How Much will your next Add-On Cost?

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

"Don't even START comparing payware addon features against default. People are quick to jump on X plane, but compare their flight dynamics to DEFAULT MSFS if you want to compare, NOT payware addon aircraft. The same with panels, too."First of all, why? I mean do we want the best that's available or do we want the best that's available out of the box? Are the defualt flight dynamics in X-Plane better than MSFS defualt? Possibly (although I've heard from a few reliable folks that the defualt 172 in X-Plane is not much better at all than MSFS). But so what? Almost nobody around here is flying the defualt planes much and the fact is that there are a ton of great add-on planes for MSFS and very few for X-Plane. You don't want to include payware? So be it. How bout RealAir's free version of the defualt Cessna 172? It flies beautifully and I'm pretty sure compares well with X-Plane. Theres any number of other freeware planes with very good flight dynamics too. But if you want to compare defualt to defualt, lets not limit it to planes. How bout scenery? ATC? Weather? Afaic, all that stuff is intrinsic to the experience of flight and far from being "just eye-candy", as is usually the claim X-Plane guys. BTW, I get performance at least as good from FS9 as I do from Falcon4 (assuming you have F4 upgraded so that it looks even half as good as FS9). Pannable VC's? You don't think they exist in FS9? They do and they are more functional than F4. Anytime I flew into any sort of heavy warzone in F4 (even on my P3-800), I got treated to pretty much a slide show (unless I turned much of the visual fireworks off.) Frankly, I find FS9 gives a far more convincing "world" experience than any of the combat sims I've flown - IL2 included.

[Guest Shalomar]

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!Dynamic weather. Interactive ATC as I described. Working weather radar- wait, no current sims do that YET. All was accomplished by Sublogic with ATP. Just how recently did Microsoft accomplish most of the features ATP had IF they have them? If you look at what was accomplished within the hardware limitations of the time, both ATP and Falcon 4.0 are superior to anything Microsoft had at the time of their initial release. I am not against add ons, but it is inherently unfair to take airplanes you bought and use them as a benchmark against other aircraft included in another sim. If you read the X plane forum, that is exactly what at least one individual has done.I am all for features and scenery. If you are that emphatic about them, consider how much faster our hobby would have advanced had cooperation been chosen over litigation in its earliest days. It is entirely possible to convert scenery from one sim to another, if that is desirable. As I said, the biggest issues are legalities. Even if the person is required to have FS9 to use the default scenery in another sim, the fear of litigation against the person providing the converter utility remains. I wonder if you read more than two sentences in my previous post. I won't repeat myself any more, but you seem to have missed the larger points.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

What exactly is the point in talking about litigation that may have happened what, 15 years ago? If you think it's realistic to expect one developer to open up it's product so that other developers of competing products can reap benefits from it you're dreaming. It just isn't going to happen. As far as add-ons go, why is it "inherently unfair" to take add-ons bought for flightsim and us them as part of a comparison to X-Plane? Most of the debates I see in the X-Plane forums are the result of claims made by the X-Plane guys that MSFS isn't capable of decent flight modelling - not that the defualt planes are no good while X-Plane's are. In those debates the point is almost always made (by the MSFS advocates) that if all you look at are the defualt planes then you aren't getting the whole picture. It's not like anyone tries to hide the fact that they are using add-ons as the basis for their argument - it's always right out there for all to see.

[Guest Shalomar]

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!It is precisely BECAUSE of incidents like 15 years ago that the current non-cooperative atmoshere developed. One developer, Sublogic, DID try to let developers of competing products benefit from its advances and I clearly stated what happened. As for the second paragraph, you still are focusing on two sentences in a previous post rather than offering anything more to the MAIN points raised.Someone who is in a position to speak much more knowledgeably than me has posted, (paraphrase)Open source is blossoming in the computer industry as a whole, butIt looks like flight sim development is done more for profit than contributing to the community.Of course, there are freeware developers and even freeware core simulators. All modern flight sims implement some form of "open architecture". I am not saying sim developers should all reveal their source code.In case you missed the main points in my first post: In the 20 years since they stifled Sublogic, how much has Microsoft Flight Simulator advanced from the benchmark set by the FEATURES ATP had? You do not seem to want to touch the point that Microsoft has only recently implemented many of the features you love so much. If they care so much about us, why did it take so long to get SOME of what Sublogic offered with ATP? If the Internet had been invented, I'm sure ATP would have had real weather in addition to the excellent dynamic weather.Has their actions and domination helped or hurt the progress of our hobby as a whole?Consider the limitations of the hardware, and what ATP offered. Number of airports, quality of scenery, sound etc. are hampered by memory and other hardware issues. Compare the hardware available today, and look at the pace of development in the flight sim hobby compared to other aspects of software where Microsoft has more competition. Are you satisfied? When there is evidence that you have actually considered my main points, I will continue this discussion.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there have been several other flightsims released over the years since then which also didn't implement all the features you mention (which I'd be willing to bet you might find weren't nearly so impressively implemented back then as you remember them to have been anyway.) Some have done some things better than MSFS, but none have managed to "conquer" it. Thats the way it goes. What do you want me to say? MS bashing really isn't very interesting. They are a business and they do what they do pretty well. Could they be doing more with FS? I don't know, probably. Is anyone else likely to come up with anything better anytime soon? Not very likely. In the end, it's up to you and me as individuals to decide how we spend our money. I'd suggest anyone who thinks add-ons for MSFS are too expensive and a waste of money should probably stop buying them. Does that not make sense? I mean this debate comes up every 3-5 days on this and every other flightsim forum. Don't you get tired of hearing it? What's the point? The facts are simple - there is a market for these add-ons. If there wasn't, they wouldn't exist. So what is the issue? Nobody has ever forced me at gunpoint to pull out my credit card and buy a flightsim plane. Sometimes I see one I think I'd like and I buy it. Other times, I see one I think I'd like but I feel it's too expensive. In that case, I don't buy it. That decison has never been influenced one iota by one of these "devs just want your $" threads, nor will it ever be. "Are you satisfied?"Yeah, I'm pretty satisfied. It's a great sim - one of the best, most enjoyable pieces of PC software I've ever owned. Sorry you don't feel the same way about it, but that's the way I feel. I've owned literally hundreds (thousands?) of PC and videogames over the past almost 30 years, and FS9 is right at the top of my list.

[LAdamson 240]

>>It looks like flight sim development is done more for profit>than contributing to the community.Danny,It's back to history 101......Since you're always using the logo, "FLY II Rocks", then it would help to know who created flyable models for the orginal FLY. You see, as well as the panels were done, the flight models really "sucked" big time. They wern't anywhere close to the levels of what you'll get from todays FS2004 or X-Plane defaults.Then along comes Rob Young, who spends a year or so, re-programming the defaults into what became known as the V88's. Of course he did all this for FREE!!!These V88's were used in FLY2, but didn't make all the required changes for FLYII, and therefor, all of the FLYII default were again, not as good as they could have been,Now, we're years down the road, and Rob Young is "still" spending much time with farther enhancing flight models for various developers in addition to his own "RealAir Simulations". I must now ask, considering it takes hundreds to thousands of hours to research and develope these models, is it really fair to ask them to do it for the "community" for nothing?????????????????????????????????I think not, and they deserve every penny they earn!I personally can't stand this "DO IT FREE FOR THE COMMUNITY CRAP!"It makes us sound like a bunch of sniveling, cheap skates!L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

>People are quick to jump on X plane, but compare>their flight dynamics to DEFAULT MSFS if you want to compare,>NOT payware addon aircraft. The same with panels, too.>I always compare, X-Plane just isn't all that great. Just as with FS2004, the default flight models are hit and miss. Any other questions?L.Adamson

[N400QW 205]

L.Adamson and Zevious seem to have the correct perspective here....we KNOW full well what we pay Rob Young for the work he has done and we gladly do so:-)To expect someone of Rob's caliber to "do it free for the community" is not only an insult but downright foolish.The same goes for the other skilled and talented individuals not only on our team but on ALL OTHER Payware Groups.If those who claim to be proponents of freeware(something for nothing)were asked to devote 6 to 18 months of their time to ONE project without any compensation for that time spent...it's a safe bet that you would hear whining like you've never heard before:-)To prove it challenge them to go to their current day jobs and tell the boss...please do not pay me for the next 6-18 months. We doubt there will be any takers:-coolWe do live in a "Payware World" if your most recent trip to the gas station is any measure. Take a look at the advertising on this site and others if you doubt it:-)In case no one noticed, freeware and payware coexist quite nicely in this hobby and have for quite some time.:-) Both freeware and payware DO benefit flightsimmers by offering CHOICES of aircraft, scenery, utilities, etc.

[Guest Shalomar]

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!I was not the one who originally posted about flight sim development compared to other software. Why you chose to quote me quoting someone else, is a mystery.We seem to agree no sim is perfect, never will be, and some do things better than others. I asked about the PACE of development in sims as a whole, not the quality of FS9. There have been many sims released after ATP. Compare it to the following THREE versions of what Microsoft had to offer, it just doesn't compare. As for the others, Sublogic was the only one that started on a relatively equal footing with Microsoft, at least where flight simulation was concerned. Has anyone else since then made 1/10 the profit from the industry? You repeat constantly that yes it is possible for FS9 to have realistic flight models etc, but the simple fact that they don't bother in the default aircraft says even more.Software and hardware developers have banded together in beneficial and profitable ways outside of flight simulation. Cooperation would not necessarily mean "do it for the community free." Though some would, as they do today. Their efforts would be enjoyed by even more people.Why not take "open architecture" to the next level, so that elements of one sim can be incorporated into others you have bought? X plane seems to be toying with the idea with "plug ins".Are there any other civil sims besides X plane and Microsoft in current production? And, remember, it has taken twenty years to get CLOSE to Sublogic considering the hardware they had to work with.Glad you're satisfied:-wave

[LAdamson 240]

>You repeat constantly that yes it is possible for FS9 to have>realistic flight models etc, but the simple fact that they>don't bother in the default aircraft says even more.>Do you remember Microsoft's Combat Flight Simulator 2?I'd have to say that it had some of the best single engine flight dynamics ever produced for a flight simulator up until that time.The rudder effect to control propeller slip stream, torque, and P-factor was near perfect. You could actually sense weight, mass, and the throttle required to keep it in the air. The models could even get into a spin. I mention weight, mass, and will add interia. MS models have done rather well with this, but it's something X-Plane usually lacks. Too many X-Plane models just don't convey size and mass to the simulator pilot. At least not, if you know what you looking for. FWIW, the default 172 isn't all that un-realistic. It get's you from point A to B with "actual" piloting inputs. It may not be fully aerobatically capable, nor a real "spinner". But then it wasn't designed for that purpose. The default X-Plane 172 doesn't do any better. As far as I'm concerned......ALL flight simulator planes, any brand, are ALL --UN-REALISTIC!NONE of them really fly. They're just a bunch of electrons dancing across our monitors! There you have it. All un-realistic!See how easy it is to claim what's realistic and what's not?L.Adamson

[Guest almogo]

It is all a matter of expectations. I do not expect MS to open source FS and deliver it free "to the community" . They don't give a jack about the community and if for some reason FS will stop covering the costs they will just stop developing it because not enough money will come in. This is how a full fledged financial corporation works.This is not how I thought the world of Fs Add-on works. I was wrong.There are many games (and please don't be offended when I compare FS to games) out there for which the community writes modifications. I do not know even one that charges for them.But that is Ok. This is how the FS community work. I still believe that an "open source" development model for FS add-ons would have been more useful for the community as a whole but this is only in theory since it is not going to happen. The FS community has gotten used to paying for add-on and developers have gotten used to get money for them ( Like I said in an earlier post, mostly because of the profile of the average flight simmer). Which is ok because otherwise we might not have received some of the top quality add-ons that we have today.But some things are still annoying and i am afraid that we will just have to get used to them:1) Some Add-on developers are doing it mainly for financial gain2) A LOT of prices are exaggerated3) Some really bad products are released only to take advantage on the "open pockets" flight simmer>>If those who claim to be proponents of freeware(something for>nothing)were asked to devote 6 to 18 months of their time to>ONE project without any compensation for that time>spent...it's a safe bet that you would hear whining like>you've never heard before:-)>I am asking this because I really don't have a clue, but how many developers are developing add-ons full time ? I mean for how many is it their job ?Oren

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

>It is all a matter of expectations.> I do not expect MS to open source FS and deliver it free "to>the community" . They don't give a jack about the community>and if for some reason FS will stop covering the costs they>will just stop developing it because not enough money will>come in. This is how a full fledged financial corporation>works.Just becuase they need to turn a profit does not mean they "don't give a jack about the community." The bean counters probably don't, but most of the guys working on the sim do.>>This is not how I thought the world of Fs Add-on works. I was>wrong.>>There are many games (and please don't be offended when I>compare FS to games) out there for which the community writes>modifications. I do not know even one that charges for them.I also don't know of many for which the add-ons require the degree of knowledge and skill required to produce a decent plane for FS. I've used many of the mods for other games/sims and most are considerably less than complete. Also, I think it's a tad specious to assume that if a market existed for those other games add-ons, there would be nobody selling instead of giving away. >But that is Ok. This is how the FS community work. I still>believe that an "open source" development model for FS add-ons>would have been more useful for the community as a whole but>this is only in theory since it is not going to happen. The FS>community has gotten used to paying for add-on and developers>have gotten used to get money for them ( Like I said in an>earlier post, mostly because of the profile of the average>flight simmer). Which is ok because otherwise we might not>have received some of the top quality add-ons that we have>today.It's worth pointing out that there is still a great and ever-growing selection of nice freeware being released. Perhaps you've missed that?>>But some things are still annoying and i am afraid that we>will just have to get used to them:>>1) Some Add-on developers are doing it mainly for financial>gainSome. Not most.>2) A LOT of prices are exaggeratedProve it. What is "exaggerated? More than you want to spend? Is it exaggerated if the dev turns a 7% profit but OK if it's only a 1% profit? What is exaggerated? As I've said many times before, the market will set the price limit. Anyone notice FSD has started reducing prices? Hmmmmm....>3) Some really bad products are released only to take>advantage on the "open pockets" flight simmer>Buyer beware. I've had absolutely no trouble making purchasing decisions by simply waiting a few days after a product is released and reading messages on the forums to determine it's "worthiness." Anyone who isn't wise enough to do at least that deserves what they get.>>>>>If those who claim to be proponents of freeware(something>for>>nothing)were asked to devote 6 to 18 months of their time to>>ONE project without any compensation for that time>>spent...it's a safe bet that you would hear whining like>>you've never heard before:-)>>>>I am asking this because I really don't have a clue, but how>many developers are developing add-ons full time ? I mean for>how many is it their job ?>>Oren>Why does that matter? Whether they do FS developing full-time or work a day job and then do FS stuff in the evening it's still their time and they are entitled to compensation for it. You think someone who will work all day and then come home and sit in front of the PC doing FS stuff for several hours isn't showing an impressive level of "dedication" to the community?

[LAdamson 240]

>But some things are still annoying and i am afraid that we>will just have to get used to them:>>1) Some Add-on developers are doing it mainly for financial>gain>2) A LOT of prices are exaggerated>3) Some really bad products are released only to take>advantage on the "open pockets" flight simmer>Don't use the term "we". I know well beforehand what I want, regarding an add-on product.I'm well aware, that the developers I purchase from, have an experience level much higher than most, for producing the quality I require.I'm also well aware, that the product is going to take months of research, development, and beta-testing before release. Since these developer/programmers are well past the hobby and just do it for the "love of the community" stage, I'd expect to compensate them for the many hours involved. "Smart & educated" people know exactly who to purchase from. "We" don't purchase from those few dealers who's products are not up to current standards. We also know that the product prices for these high standards of programming are very well in line, considering the amount of product sold.For the most part, it really IS the payware developers who always seem to raise the bar to the next level. Those in it for the "hobby" only, usually leave at some point, or just don't have the time to get it as right as possible . Most payware developers have long realized, that it takes a group of individuals to get it to all come together. Your three examples, really fit a minority of products, so what's the point?L.Adamson

[Guest almogo]

>>Just becuase they need to turn a profit does not mean>they "don't give a jack about the community." The bean>counters probably don't, but most of the guys working on the>sim do.That is obvious in most cases. I was trying to make a point comparing them to some of the add-on developers that would probably not develop an add-on if they know that the financial gain would be minimal or not existent.>I also don't know of many for which the add-ons require the>degree of knowledge and skill required to produce a decent>plane for FS. I've used many of the mods for other games/sims>and most are considerably less than complete. Also, I think>it's a tad specious to assume that if a market existed>for those other games add-ons, there would be nobody selling>instead of giving away. I do not consider myself fully informed yet on the process of developing a new add-on so I will try not to be too judgmental, but there is a difference between knowledge and effort. Making a plane for FS requires copying something that is already available and fitting it to the environment of the FS. Knowledge of the plane is of course necessary and is not held by many. If a developer decides to charge a high price for his product only because he is knowledgable and not for the effort that he put into it, I do not think it is very fair. And before you start typing something like "I made it I can charge whatever I want", don't. You are right. My point is only valid regarding the difference between a commercial developer and one who tries to enrich the FS community.>>It's worth pointing out that there is still a great and>ever-growing selection of nice freeware being released.> Perhaps you've missed that?Even though this discusion is not about freeware developers there is an interesting point to be made. There are some very high quality freeware add-ons for FS. Some of them are much better than many payware products. They are still released for free and I do not recall hearing that their developers encountered any financial problems because of that . This proves that payment is not a fixed variable in the formula for good add-on.>>2) A LOT of prices are exaggerated>>Prove it. What is "exaggerated? More than you want to spend?> Is it exaggerated if the dev turns a 7% profit but OK if it's>only a 1% profit? What is exaggerated? As I've said many>times before, the market will set the price limit. Anyone>notice FSD has started reducing prices? Hmmmmm....Since I don't think that there is a budget for developing an add-on there is no amount from which you can take those 7% .The price should be relevant to the amount of men-hours put into the product>>Why does that matter? Whether they do FS developing full-time>or work a day job and then do FS stuff in the evening it's>still their time and they are entitled to compensation for it.> You think someone who will work all day and then come home>and sit in front of the PC doing FS stuff for several hours>isn't showing an impressive level of "dedication" to the>community? >Of course they are entitled to compensation if they so desire.Someone working full time is more likely to have more expenses developing than someone who develops after getting back from their day job. Might give us an idea on the percentage of profit calculated into the price.Oren

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

It sounds to me like you really need to explore some of the payware add-ons that are out there. They are far more than "copying" stuff and fitting it into the sim. In fact, some of the more complex add-ons are almost as complicated as the entire rest of the sim combined. Have a look at Flight1's ATR as an example. We're not talking about a couple weeks of development time here. We're talking 100's (probably 1000's) of hours. Now obviously they aren't all that complex, but I would disagree with your contention that there are lots of freeware releases that are "better than payware." I would say (based on my experience of having acquired dozens of freeware add-ons and about a dozen payware) that the best freeware releases are equal to the average payware release. Now there are a handful of freeware planes that I would agree are very close to the equal of the best payware - but not many. It's a difficult and involved process - much more so than making a map and some models for Half-Life.