FlyTampa Working on ATL

[duckbilled 310]

For simplicity, I'm generalizing here

I highly doubt any FS developer is getting rich of this hobby, but they do need to try to cover the cost of development. Even with a big project with a large customer base, FT EHAM for example, I bet a lot of the development time is "donated". It is about the money, because the money sustains the ability to continue to do what you love. The company I help run is a low profit social enterprise (L3C). It is basically an LLC, but with a social mission - kind of a business run with a nonproft mission. Point is we are all about the mission first, but we know we need to make money to sustain the work. I believe many developers are in a similar situation. Developers likely pick projects that make them money, and they are passionate about.  Still, they may pick projects that they are passionate about that don't make money, but they won't pick projects that make money that they are not passionate about. The passion drives the work. The money sustains it.

 

17 hours ago, CaribbeanCLANK said:

Is this statement based on fact? Or just trying to make a point. 

I live on a 2nd World Caribbean island with NO flight simmers. I only know one other simmer (take a bow H) here on the island. Just because the Caribbean has very few simmers hasn't stopped devs like Aerosoft, Taxi2Gate, FlyTampa, TropicSim and LatinVFR from developing addo-ons of airports in this part of the world. Clearly the 99% of US and EU simmers want to fly their digital aircraft down to the sunny shores of Caribbean destinations. I am sure many of this "99%" would like to venture over to the Far East also.

I don't think "the money" is the issue with regards to how many Asian airport add-ons we see developed and released.

I agree with this. It is one of the reason I am into FS. I can't go to Barbados on a random Tuesday afternoon, but I can in the sim. Due to proximity, the Caribbean is very popular with US tourists. Punta Cana, Montego Bay and Cancun are also very popular destinations for Europeans due the availability of all inclusive packages. Other areas have them, but these three destinations have the most. Punta Cana and Montego Bay are done. Cancun is really the king of the three, because the airport serves such a large area, but there isn't really a good or updated version of the airport/area. The aircraft selection there is very diverse with heavies from Europe. It is the second busiest airport in Mexico, and if it was in the US, it would rank in the top 10 by passengers served. I'm comparing data from a couple sources here, so forgive me if this is slightly off  . 

Point is FT could make money on Cancun, but no one at FT is passionate about it. Still, I/we really need a new Cancun.

[anden145 2,285]

45 minutes ago, duckbilled said:

Point is FT could make money on Cancun, but no one at FT is passionate about it. Still, I/we really need a new Cancun.

You know this for a fact?!

I mean - a scenery from FlyTampa takes, what? 1 year - 1½ to make? That's quite a lot of 'Cancun' sceneries, which needs to be sold, to make it feasible... 

[Boeing or not going 578]

57 minutes ago, duckbilled said:

For simplicity, I'm generalizing here

I highly doubt any FS developer is getting rich of this hobby, but they do need to try to cover the cost of development. Even with a big project with a large customer base, FT EHAM for example, I bet a lot of the development time is "donated". It is about the money, because the money sustains the ability to continue to do what you love. The company I help run is a low profit social enterprise (L3C). It is basically an LLC, but with a social mission - kind of a business run with a nonproft mission. Point is we are all about the mission first, but we know we need to make money to sustain the work. I believe many developers are in a similar situation. Developers likely pick projects that make them money, and they are passionate about.  Still, they may pick projects that they are passionate about that don't make money, but they won't pick projects that make money that they are not passionate about. The passion drives the work. The money sustains it.

 

I agree with this. It is one of the reason I am into FS. I can't go to Barbados on a random Tuesday afternoon, but I can in the sim. Due to proximity, the Caribbean is very popular with US tourists. Punta Cana, Montego Bay and Cancun are also very popular destinations for Europeans due the availability of all inclusive packages. Other areas have them, but these three destinations have the most. Punta Cana and Montego Bay are done. Cancun is really the king of the three, because the airport serves such a large area, but there isn't really a good or updated version of the airport/area. The aircraft selection there is very diverse with heavies from Europe. It is the second busiest airport in Mexico, and if it was in the US, it would rank in the top 10 by passengers served. I'm comparing data from a couple sources here, so forgive me if this is slightly off  . 

Point is FT could make money on Cancun, but no one at FT is passionate about it. Still, I/we really need a new Cancun.

You could go take dozens of pictures around the airport and send them to FT and they might be more open to doing it. Or another developer. It might be your favorite airport and have a lot of interesting traffic but that does not mean it translates into worthwhile to model it. In the past other developers have done Cancun and had financial trouble.

[duckbilled 310]

10 minutes ago, Anders Bermann said:

You know this for a fact?!

I mean - a scenery from FlyTampa takes, what? 1 year - 1½ to make? That's quite a lot of 'Cancun' sceneries, which needs to be sold, to make it feasible... 

Aside from the fact that FT is making ATL, I think most of what has been discussed in this thread is speculation. I did, however, state the case for Cancun. Depending on how you look at it, it could have a larger draw than many of the airports done by big developers. 

From Wikipedia: In 2016, Cancún airport handled 21,415,795 passengers, a 9.28% increase compared to 2015." That makes it busier than PHX, SEA, MIA, BOS, DTW, PHL, SLC, IAD... Also from Wikipedia, Mexico is ranked the #8 tourist destinations in the world. This link states that, it is the #1 international destination for Americans (2012) and it is a growing destination for Europeans (anecdotal evidence from the growing number of European heavies at the airport on my trips). It is likely that there is money in the banana stand!

Cancun aside, a better way to look at the cost of development is number of development hours it takes to complete a project. The number of years is really irrelevant, because it will vary based on the size of the team, the number of irons in the fire and the team's ability to contract work. Best case scenario, how many development hours does it take to complete a large airport? 

[duckbilled 310]

23 minutes ago, 777200lrf said:

You could go take dozens of pictures around the airport and send them to FT and they might be more open to doing it. Or another developer. It might be your favorite airport and have a lot of interesting traffic but that does not mean it translates into worthwhile to model it. In the past other developers have done Cancun and had financial trouble.

True. It could be a lack of local support that has hindered the project. Most of the fans fly in and out. We can't get pictures of the small details. It could require a Spanish speaking individuals to engage with a few spotters (i know there is someone on airliners.net).