There is also a rising cost in creating aircraft.Not too long ago it was enough to have some photos and maybe a 3-view drawing.Then came the requirement for access to the real thing to record sounds and compare flight dynamics.Then came the requirement for detailed photographic textures of the smallest part (and modelling of those parts).Now we're at the stage where an aircraft developer almost (or for real like F1 did with the ATR) requires access to the original design documents for the real aircraft and even then users aren't happy, finding (often perceived or blown way out of proportion) faults.All that costs money. F1 had a coup because they were working under contract for ATR themselves which allowed them to keep cost under control somewhat or the project would possibly never have been completed because of cost overruns.We have people complaining that emergency procedure pages on FMCs aren't implemented, features that in real life are only ever used in training or when things go seriously wrong. Most pilots never use them in real operations at all.And those customers that complain are the same who complain about the spiralling cost of addons and the ever longer release cycles.Most or all of them have of course never worked in the software industry and never done more than maybe create a 5 minute repaint of an aircraft...

Putting standards and restrict upload in freeware. You must be kidding, I

<>I have to disagree with this. It is not a bit clear that the person who made the fleet upload you cite was after anything except completeness. So far as I am aware, there is no prize for "most productive submitter". If there is anyone out there who cares, the uploader did a service for that person. Isn't that what sharing is about?I also doubt that developers are after 'fame' in a community that makes a hobby of savaging them at every opportunity...Finally, I feel that your concept of strict quality standards and limited uploads is absurd. Who is to be the judge of quality? Who is to be the judge's judge? Imposing your standards (whatever they may be) on the rest of us is intrusive and unwanted. Let the user be the judge.DJ

Joe,You said "In defense, the payware supporters want to define using ONLY hypotheticals and we are expected to take that as truth. I just refuse to do so. And that is my opinion." There are more than a couple of issues here (and I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet, so bear with me...) :)1st: There are those that can speak with authority (i.e., "facts") and there are those that can't, and those that do speak without authority, speak with pure ignorance of the facts - but that doesn't stop them. The result; immediately obvious "hypotheticals".2nd: Those that do know the facts (about their sales, costs, profits, hours invested, etc. etc.) are not going to discuss their business in public to satisfy you or anyone else as to what the "real facts" are. So, all we are left with is conjecture, guesstimates, hypotheticals, ad naseum. 3rd: I certainly understand the reluctance of any privately held business enterprise to allow or even participate in the public discussion of their business. If anyone demanded that of me or AVSIM, I would tell them where they could go in a heart beat. Just because someone purchases a company's product, that doesn't give them carte blanche to peer into the company's books, so to speak.So, the result is a circular argument. You are going to label everything but facts from an "authority" to be hypotheticals, and no one in "authority" is going to satisfy your demand for facts. Seems to me that there are a couple of no wins in there for everyone and a tremendous amount of wasted bandwidth in having gotten to that point. The thing that bothers me however, is how hostile this thread has become. I am going to go have a couple of gallons of caffiene and then come back and determine whether we should lock it up or not.

"I think a good way to get more people to make real products instead of just pumping out loads of repaints, Afcad files and AI flightplans would be to set strict quality standards that have to be met and/or to not upload more than one of those per submitter per week."With all due respect JW, that is one idea that I have no reservations in saying "sucks". :) I can't even begin to imagine the brohaha that would result if AVSIM started "filtering" files that were placed in the library. AVSIM's position on freeware and uploads to our library hasn't changed; we welcome the creativity and contribution of all in this community and no matter your age, skill level or interest, we will gladly support you in bringing your creation to our hobby.

>>Who's the Company Ian? What is the scenery, Ian? Maybe it is>the case, they are a small company, but if it is scenery, is>all their data freely available to create it? Is the software>tools used to compile it Freeware as well?>Some people can grab this data with software and smart enough to make scenery from it. Some people not so smart or little lazy or just not have free time and waits for free scenery or pays for payware one.There is free choise.

>That said, I don't think more than about $40 is reasonable for>one aircraft addon. That's because virtually all addon>aircraft, no matter how complex, "live" inside the basic FS9>environment. So no matter how much we praise on particular>flight model, it's still based on the $70 (initial price)But you can download Linux for free and buy Oracle software for many thousands bucks. Oracle works in free Linux environment but still so costly :)

Big difference. The OS just manages the hardware resources on a very low level.FS9 contains all the code for modelling flight - the .air files just set the parameters for the Microsoft-developed (or licensed) flight dynamics engine. The C language is a lot more flexible (and low-level) than the Microsoft .air format :)

Look at the cost of other sources of entertainment. My cable tv bill is outrageous. Have you attended a sporting event lately? Concerts? How about an evening at the movies? Look at addon costs with regards to how much entertainment you get out of them, and they actually are still a good deal. For example, going to the movies is going to cost you $20 US minimum (assuming you don't want to go alone). That doesn't include anything to eat or drink. Now that will give you around two hours of entertainment (maybe). Now look at that $35 aircraft. You are going to at least get twice as much use out of it, and that is being conservative. Your first flight with that aircraft might last as long as that $20 movie. Comparing it to other sources of entertainment, I find flightsim add-ons to actually be a better value than other things. Personally I'd rather give my hard-earned money to support one of the many excellent developers, rather than to support the latest over-hyped movie that comes into theaters. That said, the costs are rising. There is no denying that. The days of owning every single flightsim addon are long gone. You have to pick and choose your addons carefully. I have passed up on some of the big releases lately, simply because I won't have the time to spend to properly take advantage of all the features.

Tom, I wouldn't even had commented except that some of the payware supporters started bringing out all the same arguments all over again, and expect me and others to take it all 100% as truth.And no, I don't expect developers or even Microsoft to release their sales and revenue data, nor would I for my company.But then again, I don't go running around complaining about my costs to run my business, expecting everyone to just take my word for it, be sympathetic, and buy from me either.That is the point here. Maybe if those who keep defending the payware developers with the same old arguments would stop using those allegedly false claims, those that agree with what I say wouldn't feel the need to respond.Please note, I never stated names here, like some have done, and I wouldn't because I feel it is bigger than that.What I look for here is respect for the freeware developers as IMHO, they grew this hobby, not the payware folks, and that has been the model, IMHO. And I have no problem with free enterprise, but it is their method of enterprise that I question. And there are some very good developers out there, but I won't list them either. And all I ask from the payware folks is that they simply not expect us to assume everything they say is true. Maybe it is true for some, but that does not mean it is true for all.They should simply defend their product, or choose not to, but to simply use as a defense the exact same arguments almost every time, that is what gets tiring.Sorry, you had to show up here, and I hope you keep it open. I've responded to those attacking me personally by private message rather than here in the forum, and I am simply not responding in kind, or I am ignoring them.Best Regards,Joe

Ernie,I don't accept that MSFS sales are less than a Million, it may be a whole lot more, for all we know.I think they learned their lesson in 2002 with two versions, and went back to the model that worked with 2004.Again, my concern is not with the numbers, it is with the assumption that we have to take everything these supporters say as truth. I just believe they should not use those same old arguments everytime this topic comes up.I mean, do you honestly believe that those arguments apply to every developer, and none of them ar emaking money out of this, none. I simply do not.Like many business models, yes there are some that the assumptions may apply to, but certainly not all, IMHO.The answer may be the following:Why does product X cost $53.00Answer:Because simply the developer felt that is the price they could sell the most units at, and after configuring their individual unit cost, including research and development, expenses, salaries, insurance, etc... they arrived at that ppu (price per unit). Isn't that Ernie more closer to the truth than what you originally stated? or something close to that.And if they don't sell a lot at that point, oh well. But to use the same arguments that have always been used is simply misleading IMHO.Regards,Joe

Thanks for always contributing to our hobby. I do appreciate that.Remember, It was not I that started quoting numbers, Ernie mentioned a $10 product price point so I responded to that, only as an example, as it is quite normal for any business to consider price points, as it's what we do. I like many others have no Idea what the numbers are, and as I stated in my response to Tom, I really don't expect developers to release those, unless they choose to. MS may have sold 2 Million units fo rall I or anyone else knows. I don't release mine for my company, so yes, I do understand the business model very well.Please read my original post again, and hoepfully you will see where I am coming from.I did not name any of the developers, as some do, and I also didn't state what I consider good developers either.Also please read my last post to Ernie as well. Take Care,Joe

I know it's controversial but as I see the number of people that seem to go only for volume I have to wonder if there's some way to get them to go for quality.Indeed there's no prize for having the most uploads, but just as there's no prize for having the most forum posts in forums that track that number some people tend to spam the forums just to get their count up and I'm wondering if to some extent at least the same may not be true with the file library as well.That's why maybe a limit to the amount people can upload in a given interval would help. It would force them to think about other ways to distinguish themselves than just sheer volume (I've seen days with dozens of uploads by one person, all quick repaints of the same 737 for example).As a result the library is now adding such a massive number of files each day, and all pretty much the same, that Avsim may be doing itself a disservice by letting the library become clogged by things noone really wants.I don't like it, but it may become a necessity as people see the number of freeware releases (aircraft, scenery) drop while the number of uploads skyrockets but all in the same few categories (AI stuff and repaints) to limit the accepted contributions in those areas.

Bill,First time someone has called me "interesting" :-)If more Americans went to Europe on vacation maybe the exchange rate would be more of an issue. I can't imagine it will last too long so I'd better make the most of the good rate and try buy everything in dollars ;-)Cheers,

What if all those arguments you write off as "false" or "diversionary" (without of course having any more proof of anything other than what you personally believe) are actually true? Have folks like Rob Young, Bill Lyons, or many of the top devs given you any reason to think they are liars? Nobody here is bashing freeware. I don't know why defending payware developers rights to set a price for their work that they find fair means we are "bashing" freeware authors. I have enormous respect for the work freeware authors do - so much so that I think many of them deserve to be paid for their time and skill. That they choose not to go that route is a remarkably generous action on their part, but it certainly isn't a requirement. I don't expect anyone to work for me for free. If you feel all payware developers are crooked, then don't buy from them. But don't try and convince me that the folks who created the SF260, the Spitfire, the Dreamfleet Archer, the ATR, etc don't have a serious passion for the work they do becuase it really is a case of "the proof is in the pudding" afaic...