current reasoning.

From my experience of observing the PR, marketing or whatever you want to call it on other forums, by other developers, public pronouncements of future development seems to me very much a double-edged sword.

The FSLabs team are obviously working hard on future releases and I for one look forward to seeing their products on MSFS.

Best wishes guys…

 

Exactly what I thought. Thank you dear FSL team!

[Matt Crick]

43 minutes ago, Jarga Mboge said:

We are all angry not because we hate fslabs, but on the contrary we love fslabs. We travelled together, fslabs has given us hours and hours of entertainment.

I whole heartedly agree, and having (somewhat recently) transitioned from "customer", to something a little more involved internally at FSLabs, I believe I'm still in a good position to be able to see both sides of the coin. I understand where those frustrations come from, and by-and-large they come from a "good" place (albeit sometimes lost in translation a touch).

There are things that we can say, and there are things that we're not at liberty to say at this juncture, but that's just the nature of the beast at present. I'm sure all will become apparent in the fullness of time, and people realise in hindsight why this was so.

As a fellow flight-simmer, I know I can't personally wait to be able to join you all in discussions around what it is we've been working on, and hopefully participate in the collective excitement.

I think MSFS will be somewhat of a "new era" for us all, and we're absolutely here for that.

I know many a forum that lock threads when a topic of conversation doesn't go the way that the forum moderators want it to go. I'd like to think that we're a touch more relaxed around this standpoint, so long as conversations remain civil and on topic.

Thank you all for your feedback

[Anirbinna Roy]

I whole heartedly agree, and having (somewhat recently) transitioned from "customer", to something a little more involved internally at FSLabs, I believe I'm still in a good position to be able to see both sides of the coin. I understand where those frustrations come from, and by-and-large they come from a "good" place (albeit sometimes lost in translation a touch).
There are things that we can say, and there are things that we're not at liberty to say at this juncture, but that's just the nature of the beast at present. I'm sure all will become apparent in the fullness of time, and people realise in hindsight why this was so.
As a fellow flight-simmer, I know I can't personally wait to be able to join you all in discussions around what it is we've been working on, and hopefully participate in the collective excitement.
I think MSFS will be somewhat of a "new era" for us all, and we're absolutely here for that.
I know many a forum that lock threads when a topic of conversation doesn't go the way that the forum moderators want it to go. I'd like to think that we're a touch more relaxed around this standpoint, so long as conversations remain civil and on topic.
Thank you all for your feedback

W


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Graham Collins]

A few well placed pre-release copies of whatever is being developed to our favourite YouTubers will spread the word like wild-fire at the right time.

The very future of FS Labs depends on what is released for MSFS 2020/4 so they know it has to be the literal 'game-changer' that we all want and now expect.

Yes I fly the Fenix and it's good but it's not so good that I would never consider another A320.

I support the FS Labs stance and will continue to wait quietly in the background. 

[Michele Benedetti]

In all honestly what I’m really waiting for is not any A32X from FsLabs but Concorde for MSFS. I fly it regularly on P3D and bought it as soon as it released because it simply is my favourite airliner and the P3D add on is exceptionally good. However P3D, yeah, is really really bad. Every time I fire it up is just an agony to my eyes. Only the FsLabs system depth is able to make me stand it. And every time I fire it up I just imagine how good it will be to fly Concorde on MSFS, as long as the flight dynamics stay the same (which I think will be already a major challenge given the horrible MSFS flight model with no inertia and utter twitching, but I’m sure if there’s someone who’ll be able to do it it is FsLabs). So yeah, take your time, I prefer to have a majestic product in the end rather than a rushed one earlier. Maybe a sneak peek every now and then would be nice however another thing I’d like to say, and on this I agree with Ray, is that I think (and it is only my opinion) that there are some things which need to be addressed on the P3D Concorde before the MSFS version drops (which I guess is many months away) like the paint kit, the other liveries and especially the virtual cabin placeholder from the external view

[Ben Mathon]

On 8/2/2024 at 9:28 PM, Andrew Wilson said:

It's not just about NDAs; it's about competition in a wider marketplace and we prefer not to showcase our upcoming titles, for the time being - as many of the innovations we've designed have not been seen before on the MSFS platform.

Then why not showcasing screenshot, info, details, etc... About elements that do not contain innovation or future products we don't know about, with the message "exciting new stuff coming soon"?

We know that Concorde will be on MSFS for years now. Is there really nothing and I mean NOTHING, you can share with us at this time, because of competition?

[Matt Crick]

2 hours ago, Ben Mathon said:

Is there really nothing and I mean NOTHING, you can share with us at this time, because of competition?

In short, no. NDA's would first need to be lifted to permit discussions around products in internal development.

[Ryan Argue]

14 minutes ago, Matt Crick said:

In short, no. NDA's would first need to be lifted to permit discussions around products in internal development.

That is an extremely odd way to run a business.  

[Matt Crick]

1 minute ago, Ryan Argue said:

That is an extremely odd way to run a business.

Multiple people have gone to repeated lengths to communicate why this is so presently.

There's nothing further that can be added to help clarify the situation further.

As I say, I hope within the fullness of time that people realise in hindsight why we've taken this stance.

Thank you for your feedback however.

[Pablo Prada]

4 hours ago, Matt Crick said:

Multiple people have gone to repeated lengths to communicate why this is so presently.

There's nothing further that can be added to help clarify the situation further.

As I say, I hope within the fullness of time that people realise in hindsight why we've taken this stance.

Thank you for your feedback however.

Matt, can I ask you why you rejected the NEO project for P3D? It has been already announced, also we saw the engine in a picture. 
I thought the project was advanced at some point and part of the work already done. That’s why I can’t understand at all. 
I can understand that with the A330, as it’s a completely new project. 
 

Anyway, thank you for your kind words. 
 

I'm sure that one day there will be news that will leave us all speechless. I'm convinced of it, we just have to wait. 

[Norman Blackburn]

1 minute ago, Pablo Prada said:

Matt, can I ask you why you rejected the NEO project for P3D? It has been already announced, also we saw the engine in a picture. 
I thought the project was advanced at some point and part of the work already done. That’s why I can’t understand at all. 
I can understand that with the A330, as it’s a completely new project. 

Hi Pablo,

Thanks for the kind words and understanding.  Even though things were at an advanced stage with the NEO in the P3D versions, the decision was to make a switch to MSFS.  

Once things get rolled out in MSFS - and at the risk of repeating what we have previously said - we will once again evaluate where things are with P3D and those particular projects at that stage.  

[Pablo Prada]

7 minutes ago, Norman Blackburn said:

Hi Pablo,

Thanks for the kind words and understanding.  Even though things were at an advanced stage with the NEO in the P3D versions, the decision was to make a switch to MSFS.  

Once things get rolled out in MSFS - and at the risk of repeating what we have previously said - we will once again evaluate where things are with P3D and those particular projects at that stage.  

Thanks Norman. I understand.

[Anirbinna Roy]

22 minutes ago, Pablo Prada said:

Matt, can I ask you why you rejected the NEO project for P3D? It has been already announced, also we saw the engine in a picture. 
I thought the project was advanced at some point and part of the work already done. That’s why I can’t understand at all. 
I can understand that with the A330, as it’s a completely new project. 
 

Anyway, thank you for your kind words. 
 

I'm sure that one day there will be news that will leave us all speechless. I'm convinced of it, we just have to wait. 

Wait when did they do that ???? any reference ??

[Ben Mathon]

7 hours ago, Matt Crick said:

In short, no. NDA's would first need to be lifted to permit discussions around products in internal development.

Ok, but as the CEO, isn't Lefteris free of any NDA?

[Norman Blackburn]

1 minute ago, Ben Mathon said:

Ok, but as the CEO, isn't Lefteris free of any NDA?

Hi Ben,

Only ones that he is the author of.  In any event, as we have said time and time again - in some very recent posts,  it's so much more than any NDA.   Whilst we appreciate that many crave for any tiny bits of information, we have stated why we are not in a position to offer that as yet.

Thanks, 

[Lazo Lluka]

If FSLabs does produce something in the bus family that's never been done before and its next level then I will purchase it. I have a feeling we will get something by the end of summer. I'm very excited.

[Pablo Prada]

14 hours ago, Anirbinna Roy said:

Wait when did they do that ???? any reference ??

https://fselite.net/content/update-flightsimlabs-update-concorde-info-neo-confirmed-and-efb-info/

[Troy Kretzul]

On 8/8/2024 at 3:57 PM, Norman Blackburn said:

Hi Ben,

Only ones that he is the author of.  In any event, as we have said time and time again - in some very recent posts,  it's so much more than any NDA.   Whilst we appreciate that many crave for any tiny bits of information, we have stated why we are not in a position to offer that as yet.

Thanks, 

These days, I completely get the strategy of keeping info under wraps until a product is in a true RC state.

The half-baked or abandonwear products out there leave much to be desired and leave simmers feeling scammed.

Not to mention that some developers’ definition of “beta” is really closer to “alpha”…

Looking forward to whatever airframes you guys bring to MSFS, and truly hoping it’s Concorde that’s first up!

[Alexander Luzajic]

On 8/6/2024 at 8:59 AM, Lefteris Kalamaras said:

Dear Steve,

when we release for MSFS, I am thinking there will be enough customers who will find out very quickly about FSLabs, should they not already be aware of us due to only starting flight simulation with the MSFS 2020 platform. Otherwise, thank you for your feedback, it's always welcome as I've said many many times before.

Opa....Right on...exactly on anniversary..... That could be good sign....Let's see what happens, hopefully soon with new product....

[Alexander Luzajic]

On 8/9/2024 at 1:17 AM, Lazo Lluka said:

If FSLabs does produce something in the bus family that's never been done before and its next level then I will purchase it. I have a feeling we will get something by the end of summer. I'm very excited.

I think you nailed it....Unless something really revolutionary or complete new not sure it will spark the interest after (NDA) delay. Hopefully I am wrong.

[John BONNIN]

On 8/2/2024 at 11:28 PM, Andrew Wilson said:

It's not just about NDAs; it's about competition in a wider marketplace and we prefer not to showcase our upcoming titles, for the time being - as many of the innovations we've designed have not been seen before on the MSFS platform. 

Once we are ready to announce our first title for MSFS, we'll be in a position to share more details with regards to what the team have spent these past few years working on. 

For Airbus I can understand but for the Concorde ?? You are the only one with this level of realism and nobody else plan to develop it
There is no reason to not have any news, photos 

[Peng Jia]

On 8/12/2024 at 5:06 AM, John BONNIN said:

For Airbus I can understand but for the Concorde ?? You are the only one with this level of realism and nobody else plan to develop it
There is no reason to not have any news, photos 

Is it possible that they are not currently developing concorde,only working on A320.

[Ben-Luca Koerber]

5 hours ago, Peng Jia said:

Is it possible that they are not currently developing concorde,only working on A320.

I thought they already stated, that the Concorde will be released first for MSFS? but could be wrong.

[Peng Jia]

8 hours ago, Ben-Luca Koerber said:

I thought they already stated, that the Concorde will be released first for MSFS? but could be wrong.

They've never said that.

[Eric Fisher]

Wow, first time in a long time the whole band is in one thread commenting on MSFS. Even the “Bono” of the band chimed in (who doesn’t like a good Irish rock band). And it’s remained open. 
 

I for one will sit back and observe waiting for whatever it is to be put forth. I will say I do hope it’s an A321NEO. Multi-mission capability and she looks really good wearing a Delta dress.