So, how many staff were working on /needed for FS11/FSnext when ACES was closed?

 

EDIT

 

The FSX credits list some 280 names/organisations. Obviously they wouldn't all have been working at the same time.

Yep i was one of those lol

 

But I was just interested in the articles... really!

I wonder about the size of the company developing X-Plane. Reading in some forums it does not seem to be anywhere near this....

I have heard its about six or seven people.......

So, how many staff were working on /needed for FS11/FSnext when ACES was closed?

 

EDIT

 

The FSX credits list some 280 names/organisations. Obviously they wouldn't all have been working at the same time.

 

Very rough count, off the top of my head, is around 25, +/- a few, that were FS-only. Bill is correct above, the "Core" or "Platform" team was the fourth group. With regard to credits, that document will list anyone and everyone who had even the slightest involvement with the product during the production cycle and doesn't reflect the number of people working on the product at any given time. Of the 24 initial members of the Flight team, 22 were from ACES, (9-FS, 10-Core, 3-TS).

I wonder about the size of the company developing X-Plane. Reading in some forums it does not seem to be anywhere near this....

 

I have heard its about six or seven people.......

 

Which is on the one hand impressive that they've got a good as product as they have, but also a shortcoming in that they can't get some much-needed improvements out as quickly as we'd like.

Which is on the one hand impressive that they've got a good as product as they have, but also a shortcoming in that they can't get some much-needed improvements out as quickly as we'd like.

 

If they are really good programmers, who have a lot of experience with the code, who care about the product and who work well together, then a small team can be most effective. It's certainly true that it can take small teams longer to implement features, (it's not just about new features, it's also essential that existing code be maintained), but that's where the users and communication with the users becomes critical: users need to be able to not simply buy the product, they need to be able to buy into the direction the team is taking the product.

When ACES was shut down, there were 127 people on the team

 

About Four times what I thought would take to go on with FSX-11 and beyond for another life-cycle of the platform.

 

 

 

I have heard its about six or seven people.......

 

And this is what one of the likely-to-be alternate platforms has on board right now..

 

 

Well..... I think I keep my numbers (which started as speculative as one can imagine). Get a very strong team of 30 people for 5 years. Spend a bit under $50M with them and get back from the market somewhere north of $100M in sales. Not bad, really.

 

But for this to work right you need to be very open and make everything you can to support the add-on developed market who would (all together) go after another market also north of $100M, leveraging the new platform creating great and specialized products aiming the high-end simmers who would buy those based on value rather than volume....

 

But... Who's going to take this to the shark tank?... PMDG? ..... The X-Plane Company?

 

http://abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank/about-the-show

 

BTW this is a US local TV show that many might not have heard about.. but If you go to the link you will see what we are talking about..... :rolleyes: 

 

 

Here's a good glimpse into what Ballmer and his cronies wanted, maybe what his successors also want in the vain delusion they think they know how to "do it right":

 

Mindbogglingly sick .... or thick?  Now wonder the world is going down the drain!

 

 

What we now see was probably inevitable - Flightgear on the one hand, freely supported by everyone with the time/interest (shows real promise, but a long way to go), or P3D on the other hand, a higher cost specialized training platform.

 

As long as they sell it to us for less than a 100$ I see no downside here ...

About Four times what I thought would take to go on with FSX-11 and beyond for another life-cycle of the platform.

 

 

 

 

And this is what one of the likely-to-be alternate platforms has on board right now..

 

 

Well..... I think I keep my numbers (which started as speculative as one can imagine). Get a very strong team of 30 people for 5 years. Spend a bit under $50M with them and get back from the market somewhere north of $100M in sales. Not bad, really.

 

But for this to work right you need to be very open and make everything you can to support the add-on developed market who would (all together) go after another market also north of $100M, leveraging the new platform creating great and specialized products aiming the high-end simmers who would buy those based on value rather than volume....

 

But... Who's going to take this to the shark tank?... PMDG? ..... The X-Plane Company?

 

http://abc.go.com/shows/shark-tank/about-the-show

 

BTW this is a US local TV show that many might not have heard about.. but If you go to the link you will see what we are talking about..... :rolleyes: 

Frankly, you would have to be certifiably mad to invest your money here for a project like that. This is an extremely (extremely) picky community, with arguments about what constitutes a "true" sim that rival medieval discussions regarding how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.

 

Would you like to spend years and millions of dollars on a project only to have a large portion of your target audience turn its nose up at your offering over some minor points of philosophical or technical minutia? (The turn radius of the planes is unrealistic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

 

Or something.

 

Apparently Aerosoft wouldn't, and I don't blame them one tiny bit. I wouldn't either.

Frankly, you would have to be certifiably mad to invest your money here for a project like that. This is an extremely (extremely) picky community, with arguments about what constitutes a "true" sim that rival medieval discussions regarding how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.

 

Would you like to spend years and millions of dollars on a project only to have a large portion of your target audience turn its nose up at your offering over some minor points of philosophical or technical minutia? (The turn radius of the planes is unrealistic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

 

Or something.

 

Apparently Aerosoft wouldn't, and I don't blame them one tiny bit. I wouldn't either.

 

I respectfully disagree. It is true that no one is going to become a billionaire selling a flight simulator, which means that the potential investor pool would be pretty small, (most investors understandably want to make lots of money). But there is enough money to be made to support a relatively small team and turn a profit. I don't believe the community is all that "picky" with regard to what it wants and expects, but it can be rather adamant about what it does not want. There will always, hopefully, be arguments over features and functionality. I say "hopefully" because it's that sort of discussion that propels development progressively forward. The same thing applies to competition. Both help all products become better and that's good for everyone. I think users can and will allow for issues with a given release, as long as they trust the development team and the direction they're going. In the end, as long as you're not looking to become a billionaire, it would be a solid investment.

I respectfully disagree. It is true that no one is going to become a billionaire selling a flight simulator, which means that the potential investor pool would be pretty small, (most investors understandably want to make lots of money). But there is enough money to be made to support a relatively small team and turn a profit. I don't believe the community is all that "picky" with regard to what it wants and expects, but it can be rather adamant about what it does not want. There will always, hopefully, be arguments over features and functionality. I say "hopefully" because it's that sort of discussion that propels development progressively forward. The same thing applies to competition. Both help all products become better and that's good for everyone. I think users can and will allow for issues with a given release, as long as they trust the development team and the direction they're going. In the end, as long as you're not looking to become a billionaire, it would be a solid investment.

I respect the argument, but to me, it's like a subset of Fermi's Paradox; the logic suggests that there should be quite a few at least moderately successful new civilian sim start ups out there....... But where are they? (Including Aerosofts missing effort)

 

What do the people with the money and knowledge know that we are missing?

 

 

What do the people with the money and knowledge know that we are missing?

 

I think one basic problem is the lack of connection between potential investor(s) and the people with the knowledge and ability; the people with money don't have the knowledge and the people with the knowledge don't have the money.

Forget it, its the time and audience that has been changed.

Those time will not come back. The new generations arent the slightly interrested in flightsim.

They take flying for granted, arent magically attracted to its secrets, but sit in a plane with their ipad not payin attention to the outside world.

That generation with no attenion span cannot ever be the next audience to buy a flightsim

 

What does the AVSIM survey show on age ?

What does the AVSIM survey show on age ?

 

 

As of today  at 1600 EDT:

 

 

Thanks Tom, that graph shows a lot.

The newcomers, so badly needed are much less then the older captains, around for a lot of years.

I think it supports my post.