Setting aside all the time and research costs involved in developing, I am not so sure Flight Simmers appreciate the level of support that has come to be expected, one on one, not only in their support forums but also forums such as these.
That level of contact has to eat up hours in the day.
When you have that level of familiarity you get a huge amount of input on the next project as well. A project hasn't been released yet can be trashed in the community because it does not meet some vocal persons idea of what they think is important and who will make it their mission in life to cry about to the point of being abusive.
I think addons have adapted to what the market will bear but compared to the effort that goes into them I don't see that level as being overpriced.
Being out of my price range does not automatically equate to overpriced in my view.
"Back of the envelope maths indicates I'm lucky if I make about £1 an hour on the average model we produce. To make the minimum wage, in the UK, we'd have to charge around 8 times more (and still get the same sales) which would mean charging about £100 or $160 an aircraft."
Wow as much as that Skippy. I must be doing something wrong.
MickeyD
"Illegitimum non carborundum".
Phanteks Enthoo Evolv X D-RGB Tempered Glass ATX Galaxy Silver
Intel Core i9 10980XE Extreme Edition X
ASUS ROG Rampage VI Extreme Encore MB
Corsair Vengeance LPX 128GB (8x16GB), PC4-30400 (3800MHz) DDR4
Corsair iCUE H100i ELITE CAPELLIX White Liquid CPU Cooler, 240mm Radiator, 2x ML120 RGB PWM Fans
Samsung 4TB SSD, 860 PRO Series, 2.5" SATA III x4
Corsair 1600W Titanium Series AX1600i Power Supply, 80 PLUS Titanium,
ASUS 43inch ROG Swift 4K UHD G-Sync VA Gaming Monitor, 3840x2160, HDR 1000, 1ms, 144Hz,
Quote
"Development costs are spiralling out of control because of market demand for systems depth, content and features"
Same old question...how many of simmers want a "real" simulation? Know many say so, know it takes months, years to mastera plane. Not to mention having to be pilot, 1 officer, flight engineer, etc...
Really don't have the need for systems depth. Alabeo is fine for me, and always wait for a sale, lower price to buy a plane..
regards
One of the foremost problems that faces developers these days is trying to make a close to 10 year old game engine (parts of it older) do things it was never intended to do.
As real world aircraft get more complex, so does the specification of an add-on. Modern airliners have amazingly complex computer systems to drive everything. Not add-ons - these have the same computer on which you write a Word document or send some simple emails.
Currently there have been many debates over screen refresh rates. The FS engine runs on what is called Tick18 which is a draw call for anything rendered therein at a rate of 18 frames per second. Any command, texture draw or animation will create such a call. So, with multiple MFDs, PFDs, radars, FMCs, radios and so on on a modern VC the draw call is huge.
Outside we now have wingflex, complex spoiler systems, multiple gear animations and more to add to the mix.
Demand for texture detail is such that 4096 sq texture tiles are now not uncommon.
It's a bit like Mr Creosote from Monty Python. " A wefferrr thin Electronic Flight Bag - perhaps or just a morsel more of forward view 3D terrain following doodads?...."
Original FS models were configured for around 50,000 polygons all up. We now have models flying around of 300,000 polys or more.
Something's going to blow...budgets already have..
I have to gently disagree Baz. When FSX was launched, Moore's Law on computing speeds was assumed and ACES expected we'd be running 7 or 8GHz processors by now, whereas even the maddest overclockers don't quite get to that yet. Multi-core processing has taken over as the development area in CPUs now.
If FSX wasn't meant to do as much as developers have got it to do then I wonder what the pages and pages of the SDK, published close to ten years ago, are documenting. Reams of A4 in my ringbinder list umpteen simulator variables; yet more pages on SimConnect; extraordinary flexibility to code conditions into animation and visibility systems and the scope of C++ coding and other black arts mean developers haven't yet exhausted the potential for development in FSX.
The limits are the 32-bit memory model and I agree something's gonna blow, probably tipped over the edge by 4096 textures and too many of 'em. It's just that we haven't got there yet!
Tom
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________________
Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. Proverbs 4:7
Actually this only applies to XML gauges. In C++ gauges I have timed the PRE_DRAW calls in gauge callbacks and they are pretty close to the actual game framerate.
And proper threading, combined with newer faster graphics libraries, along with proper organization of the textures to keep their count to a minimum, actually allows glass to have no (noticeable)impact on framerates at all.
-JB
I agree with you Tom. MS stopped the FS developement at the worst moment possible. FS2004 has been running fine years in (now) old computers and FSXI (and it's possible succesors) would be running fine if it ever existed. FSX can still be puzzling for modern computers. Like Vista had been and stayed the latest OS of MS.
I find the demands made by the upper echelons of the market odd, 'conflicting' in my opinion.
They demand 'Real Life' procedures and systems, complete in depth immersion, along with external 'Real Life' animations and detail.
As a simple suck I can't see the point, aircrew who are completely occupied with flying a modern complicated aircraft never view the externals, so why do the 'Real as it Gets' lot want all the outside bells and whistles?
I'm happy (as a simple suck) with reasonable systems and graphics, or the option of a 'Light Version' of my chosen aircraft.
The recent McDD DC8 comes to mind, with the 'Light' external textures option, and Carenado's C90 'Light' interior is another example of thinking outside the box, neither aircraft suffers and one gains extra FPS.
Having said that, I'm collecting the basics of a next generation box in a few days, not necessarily with Slight Simming as a priority, but partly so.
I'm always one for ramping up the system, fast is good, faster is better!!!
And I'm a simple suck who really likes speed.
One question Baz, which I 'think' I know the answer to but I'm asking it anyway, FSX/P3D is a resource hog, what with complex aircraft and scenery, that I understand.
However, a brand new and very complex Motor Racing simulation (pCars), complete with dynamic engine, suspension, engine controls and high resolution internal/external textures, 'the whole nine yards', plus active scenery and weather demands far fewer resources.
Answers on a Post Card will do.
Either way, next Saturday will see my budget evaporated.
Budgets? What budgets??
Attachment 11970
PLUS
Attachment 11971
PLUS
Attachment 11972
OR MAYBE
Attachment 11973
Might be sufficient for another couple of years.
"Illegitimum non carborundum".
Phanteks Enthoo Evolv X D-RGB Tempered Glass ATX Galaxy Silver
Intel Core i9 10980XE Extreme Edition X
ASUS ROG Rampage VI Extreme Encore MB
Corsair Vengeance LPX 128GB (8x16GB), PC4-30400 (3800MHz) DDR4
Corsair iCUE H100i ELITE CAPELLIX White Liquid CPU Cooler, 240mm Radiator, 2x ML120 RGB PWM Fans
Samsung 4TB SSD, 860 PRO Series, 2.5" SATA III x4
Corsair 1600W Titanium Series AX1600i Power Supply, 80 PLUS Titanium,
ASUS 43inch ROG Swift 4K UHD G-Sync VA Gaming Monitor, 3840x2160, HDR 1000, 1ms, 144Hz,
The simmers who wanted "real" simulation (let's say "as real as possible") are the one who directed the technical evolution of our sims.
If the majority of simmers were not interested in realistic airplanes that attempts to reproduce the real thing (which is the very definition of "simulator"), and they prefered beautiful but boring aircrafts instead, then the FS series would have stopped a long time ago, and would have transformed into some console software instead, like Ace Combat or such... I believe a great part of the simmers are actually using the simulation in order to see how a real aircraft works, flies, sounds, and all these things that people like me have no chance to do in real life.
... and NO, I'm not interested in spending many thousands of Euros to get a licence. I don't have that money to spend, and I don't have the time to fly and maintain that licence.
Concerning the prices, I would agree with the remark made by Francois. The simmers are looking at the addon quality itself, the price is secondary. An Alabeo plane could not sell at 50 dollars. An A2A plane could not either. An A2A plane with Accusim however, can and DOES sell at 50 dollars.... and it could even sell very well at a much higher price. Same goes with other categories of airplanes. PMDG, VRS etc... these planes are expensive, but nevertheless, they sell very well. The fact that an airplane is more expensive than the sim itself is not a problem at all, as long as it justifies that price by its quality.
Umm...we're already there as the "out of memory" errors are not a myth, but a direct consequence from using oversized textures, overdetailed objects, overblown detail radii and too much AI traffic without mipmapped textures. Add inefficient gauge design into the mix and you're out of VAS faster than a Mercure is out of fuel.
People are fortunately a bit more aware of this now.
That still remains a mystery to me.
No early-2000s graphics engine. That's why.However, a brand new and very complex Motor Racing simulation (pCars), complete with dynamic engine, suspension, engine controls and high resolution internal/external textures, 'the whole nine yards', plus active scenery and weather demands far fewer resources.
Answers on a Post Card will do.
By the way, what are you throwing out?
Could use a new GPU (>GTX570) and maybe some RAM (>8-9-8-24 @ 2 GHz).
MB: GIGABYTE GA-X299 UD4 PRO ATX
CPU: Intel(R) Core™ Processor i9-10900X Ten-Core 3.7GHz
MEM: 64GB (8GBx8) DDR4/3000MHz Quad Channel
GPU: RTX 3080 Ti 12GB GDDR6
OS: Win 10 Pro 64bit
HP Reverb G2
The original topic of this thread was to ask why developers price product the way they do and if volume sales would reduce the pricing.
The fact remains. Costs are spiralling, I understand the reasoning most have used in this thread so far but C++ programming is expensive to buy in. That cannot be denied. (actually if a C++ programmer can do this stuff cheaply and quickly, I'd be very interested in talking!) The demands made by stretching the capability of this engine are having a direct impact on coding. The results are much longer lead times on projects. In some cases where the product is very sophisticated it can be years.
That cost cannot be absorbed. it would be commercial suicide. And will the market wait that long for the release of a new subject?
Think of it this way. A computer graphics 3D designer can earn $40-60 per hour (some, more) and a model can take thousands of hours to make.Add in the graphics for art, coders, manual writers and sound studio costs...
The fact is that if developers didn't charge what they do, this hobby would not exist to the level we all enjoy today. It is already heavily subsidised through people working for beer money because they love the hobby. Usually they have a day job to support them. Those that don't are disappearing fast.
I know all the arguments for using C programming, texture economies and memory conservation but the knowlege to achieve all that costs money.And why shouldn't it?
Otherwise we are asking somebody to be an expert in aerodynamics, an advanced C++ and XML programmer, a superlative painter and graphic artist, sound technician, historian and experienced 3D modeller.
Oh and we'd like them to work for about $10 per hour Oh and we only want to pay a few dollars for their efforts. Thanks.
Yeah right.
and to answer your question Wombat...
A racing game or any other comparable game is usually what we call a "sandbox" format.
That is a limited area of play, restricted to a landscape of just a few miles. When you change race venues you are loading in another set of scenery gen to replace the one you were at. Like loading up another separate game.
FSX could have been developed as a sandbox concept but not very useful for those wishing to fly intercontinental distances without needing to load up another "world" every cou0ple of thousand miles. Combat Flight Simulator was a form of sandbox style game because of all the drawcalls required with effects and interactivity. Hence the "theatre of war" concept.
Racing or other modern usual games are done in such a way that the "scenery" is fixed, it doesn't need to be computed/built on the fly while you go forward. The scenery is stored in its final form, the game just needs to read the data and draw it.
On the opposite side, games like FS9, FSX or P3D, have to read the source data and then start interpretating it, to build the mixture between your actual mesh (which can change, based on what addons you installed), your actual landclass (same problem), your actual scenery (same problem) and various libraries, your actual textures, etc.... This cost MUCH MORE processing power, resulting in lower performance.
To simplify: it's easy to draw a scenery when you know what to expect, when they give you the final form of what needs to be drawn. Optimisations are "easy" in such cases.
In our sims, the situation is totally different. Because of that, the performance can absolutely NOT be compared.
Bookmarks