The Issue of Freeware Quality

[Guest Milio_B]

My point of view is:If you put a lot of effort on your work, then it's your choice, you chose to do it so why would people pay you?But, if you feel you should get paid, there's no problem in aksing for money in return for me, I don't see it as a crime, and I'll fully repsect your decision. But for some reason, I don't think it's right...dunno why, really, although I'd never boycott them or start a flame war, or anything (I even have some payware myself, but I must admit some times I regret buying them). Sorry, that's just the way I feel....I don't want any payware developpers to feel accused of something horrible in any way, ust wanted to show my point of view :)

[LAdamson 240]

> But for some >reason, I don't think it's right...dunno why, really, I'll help you out. At a point, development of "top notch" payware becomes intensely time consuming. Research, research, development, more developement, then programming, more programming, & then support. Then the "bar" is raised by another payware company & the cycle starts all over again!My point of view, which I see is also the point of others---------------------- As of now, aircraft that are my preference require superior flight dynamics, stunning exteriors with working parts, VC cockpits that are far beyond the defaults in graphic quality, & 2D cockpits that look real as well as being highly functional. I expect much reaearch to get these planes as close to the real ones as possible, just to enhance the virtual experience. Let's face it, everything I want is getting far beyond the scope of just one person & is very time consuming for even a group effort. Considering this effort takes away from family time, party time, holiday time & everything else you can think of, then the effort should at least provide some extra cash!!----- wouldn't you say??L.Adamson

[ErnieAlston 33]

>If you put a lot of effort on your work, then it's your choice, you >chose to do it so why would people pay you?The point is in several cases because of the effort involved, you wouldn't even choose to do it, its just too much work....But if the opportunity to be compensated for it arises, that would be the only way you would even consider doing it.Its not like the developer is going to do it, and he is deciding whether to go payware or not. In many cases its either go payware or don't do it at all.Ernie.

[Guest]

Well said! I agree 100%. The fact is though, that developing is a full time job for a lot of these guys. Now, keeping that in mine, imagine how long it takes between productions from some of those payware groups. That could give you a good idea of how much work they put into it. Now, while freeware does get a lot of effort put into it, the amount of effort it would take to compete with a payware product would mean that the freeware release a hell of a long time to complete.Scott

[michal 44]

>With all due respect to those groups (because I respect what >they do), their packages are technically incomplete. I agree with everything said above.The truth is there are few feeware developers with know-how, vision and patience to spend 17 months developing a single cockpit (ala Bill Grabowski). Therefore what you mostly find these days are aircraft exteriors, some of them exceptionally well made (POSKY) but still this is not what simulation is all about (at least for me). If POSKY did not even exist it would not fundamentally change the way I experience FS2002. On the subject of scenery it is again searching for quality in the vastness of quantity. Out of airports I download maybe only 20% remain on my PC longer than 24 hrs.There are exceptionally few freeware downloads that would truly transform the sim experience. Ed Truthan's water got to be one of them. Michael J.

[Guest]

I would have to agree with what Tim has said. FS has advanced so much in the past few years, and it seems like by the time the freeware developers can create quality work for it, the sim is outdated. There IS a lot of quality freeware out there, which has been mentioned time and time above, but there is also a lot of freeware out there that isn't of real high quality. Sometimes when I go searching for a panel, I take a look at some of the search results, and think to myself, "What was this guy thinking? That doesn't look ANYTHING like the real panel" I agree that the actual simulation of the aircraft is what we're after, but I like to view the beauty of these planes as well. In conclusion, there's a lot of good freeware out there, but after we've seen great work from POSKY, and company, they've set the standard, and you don't want to have to "retreat" to work of lesser quality, which compared to the work of POSKY and company looks pretty bad...TIMMY!!

[Guest]

What's the point of this thread? I think well of Tim Dickens, and certainly the freeware authors have always included beginners and experts and everything in between. This remains true today. Thank goodness that's true.The beginners during fs98 are some of the experts of today, and if there were no beginners today there would be fewer experts in the future.Who cares if there is a difference now or in the past with the overall level of quality?The freeware authors have always designed for many reasons, including the love of using their tools and learning new things. I'm having more fun now than ever, even thou I'm still working on my second fs2002 upload. I suppose Tim may feel good or bad about my work now compared to a few years ago....lol....I don't worry about it. Bob BernsteinEdmonds, Wa.

[Guest Stamatis]

"Out of airports I download maybe only 20% remain on my PC longer than 24 hrs."Airport design is the area in which I would agree with Tim Dickens' commentary. During FS5/FS98 times we used to get excellent airport renditions by the tons... Not so anymore today. Today, the best airports are definitely commercial designs. German Airports Collection, English Airports, UK2000, LAGO's Amsterdam etc., etc.And yes, there are some exceptions, but it is the exceptions that make the rule.Stamatis

[Guest TimD]

This is very true Bob. Well said.The main point of my editorial was that a lot of these good folks get very discouraged at some point along the way, due to lack of support and appreciation from the community, and in some cases, from outright abuse.I can think of quite a few very talented developers, going back to the "old days" of FS 4 over 10 years ago. Not that many of them are around any more. Sure, some of them just lost interest in the hobby, or simply don't have the time in their lives any more. But I have had quite a bit of correspondence with a number of guys that simply got fed up and threw in the towel. And it's really a shame. [link:www.fsheartland.net]http://www.fsheartland.net/images/Heartland_sig.gif

[Guest]

Tim,If that was your editorial point, please allow me to apologize in casting *any* aspirtions on you -- it was unfair to draw conclusions from only an excerpt.I'm not the sort who doesn't think a programmer should be compensated for his or her work, since that's what I do for a living (programming, that is, although lately compensating people for their programming also seems like an occupation for me :>) And I also vastly appreciate all the freeware effort that's out there. So I fall on both sides of the fence.I do think the timing of the "Perfect Portugal" package couldn't be better for purposes of this discussion, however. Can't dredge up the exact quote (and the author's first language probably wasn't English so it doesn't come across perfectly) but there was something to the effect that they wanted to release this package as freeware in order to raise the bar for all the payware scenery authors out there.That, to me, is probably the loftiest goal of a freeware author, and I applaud it tremendously. I haven't seen the scenery yet (I'll download tonight and test it, although that area of the world isn't where I'm used to flying) but if it truly does set a high standard for others who charge I'm all for it. For me, the bottom line is this: if you are going to charge for whatever product you provide, it had darn well better be significantly better than what I can get for free (or program myself). To put it another way, I don't think anyone providing freeware has an obligation to live up to any standard, but if you're going to charge me hard earned bucks for your stuff you better not be selling crap, unless you offer either a free trial or money-back promise.

[ErnieAlston 33]

>For me, the bottom line is this: if you are going to charge for >whatever product you provide, it had darn well better be >significantly better than what I can get for free (or program >myself). I'm not sure I agree with this.If someone is producing top quality freeware, its simply his/her choice not to charge a fee. They very well could have if they wanted to. You should decide to pay for it based on its merits, value, and usefullness to your FlightSim activities, not whether its as good a quality as something else you can get for free.If its high quality its good enough to pay for, whether he chooses to charge a fee or not. I'd consider that a gift that it was free, but if he charged a fee for it tomorrow if its good software I'll still pay for it.If that same freeware developer decided that his next version is payware. Well his freeware has raised the bar so high that his payware version is basically de-valued by his freeware version if everyone else is following your line of thinking.This to me would be another deterrent to producing high quality freeware in the first place.I'd gladly pay for something that is as good as something I could develop. I don't have to develop it, I can plug it in and use it. Someone else has done the work for me, that's more time for me to fly and less time coding utilities. The time savings alone is worth paying for if its a good add-on or utility.Ernie.

[Guest]

Its so funny to read these threads every couple weeks when they pop up.Quality or complexity has nothing to do with a developer(s) focusing their efforts on free software or commercial enterprise. In the FS community this has been a huge debate for as long as I can remember. But all it takes is a non-myopic view of the software market as a whole to debase the notion that free software developers create overall inferior or non-complex code.TCP/IP - the protocol behind every post you make on this forum (and near everything else you do on the internet): a Free Software work. Non-complex? Hardly. Highest Quality? Absolutely.Apache - the web server that serves 65.11% of the web pages you view on the entire internet (including this page you are viewing now): a Free Software work. Non-complex? Hardly. Highest Quality? Absolutely.Gnutella P2P networks: the software that has become the most popular way to share software and media on the internet: a Free Software work. Non-complex? Hardly. Highest Quality? Absolutely.The hundreds of thousands of projects both great and small that make up one distribution of Linux: well, no need to even comment here.And I could go on and on.The point being? Its all about community and culture. That the FS hobby/addon community and culture is moving more and more to a commercial bent has nothing to do with the quality or complexity of a project: it has everything to do with the culture and feelings of this community. Good or bad, right or wrong, thats the whole answer. Introspection into the reasons for this is beyond one post, but be assured the answer lies within.Final proof you might need? Simply look at the majority of other games and their massive Addon markets (Quake as one singular instance). FS has simply developed its own culture and community and continues to do so today: with much emphasis on commercial works for the past few years.Take care,http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

[Guest]

Freeware has grown leaps and bounds since the old days, and the commercial market has lessened. Thats a fact.Add-ons are only as good as the simulator allows you. As far as technology is concerned compared to FS4, it has grown too.As for designers of old not being around anymore, the same goes for commercial designers too. I think of John Kelley as one instance, or Ken Kerr of VIP. Flightsim Technology has surpassed there own limitations and, it aint worth the $$$ for them to keep up. Quality of freeware incidentally, has lessened the commercial market, of this there is no doubt at all. Why pay when you can (in most cases) get better quality for free.It would seem folks like LAGO have created a niche with special flightsim tools or programs that interact with the sim rather than just be an add-on release.Panel and Plane commercial offerings are a thing of the past IMO, and I can count on one hand only these days, a couple of plane/panel series worth getting, but 99% of the good stuff is availbale as freeware. Thats a fact.I have done freeware, shareware and commercial since FS4.I dont do freeware anymore since the technology required for FS2002 (GMAX with VC) is beyond my time limits.I don't do shareware anymore because it is too much hassle trying to sell it via the Net, and, for the same reasons as above.I don't do commercial anymore because of my time being limited and, the sales (or rather, royalties) are not what they used to be during FS5 or FS98. There is not a lot of money in it anymore to make all the time spent producing a commercial add-on viable.Quality of freeware is for the most part excellent!Quality of the commercial market is for the most part, below par in comparison to freeware. Thats a fact.Will this freeware/payware debate ever end? Tekmate are the culprits for all of this I think :-) :-) (Just kidding).Good thread and as always.. makes interesting reading.Regards.. TrevVisit "The DC-3 Hangar"http://www.douglasdc3.com

[Guest]

Hi Elrond, Interesting post, and while you may be right, I find it difficult to see a 30000 foot view of a hobby. This hobby is experienced by me the way I experience it. I can't know how others experience it. I have no payware on my computer and haven't since VOD 3.0 was published. The only payware I've bought has been tools, paid for Terrabuilder several years ago and FSDS.So for me, the freeware world is so gigantic and overwhelming, I can't see the edges.Bob Bernstein

[Guest]

I think a mistake often made is to distinguish purely with regard to whether the package is freeware or payware. In fact most packages are of a quality matching the experience, flare and dedication of the people involved and the amount of detail they are prepared to put into a project, whether they are commercial or not.There are many products out there which clearly are made as quickly as possible, and released to make as much profit as possible in least amount of time. There are other products which have excellent aspects to them in a narrow range - excellent panels but perhaps not quite so good on systems and exterior graphics. It is very rare to see a complete package in which quality oozes from every single department. The reason for this, in my opinion, is that a complete package with quality throughout nowadays takes an awful long time to produce. The demand for perfection amongst simming enthusiasts is higher than it ever was.Fs2002 may have improved the potential for a new addon, but it has also exponentially increased the amount research, detailed work and knowledge required, since the published SDK's, with a few exceptions, still leave a lot of guessing work to the developer.Many developers who have turned to commercial projects do so because they have reached the point where their desire to maintain the highest quality needs almost full time dedication to the work in hand. A good average for a quality release is some 3000-4000 man hours. That's more than double the average person's hours worked in an average job over a whole year. So unless developers already have highly paid and flexible employment or have other sources of unearned income, there is little choice but to go commercial if the quality is to be maintained.Best Regards,Rob YoungRealAir Simulations