Why Is There so few Native Freeware Airplanes For FSX?

[casey jones]

I have been flying FSX for only a short time now as I am new to it...but why is there so few freeware native airplanes for it. It seens that payware airplanes have taken over in FSX.

Cheers

Casey

 

[pilottj]

It is true there aren't as many freeware developers as there were for FS9. I think the increased complexity of FSX and the continually increasing design standards probably make it more difficult or time consuming to make aircraft for FSX. However if you search Piglet, Ant, David Rowberry, Empeck to name a few, you can cover just about every genre of flying with great quailty addons for free.

Cheers
TJ

 

[big-mike]

This question appears rather often.
So why not make a sticky or something else with links etc.
for freeware planes?
Only one idea.
Michael

 

[empeck]

It is true there aren't as many freeware developers as there were for FS9. I think the increased complexity of FSX and the continually increasing design standards probably make it more difficult or time consuming to make aircraft for FSX. However if you search Piglet, Ant, David Rowberry, Empeck to name a few, you can cover just about every genre of flying with great quailty addons for free.

Cheers
TJ

From my point of view developing for FSX is as complicated as it was for FS9 from technical point of view. There are many developers that claims the materials and workflow are to complicated. It's not true. You can assign a color texture only, and it's exactly the same as it was in FS9. If you want transparency there is ONE difference. You have to click a button 'Set Default Transparent'. That's all. FSX is even simpler - you don't have to follow a strict naming from SDK.

FSX lacks another thing - script driven animations, for a 3d artist like me, keyframe animation only is an advantage.

Design standards - I agree with you at this point. Simulators are getting complicated. Most of users want in depth simulation of given aircraft, detailed external and VC, correctly working switches and gauges and this is the problem for hobbyists. Developing such plane takes much more time, and it's not easy to make a single person year long project. How many of you would like to fly a plane with single 512x512 texture, no VC, and few basic animations?

Other reason are people who learned to make an FS9 planes, and everything that is slightly different it's wrong. I don't understand this, learning new things is a wonderful thing, let it be new material solutions for canopy glass or propellers, or completely new simulation engines (it's happening at FS Developer as we speak).

I had to leave freeware development for now. A game dev studio I've been working in has been closed, I had few very hard months, and now I'm working full time for A2A. I don't have enough free time for side projects.

 

[Chris Sykes]

This question appears rather often.
So why not make a sticky or something else with links etc.
for freeware planes?
Only one idea.
Michael

Because it would be hell to keep upto date, and be sooooo long it would be more useful to google a single aircraft than search.
Also whos willing to keep that list running!


Anyway on the main subject of the topic, its true FSX aircraft are more complexed than FS9, hence more payware due to increased time frames on production and less freeware for the same reason. Unless the developer is creating a more simple addon such as Tim's stuff...

 

[Tako_Kichi]

I think the increased complexity of FSX and the continually increasing design standards probably make it more difficult or time consuming to make aircraft for FSX.

This is without doubt one of the major factors in the lack of freeware for FSX. The bar has been raised so high by FSX payware aircraft that users now expect (even demand) the same standards from freeware aircraft. Who wants a FSX aircraft with no VC, or a low poly VC with little to no interactivity (clickable switches, movable 'features' etc.)? The answer is nobody!

I have been working on my own project for FSX for over a year now (admittedly it got sidelined for over 6 months due to other more important projects) and I am only just getting to the point where I can start mapping the exterior for textures and the interior hasn't even been started yet. Add to that the need to make all the gauges, work on the FDE, possible sound pack work and you can see how much time and effort is required by a single person to create a true FSX aircraft. That's one reason why payware developers have 'teams' with specialists working in their own 'field of excellence'. Aircraft can then be produced more quickly and to a much higher standard.

 

[AndyG43]

Most of users want in depth simulation of given aircraft, detailed external and VC, correctly working switches and gauges and this is the problem for hobbyists.

Do they? I'm a user, and I'm definitely not asking for that; it is all this extra stuff that puts some people off FSX, by reducing the game to a slide show. I think this myth has grown up that people are demanding this, publishers/designers say the market is asking for it, punters say that is what they are being supplied with (whether they want it or not); many publishers certainly use it as a reason for dropping the FS9 market, which I maintain was a very shortsighted approach. Not sure which came first, chicken/egg etc.

Rant over, back on topic - check out Rob Richardson's British gems over at Britsim, and look at the wip of his upcoming Shackleton. Rob's stuff was what made me reinstall FSX, after it gathered dust on my shelf for months.

 

[empeck]

Do they? I'm a user, and I'm definitely not asking for that; it is all this extra stuff that puts some people off FSX, by reducing the game to a slide show. I think this myth has grown up that people are demanding this, publishers/designers say the market is asking for it, punters say that is what they are being supplied with (whether they want it or not); many publishers certainly use it as a reason for dropping the FS9 market, which I maintain was a very shortsighted approach. Not sure which came first, chicken/egg etc.

I have been a flight simmer long before I've started designing planes. I'm speaking for myself and people I know who are a simmers (not designers) share my thoughts as well. It's not that designers are forcing realism, there is a big demand for detailed planes.

I post rarely here on SOH, because I have slightly different point of view than rules of this forum allow. I am very critical about planes I buy and fly. I want detailed planes and as accurate as possible. That's why I like to play DCS series, and I'm very picky when it comes to buying planes for FSX. I don't comment anything anymore because I would be taken as a whiner and basher, and I don't want that.

I was very happy to see planes like Razbams A-7 pack, VRS SuperBug, Iris A-10A and many more. These planes suits me very well, and I enjoy them very much. There are very good freeware gems as well. I have almost all Piglets planes, I love Dino's Goshawk (my favorite jet in FSX).

Of course all these are my personal thoughts.

 

[warchild]

Speaking for myself first, before i put on my developers hat, i too like realistic and complex airplanes. i hate the chinssy toy feeling of so many fs9 freeware packages with at best imaginatively done 2D panels..
However, as a developer, yeah, the people are demanding it.. Just browse through this forum for all the releases in the last year. In almost every single one of them you will find more than a fair dollop of criticism and demand for geater and more refined detail. Who are the two leading companies at the moment for payware?? A2A and PMDG. A2A has its accu-sim, and well, we all know how much detail PMDG stuffs into their models.. Detyail and reality are the name of the game, and that extends into the freeware/promoware market as well. It also points out one very important thing.. We modellers and developers who really love doing this, are challenged by our own needs to always do better. That translates to more realistic and detailed with every passing day. Those that were just making planes to make planes because it was cool, are gone, and what you have left is a smaller group of really enthusiastic people who love this hobby, the planes and the people in the community. Maybe there isnt as wide a selection, but what exists today is far far superior in every way, to what existed in the past.

 

[empeck]

We modellers and developers who really love doing this, are challenged by our own needs to always do better. That translates to more realistic and detailed with every passing day. Those that were just making planes to make planes because it was cool, are gone, and what you have left is a smaller group of really enthusiastic people who love this hobby, the planes and the people in the community. Maybe there isnt as wide a selection, but what exists today is far far superior in every way, to what existed in the past.

+1 :salute:

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Tako_Kichi]

Maybe there isnt as wide a selection, but what exists today is far far superior in every way, to what existed in the past.

I totally agree with this statement. The technical term is 'progress' and without it man would still be living in caves or swinging from the trees.

 

[falcon409]

Do they? I'm a user, and I'm definitely not asking for that; it is all this extra stuff that puts some people off FSX, by reducing the game to a slide show. I think this myth has grown up that people are demanding this . . . . . . . . .

I promise you Andy, most folks do "expect it" and it certainly isn't a myth. I used to fly almost exclusively from the 2D panel in FS9 because, for the most part, VC's were rudimentary with almost nothing animated and in some cases, even the gauges were non-functional and you had to switch from the VC to the 2D to turn things on or adjust something and then back to the VC if you wanted to fly from there.

Then VC's started getting more animation to them as folks found ways to manipulate coding and more adept at pushing polys around. With that, folks started seeing the advantage to flying in the VC, more realism and things actually worked for a change. . .definitely a plus. Along came TrackIR to add to the allure of flying from the VC, FSX was maturing and designers were refining the looks and details we knew should be there in the cockpit. . . .now we're cookin'.

As the details increased and clickability became more and more refined there was indeed an expectation that the detail would simply be there when someone developed a new model. When it wasn't, while it may have been accepted for the most part, it wasn't quite as sought after as it might have been had the detail been there. It has just progressed from there to what we see now, which is an expectation that the VC will be detailed, with most systems animated and clickable.

I understand that there are folks like yourself who don't hold a developer to be that detail oriented and that's fine, not everyone is looking for an "as real as it can possibly be" VC, but I think there is a large segment of the flight sim community that does.:salute:

 

[casey jones]

Thank you all for replying to my question, it has made me realize what developers are up against.


Cheers

Casey

 

[AndyG43]

I stand corrected.

I'll just slink back to the FS9 forum where I belong.

 

[Bjoern]

FS9 add-on compatibility really harmed FSX.

Why bother converting a model to FSX standard if you can use the FS9 version in FSX?

 

[sparouty]

From my point of view developing for FSX is as complicated as it was for FS9 from technical point of view. There are many developers that claims the materials and workflow are to complicated. It's not true. You can assign a color texture only, and it's exactly the same as it was in FS9. If you want transparency there is ONE difference. You have to click a button 'Set Default Transparent'. That's all. FSX is even simpler - you don't have to follow a strict naming from SDK.

FSX lacks another thing - script driven animations, for a 3d artist like me, keyframe animation only is an advantage.

Design standards - I agree with you at this point. Simulators are getting complicated. Most of users want in depth simulation of given aircraft, detailed external and VC, correctly working switches and gauges and this is the problem for hobbyists. Developing such plane takes much more time, and it's not easy to make a single person year long project. How many of you would like to fly a plane with single 512x512 texture, no VC, and few basic animations?

....

I agree with you, and from my own developper point of view, 2 points have to be taken into consideration:

1) with FSX, the 3D model has no longer size limitation (to be more correct : reducing the number of polys is no longer the first goal of a FSX developer) . Then, modeling a VC is now very very time comsuming, and, for a developper, one of the main challenge is to have enough documentation and time...
2) The new FSX material properties gives to true FSX planes a rendering that has nothing to compare with FS9 port-over ones. The side effect is that increase again the workload of the project : tuning material parameters, painting new maps, etc...

To my own point of view, any FS developper wants to make a model as close to real one as possible, FSX has given so much great tools/features for that but it has also increased significatively the project's workload...

It took me 18 months to built my last FSX model, do I accept to finish the next one in Summer 2013?!?

Regards,
Sylvain

Regards,
Sylvain

 

[lucas81]

This is true. And with the current quality and demands from the customers, the bar has been set on the high level. I have been working on a plane for a very long time. It is a basic one without any special system features, but the texture and material work forced me to spend extra months to receive a reasonable effect.
The FSX models can look spectacular, but the visuals (not even mention the systems) force to spend more and more time, as there are more possibilities within the FSX gamepack for the gmax/3dsmax.

Lucas

 

[Ferry_vO]

What do you call 'few' ..? A quick look in my FsX install and I see about 25 different freeware, Fsx-native aircraft and I could easily double or even triple that number if I would install every freeware plane that I know of.

 

[mmann]

What do you call 'few' ..? A quick look in my FsX install and I see about 25 different freeware, Fsx-native aircraft and I could easily double or even triple that number if I would install every freeware plane that I know of.

I think 'few' in this case might be in relation to the number of FS2004 freeware aircraft that are available.

 

[Daube]

I think 'few' in this case might be in relation to the number of FS2004 freeware aircraft that are available.

I think so too.
However, if you start to consider only the FS9 freeware planes that have the same level of details as the FSX native freeware planes currently available, then the proportions are not so dramatic anymore.

For FSX users, a plane without VC is not unacceptable anymore, while 95% of the FS9 freeware planes have no VC at all. That's just an example. As Sylvain said above, the expectations in FSX are much higher, leading to higher developpment time, leading to fewer models.... fewer, but beautifull