• There seems to be an up tick in Political commentary in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site we know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religiours commentary out of the fourms.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politicion will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment amoung members. It is a poison to the community. We apprciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

A question to aircraft developers...

G

gera

Members +
Why do you, except for a very few, always make planes that have many others already done?...well done that is. How many more Mustangs, P-47´s, Me-109´s, 737´s!!!, Airbus family!!!!?...etc are on the works???....
I can´t do any for the Sim field, but I do scratchbuild solid wood models and the usual answer in the modeling world, both plastics and others, is that " you were a kid no? you loved the P-51 or Me-109 so you wanted to make one. Kids are still being born and eventually they want to make the P-51 or Me-109", so the manufactures keep dishing out those kits for the new generations..etc....etc...--------does this apply for Sim models???....there are so many wonderul aircraft that would be great in our sims and probably will never see the sim skies if this trend applies here too......OH, who´s got a "new" Corsair coming soon????:gameoff::gameoff::isadizzy:
 
I think it's the simple fact that most developers build what there interested in. I built 7-8 aircraft models for Fs9 and they were all vintage helicopter designs because that was what I was interested in and wanted to fly. It would be hard to put in the hours required (1000+) to build an FSX model of moderate standards if you didn't have a personal interest in it, even if you were getting paid (poorly mind you) for it.
 
Slund said:
I think it's the simple fact that most developers build what there interested in. I built 7-8 aircraft models for Fs9 and they were all vintage helicopter designs because that was what I was interested in and wanted to fly. It would be hard to put in the hours required (1000+) to build an FSX model of moderate standards if you didn't have a personal interest in it, even if you were getting paid (poorly mind you) for it.
Click to expand...

Good point, I also think that is one of the main reasons. I basically have the same attitude when I make my adventure flights, I tend to make them where "I would like to see them and fly them".
 
Just a fact of life!
with the exception of a few, Piglet, etc
its the freeware devs who have more choice
payware devs have to create something that will sell
and freeware devs build what they want
there are a few aircraft that i would love to see
if i could build them
and im sure a lot of people would say the same
we just have to take what is given
H
 
The greater the notability and popularity of a particular aircraft, the more developers there are who will be interested in. They also know that there will be more people interested in acquiring their work, for the same reason.
 
The old standards are also much easier, in general, to find source data for. Plus (and obviously, this doesn't apply to freeware), it's been proven repeatedly that aircraft that most people are familiar with sell much better than those that are rare. Again, just a fact of life.
 
If you build it well enough, most aircraft will sell well. The Aerosoft H-1 and Lotus L-39 are good examples of this. Not exactly classics, and not the most well known (at least by Spitfire/P-51 standards), yet they've been built to an incredibly high standard and as such have sold well.
 
Wel I think that everybody should stop building what thy want and start building me an FSX Stirling & Halifax :icon_lol:

Good one that is !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
guzler said:
Wel I think that everybody should stop building what thy want and start building me an FSX Stirling & Halifax :icon_lol:

Good one that is !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I'll get right on that.
Should be done say...bout next week two O' clock.
 
Don't forget the Tu-95 bomber and Tu-114 prop liner. I am with Henry though. Just got to be grateful for what is given and keep hoping the next "secret project" by any developer is one of those obscure relic's aviation history has forgotten.
 
Developers tend to stick to something thats safe, well known and knows something about past related sales, thus pushing them towards releasing something safe.

Ive had a different approach for our next project which is the P-36 / Hawk 75 / Mohawk, its not that popular and I dont think there is one for FSX, i could be wrong though.

But still something different :icon_lol:

If it fails on sales, then its back to the corsair :bump:
 
I have two words for this thread...

p26_usafm_10oc.jpg


and

Kyosho-Stinson-Reliant.jpg


thank you
 
Gera, remember many planes you see now have been done before, but not for FSX. As you know, I fly almost exclusively native FSX aircraft, and I know several other people here do too. So in many cases its not about having ANOTHER P-51, P-47, Spitfire, etc., but its about having a FSX NATIVE version of them.
 
Many companies do branch out from the regular aircraft you might expect. Unfortunately, sales can tend to lead them to safer waters at times. When you are trying to put food on your table, sometimes taking a risk is taking a risk with your family....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top