CodyValkyrie
Charter Member 2016
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tell you from experience that a P-51 Mustang will outsell pretty much every other warbird of that era, and might be superseded by a GA aircraft (depending on which model).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.
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.
<Joke!>
