Proposal of a change in the FS Business model

[Hughes-MDflyer4]

Flight! was just a souped up FSX engine anyway, so what was great about it?

(If you say "performance" consider that you neither had lots of traffic nor a huge scenery to play around in.)

It's not a "souped up FSX engine." Sure, it still uses the BGL format for scenery, but why re-invent the wheel? Right away, you can tell that it's extremely optimized by the lack of stutters (Tom Allensworth once posted on Avsim that it's a descendant of the Train Simulator 2 engine). Also consider the significant increase in autogen, yet performance is still better over FSX. Flight also no longer uses the .MDL format. Instead, it is the .model format, which appears to be a modification of an already existing format, but I can't remember exactly what that format was.

No traffic? Not much scenery? Turn off traffic and go to Hawaii in FSX. 100% fair comparison right there. FSX does not load scenery or weather in, for example, England if you are in Hawaii. Flight has the entire globe, but at the lowest level of detail possible (blurry mud that makes up a rough shape of all of the continents). That low level of detail is pretty much what is loaded in FSX in other parts of the world where you are not at.

 

[Bjoern]

Regarding payware, in my opinion the continuing effort of all the payware developers to raise the bar and deliver outstanding products can not be appreciated enough.

This and exactly this is the ruining aspect. Assuming that payware sets the standards for freeware.

But live and let live. As long as payware stays out of FG.

No traffic? Not much scenery? Turn off traffic and go to Hawaii in FSX. 100% fair comparison right there. FSX does not load scenery or weather in, for example, England if you are in Hawaii. Flight has the entire globe, but at the lowest level of detail possible (blurry mud that makes up a rough shape of all of the continents). That low level of detail is pretty much what is loaded in FSX in other parts of the world where you are not at.

I will stay unconvinced until I see NYC with AI traffic at a similar density to what's currently possible in FSX (where it is the benchmark case). If Flight!'s engine stays smooth in these conditions and offers more detail than FSX, good on them.

 

[ce_zeta]

Bjoern

Interesting opinion Bjoern but I do not understand you.

You think, if I understand well, that Payware and freeware addons are substitutive goods. If you use the Good A, you cannot use the good B. I think this is wrong.

They are complementary in some cases. Why I need an expensive and lacked of features Carenado if I do not fly in FSEconomy, or with the great freeware sceneries of my country?

Substitutive goods are two payware addons of the same model....Recently we have the example of the Lockheed L-1011. In this example, we have 2 developers with the same model....And both develop the model with big lacks of features. Thanks to the holy competition....Developers are moving to add missing features, reducing the price...Free market!

I am very happy with Project Tupolev,because they raised the bar very high (Both L1011 are very far from below to this bar this moment) and made an outstanding simulation. Too I am very happy with Majestic because they made a superb rendition of the Bombardier Q400.

The reality is, If we love hardcore addons, make hardcore addons need time. Time is money.

A free market is good because as Roger-Wilco-66 said in a scenario where they have competition payware developers need to raise the bar, add more quality at less price.

Freeware not enter in competition with Payware because when the freeware is better than payware...Payware left the market. When the Payware is better than the freeware....Freeware does not left the market. Never left the market because the dvelopers make for fun, enthusiasm, passion. Not for money. Payware wants money...When they cant make money, left the scene.