• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    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 politician 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 among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

Payware Vs Freeware A Question

C

casey jones

Charter Member
I have been flying FSX for sometime now but of course I always have my FS9 to go
back to often. My question is: Most of the freeware is port overs from FS9, why is
it that freeware designers seem to not build pure native FSX airplanes? I have
seen some articles that the learning curve is very difficult to master and that is
why the payware market has almost taken over the FSX airplanes that are now
coming out, in FS9 the freeware designers were the top dogs in designing the
airplanes.

Cheers

Casey
 
Casey, you might want to check this list out, which is all FSX-native freeware aircraft that are available (and surely missing some - such as the just recently released fully FSX native SWingman Polikarpov Po-2 and Paul Clawson Curtiss A-12 Shrike - and all of the FSX-native conversions of historic FS9 aircraft available through Classic Wings - or the FSX-native conversion of Milton Shupe's A-26 Invader, available in the library here at SOH):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ajp_sOJLki7mdEJiNWhQbmU2czVZUzU4YWgzYm1oVXc#gid=0

Likely much more than some suspect there is (I was really surprised when I posted earlier last year a thread of screenshots of Wozza's Texan, and so many didn't even know it existed at that time, and it had been available for just over two years at that point).
 
casey jones said:
I have been flying FSX for sometime now but of course I always have my FS9 to go
back to often. My question is: Most of the freeware is port overs from FS9, why is
it that freeware designers seem to not build pure native FSX airplanes? I have
seen some articles that the learning curve is very difficult to master and that is
why the payware market has almost taken over the FSX airplanes that are now
coming out, in FS9 the freeware designers were the top dogs in designing the
airplanes.

Cheers

Casey
Click to expand...

Some of us do. We try to do one a year. last year it was the DH60 Gipsy Moth and before that the Taylor J-2 and New Standard D25. For us, since we use Abacus's Flight Design Studio, the migration from FS9 to FSx was more difficult. It was not until David Nunez developed a utility that allowed us to use FSX materials in ways similar to the GMax designers, did we get started. The compiler is different for FS9 that it is for FSX and there were other changes to consider in parts animations. I must say that once we made the move over, we were glad we did as the model file size limits imposed by FS9 no longer exist and there for we can make more complex and detailed models. There are still some outstanding freeware designers in FSX making beautiful models. Swingman comes to mind as does Paul Clawson. If you look at the list that has been compiled here on this forum you will see that there are many choices, all outstanding and enjoyable
 
FS9 was so easy to make planes for. Coding of objects (making code for animations) was easier, animating parts was easier (you didnt have to animate some parts, you just set the centers of the parts and name them and its done). With FSX, you have Attach and Animation Managers, you have to do this and that to get things to work. You have to activate mouserects and visibilities and all these different things to get things to work where in FS9 they just worked. It auto-worked.

The Materials in FS9 were very basic and easy. Just put a texture on it, etc. Now, with FSX, you have perhaps 100 options and sliders and ticks and on/offs and things for just ONE material, and some materials for outsides can use up to 7 materials in its group, (like bump map, fresnal ramp, etc, etc), and with each having perhaps 100 settings each, thats 700 settings, for ONE material (like one wing texture).

Then there are bugs. Sometimes the animations do not work right or do not work, so we have to spend several LONG days trying to figure out why its not working. That can really drive you NUTS....

THEN.... (yes...) you have limitations on the compilers and they crash on you and destroy your latest model. However, Prepar3D (God bless their hearts) just released a new compiler in their exporter system (SDK) that works now, so that is behind us, thank the Lord.

Then.... (yeah) if you are payware, you find that these days, piracy and file sharing are rampant. Also, alot of people now want EXTREME DETAIL, and expect you to make a plane that exactly 'they' would like, with things on these planes you didnt even know about, like chrome plated reverse inverted kitchen sinks in quad-olive drab and 10 rivets per edge, (that kind of stuff). And to top it all off, you only sell a few planes a week, if that, so the payware guys that spend months working on a plane are asking themselves 'why am I doing this??'. (so the number of people doing it is deminishing).


So, basically, in a nut shell, its difficulty level. Its quite difficult to make a plane in FSX. Bottom line.



:icon_eek:
 
Why am I doing this?........Must be crazy I guess,but the the feedback from the Loyal customers and the New Customers makes it all worth while.We all must be crazy I guess.....hehehe ok men back to work!!!!...Bill finish that Beautiful Fairchild 24!...My credit card is waiting!...Best Gil
 
All of it makes me appreciate both the freeware and the payware developers even more than I already do!

(I've also got a spot on my credit card bill just waiting for that Fairchild...)
 
FSX is wonderfully capable: you can animate just about anything, texture and bump-map a model so it looks even more like the real thing and even design external code to run realistic engine management or incredibly sophisticated instruments and systems. It's just that this capability makes it much more complex - and longer - to build all these things in and a port-over from FS9 is an easier option.

But just as it took time for freeware developers to get used to earlier FS versions, more are now getting used to FSX developing. Courage, mon brave!
 
One of the major factors in the decline in numbers of add-ons and product in general is the time it is taking to produce products to satisfy an ever-more demanding market.

The market demands extra-ordinarily high levels of authenticity, detail and functionality in an add-on these days. Nothing less than " real" will do. And that goes for magazine and website reviewers too. Take a peek at a mag like PC Pilot for example and see how hard it is these days for a really good add-on to score highly with a reviewer.

That means taking longer and going further to push the boundaries of an already ageing simulator engine. Taking it places where it was never designed to go.

These days, 2 years is no longer considered a long production time. Who will wait another two years for anything to come out? So, naturally, a developer (especially freeware) will say to themselves " is that worth it?"

In the days when Aeroplane Heaven was operating at its optimum (building and marketing its own product) we could turn around a product in less than three months go to woah. If we took six months we would be accused of dragging the chain. We won awards for our work and always tried to put as much as the engine would allow into our products. But FS9 was far more restrictive than FSX. If we could have had FSX in the earlier days...

We are constantly told that airliners is where the money is. A complex airliner like an airbus or Boeing is going to take 6 - 12 months minimum to deliver due to the complexities of the cockpit and systems. Most of the popular products today have taken much longer and some will not see the light of day for another year or more. All the time, the host sim is ageing and heading toward obsolescence. Then you have to ask yourself, will the market buy a product say at $40 for a host game that is 6 years old and more?

Glass cockpits eat framrates so that is a current challenge for developers - to find a way of improving that. Not easy and probably not worth the trouble for freeware people.

AH still has a small library of free stuff kept open for those FS9 people who want it and most of the aircraft will port over with a small amount of effort.

FS9 is in decline. P3D is a ray of hope but remember it is basically the same FSX engine and there will be limits. Also, the commercial aspects are very tricky.

Aaah how times have changed. :engel016:
 
Thank You All For Responding To My Question

You all have completely answered my question, now I understand, I will go to the
freeware and payware lists I am sure I will be very happy with it.

Cheers To All

Casey:salute:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top