"Study-Level" Aircrafts Do Not Require Payware Addons

[Chock 17,769]

28 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

However, the calculus is that if you say FSL is 100% for $140, and Aerosoft is 75% for $50 and FBW is 50% for $0, people are going to self sort into those buckets and not that many will sort into the FSL bucket...and that probably means that FBW doesn't get there - the deeper the systems the more complex, and frustrating, the code can be. And the more code, the more performance battles you fight (take a look at FPS in the FSL for P3D as exhibit A); and those can be extremely frustrating to try and solve for.

The MSFS world is hopefully big enough for all of these options.

This is the difficult thing for payware developers; they need to speculate on an untested market. Freeware developers on the other hand, are not obliged to commit to anything and under no strict demands to deliver anything either. Anything freeware tweakers do is usually welcome and if they stop work tomorrow, people might be disappointed for a short while but nobody will be lighting torches and wielding pitchforks, and in any case probably someone else with jump in where they left off anyway. Payware developers can't enjoy those freedoms; they have to plan several years in advance and work out a budget and a feature list to aim for at a particular price point and so on, and this for a sim which is literally uncharted territory. They can take a guess how many people might buy a super-realistic airliner in three years' time, but that is all it can be - a guess.

Literally nobody knows how many people would be willing to buy an add-on airliner for over 100 quid for the new sim even now, much less in a few years. This is something only time will make clear. And people can be funny about what they say they want and what they actually will buy too.

A well known example of that is the video format war of the late 70s and 1980s. On the face of it when you analyse the way that played out, Sony's Betamax format should have won that battle; it was a better quality format than the rival JVC VHS format, and crucially, a Betamax VCR player was commercially available to buy a full year before the rival VHS format player was available in shops. Unfortunately for Sony, what people wanted more than quality, was a lower price and a longer play/record time so they could tape sporting events and watch films over two hours in length. Betamax did eventually manage a longer length tape, but VHS got there first with that one and scooped up the film market.

So despite being an entire year later to the market, what JVC's VHS player delivered was what people actually wanted (and as noted, it wasn't super-duper quality, it was reasonably good quality at an affordable price). This was fundamental in its success. JVC's player wasn't only cheaper to make, it was cheaper to transport too since it weighed about 20 percent less than a Betamax player. Beyond this, what also sealed the deal for the winning video tape format of VHS, was that JVC really courted the film industry and its distribution methods, which is what led to all those video rental places there used to be years ago. 

Easy to quote all these facts now as they are common knowledge these days, but back in 1979 nobody knew any of that, and it cost Sony a lot to learn it. This is somewhat akin to the position payware developers are in now; they just don't know what the market will support.

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Chock

[kaosfere 3,115]

At the risk of coming across as overly cocky (me?  never!) I am fairly confident saying that there is really only one big thing keeping the Working Title team from being able to create a truly "professional" product from scratch:  we lack someone with expert 3D modelling skills.  If you want to talk about the CJ4 in particular, we have a pilot who's flown one and has access to both documentation and an airframe.  It would take some effort, but I'm sure we could find a way to crawl all over one and take pictures and measurements like the "big boys" do;  but that wouldn't be any use without someone who can take those measurements and turn them into a truly high quality 3D model.

Aside from that:  we can do flight modelling, albeit with a few limitations in documentation and functionality that the "big boys" would face, too.  We can do sounds.  We can do systems -- as @cwburnett noted, the CJ4 FMS is almost entirely a scratch-written instrument at this point.   And we have work coming for the G1000 which is, with no exaggeration, a complete ground-up rewrite of the UI that improves looks, functionality, and performance all at the same time.  As Chris also noted, we have a couple of very experienced senior developers on the team who could manage a complicated project like airliner systems without much difficulty, given time.   (I consider myself to be one of them.)   We can do distribution and support -- see how long it's taken us to react to every update that's come out to date. We've not missed having a Day 0 patch for everything out yet; as we rely less and less on in-built Asobo code that will likely be more the case in the future than less.  And I think a fair few folks would agree we provide better and faster support than a lot of commercial developers.

With all respect to the commercial developers who've done great work over the years, they're not very different from us.  Very few of the commercial names are big development teams like some folks tend to think they are.  They are small groups of passionate hobbyists who decided to dedicate enough time and effort to it to create products from scratch, and then further decided to sell and support them.  For many of them it's not enough to pay the bills on its own, and is a sideline for them.  (Or they consider it their full-time job with something else as a sideline to make up the difference).   That is part of why these projects sometimes do take years to come out.  It's not because there's a Microsoft-sized team (or even an Asobo-sized team) working on them and it's just that hard.

We've decided as a team that this is a hobby for us, and nothing more.  For the moment, at least.  It doesn't mean that with the time to dedicate to it we couldn't create something "study level" from scratch.

(And if you'd be interested in doing some modelling for us... hey, give us a shout. 😄 )

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by kaosfere

[Steve Dra 7,606]

2 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

FSL is 100% for $140

I think your whole analysis is pretty spot on.  This is the crux that I think will hit any premium payware dev when they enter the market and expect the general mass of simmers to flock to their ultra-level addon...especially if they try to sell it for more than the sim itself costs.

Experienced simmers who are totally accustomed to this marketing model in the past sims won't be shocked at a $100+ price tag for one plane and can rationalize the price, more so if they are a previous customer, or have been waiting for a premium airliner for MSFS and price is not an object.

However....the vast majority of new simmers who know nothing of the initials FSL PMDG, MILVIZ, A2A, etc as they relate to flightsim devs, will most likely never be customers at $100+ , so in reality...as ripe as the new market is for financial gain, I think the FSL's out there, sadly, will most likely only see their current customers, now in MSFS, plus a small addition of new simmers who also believe that this ultra-level aircraft will give them the value/cost ratio over other options (Airbus-wise for example).

Again, time is the revealer of all...and for now, speculation is only for entertainment as FSL has not even given a roadmap on their entry into the MSFS market (as far as I know).  Even if we speculate that they are working FULL-TIME on getting all the pieces of a MSFS product complete they can right now...ready to plug in the holes that a fully-baked SDK will fill, and if you take any queues from their past development progression scenarios, we may nearly be at the end of the 10 year MS/AS commitment when a ultra-level Bus will be offered in MSFS.  (Roll in the variable that FSL will continue work in P3D in parallel with MSFS development, without increasing staff, and the timeline stretches exponentially)   Time will tell. 😉   

[MattNischan 3,904]

2 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Kudos to "freeware" developers to trying to extend the MSFS A320, heck I'm working on some freeware for MSFS right now but I think threads like this are more embarrassing to those involved in the providing the freeware.

The OP seems to be suggesting you can have "study-level" (I prefer the term highly complex and realistic) aircraft in MSFS, which I know isn't possible with the current state of the SDK.

All respect to you, Rob, but you could not be further from accurate.

Literally the only show-stopping bug preventing someone from making a complete aircraft with an extremely high level of complexity and realism in a combination of WASM and JS is one bug that prevents WASM from intercepting throttle events, so modeling FADECs are currently off the table. Everything else is available, either on the WASM side or the JS side.

[DPSimulation 235]

3 minutes ago, kaosfere said:

At the risk of coming across as overly cocky (me?  never!) I am fairly confident saying that there is really only one big thing keeping the Working Title team from being able to create a truly "professional" product from scratch:  we lack someone with expert 3D modelling skills.  

And this is the point I was about to make when reading through the thread, then you posted!

I really don't understand a thread claiming payware is not required for "Study-Level" aircraft and uses a project utilising an existing 3D payware model as the subject matter.

As kaosfere has said, despite all the truly amazing work they are doing, they lack this component to their skillset. Once they get that component and build this study-level aircraft completely from scratch then the title of the thread might well have some truth to it. At the moment? No.

[kaosfere 3,115]

4 minutes ago, Chock said:

Freeware developers on the other hand, are not obliged to commit to anything and under no strict demands to deliver anything either. Anything freeware tweakers do is usually welcome and if they stop work tomorrow, people might be disappointed for a short while but nobody will be lighting torches and wielding pitchforks

I think you might be wrong about that last bit.  People can have amazing feelings of entitlement even for stuff they didn't pay for   But aside from that, you are 100% correct, and that is why I, for one, have no interest in going professional.  I have a full time day job that takes a lot of mental energy and sometimes I just don't want to be bothered by other problems after I've wrapped up for the day.  Since no one's paying for my stuff I don't feel obliged to further grind through the drudgery and can do things I enjoy, instead.  And my day job pays enough more than I could ever think of making as an aircraft developer that it would take a lot more passion than I, or probably most people, have to give it up and turn pro.

But everyone values their time and stress differently.  No one decision in this area is right or wrong -- other than the increased obligation to help folks who pay for your work.

[Bert Pieke 7,610]

10 minutes ago, Steve Dra said:

However....the vast majority of new simmers who know nothing of the initials FSL PMDG, MILVIZ, A2A, etc as they relate to flightsim devs, will most likely never be customers at $100+

The payware developers do not need the vast majority as customers...

I do not see why flightsimmers would behave differently with MSFS than they have with FSX / P3D..

I just paid more for two Carenado planes, than I did for MSFS itself.. 🙂

[robert young 2,897]

10 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

Honestly asking...which payware add-ons are made by "teams" of full time employees supported only by their add-on products? I'm not aware of any.

It's a part time gig for Leonardo, Majestic, FSL for sure. I don't know about PMDG, but I'd be surprised of they have a team of full time developers... Aerosoft mostly works on a contract basis I believe. Milviz and FlySimWare are part time as well... We're all working from the same handicap - we have to pay the bills and flight simulator add-ons won't do it.

Well there were two of us at RealAir, and we did work almost the whole 17 years full time. I don't know if two people is a "team" but the average dev time for one aircraft was around 1 year, sometimes 1 1/2 years. Over 75% of that dev time was fine tuning the excruciating detail, not just the building blocks.

I have to say I wince at the constant use of "study level" as a term. It has now become a Public Relations theme willingly regurgitated without critical awareness by many reviewers and commentators. Almost all quality books, art, music, architecture and beautiful objects could be regarded as study level. I suppose I shouldn't get uptight about it as it is yet another buzz term, but what matters, rather than how study-oriented a product might be, is whether it works well within its own ambitions.

I can recall several very expensive airliners that were considered "study level", but they flew rather badly in manual mode. But most knobs, switches and displays worked ok.

Working-Title has achieved fantastic results and it seems obvious you are the "supreme coordinator" (another buzz phrase for everyone!). I think quality is now possible from anyone who has a mind to it, and it is only a matter of time until ridiculously over-priced addons (and the also somewhat predatory market sellers who take whopping commissions for simply hosting them) are going to get a rude awakening. I hope that freeware, donation-ware and gentleman's-agreement-ware starts to thrive as it did in the early days of FS9 and FSX, and that modestly-priced payware products thrive

[CJ1045 469]

3 minutes ago, DPSimulation said:

And this is the point I was about to make when reading through the thread, then you posted!

I really don't understand a thread claiming payware is not required for "Study-Level" aircraft and uses a project utilising an existing 3D payware model as the subject matter.

As kaosfere has said, despite all the truly amazing work they are doing, they lack this component to their skillset. Once they get that component and build this study-level aircraft completely from scratch then the title of the thread might well have some truth to it. At the moment? No.

I presume you are referring to the Asobo A320neo as the payware model. It is true it is payware. If you calculate its cost as a percentage of the retail cost of the sim divided by just the number of default planes in the sim you get £110 (current Amazon UK price for PremDelux) divided by 30 (number of default planes) equals £3.66 per plane. So you pay £3.66 for the A320 model and apply Flybywire to it. AND that £3.66 gets LOT less if you add on all the hand modelled Airports and even the sim itself. These number are important as people will question why pay £20 for a Payware plane when the evil Microsoft sells me one for £3.66. IF and it is a big IF, of course, all the 30 default planes are improved to what most people will regard as a pretty faithful simulation by modders then the market for big money Payware planes is going to be so small the it is going to struggle to make economic sense. 

 

CJ

[GSalden 4,726]

31 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

Honestly asking...which payware add-ons are made by "teams" of full time employees supported only by their add-on products? I'm not aware of any.

It's a part time gig for Leonardo, Majestic, FSL for sure. I don't know about PMDG, but I'd be surprised of they have a team of full time developers... Aerosoft mostly works on a contract basis I believe. Milviz and FlySimWare are part time as well... We're all working from the same handicap - we have to pay the bills and flight simulator add-ons won't do it.

PMDG is a team that works continuously on their ac. 
Prosim is a full time team too. 

You are correct about AS.

 

[Dominique_K 10,156]

1 hour ago, honanhal said:

I think only you and Dominique have mentioned the FSL in this thread. I doubt anyone who's used both would seriously compare the FSL and the FBW A320, impressive as the work the FBW modders have done undoubtedly is -- particularly at this stage, a couple of months in.

A comparison between the FBW A320 and the Aerosoft Airbus series, on the other hand, would be worthwhile and illuminating, IMHO. I'd start it myself but I haven't used the Aerosoft one in several years (having moved to the FSL series in P3D).

James

If you mean that comparing the modded 320 and FSL 320 has no sense whatsoever, I whole heartily agree. I was  reacting to the schadenfreude of some who, since June 2019, predict  with glee the demise of the payware industry. That irks me a little 😁 for I know from where this hobby comes from and thanks to whom (hint : the payware folks). My point is that there will be a MSF market for high end products and all the valiant efforts of the freeware folks will not replace them. MSF is a solid platform and market for that.

Lets take another example. From my past purchases over twenty-odd years, I think that R. Young is the best modeller of flight. YMMV. Does it mean that his Money and his DA 62  make A2A r Milviz birds irrelevant ? Of course not.    

 

[DPSimulation 235]

6 minutes ago, CJ1045 said:

I presume you are referring to the Asobo A320neo as the payware model. It is true it is payware. If you calculate its cost as a percentage of the retail cost of the sim divided by just the number of default planes in the sim you get £110 (current Amazon UK price for PremDelux) divided by 30 (number of default planes) equals £3.66 per plane. So you pay £3.66 for the A320 model and apply Flybywire to it. AND that £3.66 gets LOT less if you add on all the hand modelled Airports and even the sim itself. These number are important as people will question why pay £20 for a Payware plane when the evil Microsoft sells me one for £3.66. IF and it is a big IF, of course, all the 30 default planes are improved to what most people will regard as a pretty faithful simulation by modders then the market for big money Payware planes is going to be so small the it is going to struggle to make economic sense. 

 

CJ

The freeware community have been tinkering with stuff on different flight simulators for decades now with some amazing results. The same community have created their own planes from scratch, again with amazing results. Guess what, the big money payware planes were still there and made economic sense.

You think that all disappears suddenly and isn't viable economically because some default aircraft have been modded?

I'm fairly certain the customer base that these planes will target don't consider they paid £3.66 for a plane either, they aren't stupid.

Edited October 28, 2020 by DPSimulation

[cwburnett 1,809]

3 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

threads like this are more embarrassing to those involved in the providing the freeware.

I don't know, Rob, I'm not embarrassed. Are you saying I should be? About what exactly?

 

[kaosfere 3,115]

I'm purely speculating at this point, but I don't think the market for "high end"  (I, too, dislike the term "study level"; it's been abused to the point of meaninglessness) aircraft will go away.  For everything I have said, the fact is that it is a lot of very hard work to make a truly top-caliber, complicated aircraft, and it's just not possible for folks who aren't working on it full time to do it in a reasonable timeline.  For this reason the supply side is always going to be limited.  Neither do I think that many who were willing to pay $140 for an aircraft are going to stop doing it because the "mid-range" becomes better and/or cheaper.  They are looking for a level of (presumed) verisimilitude that is very hard to replicate.

(Developers who stubbornly cling to P3D because MSFS isn't "there" yet might end up suffering as other people beat them to market, but that's on them.)

I do think that mid-range market is going to change remarkably over the next couple years though.  I suspect that developers like Carenado are going to have to find a way to either up their game or decrease prices as more things that are "good enough" for hoi polloi become available.   And that's not a diss on Carenado; they have a niche and they fill it well, or they wouldn't be able to be doing it as long as they have.  But the parameters of that niche are going to be changing.  Nor is it a diss on hol polloi; I consider myself to be among them. 😁

Edited October 28, 2020 by kaosfere

[GCBraun 2,452]

P3D has always been dependant on (expensive) add-ons to shine. XP11, and now MSFS, are not. Therefore, this prejudice with community-driven mods from P3D users is somewhat understandable.

Currently enjoying the CJ4 in a cross-country flight over North-Africa. Rock on guys!

Edited October 28, 2020 by GCBraun