Personally, I think where the Payware Airport builders get their numbers are from the Forums themselves, as opposed to using polls. I mean, just look at the various Forums and the type of posts... the majority of them tend to angle towards airliners of some type; questions about PMDG, CS, Dash 8's, and so forth. The various Ad banners at the FS sites, for the most part, have airliners depicted on their backgrounds (the OpusFSX ad is a perfect example). If you take a casual look at Member's Signature banners, quite a few of them have airliners or something associated with them pictured, including some on this Page (1)...

 

The folks at FlightBeam and the other Airport designers see this, and say "Oh, looks like people want MAJOR airports, judging by who's posting, so let's make ____ (insert a Payware Airport)".

 

If you couldn't tell already, I'm a GA pilot. Although I have some Heavy Iron in the Hangar right now, I prefer to pull something like a TriPacer or a Bonanza out for a short hop. I've filled my neck of the woods with a few small freeware Airports to fill in the spaces, and it works just fine for me.

 

 

The folks at FlightBeam and the other Airport designers see this, and say "Oh, looks like people want MAJOR airports, judging by who's posting, so let's make ____ (insert a Payware Airport)".

 

That makes a lot of sense. 

 

 

The folks at FlightBeam and the other Airport designers see this, and say "Oh, looks like people want MAJOR airports, judging by who's posting, so let's make ____ (insert a Payware Airport)".

 

I'm sure there's some truth to that.  Nevertheless, I still find it curious that so few regional airports are made.  Sure you lose the long-haul fanatics, but you still get the 737 and Q400 guys AND you add us GA guys into the mix as well.  The added bonus is that the smaller field might equate to shorter dev times as opposed to one of the majors - but not being a developer I may be all wet on that one.  Sure there are airports without broad appeal that only locals would be interested in, but there are fields in interesting locations that could have quite a bit of universal appeal.

 

Scott

Think long term updating and upgrading ga fields could keep payware makers busy for years. The ga flyers market is smaller at least our flight can 30 minutes or less. Started out FSX flying tube but found out later just following IFR rules all day and sop items it's not flying at that point it's like a job. Like my rubber pedals and yoke before dealing with FMC and button pushing.

At that point, the question becomes... which Regional Airports to make? That could make for a whole different Thread.

 

One can bet that for every 25 Regionals that folks name, there are hundreds more out there that the Add On people might

pick that weren't mentioned.

 

What a quandary that could be for the Add On guys; which ones do we concentrate on building that will be profitable?

 

For a Niner like me though, that's where Freeware comes in. Fill in the spots where I like to fly with whatever is available

(and there's some good stuff), and go fly. My fertile imagination will fill in the rest.

 

 

What a quandary that could be for the Add On guys; which ones do we concentrate on building that will be profitable?

 

I'm going to reference Russ White again, as I think what he's trying to do makes sense.  He's focusing on a region (the Great Lakes area to start) and plans to do a network of fields with good flight distances between them.  He's picked out a handful of potential fields (I'm guessing based at least in part on available imagery) and has asked for feedback as to which ones the community wants to see.

 

This, to me, is a logical way to work.  It's basically what Orbx has done with their GA fields and it makes for a win-win, as filling in a region gives simmers another reason to be repeat customers.

 

Scott