Cost of developing

[CodyValkyrie]

I was reading the B-25 thread, and it got me thinking about costs to develop. One of the reasons I no longer have been as active as I once was in this industry, as well as many others, is the cost to develop (whether coding, video editing, etc.). When I can go out into the real world and get clients to hire me at $800 a day to film, it's hard to justify banging my head against a desk and being frustrated when filming in FSX for a measly fee. People may not understand what it takes to do my job for FSX, so let me give you a short taste:

1) First, I need legitimate copies of Vegas, After Effects, FSX and any software I might be filming. This includes securing rights from third party developers in some cases. This can cost hundreds.
2) I need to secure the rights to music, unless I'm using canned royalty free music at no cost, which everyone else in the industry is using. I prefer to stand out a bit, and that can cost (a lot sometimes).
3) A computer JUST for FSX to do my job traditionally costs me around $2,000. Setting up the software in such a particular way that it is useful for me to film as I have in the past can take days.
4) Because of the memory requirements and the old software, expect crashes about every 20 minutes. In those twenty minutes, you might get a couple of shots because you spent the majority of the time just GETTING the shot.
5) Try to do all of that while flying, or fiddling with software (add the complexity of an FMC to the mix).

I did much more than that, and many of my long time clients will tell you I brought more to the table than a good eye for camera work. I worked hard behind the scenes to get collaborations with developers, provided marketing that lasted far beyond just making a video, and brought a full marketing concept to the business to ensure our videos were viewed by the most people. I was successful enough to have hired at least two crews over the years to keep up with demand.

Now, when a client asks me to do a video for less than a few hundred, and I spend days in some cases working on the project, I usually cannot justify the cost. As such, it's gone mostly back to being a hobby for me and I've somewhat left the industry and released my employees because I can't afford to work here. When something takes as much time as a full time job to do, naturally, you want to get paid for it. If you cannot get paid what you are worth in similar but parallel industries, you walk, because at the end of the day, you still need to put food on your plate.

So, when people complain about the complexity of an aircraft not meeting their standards, you need to consider the following:
1) The complex products have developers that can probably afford to actually hire support for what they are worth, or they are outsourcing to keep costs down.
2) If the price of the product is higher, this is usually, but not necessarily why.
3) If a product isn't as complex, or doesn't have as much advertising, it's because the developer cannot afford to do so.

Now, developers are stuck between a rock and a hard place because customer demands are rising, and so are costs, but the profit margin has been depleted heavily. Only a few companies are successful in a market like this, and it's because of complete innovation, but that has only driven customer demand higher. There is one product in mind, that I know the developer spent a huge chunk of change on, that secured the rights from the aircraft manufacturer, only to be met with less than 1,000 sales after one year. Needless to say, that company doesn't produce much for consumers anymore.

I think we all need to take a moment and be a bit more grateful for whatever we receive. If you know me, I've been a staunch supporter and friend with the guys over at A2A for years, and that is rightfully justified. That being said, after working in the industry, I've learned to enjoy much less complex products knowing full well that the developers have done the best damn job they possibly can, and I'm grateful for that. Not every airplane can be a Accu-Sim or PMDG quality, and I've learned to enjoy products without these qualities. While some may rail on Carenado or Alabeo, I for one love these aircraft because even with some of their problems, they are still light years ahead of what pioneers like Chuck Dome were doing with FS5.0 and releasing on Compuserve.

In other words, be grateful for what you have. Developers, try to pay your people what they are worth.

[EDIT, I would like to note I'm not directing this at anyone. I'm just sharing my general thoughts on the industry after having worked in it for years, and becoming a hobbyist again.]

[heywooood]

All of your points are well defined and while I had some idea of the complexity of your video work I was unaware of the depth of expence and man hours you describe.
I agree with regard to being grateful for the products we are seeing from the aircraft (and scenery) developers we have. With all that is possible within the framework of FSX (and all that isn't) it is truly amazing that there are so many aircraft now available...and understandable that there would be a wide difference in systems depth and detail.
The model must be built within these constraints as well as the limits of what each developer can afford to invest in the project.
A long time ago I decided to change my qualifications on what constituted a good aircraft model.
basically - if I can install it, select it, and fly it - and it deducts no more than 2-3 fps on average from
my locked number (31) - its a winner.
Thats it. Of course - it must have a VC - it must look like the r/l prototype - and it should have a decent form,fit
and finish...like the Alabeo / Carenado models or as near to that ideal as possible.
What I no longer care for are systems and extraineous details that severely impact frame rates.
I know a lot of folks want their 3D aircraft to do everything the r/l aircraft can do regardless (but then they still complain about frame rates anyway) and this seems to me to be an unrealistic expectation in many cases.
Its one thing to do a one for one representation of a Stearman and quite another to do that with a Boeing 777 or an SR-71 with a full suite of electronic systems etc...
When a company can hit all the high spots, make a beautiful plane that flies as it should by published record,
and not murder my PC - its got a winner - and if it costs around $20-25.... Thats a home run

[Anthin]

Nicely said gentlemen.

Anthin.

[CodyValkyrie]

All of your points are well defined and while I had some idea of the complexity of your video work I was unaware of the depth of expence and man hours you describe.
That's how I attempted to separate myself from every kid with a pirated copy of FRAPS. Now I can't compete with these kids, because they'll do the work for the price of the product, then when they get bored, get replaced by another in 3 months. ;) I knew my time in the industry was limited, but I managed to do something I don't think any other videographer did, and that's put nearly every company in the industry on my portfolio. I can say with some degree of honor that as far as I knew, my guys got payed higher than anyone else in the industry (other than myself). Greener pastures I suppose, and I'm finally starting to enjoy simming again. 9+ years is a long time making videos for Flight Simulator. I've made oodles of friends in the industry, and had a ton of success. I think my time is best put behind a real camera now, although I'll put something fun out every once in a while for my own entertainment.

And, mostly, I couldn't agree with you more. I have a set of requirements for addons as well. Still, my FSX folder weighs about 288GB. :D

[Sundog]

As someone who has done some developing in this industry; well said.

[DaveWG]

Very good post, well said. :applause:

[roger-wilco-66]

Sensible thoughts.
My hat is really off to anyone who manages to work for a living in that business. Regarding the quality of most products, I really admire the artistic work and in many releases, the simulated depth of the aircraft systems. That is really a lot of research and work to implement it correctly. I think we have come a long way the last ten years, and the devs had to stem these resource intensive increases in quality as well as functionality without considerably rising the the price for the products. Well, at least most.

Cheers,
Mark

[padburgess]

Well said Cody.
I for one am beginning to believe that the ability to provide, and the insatiable demands of some simmers, to have the latest and greatest systems in every single released product (plus Tac whatever) has actually started to hurt the hobby. Developers now have to try to code an incredible level of detail to just get a look in, or they get slammed for being inadequate and charging exorbitant amounts for mediocrity.

I applaud those developers that still provide good quality addons, without going over the top. This means that we actually get more planes, and sometimes rare types. Most of the time I just want to be able to kick the tires, light fires (actually crank her up as I like piston twins) and take her up. The provision of a reasonable VC and modestly accurate flight model are all I want. If necessary I can try my hand at tweaking the FM.

I can't but hope that those developers who are doing these aircraft keep it up and don't just pull the plug.

I also wonder if this obsession with ultra detail and systems is the reason we are not getting more of the older warbirds now. Not having access to working, flying examples means they just don't get started.

I can only assume this is the reason I don't have the ability to purchase a completely accurate, fully system loaded Ju88A4 and Ju88G1 for less than $25. What other reason could there be?

Cheers
Paul

[Dutcheeseblend]

Thanks Cody for starting this thread!

[ksheadley]

Well said Cody. I, for one appreciate your work and the effort required. I can also appreciate the need to be a hobbyist. I enjoy the painting I do along with some basic modelling and scenery, but the workload can get burdensome quickly and the missus would rather see me out of the office more.

Your work will be appreciated always, as it represents a level of professionalism not usually seen.

[falcon409]

I sometimes wonder how payware companies (who may actually only be a "company" of one) ever make any money at all based on the amount of time it takes to produce the super detailed model many expect anymore. Equally understandable given the current climate is the loss of several terrific modelers who found it more satisfying to go fishing than stick around and put up with "is it done yet. . .is it done yet?" lol. I agree with Paul in that a nicely done model, with a believable FDE (and who knows what that is unless you've actually flown the airplane) and animations that function is about all I really require. These super detailed models with all the bump mapping and specular work that people spend ages on to get "just right" is lost on me. . .don't care. . .I fly from the inside, lol. I know there are those who simply must have systems that function correctly or the aircraft just isn't flyable but I wonder what the ratio is of those folks compared to the worldwide average of those of us who simply want a good looking airplane to fly. Yea, I think the demand for more and more detailed system functionality hurts some companies who discover that the price they must charge to feel like they're getting something for all the hard work they've expended is actually limiting their sales to a smaller audience.

[Alan_A]

Thanks for these insights and for starting a great discussion. I couldn't agree more.

While I'm happy to hang out over in the A2A forums - it's by and large a nice community - I find it really painful every time somebody posts there something to the effect that "if it's not Accu-Sim, I won't fly it." To be an Accu-Sim (or any other high-fidelity developer's) fundamentalist means you're missing out on a lot of great products, both payware and freeware (I'm thinking of the Warbirdsim Mustangs and of Manfred Jahn's work, but there are many examples). And it means you're slowly killing the hobby by starving good developers who don't have the same depth of resources. Plus, why spend the year pining for the two-and-a-half aircraft a year that the high-fidelity developers are able to produce? It's a clear case of "the best is the enemy of the good," to quote my old friend Voltaire.

I don't mean to single out A2A as an example - there are others. And in their defense, I don't think the developers are Accu-Sim fanatics in the same way their fans are. If they were, there wouldn't be an Aircraft Factory line.

What I'd like to see is a more robust set of publishing operations along the lines of Aircraft Factory or JustFlight - it'd be nice for a wider range of developers to benefit from the overall polish and quality control that a skillful, supportive publisher can bring to the table. It's in the interests of the big houses to do this - where's the next generation of developers going to come from if you don't help nurture them?

And I'd like to see a community that better understands and supports what so many other developers are bringing to the table.

So yes, more offerings and less extremism would be a good thing, IMHO.

[Bjoern]

I think we all need to take a moment and be a bit more grateful for whatever we receive.

In a nutshell, this.

If people still refuse to do so, I suggest robbing a few banks and go on a mandatory industry-wide development strike (timeframe depending on how much the robberies yield)*.


*As you can't develop stuff while being a fugitive.

[pilottj]

Thank you Cody,
I agree we should be very grateful for the developers who make this hobby what it is. Putting these things together be it planes, scenery, utility, whatever take lots of time (usually spare time as most Devs also have day jobs, not to mention other real life commitments) and money. We have such a wide range of options too, from pretty looking systems light Carenado/Alabeo to full on checkride level A2A and everything in between. I know its easy and popular to bash Alabeo/Carenado, I have certainly been guilty of it, but they do provide a valuable service for FSX. They fill a niche within FSX and they do make a lot people happy. Fortunately there ARE choices. If Choice A doesn't make you happy, don't spend time bitching at the person who brought you Choice A, instead look at Choice B or C and find something that fills your need.

Imagine setting out to some big house project on your spare time like building a deck or doing major landscaping. You spend months/years getting it right. I bet you wouldn't be too thrilled if were getting nagged to finish it and when you did finish it were told by 'experts' who did nothing to help how you could do it better.

If you take the time out of your day to try to improve this hobby for yourself and for others, your work is greatly appreciated and you are to be commended, no matter what it is you produce.

Cheers
TJ

[JimmyRFR]

While I appreciate and respect the thought behind many of the fine opinions posted here, and I definitely appreciate the thoughtful and well explained original post, I don't completely agree with all of the sentiment in some of the posts in this thread.

Please keep in mind that very little of what follows has to do with the original post. The issues facing his business are the very same that challenge many other creative businesses (competition from in-experienced amateurs willing to work for free), and are quite separate from some of the issues facing payware developers.

I'm immensely grateful to all of those freeware developers who work very hard and then generously share their efforts with the community. Their contribution, no matter how big or small, regardless of whether it's an improved FDE, a repaint, a soundset, or a full blown model, should never, ever, be underestimated.

However, when someone asks me for money for a product, then it's a business transaction. And all of a sudden, everything that is associated with a business (customer service, product satisfaction) comes into play. The 'be grateful for what you get' attitude simply rubs me the wrong way. I'll support a business if they provide me with a product for which I perceive value. Simple as that. If I'm majorly unsatisfied with my experience, I have no problem sharing that information, and that should be an accepted risk on the part of the business.

The fact that in the case of our simulation products, the 'business' as such may return very little if any profits, does not give cause in my mind to waive any part of the satisfaction or value portion of the transaction.

It's the truth that the bar has been continually raised to a point where many developers struggle to make an acceptable product in which no fault is found; but I believe this situation has occurred through the competition between larger, high end developers. I'm sure A2A doesn't mind all that much when people refuse to fly anything other than Accusim'ed aircraft; they know that those individuals represent instant sales on their next release. The few major developers are continually trying to one-up the others in some way, to ensure that they can realize as many sales as possible. Yes, this has had the drawback of creating a 'generation' of simmers who are overly detail obsessed, but all that means is that the work and marketing by the major developers have had it's desired effect.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't prevent the harm that's occurring to the small developers through exposure to regular business practices by gagging the customers themselves. (Gagging might be a bit over-dramatic, but making it unpopular to voice a negative opinion has the same effect.) It's not going to reverse the trend one little bit.

[napamule]

Every developer (and I do mean EVERY) have to (pretend?) 'believe' that their product is PERFECT. Payware or not. Any defect or mistake 'will be taken care of in the next update' is the usual 'spiel'. Those that refuse to acknowledge any 'wrong' will stone-wall and act 'hurt' to disarm. Or simply state 'if you don't like it.... blah,blah'. Why they can't put out a 'perfect' model (ie: flight dynamics) is beyond me. They lean on the 'real' specs and miss the mark when it comes to matching the model (and 'flight model' or FDEs) to the SIM (dah). Some models are good. But most have something wrong with them. Especially the cnt pts and the flight dynamics ('modelers' don't (HAVE) to 'know' anything about those 'areas'). It's not their 'job' or 'object of concern'. Bad business, even for a hobby. There is NO standarization ANYWHERE. Each modeler can do whatever suits them ('the easyway out') and they don't have to answer to anyone (ie: like they would have to answer to the FAA). No standard for any of the IMPORTANT stuff and what you get is a can of worms. Deal with it.
Chuck B
Napamule

[Sieggie]

Each modeler can do whatever suits them ('the easyway out') and they don't have to answer to anyone (ie: like they would have to answer to the FAA).
Chuck B
Napamule

It's not true that they don't have to answer to anyone. They have to answer to the people they hope will buy their next product. It's a "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" kind of business.

Dave

[heywooood]

Yeah not sure where napamule was headed... Regulations? For flight sim
3d model development?

these folks are going to model the aircraft that please them, to the level that their experience,research and
fiscal solvency will allow them to do. The degree to which they attain any success will be subjective.
Expecting perfect one to one representations is unrealistic...
managing your expectations and accepting what is....thats what its all about.

[Ian Warren]

That's how I attempted to separate myself from every kid with a pirated copy of FRAPS. Now I can't compete with these kids, because they'll do the work for the price of the product, then when they get bored, get replaced by another in 3 months. ;) I knew my time in the industry was limited, but I managed to do something I don't think any other videographer did, and that's put nearly every company in the industry on my portfolio. I can say with some degree of honor that as far as I knew, my guys got payed higher than anyone else in the industry (other than myself). Greener pastures I suppose, and I'm finally starting to enjoy simming again. 9+ years is a long time making videos for Flight Simulator. I've made oodles of friends in the industry, and had a ton of success. I think my time is best put behind a real camera now, although I'll put something fun out every once in a while for my own entertainment.

Same can be said about "the every kid" that seems to have a copy of adobe photoshop CS5.5 , first thing if you want to be and legally aloud sell my artwork with a little PC editing you want to have a legit payed up package, really tears your rag when one kid swears hes payed yet cannot buy his lunch !

[IanP]

Same can be said about "the every kid" that seems to have a copy of adobe photoshop CS5.5 , first thing if you want to be and legally aloud sell my artwork with a little PC editing you want to have a legit payed up package, really tears your rag when one kid swears hes payed yet cannot buy his lunch !

When talking about kids, don't forget that they may well have got a legitimate and legal licensed software package while in full time education... They should stop using it when they leave education, but if you've got a license and all of a sudden you have no income and no way of making an income, of course they'll use what they have.

As another aside, I may not be a kid, all my software is legal and licensed (including FRAPS), but in a couple of months time, I won't be able to buy lunch and my legal software ain't gonna help, after my back injury finally cost me my job after 19 years in the railway industry. Thankfully my modelling package is also legal, licensed and most of all free, thanks to the massive work done by the guys creating and developing Blender2FSX over at FSDev... I still can't use it commercially, even if I was a good enough modeller (long story), but at least I can keep chucking out freeware.

My point, anyway, is that it's easy to rail against people starting out using "a friend's license", but your statement that they might legally have CS5.5 (mine's CS4) and not be able to buy lunch is actually quite possible. You may well have previously been able to afford it, but not be able to afford it now!

Ian P.
(Who can just about afford lunch right now, but it's getting very tight indeed...)

[huub vink]

A few thought after reading this thread;

Personally I consider freeware as a gift. And I feel honoured when somebody gives me gift. When I buy a product I want value for money. And I fully understand that budget price will most probably give me a budget model.

I often wonder whether the flightsim market is large enough to make any profit from payware development. Aren't payware developers a bit like a salesman in the desert trying to sell sand? Not many customers and too much free sand........

Developing a model costs a huge amount of time. However it can be done without major expenses. Dutchcheesblend only used freeware programs to create his beautiful and highly detailed and very accurate Fokker D-XXI. The only money spend on the software was to create a TacPack version afterwards.

Sometimes I wonder, do the end-users really want the highly detailed and complex models developers currently design, or do developers want to create highly detailed and complex models. I'm more the "hop in and fly away type" and I have several models in my hangar which are extremely beautiful, but far too complex for me to fly.
Something tells me I'm not the only one who sometimes loves simplicity.

As a painter and I sometimes offer my services to freeware developers. Some projects lasted nearly two years, during which the texture layout changed several times. Countless hours I must have spend on these projects. Nevertheless I have enjoyed every single one of them. I've learned a lot during these project and I regard painting as my hobby. And what is better than being able to spend time on your hobbies.

Personally I don't have a problem to spend money on a thing I consider a hobby. The software I use to make my repaints with is paid for. And when I look at the hours I have used it, it was most probably a better buy than MS Office. The complete MS Office package contains quite some programs I hardly use.

No model is perfect. In the end it is always a collection of bits and bytes and a compromise between reality and what can technically be done. And often the result is limited by the talents of the developer.

Why do some people think a reasonably cheap Flight Simulator program like Microsoft Flight Simulator will provide them an accurate sensation of flying a real aircraft?

As said just some thoughts,

Cheers,
Huub

[fsxar177]

... I'll support a business if they provide me with a product for which I perceive value. Simple as that. If I'm majorly unsatisfied with my experience, I have no problem sharing that information, and that should be an accepted risk on the part of the business...

Couldn't agree more!

- Joseph

[Ian Warren]

Ian , Bugger about your back and especially loosing your job after 19 years of service , broke my neck twice ! Bugger ! two separate occasions lost my job with the corporate jibber jibber , so now using - I'm self learn't with art packages since ... what century is this


When talking about kids, don't forget that they may well have got a legitimate and legal licensed software package while in full time education... They should stop using it when they leave education, but if you've got a license and all of a sudden you have no income and no way of making an income, of course they'll use what they have.


Think I aim this at the one's who maybe one week they don't have it and next week they do, next few days later they are asking across forums how to do this and how to do that with the program , they say they learned the at school or where ever yet suddenly they forgot the basics ... that is who I aim it at .

[Alan_A]

This continues to be a great discussion but I wonder if we aren't blending several different issues, such as:

1. Systems-depth "arms race" among developers: many smaller developers can't keep up. Does this affect sales? Maybe, because there's also...

2. Systems-depth fanaticism among a maybe small but certainly vocal subset of users, which leads them to dismiss good payware and freeware out of hand (a guy over at the A2A forums told me he wasn't interested in Manfred's C-47 because he doesn't want "eye candy." That's just so wrong on so many levels...) The result can be...

3. Unfair or otherwise fanatical condemnations of payware and freeware that is really very good on its own terms. This is not the same thing as...

4. Legitimate complaints about payware that has serious quality control problems, or is misrepresented by its marketing (e.g. they say it models every system but it doesn't), or is too expensive for what it delivers.

Perhaps related to some or all of this is...

5. The fact that some developers, including some of the most prestigious, are engineering-driven rather than market-driven. In other words, let's build an aircraft that takes an hour to start up, and that flies 12-hour missions, for users who might have a spare hour or two at night, if that, to fly (side note: I've always thought that Aerosoft does a good job of striking a balance here).

But on the other hand...

6. What we like to call a hobby is becoming increasingly dominated by professional applications (think PMDG and A2A selling into the training market) in which we get to ride along. The economics have to favor professional sales (e.g you sell 500 licenses to a training establishment that uses standard hardware and you support an IT professional, rather than selling 500 licences to 500 ill-tempered hobbyists and you have to support all of them individually). But as these companies become dominant, it's harder and harder for smaller developers to keep up (see points 1, 2 and 3 above).

Maybe each of these is worth a separate discussion. Or at least some of them are.

I just thought it might be helpful to think about what we're upset about, before we get upset about it.

Radical, I know, but worth a shot.

As you were....

[IanP]

Those that make significant profit out of the hobby develop for more than one simulator platform - in some cases, that includes very different licensing structures, to go with the commercial (and sometimes physical) liability of developing for a platform. FSX, P3D, Flight!, X-Plane* and their ilk are not allowed to be used in lieu of aircraft hours in the real world (* X-Plane claims it is "FAA approved", but the FAA PPL syllabus certainly didn't used to include allowance for "simulated flight hours" - make of that what you will!). Other sim platforms, often considerably less capable than the MSFS/XP series, are, and some developers that sell products in this "world" that we see them in, also work on other platforms that really are authorised for use in real world training. There's usually coding spin-off between the two. Either that, or there's the age old options of doing this as a side income alongside a primary one - for instance someone who writes software for a living might also code gauges and/or other things for a FS developer.

When I was sacked, my initial thought was to use the skills I had to try and develop an income, as quickly as possible. Someone loaned me enough to buy a professional software tool, during a very cheap sale. As I said before, it's a long story, but right now I'm still not legally allowed to "work" until some people make some decisions... But one day I didn't have a professional tool, the next day I did. The day after, thanks to a different sale, it was upgraded to a higher version... In no way am I pretending that people don't use illegally downloaded software - we all know full well they do and a lot of people in this hobby do, because this thread is quite correct, the costs of development far exceed the likely income from it, if you treat it as 'a normal business'. The only functional compilation tools for P3D are for 3DStudioMAX, which is now only available as a monthly license, specifically to get around the issues of people downloading full versions illegally. I'm willing to bet that all of a sudden a lot of people in the FS world are using the last "offline" version of 3DSMAX to develop for P3D and won't be "upgrading" to the leased license version. ;)

And with that, I have to go to bed. I'll finish Blending this Components Store tomorrow! Night all. :)

Ian P.

Very quickly edited to add: I like having a range of products available. I fly default. I fly freeware. I fly low-complexity payware, I fly PMDG/Accu-Sim. It depends what I'm doing and why. I'd like to be able to fly Accu-Sim warbirds all the time, but the reality is that I cannot afford to spend all the time warming up the Accu-Sim P-51D, every time I want to check out changes to a scenery. So I'll jump in the default B206B, or a Piper Cub, or if I'm feeling in period, a low complexity payware warbird. Sometimes, all of the markets appeal to a single person, let alone to a 'classification' of people. You'll only see me slating a release that has massive, product breaking, problems and even then, I'll be offering to help fix them rather than just saying "it's *%$£@ and I demand my money back!"

[gman5250]

As a preface to offering my comment, I did read all of the above posts. All of the points expressed above illustrate the broad spectrum of perceptions regarding what this industry represents. All are valid.

My comment will address the initial post.

Up front I’ll admit to having entered, then quickly left the big developer arena. My reasons shall remain my own, other than to admit that I have committed to launching my own product line.

The first consideration any business, large or small, must consider is cost benefit. If you are a mega corporation with massive resources to put behind a development initiative…you’ve already crunched the numbers. That tells me a lot.

The number I’ve seen in the most recent “IPO” indicate that there is a sufficient customer base to justify an exploratory venture into the market. A cursory analysis of the market indicates that this is a consumer driven marketplace. As stated above, if it’s not freeware…there is an expectation of quality. This is where things get interesting.

If you are an independent contractor, as I was in my first endeavor, the cost benefit is the key driver. The drawback is that you have no control over the business aspects of your product. You simply contract to deliver a thing and expect compensation for that thing. End of story. If the relationship is not to your liking, the highway runs both directions and you are free to contract differently.

The small developer or new entry had better bring something to the table, because the whales are already out there, but you knew that when you entered the arena. The new developer needs to come to the arena well armed and well prepared. The beautiful thing here is that the opportunity to develop interesting niche products, and the demand is clearly being voiced by the community at large. All the small developer needs to do is fill the niche well. It’s not easy if you don’t have deep pockets, but it is do-able.

The large developers and mega giants….well, they have the resources to dominate, but that is the nature of free market economics. That’s not going to change…..ever. The whales can afford the investment into market research and can also afford to take the hit when they miss the mark. They simply correct course and move forward.

The wild card variable, as I see it is talent. The resume required to develop aircraft, scenery or any of the other necessary add-on software packages is staggering.

Wanted

Software developer, artist with journeyman level knowledge of Photoshop. Prefer IT background as well with coding experience. CAD experience required, must own your own professional level software. Prefer commercial level aviation certificate or equivalent. Understanding of all aspects of aviation including current multi engine jet, instrument certified. Must own and be able to operate sophisticated flight simulator with journeyman level understanding of underlying systems integration.

Errr...yeah.

In the case of the mega developer, the need to trim cost has become a driving factor in development cost because the competition has become finely attuned to its’ market and the race to the top is in full swing. So…now enters the “kid” who is enrolled in college. He gets a free copy of Autodesk 3DS…I had to pay full pop for mine, just to compete. The kid may or may not have a bootleg copy of PS as well because he’s jacked in to the matrix. I paid full pop for mine, and also sank nearly 5k into the box that runs all of this stuff. For a guy whose retirement is $368.00 per month…it’s a serious commitment.

The whale is most likely going to favor the “kid” with the free software, because the kid can underbid me every time. I’m going to hold out for the money. Maybe or maybe not, the “kid” can produce a product that can compete with 50 years of airbrush, illustration and life experience. If the product is good enough, the kid makes a few bucks, the consumer is led to believe that this is state-of-the-art, the whale takes a cut and the market is determined by overall sales. Now, I’m at a disadvantage, because I legitimately cannot compete with someone who doesn’t have to pay for his tools. You can’t blame the people who hire the cheap labor, but this trend always results in a race to the bottom.

All of that said, I’m firmly convinced that this market has room for anyone “bat guano crazy” enough to jump in. The fundamental numbers indicate that there is room to squeeze out a profit if you are a qualified entrepreneur.

One factoid that is a drier for me. Historically, there are two areas that flourish in struggling economic climates. Alcohol and entertainment. I’m quietly confident that our little community qualifies here.

The one thing that is clear is flight simulation is breaking up towards the exponential. Technology is expanding on that curve and the need to feed the tech is going to require…talent. The smart companies, large and small, will procure and respect their talent to ensure their long term survival. Companies who squander talent will eventually fall upon their own sword. It’s a self-leveling playing field.

From what I can see, there are household name companies who are doing a spectacular job creating multiple level offerings that should surely please everyone, no matter what their preference. Others are not following a business trajectory that I would deem wise, but that’s my own opinion and not worth the price of a cup of coffee. There are small guys out there that continually offer wonderful products that satisfy my requirements for a reasonable price.

In my case, I recognized a need in the market that is crying to be filled, so that’s the emphasis of my development work at the moment. At the same time, I’ll offer up the regular freebies to thank the community for being a great group of people.
IMHO

[fsxar177]

Will all of this comparison, between marketing, bigger-business, small business, freeware...
Lots of what said just reminds me of my previous post (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?94076-Dirty-Little-Secrets&p=954991#post954991) , which closely highlighted similar topics.

- Joseph

[pilottj]

Simmers are a diverse group of people and the range of addon choices reflect that. If eye candy planes like Alaebeo/Capt Sim were the only kind, this hobby wouldn't be what is, likewise if superduper study sims like A2A/PMDG were the only choices, this hobby wouldn't be what it is. The fact that both Alabeo and A2A are obviously doing fine and selling well, shows that the hobby market can sustain a wide range of developer types. If you don't like choice A, thats fine, there are lots of other choices.

Call me naive but I don't really see many problems, at least none worth loosing a shirt about. This is a hobby after all, not serious life and death matters. Hobbies are supposed to be fun. If the hobby is not fun, then it's are not worth participating in. Its not like we are forced to only fly developer A's planes or use developer B's scenery.

Its actually quite amazing when you think about it that something as complex as a PMDG airliner can run 'reasonably' smooth for a sim platform designed years ago, not to mention be compatible with the practically infinite number of different system builds out there.

LOL you should see 'flight simulation' in Second Life, its laughable...very simplistic and arcade-like compared to what is achieved in FS, however lots of people in SL participate within it's aviation side of things and they seem to enjoy it. Enough enjoy it that there is a sizeable 'aircraft industry' in SL. It's not the fault of the people who make planes in SL that SL is such a restrictive environment to create complex things, matter of fact it is amazing what they can create with such limited resources and environment.

I think the whole point of Cody's thread is just to stop and appreciate what we have in this hobby, not to compare who's is bigger or better. A lot of electronic/software based hobbies like this one die off at some point. This hobby has been fairly strong for a long time.

Cheers
TJ

[CodyValkyrie]

I think the whole point of Cody's thread is just to stop and appreciate what we have in this hobby, not to compare who's is bigger or better. A lot of electronic/software based hobbies like this one die off at some point. This hobby has been fairly strong for a long time.
Bingo. I think everyone is entitled to their opinion of software they purchase, but I think we also need to ground ourselves. Like Ian, I tend to use different aircraft and scenery for different purposes. It keeps the hobby alive for me. If all I flew was my PMDG 737, I would rarely use my simulator. I still keep Mike's Mini-Max around for just this very reason. It's like picking which clothes you want to wear for the day. Sometimes you want to look dapper in a suit, and other times you just want to rock out in your pajamas. :D


Call me naive but I don't really see many problems, at least none worth loosing a shirt about. This is a hobby after all, not serious life and death matters. Hobbies are supposed to be fun. If the hobby is not fun, then it's are not worth participating in. Its not like we are forced to only fly developer A's planes or use developer B's scenery.
This is one reason I've mostly left the industry, although occasionally I'll do a favor.

********G, some advice if I may after having done marketing in this industry for so long. I've worked for new companies, and the ones that didn't become successful had a few things in common, even if they offered a good product. Primarily, it was not understanding how to market the product. What marketing they did get they didn't apply it properly. When you release a product, the first thing you should do is offer it to every review company at no charge to help get your name established. Second, any videos, ads or whatnot should be distributed as many places as possible. Most of the large companies start off by selling their product in house for a bit before making it available everywhere else, but they almost always sell it everywhere else.

An old trick I used to do as a magician was to make the spectator feel like they were given a choice, even if those choices were controlled. If your website offers options for understanding the product, such as screenshots, video, good UI, etc., the customer feels empowered. Without fail, almost every company that didn't succeed failed somewhere in these lessons. You're going to spend a large portion of your time just getting people to know about the product, including perusing forums, making posts, etc. In my job alone, I must have spent 80% of my time doing things other than making videos, but it payed off. In short, no matter how good a product is, nobody will buy it if they don't know about it.

Learn the lesson of other developers. I won't share full numbers, but I'll use the Flight1 Cessna Mustang as an example of an excellent product that performed poorly in sales. The marketing was there, as well as the devloping, etc., but it simply failed to find a large audience in the first year. There's an old saying in Hollywood for directors... "Make one for the studio, and one for you." I'm paraphrasing slightly, but it basically means to make money, so you can keep making what you want. Developers spend a lot of time trying to determine what they should make... Or at least, the most successful ones do.

Take some time to determine what makes a particular business successful, then compare that to some of the companies that you don't hear much about. Don't just compare the products, but compare their advertising, websites, etc. This will pay off in the end. Mike (Lotus of Lotus Simulations) is a great example of someone who understood these things well, and his timing was impeccable along with the fact he offered new ideas to the market. He was a one hit wonder, but it wasn't because he wasn't professionally trained. I knew the guy for years, and he came out of the gaming business and had an eye for design and marketing. Unfortunately he seems to have moved on, but I'm happy for him because last I understood he was travelling around the world doing the things that he enjoyed most.

Good luck.

[heywooood]

the most important acronym these days especially is ROI - return on investment.

this is likely why Alabeo has switched from recreating the lesser known, rare but beautiful aircraft they initially offered and gone 'Cessna' -

it is also the reason why some products fall short even of what the developer making them could have done, once they tried to guess what the ROI would eventually be..after promotions and theft.

since these are all valid reasons, and entirely out of my control, I try to be satisfied with what I get for my 20 bucks - its also why I never spend more than that on any one aircraft or scenery - and why I stay with the 3-4 developers I trust (or who trust me)

[gman5250]

********, some advice..............Good luck.


Thank you sir for your generous advice. I have take the liberty to archive the contents of your statement for further reference. When I was in business in my former life I did all of my own R&D, development, marketing, promoting, print & web design...everything.

That experience was useful, but the counsel of those who have actually been in the trenches is, by far, more valuable.

This entire post is probably the most intelligent and enlightening I have seen to date at this site.

[bazzar]

I have spent most of my working life, some 40+ years, in advertising and marketing. Working for ad agencies at the coal face and at boardroom level in domestic and international markets. I guess there are a couple of pointers I can pass on to anyone starting out on this journey.

They apply to any business whatever the category that has a need to sell product or service.

1) Brand awareness. How can anybody buy what you have to sell if they don't know who the hell you are?
2) Point of difference. Even if you do get them to recognise you, why should they buy your product as opposed to the next guy's?

It's pretty simple stuff but has been law for as long as I can remember, Way before computers, that's for sure. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the cost of production.

Anyone with a small business that uses social media and in particular web-based Facebook pages, will know how hard it is to recruit people to their sites. The internet is not the golden goose people think. It is still very easy to hide your brand there with very little awareness.

And then, even if you do attract say, 1,000 people to your site, how many of those can you persuade to buy? Precious few believe me.

If anybody is game enough to try this business just remember those two simple laws. Without them, you're dead in the water.

:engel016:

[CodyValkyrie]

Anyone with a small business that uses social media and in particular web-based Facebook pages, will know how hard it is to recruit people to their sites. The internet is not the golden goose people think. It is still very easy to hide your brand there with very little awareness.
So true. I always treated my YouTube channel as being a product itself, even if the name I use is less than adequate. Funny enough, I've only made about $100 from YouTube, but that was never the point. The point was to draw attention to the videos I crafted, which drew viewers to the products I was advertising. My money came from the clients, and everything I did was aimed at making my clients money, and that meant keeping up with social sites. I'll be honest, it was a complete pain in the ass sometimes and sucked up a ton of my time. I ended up with a few thousand subscribers and a few million video views, so the efforts paid off.

[IanP]

I posted myself about the costs involved in getting into this hobby - at a freeware level, forget anything else - slightly before Blender2FSX was released. You cannot be an expert at all levels of FS development. Heck, flight dynamics design takes at least three dark rituals and an entire flock of chickens per aircraft model (I managed to make a badly flying model into a not flying model and gave up), then you have to take into account that much of the gauge and systems coding now has to be inside the model itself, which many people do expect far too much from, IMO. You need thousands of hours of experience in numerous fields and using professional level tools for each of them, which is impossible. Therefore you team up with others who do have that experience, which spreads the profit very thinly indeed, for most products.

One problem in this hobby is that minorities do tend to be very vocal about the fact that "everyone" wants what they want. Apparently, "everyone" in the FS world uses VATSIM. A very tiny fraction do in reality. "Everyone" wants air racing. "Everyone" wants multiplayer combat. "Everyone" is in a VA, flies GA, flies classics, flies glass cockpits, flies steam cockpits, wants ultimate complexity, wants 'ctrl-e' aircraft, wants helicopters, flying boats, airliners. "Everyone" wants <insert type of product here> and it's never true. The only thing "everyone" wants is an open platform that allows people to build what we all, as individuals, want! We have a vast array of desires, a vast array of experience, knowledge and capability. That's a good thing. There's plenty of room and scope for everyone. Freeware, however, isn't doing so well. The costs and expectations of freeware are ever escalating and people really do want every freeware release to be payware quality. I've found myself not flying freeware aircraft because the gauges are blurred, or because I can't click switches to do important flight tasks in the cockpit, so I'm as guilty as pretty much all of us are... But it's freeware that the payware developers start in.

Because products have reached such a high quality, the hobby has made a rod for its own back. Everything now has to be of that level. Except that it doesn't. I've said before, I regularly fly default aircraft. Unfortunately there are almost no freeware aircraft of the types that I most often like to fly - because 'the market' demanded payware quality, which made the developers either stop developing or go commercial. I do pretty low-end freeware. I've spent tens of thousands of pounds and lost count of the number of hours, building up the resources and knowledge to be able to create what I do. I have the utmost respect for those who create far better than I do, whether they're payware or freeware.

[zswobbie1]

A most interesting read. many thanks for that.
Our hobby is very diverse, with many searching for the holy grail in aircraft & scenery. I bit tip of the hat for all the developers out there that have large shoulders to bear the brunt of our needs.

Something to consider. Is our hobby on 3 levels? Those 'A2A, PMDG'rs that want, expect & demand the very best? the intermediate'rs that are not so critical & maybe sail & drive as well as fly? (the fun simmers, for want of a better name). Then the so called newbies. The new simmers that are dipping their toes into the hobby & need a bit of simplicity to avaid scaring them off.

I think it is very difficult for developers nowdays to decide where their product will fit, nevermind deciding for which sim to develop for.

It's actually a 2 fold problem. We need/would like more people to join our hobby, maybe at a 'nursery' level & we need more developers to feed our constantly growing needs.

Somewhere out there amongst guys coming into our hobby are our future developers. We need to encourage more to join us & also to encourage all thos efreeware developers out there. We tend not to bother with them, as we possibly think that, because it's free, it cannot be any good.

Anyhow, just a few random thoughts...

[n4gix]

You need thousands of hours of experience in numerous fields and using professional level tools for each of them, which is impossible. Therefore you team up with others who do have that experience, which spreads the profit very thinly indeed, for most products.<insert type="" here="" product="" of="">
Ian, you've articulated the difficulties most eloquently. After several years of "freeware" work, followed by over ten years of "professional" work, I believe that I've achieved at least journeyman level in 3D modeling and gauge/systems programming. I remain at an advanced apprentice level in artwork/texture development, and am woefully ignorant of FDE and sound work, which explains why I work for one company on several projects rather than trying to be a Lone Wolf independent developer.

I've lost count of the number of incredibly naïve folks who come to places such as FS Developer and ask "Can someone help me develop a PMDG level XXX? Please provide step by step instructions." :banghead:

When advised to start out by using Milton's marvelous C162 tutorial as a starting point on their journey, either they never come back to post again, or they insist that they want to build an A380 or some such really complex heavy... with fully modeled VC and systems of course. :a1089:

Rare are those who are actually willing to put in the intense amount of effort to learn though. Those few are joyfully received and assisted as much as possible. A couple of them now work for Milviz. :semi-twins:
</insert>

[CodyValkyrie]

I'll break this down mathematically, for those logic minded people:

Let's use a realistic scenario of a detailed aircraft that not many people are interested in for whatever reason, but it took a year to develop. The product only manages to get 1,000 sales. The product itself sales for $49.99.

$49.99 x 1,000 = $49,990. This is your gross income.
Let's throw in taxes now (I'm using 30% to make this easy). $49,990 x .7 = $34,993.
You need to pay your modeler and coder since you didn't pay them hourly, and you agreed to 25% of sales each, which comes to an additional 50% each. $34,993 x .5 = $17,496.50
Let's drop out the cost of marketing, so let's just say $1,250 for video, banner ads, the whole shabang (so cheap, and probably unrealistic). You're now at $16,246.50.

That's $16,246.50 for a whole year of developing. Now you have a pissed off coder and modeler because of poor sales, you still haven't paid your host and possibly business associates or investors, etc. Could you sustain this business? Not without making multiple products at once, and possibly much simpler ones. For a new company, sales are generally much smaller than that, so you have to consider that as well if you haven't established yourself out of the gate. Now you understand why most people do this on the side. If you have a secure income, adding a few thousand dollars to your income becomes very realistic, but it's not necessarily sustainable full time. This was the issue I ended up running into, as right after I started going full time, Microsoft threw their chips into Flight and subsequently bailed out of the industry. It was a bad gamble, and a lot of developers slowed production or outright left. What money there was to make dropped, and the further I went down the road, the less financially secure I was.

I don't know if anyone noticed, but since the Flight debacle, most companies (based in English speaking countries or Europe where that money doesn't get you far) slowed production down or outright stopped. Remember how quickly addons were coming out about 4 years ago? If you live in other countries however, that money can go a lot further.

For anyone using this as their only source of income, I envy you for making it work. Outside of the much larger publishers, or the rare independent company, that is a very hard thing to do. I have just as much respect for freeware developers, since you're not making a dime on this but still putting forward all of the problems associated with development.

[Willy]

Something tells me I'm not the only one who sometimes loves simplicity.

As a painter and I sometimes offer my services to freeware developers. Some projects lasted nearly two years, during which the texture layout changed several times. Countless hours I must have spend on these projects. Nevertheless I have enjoyed every single one of them. I've learned a lot during these project and I regard painting as my hobby. And what is better than being able to spend time on your hobbies.

Personally I don't have a problem to spend money on a thing I consider a hobby. The software I use to make my repaints with is paid for. And when I look at the hours I have used it, it was most probably a better buy than MS Office. The complete MS Office package contains quite some programs I hardly use.

............

Cheers,
Huub

I'm all for simple myself.

Most of my repaint tools are old and purchased long ago. For what I do, they still serve me well although I'll use one program for one thing and another for something else. Just my personal preferences when painting. And now that I finally figured I had a handle on doing bare metal for FS9, I get to start all over again with FSX. :D

Yep, just a hobby that I enjoy doing and when I quit enjoying it, it will be time to find something else to do. I work at it at my own pace and often get sidetracked with other aspects of FS. But that's okay, if I ever get FS like I want it, it'll be time to quit. lol

[pilto von pilto]

Here's the thinking as I ( one person out of a possible 7 billion human beings so my opinion counts for nowt... If i were a kardashian then p'raps ) see it.

1. Developers need to be passionate about either the game , gaming in general , the subject or in my case the actual art of making something look as close to the real thing. You shouldnt be in this "business" if your basis is ROI, fiscal management and time management and seeing your family.

2. The sim world is very similar to the automotive business/worlds. There are cars like the caterham 160 which are low power, low systems but an absolute hoot to drive apparently and if you live in a country other than australia are relatively cheap and road registerable. Then you have the other end of the spectrum. The cars that feature on top gear and have a 700 page manual just so you know how to top up the windscreen washer reservoir. With the cost to match. So. Both cars ( sim products ) are legitimate. Both have their detractors. Both have their fans. Both can live side by side in the market. What I think the issue is that the vocal minority are wanting lamborghini performance/detail/system/pose value on a hyundai budget. And when this doesnt happen they get vocal on their blog/forum of choice. Which leads me into part 3.

3. Devs have tougher skin than you think. I run the help desk at AH. I know for a fact that people are different on forums/blogs than they are even in one on one emails.

Lastly. too much hand wringing not enough developing. Get back to work .:a1089:

[WarHorse47]

I'll break this down mathematically, for those logic minded people:

Thanks for the compliment..


Let's use a realistic scenario of a detailed aircraft that not many people are interested in for whatever reason, but it took a year to develop. The product only manages to get 1,000 sales. The product itself sales for $49.99.

Here is where my logic breaks down. I'm not so sure your scenario is realistic.

You are using an example (scenario) of a "detailed aircraft that not many people are interested in for whatever reason." I'd be curious to know how developers pick the product to develop. I've got tons of Mustangs from several developers, but nobody has yet produced a P-61 Black Widow.

It seems that there is no science behind the choice of what aircraft to develop, or at least I'm unaware of any survey's that have been conducted. I'd also be curious to see the sales numbers on known payware aircraft to get some feel for how these really sell. I know what my favorites are, but I don't think I represent the average consumer.

And is one year a reasonable timeframe to develop a detailed aircraft? That would depend on the resources I would think. How many hours do the coder and modeler actually spend on the product? If they were paid by the hour, would it make any difference?

Got me curious now.

[CodyValkyrie]

I'll use some vague information to help, if I may. I have to be careful what I say, however, because it is in the best interest to not divulge client information about such things.

I can, however, tell you from experience that a P-51 Mustang will outsell pretty much every other warbird of that era, and might be superseded by a GA aircraft (depending on which model). There's also the issue of timing. The L-39 is a perfect example of that. At the time it was introduced, there wasn't many fighter/trainer jets available for FS, and the model brought new ideas to the industry that changed it in some ways (people's expectations that is).

When a developer develops an aircraft, they take risks and weigh that against known variables such as previous sales. The 377 from A2A Simulations is an example that I can publicly speak about. It was admittedly a risky move, and the company knew it. It turned out okay because of technology and timing, but if you want perhaps an idea of how successful it is against say, the P-51, compare the posts counts on A2A's forum and factor that in with how old the products are. Naturally, I can't reveal any real information from any company I've worked for unless we've stated it publicly, but yes these decisions are very carefully weighed, and it's exactly why we haven't seen any P-61s (despite my desire to also have one).

As for hourly wages, I almost never accepted them. I hated being bound to a contract with a company, and I'm sure they equally agreed. In this case, my product was the video, and I was generally paid in full at the completion of it (or half and half, depending on the contract). By being bound to sales or hours, it placed new constraints on me that I didn't desire, and also bound me to the company further than I was willing to go. I don't want to hand over time sheets and send in expenditures to my clients. In the few cases I did, where I was tied to the success of sales or an hourly rate, I was either too expensive for clients, or it turned out VERY bad for both parties (a subject I'm reluctant to get into). Being per job based allowed me the freedom to work with many different companies and not tie myself to one. Plus, once the check was in the mail, my expectations were met until the next project came up. This was FAR simpler for my clients and I, and made transactions and business very straight forward with no frills. As for my services, that depended a lot on the client and their budget. Needless to say, I never advertised price for this reason. Far too complicated and personal to just put a price on and advertise it, and my services were far more broad than a mere "video" production in most cases.

[bazzar]

Thanks for the compliment..



Here is where my logic breaks down. I'm not so sure your scenario is realistic.

You are using an example (scenario) of a "detailed aircraft that not many people are interested in for whatever reason." I'd be curious to know how developers pick the product to develop. I've got tons of Mustangs from several developers, but nobody has yet produced a P-61 Black Widow.

It seems that there is no science behind the choice of what aircraft to develop, or at least I'm unaware of any survey's that have been conducted. I'd also be curious to see the sales numbers on known payware aircraft to get some feel for how these really sell. I know what my favorites are, but I don't think I represent the average consumer.

And is one year a reasonable timeframe to develop a detailed aircraft? That would depend on the resources I would think. How many hours do the coder and modeler actually spend on the product? If they were paid by the hour, would it make any difference?

Got me curious now.

We've been over this many times but here are the plain facts:

A professional 3D modeller will charge anywhere between $30 and $60 per hour, many charge more, depending on the circumstances. If an average quality model takes let's say 1000 person hours to make, it is a simple task to see how much the base cost would be. Way outside the park for most developers and publishers.

If a title sells 250 copies, as a small operator, you're doing OK. At $20 ticket price per that would be a gross income of $5,000 before taxes and expenses such as programming, texture artists, sound engineers and then the costs of promoting and selling the product. You can see where this is going.

Most modelers commissioned to work on flight sim projects, therefore, will work for a percentage of the product's net income after taxes, paid as royalty. This is beer money for most and cannot provide a full-time living without a "day-job" of some description. This impacts on the time available for these people to work on flight sim projects which is why production times become what they are. Also, unfortunately, many countries now charge a royalty tax which can be deducted at source before the modeller receives their royalty commission.

So in answer to your query, hourly rates cannot work in this business, ever, unless we are talking about maybe $5 per hour? Yeah right.

Professional modelling software can cost thousands of dollars for one seat.

A mutually agreed price for the job is usually negotiated or, as I have outlined, a royalty agreement is entered into, based on sales percentages.

Just as a side comment, whenever you see "best-sellers" lists in third-party sellers' websites, you would be astonished at the actual figures involved - this is a VERY small market.

Choice of subject is not usually random, it is based on research to indicate what sells and what does not. The community on the whole is quite conservative and the biggest buyers are those who "fly" airliners or belong to virtual airline groups or the remaining numbers who like to use GA aircraft to get about their virtual worlds. Military is actually quite restricted, usually to fast jets.

It is a brave soul who ventures into the realms of rare, unusual subjects with an aim to make any income. Best left to freeware developers who have the time and good graces to do the work for nothing.

I would refer you back to the latter half of point number 1) in my learned colleague's earlier post. That really is the point.:engel016:

[CodyValkyrie]

Well made points Baz. I don't think any developer would hate the business, so to speak, unless they are making plans to leave it. I think most of us love what we do, even if we barely scrape by. This can be a bridge too far for some people, but occasionally someone will be successful enough to go full time. Most of the only full time members in this work are very successful owners or publishers, but I'd imagine 90% of the people in this industry have another primary income. My most successful years were when I had another job. The extra dosh was great for vacations, but the biggest mistake I made was going full time. It nearly ruined my love for the hobby.

[pilottj]

This is an interesting topic.

The PMDG MD-11 is an example of this. That MD-11 was a fantastic addon, it was unique, not your run of the mill Boeing or Airbus, it ran on moderate systems well with decent frames. The PMDG 777 for all its awesomeness does require a pretty high end rig to run at it's potential. However the MD-11 was a poor seller, much like it's real world counterpart. Those who own the PMDG MD-11 love it and have been begging PMDG to give it some updating, however PMDG has been quite clear they will not touch this project again. It's too bad that such a unique well built addon has to be let go in favor of more generic 'common in real life' aircraft.

To their credit, PMDG is pursuing the DC-6, which I hope sells well. I also hope vintage aircraft fans here consider getting the PMDG DC-6 too. The more support we can show PMDG for this project, the more likely they will do some vintage planes in the future, because the majority of their customer base wants modern day common airliners. Hopefully PMDG can find a balance with this like A2A, build the common Liners and GAs ie 747 and Comanche, use the profits from those popular projects for the 'exotic' stuff...ie DC-6, AT-6...etc.

Cheers
TJ

[IanP]

Equally interestingly, though, Robert Randazzo has stated that the DC-6 will be a "comparatively light" package, compared to their other airliners - it will not be to the same level of complexity as their Boeings, or the A2A Accu-Sim B377. It's also actually only been definitively confirmed as being their first package for X-Plane 10. Everyone is expecting it to be FSX/P3D, as well, but it was noted by many people that this was not explicitly stated when the product was announced for XP. ;)

Regardless of what platform it is on, the fact that it has been repeatedly stated it will not be a "full complexity" model says a lot about the profit that PMDG expect to make from it.

Ian P.

[hairyspin]

A very interesting discussion. It seems I'm not yer average simmer, since GA and "big iron" hold little interest for me. Warbirds and the more idiosyncratic civils are more appealing, the An-2 as an example since I couldn't help but laugh out loud first time I saw a real one fly. This ancient-looking single-engined crate rolled out on to the runway farting and banging, rolled what looked like 50 feet, lifted steeply off the ground and kept climbing. The landing approach was even steeper.

I also build FS models as a hobby and after reading Cody's contributions I'm going to keep it that way. If others enjoy the (freeware) results that's fine, but I'm not going to fool myself that my taste in aircraft will sell shedloads in the FS market. As Tim Conrad put it: the freedom of freeware. I'm also sad to read elsewhere that beautiful models like Lionheart's Lear don't sell very well: he puts heart and soul into work like that and the sales returns don't justify it. Sigh.

[Dutcheeseblend]

Thanks Tom! "The freedom of freeware" hmmm...

[DaveWG]

...It's also actually only been definitively confirmed as being their first package for X-Plane 10. Everyone is expecting it to be FSX/P3D, as well, but it was noted by many people that this was not explicitly stated when the product was announced for XP. ;)

Regardless of what platform it is on, the fact that it has been repeatedly stated it will not be a "full complexity" model says a lot about the profit that PMDG expect to make from it.

Ian P.

Actually, he did say it's going to be for FSX/P3d as well.

Quote from RRs post on the DC6 for X-Plane thread...

The PMDG Classics DC-6B is the lead off product in a new breed of products for PMDG that will bring some "old school" aviation to our product lines for Xplane, FSX and Prepar3D. This product will drop for XPlane first- but shortly after will release for FSX and Prepar3D as well- making it the first PMDG product to appear on three different simulation platforms. (We count FSX and FSX-SE as a single platform...)

[huub vink]

Int this thread I have seen several financial overviews a discussion about software. But what I miss in this thread is the word "fun". I create repaints because I think it is fun to create something. Am I the only one who is having fun?

A puzzled,
Huub

:dizzy:

[bazzar]

That is a question that doesn't need to be asked Huub.

If you aren't having fun doing what you do, don't do it. After 40 years doing unthankful things and changing to 3D, I don't stop smiling.:engel016:

[fsxar177]

That is a question that doesn't need to be asked Huub.

If you aren't having fun doing what you do, don't do it. After 40 years doing unthankful things and changing to 3D, I don't stop smiling.:engel016:


I agree.. I think we're all in this, because of the enjoyment!

[Dev One]

I agree.. I think we're all in this, because of the enjoyment!

Yes, I do it because it is 'fun' in a way, it can also be very frustrating at times. Choosing a subject can also be difficult especially as nowadays I expect myself to produce a better model than the one I did before, but also I have only concentrated on British light aircraft where I can get reasonable data, and aircraft like that are getting like hen's teeth. There are still plenty to do but there will be more & more guesswork into the interior & their flying characteristics. I must admit that I do enjoy experimenting with the FDE to hopefully get it near where I think it should be according to published pilots reports or even living pilots.
For me it keeps me occupied in my retirement & using my skills as an ex aeronautical design & development engineer, although sometimes my wife despairs at my length of time in front of the monitor, but I mostly prefer that to the rubbish that seems to be on TV that she watches & my body cannot keep up with the gardening work she cannot do!
Interesting discussion
Keith
P.S. This is a teaser of whats in the hangar with the UK based one being worked on also - completely different instrument panel & a couple of other things.

https://youtu.be/mtqTckp68ig

K

[hairyspin]

There's a new example of what might or might not sell on this forum: the Grumman Tigercat by Milton. Gary is converting for FSX/P3D and it's looking marvellous already, but what would the payware crowd say? And would it sell in quantity? It would be on my shopping list, but I don't think I'm the typical customer.

It's a fine collective project instead and will be welcomed by me and others who like beautiful high-performance aircraft! :triumphant:


Keith: that's a tidy job and a beautiful aircraft! My wife and I are similar in our screen time pursuits...

[IanP]

That must have been in response to all the "umm, Robert?" comments, DaveWG... I did think it had gone quiet on the subject. Now I now why and I stand (sit?try not to fall over?) corrected. Thanks. :)

As has already been said, nobody would develop anything if they didn't enjoy it - or if there wasn't sufficient financial recompense. I think that this thread clearly shows that it's pretty clear that we have to do it because we enjoy it, because the income wouldn't justify it otherwise! ;)

...with which, back to something vaguely resembling a Bedford. I'm definitely staying firmly freeware for the near future.

Ian P.

[n4gix]

Int this thread I have seen several financial overviews a discussion about software. But what I miss in this thread is the word "fun". I create repaints because I think it is fun to create something. Am I the only one who is having fun?
Huub, that truly depends on which sim version I'm working towards. For FSX and FSX:SE I have a blast! However, due to unfortunate language I have to maintain a stiff upper lip and avoid cracking a smile when working on a P3D model...

...lest anyone think I am having fun! :jump: <Joke!>

[Bjoern]

Fun when developing? Puh-lease.

Repositioned a scenery object?
Yeah, you need to restart FSX to view your change, buddy.

Changed a line of XML code in the Modeldef.xml?
You need to quit GMax, save the XML file and open GMax again.

Work on a XML gauge and the entire panel quits working?
Good luck trying to find the culprit!

Want to keep track of your repaint's progress in FSX?
Restart the simulator after every export from your painting tool.

Changed a coefficient in the FDE?
Reload the aircraft or flight, wait until the enines are spooled up again, adjust the coefficient, rinse and repeat.

Export a model from 3ds Max?
Only if you run it throught XToMDL by hand.

Found a visual glitch in a fully textured and animated model you've made and you need to remap and reanimate parts of it?
[Meltdown]

Finished an add-on?
Write endless amounts of largely unnecessary doucumentation that even the last moron will understand.

Publish an add-on?
I forgot file xyz. Need to reupload and notify everyone.

Published an add-on?
Some idiots are too dumb to read the manual and then go and ask dumb questions.

Made an exceptionally painter-friendly paintkit?
No one cares.

Desperately need reference information on something?
The internet doesn't have it as it's too specific.

Need to waste a lot of time with little gain in front of the PC?
Hey, let's continue project xyz for FSX!

Try to actually just fly?
Oh, wait. Let me just make a quick improvement here and there...

Try to fly and suppress the urge to do any kind of development on the aircraft, paint or scenery?
I can do this, I can do this, I can't do this, goddammit.

Using someone else's creations?
Why did you do it like this, man! There could have been a much better way!



My current theory is that I actually hate myself more than I hate developing.
There's no other explanation as to why I spend such a staggering amount of time doing stuff for FSX despite it being the frustration-soaked ride it is.


Fun fact:
I seldomly curse at software, except when it comes to development stuff. Then the FCC would have a censoring fest par excellence.

[n4gix]

Finished an add-on?
Write endless amounts of largely unnecessary doucumentation that even the last moron will understand.
You left out a critical phrase from the above...

"...understand, and that no one will actually read."

[Milton Shupe]

Fun when developing? Puh-lease.

Repositioned a scenery object?
Yeah, you need to restart FSX to view your change, buddy.

Changed a line of XML code in the Modeldef.xml?
You need to quit GMax, save the XML file and open GMax again.

.... {snipped ...}
Fun fact:
I seldomly curse at software, except when it comes to development stuff. Then the FCC would have a censoring fest par excellence.

Excellent summation! :-)


You left out a critical phrase from the above...

"...understand, and that no one will actually read."

LOL Good one :-)

[hairyspin]

Bad day at the desktop, Bjoern?? lol :mixed-smiley-027:

[fsxar177]

Repositioned a scenery object?
Yeah, you need to restart FSX to view your change, buddy


Or, just refresh scenery library, 15 seconds and it's done!


Changed a line of XML code in the Modeldef.xml?
You need to quit GMax, save the XML file and open GMax again.


Make the switch to Blender, and it's a single click!


Work on a XML gauge and the entire panel quits working?
Good luck trying to find the culprit!


Ever hear of back-up?


Want to keep track of your repaint's progress in FSX?
Restart the simulator after every export from your painting tool.


Um..I Just reload the model, via a different livery. Works every time. 2 min., tops.

Changed a coefficient in the FDE?
Reload the aircraft or flight, wait until the enines are spooled up again, adjust the coefficient, rinse and repeat.


I'm with you here.. I do like AFSD though, let's me monitor a lot of my values real-time, without always needing to see the results first-hand.


Export a model from 3ds Max?
Only if you run it throught XToMDL by hand.


Make the switch to Blender, again...

Found a visual glitch in a fully textured and animated model you've made and you need to remap and reanimate parts of it?
[Meltdown]


Agreed!

Finished an add-on?
Write endless amounts of largely unnecessary doucumentation that even the last moron will understand.


And which they won't read, before calling support at 3am on a Sunday!


Publish an add-on?
I forgot file xyz. Need to reupload and notify everyone.


Good beta team - Work's wonders.


Published an add-on?
Some idiots are too dumb to read the manual and then go and ask dumb questions.


Reference above..


Made an exceptionally painter-friendly paintkit?
No one cares.


This is truly a shame. Few go far enough to properly give a really good paintkit. But when they do, they deserve to be praised. I for one will hail RealAir, for the the Legacy, John Terrell from Warbirdsim, Mike from Flight Replicas, and I'll curse Just Flight's DC-6, anything Alabeo/Carenado, Flying Stations Sea Fury, and Vertigo Bearcat.


Desperately need reference information on something?
The internet doesn't have it as it's too specific.


This is where it's good to have connections! When we were doing the T-6 FDE, is was a great privilege to privately drill about 7 other Real-World Pilots... And we were full of questions! Having a half dozen original manuals helped too, thanks to a Warbird owner in Australia.

Need to waste a lot of time with little gain in front of the PC?
Hey, let's continue project xyz for FSX!


Or, try to fly any Accu-Sim Warbird post GA release(s) and patch(s) and patch(s). and patch(s).

Try to actually just fly?
Oh, wait. Let me just make a quick improvement here and there...


​Do it right the first times, and it's amazing the leisure time that ensues...


Try to fly and suppress the urge to do any kind of development on the aircraft, paint or scenery?
I can do this, I can do this, I can't do this, goddammit.





Right? It's not only me!? I have a super High LOD Mesh/Photo scenery that's been in the works for several years..And every time I fly, I feel guilty.. Like I should be finishing that project! Dang!


Using someone else's creations?
Why did you do it like this, man! There could have been a much better way!


Always!


I must agree...
It's perfectionism in most FSX developers, that makes us go through this kind of torture. Some subtle things do make me smile. Last year there was a release, of which I played a large role. Upon it's completion, the following months progressed, and not one solitary support question hit the inbox, after the first 750 downloads. Well... That feels good. I guess that's accomplishment. :)

Now.. Where did I leave my paintbrush, 3d software, audio software, manuals, books, pens, papers, CD's, COFFEE....my head!??

- Joseph

[Dev One]

From post #56 onwards......I love it....how true, & I only create for FS9!
I am not sure of my sanity at times.....:banghead:
Keith

[Bjoern]

Bad day at the desktop, Bjoern?? lol :mixed-smiley-027:

Tried to continue work on a project involving texture mapping and texture painting in GIMP after posting. Quit after half an hour and curled up in the corner.
Lost that lovin' feeling.




Or, just refresh scenery library, 15 seconds and it's done!

Too many clicks involved.


Make the switch to Blender, and it's a single click!

Ever transferred aircraft models between modeling tools?
I have and it's a royal PITA. You usually lose at least the animations and smoothing groups, sometimes even the texture mapping.


Ever hear of back-up?

Seriously...?



Um..I Just reload the model, via a different livery. Works every time. 2 min., tops.

Doesn't work reliablay. I usually load it into ModelConverterX and keep track of the paint stuff there.
Still, it annoys the living daylight out of me that models can be properly refreshed, while FSX refuses to reload textures if they're already present in FSX' allocated memory.

On a brighter note, the issue was much, much worse in FS9.
http://fsdeveloper.com/forum/threads/forcing-a-texture-refresh-in-fsx.23115/#post-582312



Make the switch to Blender, again...

See above.


Good beta team - Work's wonders.

Time for a team doesn't fit into my highly irregular development schedule.
Tried team-based modeling before. Set up Google Drive with with full access, etc...
The guy made two submissions, made changes to my "no go" areas that were not to receive any more changes because I simply wanted to move on to other things that needed work. Told him that I wanted him to primarily focus on other areas; never heard of him again after that.



This is where it's good to have connections! When we were doing the T-6 FDE, is was a great privilege to privately drill about 7 other Real-World Pilots... And we were full of questions! Having a half dozen original manuals helped too, thanks to a Warbird owner in Australia.

Good for you, but I usually don't have the patience to wait for any replies from people associated with the real deal or can keep up my motivation to actually do something with the reference data people send me. I figure that guessing how something works or looks is half of the fun of developing.


Or, try to fly any Accu-Sim Warbird post GA release(s) and patch(s) and patch(s). and patch(s).

Can't relate; no A2A stuff here.


​Do it right the first times, and it's amazing the leisure time that ensues...

Ahahahaha!


Right? It's not only me!? I have a super High LOD Mesh/Photo scenery that's been in the works for several years..And every time I fly, I feel guilty.. Like I should be finishing that project! Dang!

I think a thread for dead/incomplete projects might be slightly useful.
The guilt usually disappears for a time after I publish the source files. Then I realize that even the source files are a magnet for dumb questions like "What do I do with these?" or "How does [modeling tool] work?" and it returns.
Can't win.

[fsxar177]

Good read Bjoern,

I must say; It's interesting to see, the many differing opinions, practices, and disciplines that make up the FS development community!

The idea of a common library of sorts, with un-completed projects.. The ones that will never see the light of day, if they are left where they are, is a pretty nifty idea. Even if there was a minimal rights fee associated with higher-end projects..where another developer could pick up the reins, and continue a project.
Hmm..

- Joseph

[Katoun]

Hi,

We have some products like that and Colin is willing to put them up. Needless to say, there would be a small fee involved but it's negligible considering the cost of the models themselves.

Does anyone have any ideas about how to run/handle that?

Thank you.

Kat.

[Dutcheeseblend]

IIRC from long ago, Simviation had a section called 'Abandoned projects' or something the like. Maybe we can put this up here? Or does it need a shop environment, for the fees?

[Sieggie]

I would think a thread of abandoned projects and who to contact via email if interested for the particulars of taking the project over would be a good start. Then anyone who has an abandoned project could post it with contact particulars. You would not want to post the actual project as it would make it open game for anyone to steal the previous developers work.

Dave

[fsxar177]

I have excellent hosting and bandwidth, and would be willing to facilitate such a library to those interested? Thoughts?

- Joseph

[Mach3DS]

that's a neat idea. I'd love to see a list of what has been "abandoned" essentially up to now...what are some examples of projects we might expect to see in such a warehouse of sorts?

[Bjoern]

I think with a bit of organizing, something like an "abandoned stuff" database can be created at at FSDeveloper.

If Arno doesn't have any hosting space available, a Wiki article on FSDev with links to any relevant resources might just do the trick.
Hosting can be done on a service (Google Drive, OneDrive, etc...), at one of the larger flightsim sites or on a private server.
The problem is that projects usually use up a lot more data than a finished product because they contain a lot of uncompressed stuff. Also, download numbers are usually low and thus the data is more dead weight than fun stuff.
Also, they will have to be organized with as little clutter as possible and maybe a short note about the original goal and the state the project was abandoned in.
In my case, I tend to use a bit of other people's work in my stuff, so permissions are another issue.

Milviz' projects could be added to a database, but instead of a download link, interested parties should only get a way of contacting Colin.
Same for projects that incur any kind of cost or special permissions.




Good read Bjoern,

I must say; It's interesting to see, the many differing opinions, practices, and disciplines that make up the FS development community!

Well, I hope that at least the hint regarding texture refreshes can help to make someone else's development process a little bit less miserable.




that's a neat idea. I'd love to see a list of what has been "abandoned" essentially up to now...what are some examples of projects we might expect to see in such a warehouse of sorts?

What would you do if your most wanted add-on was on that list?
Nag any developers about taking it up and finishing it for you?
Put on your toolbelt and finish it yourself?

[Mach3DS]

I wouldn't nag anyone to complete it...I have blender and with a few friends might actually take up the challenge given the right circumstances...you never know...I started repainting after wanting bare aluminum skins which no one would or could find time to make for me so I tried to learn and started repaintin as a result...I'm still a novice but you never know!

[fsxar177]

I know we keep straying further from the original topic...

However, wouldn't it be nice, if there was a organized means of accomplishing something like this .. ? And with regards to the question "What if your favorite was on the list".. I know it's unheard of, but you could offer to send $50 toward the developer..

Maybe you'll never get a return on it..

Or - Maybe You'd encourage him just enough, that something might actually come of it!

- Joseph

[roger-wilco-66]

The abandoned projects idea sounds great! Maybe we could set up some sort of a SOH group for that? Like the old SOH donation team? We have some good devs / repainters / coders here and I'm sure we could turn out some great projects!


Cheers,
Mark

[Jafo]

Fun when developing? Puh-lease.

Repositioned a scenery object?
Yeah, you need to restart FSX to view your change, buddy.

Changed a line of XML code in the Modeldef.xml?
You need to quit GMax, save the XML file and open GMax again.

Work on a XML gauge and the entire panel quits working?
Good luck trying to find the culprit!

Want to keep track of your repaint's progress in FSX?
Restart the simulator after every export from your painting tool.

Changed a coefficient in the FDE?
Reload the aircraft or flight, wait until the enines are spooled up again, adjust the coefficient, rinse and repeat.

Export a model from 3ds Max?
Only if you run it throught XToMDL by hand.

Found a visual glitch in a fully textured and animated model you've made and you need to remap and reanimate parts of it?
[Meltdown]

Finished an add-on?
Write endless amounts of largely unnecessary doucumentation that even the last moron will understand.

Publish an add-on?
I forgot file xyz. Need to reupload and notify everyone.

Published an add-on?
Some idiots are too dumb to read the manual and then go and ask dumb questions.

Made an exceptionally painter-friendly paintkit?
No one cares.

Desperately need reference information on something?
The internet doesn't have it as it's too specific.

Need to waste a lot of time with little gain in front of the PC?
Hey, let's continue project xyz for FSX!

Try to actually just fly?
Oh, wait. Let me just make a quick improvement here and there...

Try to fly and suppress the urge to do any kind of development on the aircraft, paint or scenery?
I can do this, I can do this, I can't do this, goddammit.

Using someone else's creations?
Why did you do it like this, man! There could have been a much better way!



My current theory is that I actually hate myself more than I hate developing.
There's no other explanation as to why I spend such a staggering amount of time doing stuff for FSX despite it being the frustration-soaked ride it is.


Fun fact:
I seldomly curse at software, except when it comes to development stuff. Then the FCC would have a censoring fest par excellence.

LOL...
You missed the bit about painting...
Aligned the right-side fuse....transferred to top...merge layers copy paste reload into DxtBmp save refresh FSX look...see 1 pixel miss....
Start over...
Move top 1 pixel...merge layers copy paste reload into DxtBmp save refresh FSX look...see 3 pixel offset to Right side fuse....
Start over...

[Christoph_T]

"Made an exceptionally painter-friendly paintkit?
No one cares."

In my case that is actually not true!!
About 80% of the time I am dealing with anything related to the sim, I am jumping through the different layers of the provided paintkits:-)

But you right with:

"Want to keep track of your repaint's progress in FSX?
Restart the simulator after every export from your painting tool."

You can use "model converter" which showes you your progress much faster;-)

But of course this is only the small viewpoint of a little repainter like me.

Nice explaining and entertaining comment anyway:applause:

Christoph

[Christoph_T]

LOL...
You missed the bit about painting...
Aligned the right-side fuse....transferred to top...merge layers copy paste reload into DxtBmp save refresh FSX look...see 1 pixel miss....
Start over...
Move top 1 pixel...merge layers copy paste reload into DxtBmp save refresh FSX look...see 3 pixel offset to Right side fuse....
Start over...

Oh yes, I know that very well:banghead:
In my last projects I drove crazy several times course of not perfectly lined up patterns and other showstoppers:redfire: