OK, then post your research, actual data for us to look at.

OK, then post your research, actual data for us to look at.

My research is all from conversations I have had with people, it would be practically impossible to do that.

I think it

Actually, that is a good point, how do payware devs make any money at all and not go bankrupt if they have to lose that much in development?

No developer can afford to lose $250,000 on each add-on. The figuresquoted are just wrong.

No developer can afford to lose $250,000 on each add-on. The figuresquoted are just wrong.

They all still take a share of the revenue. It means they effectively work on a semi-volunteer basis considering their really market value.At Activision Ed would definitely not make 80.So the real opportunity costs are higher still.Danny

No developer can afford to lose $250,000 on each add-on. The figuresquoted are just wrong.

I agree, the statement that a single (simulated!) gauge can (and in fact does) cost $240,000 and 4 years to develop totally stinks (I can smell it all the way in South Africa). And not only that, this is a gauge which is a revision (major or otherwise) of a gauge that already existed. Sorry, gentlemen but someone here is pulling our leg just a little bit too hard...If the above was even remotely true then there is no chance that any simulated ac would ever get developed. And any gauge developers would certainly not be wasting their time posting on these forums, there would be way to many supercars to drive around the block...Let's be serious, please. :(

I agree, the statement that a single (simulated!) guage can (and in fact does) cost $240,000 and 4 years to develop totally stinks (I can smell it all the way in South Africa). And not only that, this is a guage which is a revision (major or otherwise) of a guage that already existed. Sorry, gentlemen but someone here is pulling our leg just a little bit too hard...If the above was even remotely true then there is no chance that any simulated ac would ever get developed. And any guage developers would certainly not be wasting their time posting on these forums, there would be way to many supercars to drive around the block...Let's be serious, please. :(

I agree with this, I smell bull...There is no way that a simulated gauge can cost THAT much to write. I'm sorry but XML isn't THAT hard to code, and doesn't take THAT long. If you are taking that long to code it, I got no clue why you are using windows notepad for it when it would save man hours to get something that does the job, such as Eclipse, Visual Studio, Netbeans, Dreamweaver, or even notepad ++.

I agree, the statement that a single (simulated!) guage can (and in fact does) cost $240,000 and 4 years to develop totally stinks (I can smell it all the way in South Africa). And not only that, this is a guage which is a revision (major or otherwise) of a guage that already existed. Sorry, gentlemen but someone here is pulling our leg just a little bit too hard...If the above was even remotely true then there is no chance that any simulated ac would ever get developed. And any guage developers would certainly not be wasting their time posting on these forums, there would be way to many supercars to drive around the block...Let's be serious, please. :(

I'm being quite serious. The gauge for the Citation X 2.0 is not the one from Citation X 1.0.1 - Citation X 1.0 gauges were made using 100% bitmap images. All of them.2 - Citation X 1.0 gauges were individual files. Lots of them.3 - Citation X 2.0 gauges use GDI+, with vector graphics. Almost all of them.4 - Citation X 2.0 gauges are one file.5 - Citation X 2.0 gauge has 110,000+ lines of code.I wrote it. I know how long it took. I know how complex and in depth it is. I also know what the average senior programmer salary is in the U.S.

I'm being quite serious. The gauge for the Citation X 2.0 is not the one from Citation X 1.0.1 - Citation X 1.0 gauges were made using 100% bitmap images. All of them.2 - Citation X 1.0 gauges were individual files. Lots of them.3 - Citation X 2.0 gauges use GDI+, with vector graphics. Almost all of them.4 - Citation X 2.0 gauges are one file.5 - Citation X 2.0 gauge has 110,000+ lines of code.I wrote it. I know how long it took. I know how complex and in depth it is. I also know what the average senior programmer salary is in the U.S.

Given that the Citation X 2.0 gauges are one file, I have to wonder how long it takes to open up 110,000+ lines of code in a single file...

I agree with this, I smell bull...There is no way that a simulated gauge can cost THAT much to write. I'm sorry but XML isn't THAT hard to code, and doesn't take THAT long. If you are taking that long to code it, I got no clue why you are using windows notepad for it when it would save man hours to get something that does the job, such as Eclipse, Visual Studio, Netbeans, Dreamweaver, or even notepad ++.

Yet again you make a gross assumption. It's a C++ gauge, and simulates 100% of the aircraft's systems except the engines. 100%. Full custom autopilot (the FS one doesn't fly correctly), full custom electrical system from top to bottom, full custom hydraulics system, full custom pneumatics... the list goes on and on.I challenge you to do it, from scratch. Don't bother even considering XML for it... you'll never get it to work.

Given that the Citation X 2.0 gauges are one file, I have to wonder how long it takes to open up 110,000+ lines of code in a single file...

Huh? The compiled gauges are one file. Compiled.

Yet again you make a gross assumption. It's a C++ gauge, and simulates 100% of the aircraft's systems except the engines. 100%. Full custom autopilot (the FS one doesn't fly correctly), full custom electrical system from top to bottom, full custom hydraulics system, full custom pneumatics... the list goes on and on.I challenge you to do it, from scratch. Don't bother even considering XML for it... you'll never get it to work.

Funny, I thought that FSX used XML for gauges, not C++. I thought the C++ gauges were no longer supported for FSX.As for my time, I have more important things to worry about, like school, and my projects, along with learning Maya at the moment (Thank god Autodesk has a 6 month trial version up for students on their site!). The last thing I need to do is code that much more for something completely unrelated to my current objectives.

They all still take a share of the revenue. It means they effectively work on a semi-volunteer basis considering their really market value.At Activision Ed would definitely not make 80.So the real opportunity costs are higher still.Danny

If it costs $300,000 and earns $50,000 then it's lost $250,000 full stop. I don't believe that developers are charities and give that sort of money away, but I do believe the figures are wrong.

The gauge for the Citation X 2.0 is not the one from Citation X 1.0.

Oh, I am sure it is not. But I'll bet that 60% (if not way way more) of the code is.What you seem to be saying then is that you work for a charity as clearly you will never recoup $240,000 from this gauge. Not even close considering all the other things that go into making a sim ac. What am I missing here?

Oh, I am sure it is not. But I'll bet that 60% (if not way way more) of the code is.What you seem to be saying then is that you work for a charity as clearly you will never recoup $240,000 from this gauge. Not even close considering all the other things that go into making a sim ac. What am I missing here?

Want to bet $240,000? Because then I will recoup my time invested.What you're missing is that time is money... thus time invested is indeed money invested. It wasn't done for an expectation of making that level of income. Otherwise I would never have done it at all. I did it to the level I did because I wanted to. Simple as that. However, that doesn't take away from the real value of my time invested in the project.

Oh, I am sure it is not. But I'll bet that 60% (if not way way more) of the code is.What you seem to be saying then is that you work for a charity as clearly you will never recoup $240,000 from this gauge. Not even close considering all the other things that go into making a sim ac. What am I missing here?

Sharrow, that seriously depends on the method of coding. If you mess with one thing in C++, you can cause a chain reaction that can range from not compiling, to deleting everything on your C drive by accident (look up Myth 2 for that one...).

What you're missing is that time is money... thus time invested is indeed money invested. It wasn't done for an expectation of making that level of income. Otherwise I would never have done it at all. I did it to the level I did because I wanted to. Simple as that. However, that doesn't take away from the real value of my time invested in the project.

Which is exactly why I work on CSP rather than making indy games. Because I know that if I don't, no one else will.