Cost of developing

[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 , 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.

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.

Gman5250G, 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]

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.

 

[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."

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.

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.
</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.

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 .

 

[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.