Some Devs Are Just Out of Touch

[Chock 17,769]

Just now, PILOT'S said:

Who am I to say what is good enough, all I know is that your statement "But this about colour correcting stuff and tweaking an image is nonsense." shows blissful ignorance despite all your qualifications.

Well first you ask me what makes me qualified to comment, then when I tell you that it's lots of stuff, to the point that it'd be hard to find someone actually more qualified in the whole of Europe, you suggest it's irrelevant? You are aware of how nonsensical that is right?

Both primary and secondary colour correcting stuff is not that hard to do if you know what you are doing, and doesn't take that long to do, although specific secondary correction is less able to be batched and automated. This is true of everything really, if you know what you are doing, it doesn't take as long as if you you don't.

[kaosfere 3,115]

3 hours ago, leprechaunlive said:

yea, lets also not forget that 90% of these "amazing freeware" are basically illegal and considered piracy

That's an awfully bold statement  -- and I don't say just that to quibble about the "90%" figure, as was done up-thread.

The issue of the legality of the use of Google imagery in freeware scenery is not nearly as clear cut as you are making it out to be.   I wrote a lengthy post about this that I suspect most people didn't (and won't) read because it practically became an essay.   The basic thrust, though, was that Google's licensing docs are a nightmare of confusing and contradictory clauses, but with some study and rational thought two things become, to me, fairly clear:

1. Re-using Google content in commercial scenery without a license is almost certainly a no-go and asking for trouble;  however
2. There is a very credible fair-use argument to be made for freeware, especially when it's just a ground poly, not a 3D rip from Google Earth.

 I won't get into the four-fold test for fair use in detail -- one can read that post, or do their own Wikipedia research if they wish -- but I will say that I could make a strong case that using ground images from Google, as one would in a free airport scenery, is almost the perfect application of a fair use claim in my mind because:

1. It is non-commercial.   Even commercial works can make fair use claim, but it's harder to carry.
2. It uses only a small portion of the whole, as a few square miles is a very tiny portion of the earth's surface.
3. It does not devalue the original work.  NO ONE is going to buy or download a flight sim airport just to look at the ground when it's free online.
4. Most importantly, it is a true transformative work, in that it uses a portion of the original work to create an entirely new, and different, creative work.

It's this ability to use a prior creative work to make something new that adds to the culture that is at the very heart of the concept of fair use.  It's meant to balance the rights of a creator with the interest that society has in a productive, creative environment.  It prevents the stifling of creative work by the sort of blanket "that's someone else's, using it is illegal" argument that's often made in discussions like this.

The giant caveat on all this, of course, is that this is specific to US law, but there are similar concepts elsewhere. The even bigger caveat is that I am not a lawyer, but I am a very interested layman who cares a lot about both the importance of IP law and the importance of having reasonable limits on it*. 

My case here could certainly be disputed.  That's fine -- it's not a simple situation.  But that is why it's important to acknowledge the nuance, and not try to scare people away from creating their own transformative works with the chilling effect of the big "P word".

* (And I've been sued by Hollywood for it, and won, but that's a completely different story.)

Edited February 7, 2021 by kaosfere

[CFIJose 5,485]

26 minutes ago, cavaricooper said:

There are some true FS veterans in this thread, not the least of whom is Stefan/Pilot's, and yet this thread is fast becoming contentious.  I suppose we are all still getting used to our Cheese being moved.  In the end, consumer purchasing will dictate where the pricing model goes.  I too think this one is priced a mite high, but as Stefan says, I'm not privy (why on earth would the word word not allowed not be allowed here?) of their particular production costs.  If they ever release their flying boat for MSFS I'll be amongst the very first in line regardless of the price of admission.

If the scenery doesn't sell well- the price will adjust.  If it does, we will adjust... in the end water always finds its own level.  Sometimes we get a bit more emotional than we probably intended to in the first place, but that is the byproduct of passion.  I'm glad Pilots is entering the MSFS area, and hope that the end pricing will adjust downwards eventually. As someone who misses the old gal and her car at Cedar Key, I'm glad there are options to the MSFS pilot- this is a must visit locale.

C

As always good points Carl.

I just wanted to help Stefan rethink his pricing strategy because I consider myself a nice guy compared to some other members of our community that will exhibit no mercy. This is a new sim for entertainment, not the "professional" sim known as P3D.

[PILOT'S 157]

43 minutes ago, Chock said:

Well first you ask me what makes me qualified to comment, then when I tell you that it's lots of stuff, to the point that it'd be hard to find someone actually more qualified in the whole of Europe, you suggest it's irrelevant? You are aware of how nonsensical that is right?

Both primary and secondary colour correcting stuff is not that hard to do if you know what you are doing, and doesn't take that long to do, although specific secondary correction is less able to be batched and automated. This is true of everything really, if you know what you are doing, it doesn't take as long as if you you don't.

You quoted me on "the process of custom colourization and image correction takes up a huge amount of time" and then suggested "It only takes ages if you have no idea what you're doing, and frankly, it's not up to a customer to pay over the odds for something because a manufacturer isn't professional enough to get things done in an expedient manner".

This is an insult, pure and simple and I would have expected more from someone of your high standing here at AVSIM! Your statement is based on assumption, as you have clearly never worked with satellite imagery, for otherwise you would heed to suggest that developers at PILOT'S are not professional enough, despite all your Adobe qualifications. There is so much more involved in working with satellite imagery than meets the eye. I'll let you entertain the thought though that we are unprofessional and therefor charge more for our scenery. 🤦‍♂️

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by PILOT'S

[Chock 17,769]

It's not an insult, it's an observation. And yes, I have worked with satellite imagery amongst other things. I didn't say anything about professionalism either, I was talking about levels of knowledge, which isn't the same thing.

To expand on that, I can tell you that in literally years of teaching professional courses in all kinds of stuff, almost without exception, it was professionals I was teaching. And since the Adobe ACI Certification, unlike the others (ACA and ACE), is not an exam, it's a status Adobe grant you after you've demonstrated and provided evidence of having taught their authorised courses professionally for a certain length of time, so that one absolutely is a measure of knowledge and experience.

With Photoshop courses I tended to find that even people who'd been using it for years who were on an advanced course, had largely taught themselves prior to the course, and so they had missed out some fundamental stuff because they'd figured out a way to do what they wanted and were happy with that. So a lot of the time you weren't teaching them how to do stuff they couldn't actually do, you were teaching them the better way to go about things, which was quicker and easier. That's a really common problem with professionals who use software and it's why such courses have value.

Edited February 7, 2021 by Chock

[leprechaunlive 1,852]

5 hours ago, kaosfere said:

That's an awfully bold statement  -- and I don't say just that to quibble about the "90%" figure, as was done up-thread.

The issue of the legality of the use of Google imagery in freeware scenery is not nearly as clear cut as you are making it out to be.   I wrote a lengthy post about this that I suspect most people didn't (and won't) read because it practically became an essay.   The basic thrust, though, was that Google's licensing docs are a nightmare of confusing and contradictory clauses, but with some study and rational thought two things become, to me, fairly clear:

1. Re-using Google content in commercial scenery without a license is almost certainly a no-go and asking for trouble;  however
2. There is a very credible fair-use argument to be made for freeware, especially when it's just a ground poly, not a 3D rip from Google Earth.

 I won't get into the four-fold test for fair use in detail -- one can read that post, or do their own Wikipedia research if they wish -- but I will say that I could make a strong case that using ground images from Google, as one would in a free airport scenery, is almost the perfect application of a fair use claim in my mind because:

1. It is non-commercial.   Even commercial works can make fair use claim, but it's harder to carry.
2. It uses only a small portion of the whole, as a few square miles is a very tiny portion of the earth's surface.
3. It does not devalue the original work.  NO ONE is going to buy or download a flight sim airport just to look at the ground when it's free online.
4. Most importantly, it is a true transformative work, in that it uses a portion of the original work to create an entirely new, and different, creative work.

It's this ability to use a prior creative work to make something new that adds to the culture that is at the very heart of the concept of fair use.  It's meant to balance the rights of a creator with the interest that society has in a productive, creative environment.  It prevents the stifling of creative work by the sort of blanket "that's someone else's, using it is illegal" argument that's often made in discussions like this.

The giant caveat on all this, of course, is that this is specific to US law, but there are similar concepts elsewhere. The even bigger caveat is that I am not a lawyer, but I am a very interested layman who cares a lot about both the importance of IP law and the importance of having reasonable limits on it*. 

My case here could certainly be disputed.  That's fine -- it's not a simple situation.  But that is why it's important to acknowledge the nuance, and not try to scare people away from creating their own transformative works with the chilling effect of the big "P word".

* (And I've been sued by Hollywood for it, and won, but that's a completely different story.)

I'll admit im not necesseraly an expert on copyrights, im just going with the general consensus among devs, that Google sceneries if not illegal, are at least bordeline. The simple fact that there are no definitive clear answers shows that. I was simply reacting to the "why buy this, when that is free" stuff, wich isnt fair if the free one is actually using assets that a payware dev dont have access to, or have to pay for.

 

I dont know, i know what i mean, im not sure im conveying it particularely well when i write it down lol.

[hhbrbg 136]

IMHO: It‘s not the business of the op or anyone here to judge whether the money a developer demands for his product is correct . It's a business decision and it doesn't concern you. If it's too much money for you don't buy it.

Some posters are just out of touch...

Edited February 7, 2021 by hhbrbg

[Dominique_K 10,133]

1 hour ago, leprechaunlive said:

The simple fact that there are no definitive clear answers shows that

After 6 months of MFS freeware pillaging Google Earth, Google has not sued anybody or sent a cease & desist letter to any repository web sites, isn’t that clear enough ?
 

24 minutes ago, hhbrbg said:

IMHO: It‘s not the business of the op or anyone here to judge whether the money a developer demands for his product is correct . It's a business decision and it doesn't concern you. If it's too much money for you don't buy it.

Some posters are just out of touch...

The old « the developer is greedy » as old as flight simulation payware has mutated to « the developer does not understand that a cheap price is what is good for him »  😅. A new refrain for an old song. 

[P_R_S 18]

11 hours ago, edpatino said:

Well, at the very end, are we going to buy the Cedars Key payware or not 🤣🤣🤣?.

Cheers, Ed

Yes, when will be available in the MFS marketplace!

[honanhal 1,420]

PILOT’S may not like the tone of this thread, and that’s fair. I also saw the the discussion of Yankee Clipper pricing in the comments on FSElite, though. It was about 80% people saying they had been excited to buy it but that they wouldn’t be buying it at that price. The tone wasn’t mockery, or even astonishment. It was disappointment, that they wanted to be customers but that the price point was going to stop that from happening.

Defensiveness and digging in is a very understandable human reaction to that kind of feedback. But you also might want to take a step back and consider that those people might be telling you the truth, and what implications that might have for what price is going to maximize your profits. Or not — up to you.

James

[Dominique_K 10,133]

19 minutes ago, honanhal said:

PILOT’S may not like the tone of this thread, and that’s fair. I also saw the the discussion of Yankee Clipper pricing in the comments on FSElite, though. It was about 80% people saying they had been excited to buy it but that they wouldn’t be buying it at that price. The tone wasn’t mockery, or even astonishment. It was disappointment, that they wanted to be customers but that the price point was going to stop that from happening.

Defensiveness and digging in is a very understandable human reaction to that kind of feedback. But you also might want to take a step back and consider that those people might be telling you the truth, and what implications that might have for what price is going to maximize your profits. Or not — up to you.

James

Considering the FS forum users proverbial graciousness, I suspect that some dev would rather sell 100 copies at 30 bucks than 1000 copies at 3 bucks. Less after-sale word not allowed.  Can’t blame them😂. 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Dominique_K

[officercrockey 196]

12 hours ago, PILOT'S said:

Interesting observation, and this is based upon what real world experience?

I'm always amused by how many experts there are here at AVSIM, particularly those who seem to know it all and are absolute experts in the field of development, yet have nothing to show for their apparent experience and level of expertise. PILOT'S has been developing FS Add-Ons since 1995, we are not new to the game and we do not make up things, such as what is being castigated as nonsense.

I agree with Chock here. I adjusted quite a few images myself and I am an amateur. And while it was a bit more tedious in P3D with all the seasons, the different LC products etc. it was actually just a breeze in MSFS. One adjustment and you are done. 

Also I might add while 64 square km might sound much to you, it actually isn't. 8km x 8km is not such a huge area, specially when most of it is water. So I would think twice if this is really the point you want to justify the price with... 

[CFIJose 5,485]

4 hours ago, hhbrbg said:

IMHO: It‘s not the business of the op or anyone here to judge whether the money a developer demands for his product is correct . It's a business decision and it doesn't concern you. If it's too much money for you don't buy it.

Some posters are just out of touch...

Hi I'm the OP.

You obviously have not read this entire thread. If it's too hard for you to read the entire thread don't bother posting because this thread has nothing to to with being able to afford to buy an $18 US addon for MSFS.

There are devs who did not buy the ultimate edition of MSFS, does that mean that they couldn't afford it? You, and those who reacted to your ridiculous post, are the one that are clueless!

[andy1252 3,772]

14 hours ago, pmb said:

18 hours ago, Manny said:

In P3D I had over 600 Payware airport. I rarely used freeware cause the quality of freeware was bad in the p3D world.  But I bought those 600+ over a 10-13 year period from the FSX Days.

To not leave Manny as an exotic single, I am in the same boat. Maybe it's not 600, but my P3D4.5 scenery.cfg hat 600 entries, subtract 100 base entries, the rest were addons, nearly all Payware.

Yay! It's not just me then! I saw this and just went to check. Around 550 addon scenery entries for P3D, pretty much all payware, and around 250 folders of stuff for MSFS already. I did grab a few freeware sceneries for MSFS initially but pretty much all of the photogrammetry stuff is unused now as it mostly looks pretty awful to me. I would guess I have maybe 25-30 freeware packages and the rest is payware.

I have become more picky in terms of pricing though. Given what seems to be the potential market out there, and given that airport scenery manufactures now mostly don't need to provide large background areas for their airports as part of their packages, I don't feel so inclined to stump up 20-30 gbp/euro etc for airports unless they are exceptionally well done or in a previously ignored area like India, China etc (again, I'm with Manny on that one).

One thing I have noticed is a proliferation of nice French airports, particularly around the Mediterannean coast. Given that I was never a big fan of France VFR in P3D (too washed out colour wise and very heavy on the frame rate for me) it is great to really explore around that part of the world.

I suspect prices will settle down in time towards the lower end of the scale. There probably aren't too many Mannys and Michaels and Me's out there (I know that apostrophe is wrong, but I didn't want anybody wondering who the hull 'Mes' is and why he's suddenly being included in this post) and the market will drive the prices down in the end, assuming MSFS continues with at least the same level of take up as now.

As to the freeware (and the huge amount of cr*pware out there as well), I'm sure that will also settle down in time. Google will either rig things so that their models can't be grabbed or maybe they'll embrace it wholeheartedly and provide tools to do it properly for non-commercial use, but either way evolution will hopefully win out in the end. The rubbish will wither and the good stuff flourish, and maybe evolve into a whole new lower price layer of payware.

Whatever, it certainlyh feels to me at least that, to quote the song, the future's so bright I gotta wear shades.

[ryanbatc 12,800]

5 hours ago, hhbrbg said:

IMHO: It‘s not the business of the op or anyone here to judge whether the money a developer demands for his product is correct . It's a business decision and it doesn't concern you. If it's too much money for you don't buy it.

Some posters are just out of touch...

Are you being serious?  Read what you just wrote: ..."and doesn't concern you."  I beg to differ.  Purchasing a product DOES indeed concern us....it is a conscientious decision, because we are the ones spending the money.  The customers will dictate the price point, even if it's indirectly.