Payware Developers

I can't understand why payware developers would ignore the many people who had to much time and money invested with third party developers and stayed with FS2004! Just Flight payware has the excellent C-46 and Otter, but only for FX and 3D Flightsimulater. I'm sure I speak for a lot others who would pay for these aircraft if they were available in FS2004. Any good answers?

The primary, and really only, answer is economics. While there are some like yourself who would buy new add-ons for FS2004, it doesn't mean there are enough to justify the additional development and support costs for the developers. Seeing as developers are now even starting to drop FSX, the signs point towards the money being with the latest sim, not the old ones.

I guess it's the same reason why older smartphones do not receive software updates anymore.

 

Inviato dal mio SM-G950F utilizzando Tapatalk

I guess it's the same reason why older smartphones do not receive software updates anymore.

 

Inviato dal mio SM-G950F utilizzando Tapatalk

 

Sort of. There is a stronger incentive for Samsung and other smart phone manufacturers, as well as the likes of Verizon et al, to push people into buying new phones. On the other hand, third party add-on developers don't have as much to do with people upgrading the underlying sim. If everyone stayed on FS2004, they would stay there too. The higher expectations placed on add-ons, and increasing differences between the new and old sims, means it would take more effort, and thus time and money, to support more than one or two.

I can't understand why payware developers would ignore the many people who had to much time and money invested with third party developers and stayed with FS2004!

 

I think there are a lot fewer than you think. FS9 usage is now down to around 8% at my site, which is lower than XPlane. It's our #4 simuator platform.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

I think there are a lot fewer than you think. FS9 usage is now down to around 8% at my site, which is lower than XPlane. It's our #4 simuator platform.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

 

But how accurately does site usage reflect sim usage? People using older software have already downloaded most of what they want, and fewer new offerings mean fewer downloads, and they have already learned most of what they need about that software so aren't as active in the forums. While people with the newer software are more actively downloading and more active in the forums.

 

Years ago I probably downloaded hundreds of meg of files every week (from here and elsewhere) and was fairly active in the forums; now I may download a couple of files a month and, though I stop by every day, am not very active in the forums. But FS9 is still my only sim, and will be for the foreseeable future.

But how accurately does site usage reflect sim usage? People using older software have already downloaded most of what they want, and fewer new offerings mean fewer downloads, and they have already learned most of what they need about that software so aren't as active in the forums. While people with the newer software are more actively downloading and more active in the forums.

 

Sorry I wasn't clear. I take my usage data from my virtual airline's flight data recorder, which automatically tracks simulator (plus sim version) per flight. I agree that it's not a completely accurate sample (because we simulate a specific airline so it's skewed towards heavy metal and that airline's specific aircraft) but it is definitely helpful for broad trends.

 

What's even more interesting to me is that our own aircraft offerings are *heavily* skewed towards FS2004 given the lack of good freeware panels and VCs for FSX/P3D.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

Like Loki said above. It is about supply and demand. The pool of FS2004 simmers is not enough to justify the expense of developing for older sims. The revenue just wouldn't be enough. The world moves on whether it be flight sims, cars, planes, computers, televisions, etc. etc.

It IS a shame, because fs9 is the last of the great FLIGHT simulations. The environment and ground colours are vastly superior to the other sims. Much more earthy realness.

The ‘newer’ are more marketing at the app / gamer / gimmicky style user. Hence the washed out fake look to FSX/p3d. Only have to see the kids gawking at the screens they post of p3d saying how ‘awesome’ they look. Yet it makes fs98 look good. I’ve had my sim confused with p3d and xplane. A little embassaring. :)

 

Being old, Doesn’t mean always that fs9 is a poor seller. Other wise they’d all be giving the scenery’s away. Depending on forums and especially VA’s etc, fs9 is still the most popular choice.

 

Developers are just too lazy to do more than one. Or want the most return on the time put into it. Even FSX is slowly being phased out in this regard.

 

But I’ve just purchased some new scenery recently for fs9. Still kicking along nicely. :)

Even FSX is slowly being phased out in this regard.

 

That statement is in the realm of "urban legends", and is simply not true. Awhile back a small handful of vendors published a manifesto to only make products for LM's training software, that's all. And considering the controversy and unresolved situations with that software, many of us thought they were quite daft to do so. In the meantime, there's a steady stream of new payware and freeware for FSX, much more than could ever be used in a lifetime. The "phasing out" of FSX is, as the crazies say, fake news. :p

Developers are just too lazy to do more than one. Or want the most return on the time put into it. Even FSX is slowly being phased out in this regard.

 

What a load of crap this is. If it was your time, money and butt on the line you would be thinking WAY differently.

sir, your analysis is 100% right on the money!!!

 

i can not understand this airhead mr. luke to base his analysis on his crummy CRAP!

 

fs9 has everything superior as you described it correctly than the other crappy simulators!!

 

x-plane is the biggest crap in my opinion !!

 

everything looks ARTIFICIAL, the same in FSX.

 

I never understood why MS did NOT the ERRORS in FS9. I.E. the [smoke] problem, the AI Traffic shortcomes.

 

I.E. NO pilot lowers the gear "100 miles out from the airport!!

 

VFR pilots lower retractible gear ABEAM at the end of downwind, Airline lower their gear at Outer Marker inbound

 

Mr. luke you are quite something ...

What a load of crap this is. If it was your time, money and butt on the line you would be thinking WAY differently.

 

 

Nah. They’re just lazy. The effort to make even complete world scenery from FSX into FS9 isn’t that difficult nor time consuming.

Mr. luke you are quite something ...

 

I'm glad to see you have taken the high road and decided to refute data collected from thousands of pilots with personal insults. Congratulations, you are now ready for middle school.

 

This is the data: https://www.deltava.org/simversionstats.do

 

It's not completely representative of all pilots (it's biased towards airliners and Delta itself, our sister airline Air France has higher FS9 numbers, but lower X-P; either way it's fraction of FSX/P3D) but when FS9 becomes the number 4 sim by popularity something is going on.

 

Again, if you have different data sets and want to have a productive mature discussion, I'd be delighted to. But if all you're going to do is act like ten year olds, I'm not surprised that sim software manufacturers don't want to cater to you.

 

Luke

Let's keep this thread nice please.

Nah. They’re just lazy. The effort to make even complete world scenery from FSX into FS9 isn’t that difficult nor time consuming.

 

You know this how? You've done it before? You've had one-on-one conversations with FS developers? You've ever tried using the FS9 and FSX development tools?

 

Please post the links to your payware creations and if you can't do that, at least to your freeware contributions.

You know this how? You've done it before? You've had one-on-one conversations with FS developers? You've ever tried using the FS9 and FSX development tools?

 

Please post the links to your payware creations and if you can't do that, at least to your freeware contributions.

 

 

I was resizing and converting FSX (world) textures well before it became popular (re ‘orbx world textures fs9’). Quite a few other guys did as well. It’s actually very simple and easy. Nothing a texture converter and photoshop batch program can’t fix.

 

I have about 5-6 current world scenery textures in my sim. I switch back and forth when I please and for variety. The orbs guys cost themselves some $$$ me thinks by not spending nothing more then a few hours to convert textures to fs9 size and format.

 

It was money for jam. And little effort. Oh well. Life ans fs9 goes on. :)

I was resizing and converting FSX (world) textures well before it became popular (re ‘orbx world textures fs9’). Quite a few other guys did as well. It’s actually very simple and easy. Nothing a texture converter and photoshop batch program can’t fix.

 

I have about 5-6 current world scenery textures in my sim. I switch back and forth when I please and for variety. The orbs guys cost themselves some $$$ me thinks by not spending nothing more then a few hours to convert textures to fs9 size and format.

 

It was money for jam. And little effort. Oh well. Life ans fs9 goes on. :)

 

That is not development !

 

You are just taking someone else's research and hard work and changing size and format .

 

You need to be very careful .

If you happen share that or upload it as either freeware or payware , then you would become a pirate and be in breach of copy write , you would then be liable in a court of law .

 

There is nothing lazy about either freeware or payware developers , to get to a stage where they are able to create respectable products requires a lot of dedicated learning and an appreciation of underlying features involved in those products .

 

I only create freeware instruments , but it does require a deep understanding of the technical side of them and the systems involved , the learning has been long and complex , and it is still ongoing .

Some of the navigation system instruments that I have created have given me an appreciation and respect for the work that scenery developers do .

Often I conduct internet searches for a variety of real world features , all sorts of cultural features , a dam (Mohne) , towers and antenna (Eiffel , VOR , NDB ) , intersections of roads and railways ,bridges , etc ,I get the Latitude and Longitude and Elevation .

I can then punch them into my instruments in the sim and it will guide me to that feature which surprisingly more often than not will appear correctly placed .

My thanks and respect go to all the scenery developers out there , either freeware or payware .

 

When you don't know what you are doing or have never made an effort to create something , then it is all to easy to be superficial and say that it is an easy task , nothing could be further from the truth , it requires a lot of research , work , and effort .

 

Cheers

Karol

I never said it was development. But with their EXSITING textures they already had for FSX / p3d, it only takes a short time to change and convert it for fs9 use. With freeware available tools. They could’ve easy (* yes it’s easy) done it and reaped the rewards.

 

But alas, it doesn’t matter now anyway. Us fs9’ers already using upgraded textures and it looks fantastic.

 

And it’s only ilegal if you distributed. For personal use...it’s ok. (Although incidentally when the ‘orbx fs9’ textures came out, I emailed the orbx guys about it and they said it wasn’t anything to do with their products. Shows you how far behind the times they are. Because it was/is. Oh well).

So when you convert these scenery texture sheets do you reset the trees and buildings autogen to match the texture sheets , and if there is water such as rivers and lakes how do you activate the water to match the sheet .

 

Regards your comment ,

" (Although incidentally when the ‘orbx fs9’ textures came out, I emailed the orbx guys about it and they said it wasn’t anything to do with their products. Shows you how far behind the times they are. Because it was/is. Oh well). "

ORBX have never done FS9 scenery textures , only FSX and later sim platforms .

 

Cheers

Karol

I wish, I wish, I wish, there was a way to put XP-11 ground textures in FSX... Anyone lol?

So when you convert these scenery texture sheets do you reset the trees and buildings autogen to match the texture sheets , and if there is water such as rivers and lakes how do you activate the water to match the sheet .

 

Regards your comment ,

" (Although incidentally when the ‘orbx fs9’ textures came out, I emailed the orbx guys about it and they said it wasn’t anything to do with their products. Shows you how far behind the times they are. Because it was/is. Oh well). "

ORBX have never done FS9 scenery textures , only FSX and later sim platforms .

 

Cheers

Karol

 

 

With the autogen annotator, yes I did that. For some textures - a mix of several different textures (gepro, EVO, FSX etc) - I didn't change the autogen i recall.

 

Yes I know obrx didn't. But most or all of them were 'unofficially' converted for fs9 use. Few other simmers did their own conversions for them as well.

Nah. They’re just lazy. The effort to make even complete world scenery from FSX into FS9 isn’t that difficult nor time consuming.

 

Here is a thought. If it is so easy you make some.

Ya, I am pretty sure some people thought the Model T was the best car and wonder why people advanced.........LOL

Here is a thought. If it is so easy you make some.

 

 

You didn't read it correctly.