Here's some 'historical data'...Citation X 2.0 gauge code development time: 4+ years. That's 40hr per week, 52wk per year. Based on average salary of $80,000 U.S. for a senior programmer... that's over $240,000 labor invested in the gauge code alone. Add in 3D modeler, texture artists... etc.That's a real number representing real development. Apparently there are a great deal of people who think all of this stuff is easy and takes very little time to do.

When you look at numbers like that, I start to see why you are talking about things like that, however when you straight up complain, without providing statistics, things tend to look distorted. To the outside person (such as myself), things look like they are done in normally around 6 months to a year, not 4 years. Now that you explain that much with that logic, it's understandable. However when you don't provide details such as that kind of time involved, most of us tend to think it only takes 6 months to a year, not 4 years.

When you look at numbers like that, I start to see why you are talking about things like that, however when you straight up complain, without providing statistics, things tend to look distorted. To the outside person (such as myself), things look like they are done in normally around 6 months to a year, not 4 years. Now that you explain that much with that logic, it's understandable. However when you don't provide details such as that kind of time involved, most of us tend to think it only takes 6 months to a year, not 4 years.

Most people make assumptions regarding addon development, treat it as fact and law. I don't know how to cook a good creme brule... thus I make no assumptions of how it should be done nor how long it should take or what it should look like when done.

Most people make assumptions regarding addon development, treat it as fact and law. I don't know how to cook a good creme brule... thus I make no assumptions of how it should be done nor how long it should take or what it should look like when done.

Understood, please understand that when I look at these things, I look at it from 3 perspectives, Gamer, Simmer, Dev. On one hand, the gamer part of me is outraged that it costs so much for an addon, the Simmer part of me says if it's a good addon, it's worth it, and the Dev part of me knows it's a pain to develop things. I personally am in the open source development sector, the project I work on is in my sig, however personally, when I see a 2.0 in a product name, it usually implies for me that it's really just a glorified patch, not really a complete overhaul. Please understand that I do see where you are coming from now, I was just ill-informed about the actual work put in to a lot of these aircraft. Also please note this is also coming from a 19 year old college student.Also, just for full disclosure know this, I will never truly ding a product for price, I may make a bullet point, but it won't be enough to prevent a gold star. I reserve personal complaints like that for the side lines, I always take the review of the product in a manner where I will not concern myself with the price of the product, unless it really isn't worth the price at all (such as ariane's recent repaint incident). If I ever review a product that is expensive, it will never be price that prevents a gold star award unless it's truly outrageous (such as 750 pounds for a repaint hint hint). Although I do like to get up on a soapbox once in a while, it will never interfere with my job.

...when I see a 2.0 in a product name, it usually implies for me that it's really just a glorified patch, not really a complete overhaul.

Minor changes warrant only a dot number increment.Major changes warrant a whole number increment.As a perfect example, take FS itself!FS9 - 9.1.0.40901FSXA - 10.0.61637.0Of course, there are those who'd argue that FSXA is only a "glorified patch" for FS9, but that's their problem! :( As a programmer, I treat each "whole number increment" as a new generation entirely...

Minor changes warrant only a dot number increment.Major changes warrant a whole number increment.As a perfect example, take FS itself!FS9 - 9.1.0.40901FSXA - 10.0.61637.0Of course, there are those who'd argue that FSXA is only a "glorified patch" for FS9, but that's their problem! :( As a programmer, I treat each "whole number increment" as a new generation entirely...

True, however usually, people like me would avoid a number incriment like that in this case, because it will feel like the product is just a patch, in reality, it may actually be a new product, however most people on the outside of development won't think that way, and then there are the FOSS junkies like me who will use a whole number to mean that we just ran out of numbers after .9.

True, however usually, people like me would avoid a number incriment like that in this case, because it will feel like the product is just a patch, in reality, it may actually be a new product, however most people on the outside of development won't think that way, and then there are the FOSS junkies like me who will use a whole number to mean that we just ran out of numbers after .9.

I prefer to use the V.R.M model, e.g. 2.5.1V (version) changes are a major rewriteR (revision) changes are significant new features or bug fixesM (modification) changes are minor bux fixes (typos, etc)

Normally I use that model myself, however I can think of certain projects which overuse that model. I personally prefer more:VersionRevisionModificationFixE.G. 2.1.2aSadly however some projects don't like this.

Back on topic... anyone who thinks that accepting piracy as 'de facto' clearly doesn't grasp that it affects development at different levels. A piracy approach for a product that costs $1,000,000 to develop and sells 5,000,000 copies at $100 each... can easily accept piracy as 'de facto'. However, a product that costs $300,000 to develop, and sells 1,000 copies at $50 each... can not.

Back on topic... anyone who thinks that accepting piracy as 'de facto' clearly doesn't grasp that it affects development at different levels. A piracy approach for a product that costs $1,000,000 to develop and sells 5,000,000 copies at $100 each... can easily accept piracy as 'de facto'. However, a product that costs $300,000 to develop, and sells 1,000 copies at $50 each... can not.

It certainly can't. A product that costs $300,000 to develop, and sells 1,000 copies at $50 each loses its developer $250,000!

It certainly can't. A product that costs $300,000 to develop, and sells 1,000 copies at $50 each loses its developer $250,000!

Yet most addons sell at that level. Unless you think aircraft only cost 50% of their actual sales?People who think developers are getting rich off of this, really have no idea.

Still waiting on that historical data..........

Yet most addons sell at that level. Unless you think aircraft only cost 50% of their actual sales?People who think developers are getting rich off of this, really have no idea.

What's that go to do with my post? Let me spell out my point again. You said However, a product that costs $300,000 to develop, and sells 1,000 copies at $50 each...Cost............................$300,000Selling Price.........................$50Sales.. .............................1000Revenue (Sales * Price)...$50,000Loss.(Revenue - Cost)....$250,000Are you suggesting that a developer makes a loss of $250,000 on a revenue of $50,000?

What's that go to do with my post? Let me spell out my point again. You said However, a product that costs $300,000 to develop, and sells 1,000 copies at $50 each...Cost............................$300,000Selling Price.........................$50Sales.. .............................1000Revenue (Sales * Price)...$50,000Loss.(Revenue - Cost)....$250,000Are you suggesting that a developer makes a loss of $250,000 on a revenue of $50,000?

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?

Still waiting on that historical data..........

Some historical data isn't going to be on the internet. Most of the time, when I research things like this in particular, I usually rely on first hand experiences (in other words, people talking about the time period), and because I have seen a lot of people talk about this in particular, I know it isn't just a made-up occurrence. Most of the time, if you want to learn this kind of stuff, you have to ask those who lived in the era. You don't see it often mentioned in history books or on Wikipedia about these things because they are taboo. Most people aren't willing to talk about taboo parts of history, however my belief is that all history needs preservation, not just the good, but also the bad. Trying to censor history just winds up causing history to repeat itself. The best way to learn about history is always first hand accounts. Most of the time, people don't bother thinking about first hand accounts, however when you get down to it, every history book is based on someone telling a first hand account. You just don't see books and stuff about this because it's so taboo, that people don't want to talk about it because they fear what people would think. In general, my best sources have been those who have been there, yet have been willing to talk about it too.

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?

It's simple... devalue the development cost and provide compensation by royalties based on sales percentages.However... the devaluation is an imaginary number and doesn't really take away the fact that based on real world development payment value for personnel... addons can't sell at the current prices and make a profit.So... think about that the next time you complain about the price.