GTN 750/650 for P3D arrived

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

Does it integrate into any aircraft panel yet?

[Chocorua 112]

I don't mind paying the extra dollars, but am curious as to why it's more. More time and effort involved in making it P3D compatible? Licensing fees? Or just because they can? 

 

Anyway, off to get it.

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

Gregg_S,  you know the answer to that question...

 

B)

[alulekk 3]

Do these work well with touchscreens? (Like SimAVIO)

[Andydigital 93]

Do these work well with touchscreens? (Like SimAVIO)

Yes, they will work very well with touch screens as that is what the real thing has, plus Jeff Smith over at Flight1 said it works good on his touch screen, lol. I'll be getting this myself in a a couple of months.

[N400QW 205]

Just an FYI. We intend to make some P3DV2 GA titles be able to accept this GTN Series if you already own it and are licensed to do so. B)

This policy is duplicated with our P3DV2 G1000 products if you own and are licensed to integrate Mindstar G1000. B)

 

As always growth in Simulation features increases costs. It remains for individuals to decide at what level they wish to participate. :unsure:

[Arwen 289]

 

 

However, $15 more ($65 for P3D) for the same thing with a different installer that explicitly states it's not for commercial training, meaning it's the same darned thing with a P3D installer/license means this is a no-go for me. I refuse to purchase anything from any company (no matter how much I like the publisher, or supported them in the past) that inflates the price just because it's for P3D. 

 

I totally agree with you Philip.  There is no way that it costs more to port over an addon to P3D than what it cost to originally make that same product for FSX.  I just don't buy that. Plus the Academic version of P3D is NOT more expensive than FSX . . . . and I disagree about the assumption here that P3D uses are supposedly in a higher tax bracket than FSX users.  That's just nonsense.

[N400QW 205]

Arguing over price differences between auto brands costs, real aircraft brands costs, food brands costs, fuel brands costs. etc.  generally makes individuals feel better but rarely effects price. B)

[mgh 89]

 

 

There is no way that it costs more to port over an addon to P3D than what it cost to originally make that same product for FSX.

 

It's simply the free-market. Developers set the price and we decide how much we're prepared to pay for it. Cost isn't the determining factor.

[Arwen 289]

Arguing over price differences between auto brands costs, real aircraft brands costs, food brands costs, fuel brands costs. etc.  generally makes individuals feel better but rarely effects price. B)

 

I'm not arguing with anyone, I'm simply stating my opinion.

 

It's simply the free-market. Developers set the price and we decide how much we're prepared to pay for it. Cost isn't the determining factor.

 

And as part of that free-market system, I chose not to purchase any addon for P3D that is priced higher than its FSX equivalent. My actions nearly always are in sync with my opinions.

[N400QW 205]

Glad to hear your opinion. Just as valuable as the next opinion. B)

[Chocorua 112]

 

 

t's simply the free-market. Developers set the price and we decide how much we're prepared to pay for it. Cost isn't the determining factor.

   

 

Most likely true, but what a lame reason.  One price for all would make sense, but this arrangement does not.          

 

Meanwhile the thing is excellent. Intuitive, clear, very responsive to inputs. It's worth the cash, to me, but still feels like P3D customers are getting a rotten deal.

 

cheers! 

[rparson99 32]

WoW!  This is awesome!   

[Gregg_Seipp 568]

 

 

Gregg_S, you know the answer to that question...

 

Can't hurt to ask.  ^_^  The reason I ask is that, sometimes folks make gauges that can overlay existing gauges.  Problem is those pesky knobs that stick out, I guess.  I don't know much about developing gauges.

[mgh 89]

I chose not to purchase any addon for P3D that is priced higher than its FSX equivalent.

 

That is your right.

 

 

Most likely true, but what a lame reason. One price for all would make sense, but this arrangement does not.

 

It does make sense because it's intended to increase the developer's revenues.