• Which the release of FS2020 we see an explosition of activity on the forun and of course we are very happy to see this. But having all questions about FS2020 in one forum becomes a bit messy. So therefore we would like to ask you all to use the following guidelines when posting your questions:

    • Tag FS2020 specific questions with the MSFS2020 tag.
    • Questions about making 3D assets can be posted in the 3D asset design forum. Either post them in the subforum of the modelling tool you use or in the general forum if they are general.
    • Questions about aircraft design can be posted in the Aircraft design forum
    • Questions about airport design can be posted in the FS2020 airport design forum. Once airport development tools have been updated for FS2020 you can post tool speciifc questions in the subforums of those tools as well of course.
    • Questions about terrain design can be posted in the FS2020 terrain design forum.
    • Questions about SimConnect can be posted in the SimConnect forum.

    Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.

    By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.

How accommodating should developer be?

mmann

mmann

Messages
604
Country
ca-britishcolumbia
I am developing an extensive scenery project for Vancouver Island. I was wondering how many people might be flying the area with Orbx PNW, UTX Canada or just plain FSX so I started a poll at SOH.

To quote one of the responders: "My opinion if you are a developer of any sort, develop what works for you and don't worry about everyone's machine specs."

I responded to his remark by saying that some developers are more accommodating then others; pointing out that Don Grovestine's excellent versions of Comox CYQQ and Victoria CYYJ were compatible with FS9 (plain and UT Canada) as well as FSX (plain, UTX Canada and Orbx PNW).

How accommodating should I be?

Regards, Mike Mann
 
Good question. I think you have to be aware of the range of capabilities out there. At the very least you need to make sure that your product works with the base FS version. ADE for example is developed and tested on vanilla FS9 and FSX setups. I would certainly not develop for a setup that I did not have, or that one of the beta testers did not have. Also I would say that it has to depend on how much extra effort is required to make the product work with a specific setup. If it is a whole new version then I would think twice! If it requires a known and controllable set of changes or extras then it might be worth it.
 
scruffyduck said:
Good question. I think you have to be aware of the range of capabilities out there. At the very least you need to make sure that your product works with the base FS version. ADE for example is developed and tested on vanilla FS9 and FSX setups. I would certainly not develop for a setup that I did not have, or that one of the beta testers did not have. Also I would say that it has to depend on how much extra effort is required to make the product work with a specific setup. If it is a whole new version then I would think twice! If it requires a known and controllable set of changes or extras then it might be worth it.
Click to expand...

Good advice! I most certainly won't try for FS9 compatibility since I no longer have it loaded on my system. The work required, ironically, is ADE related.

The really time consuming stuff such as custom 3ds Max objects, won't have to be altered. The water polygons created in ADE for Orbx PNW are useless with the base FSX however.

Regards, Mike Mann
 
I think that this also depends if

1. The developer is able to Run FSX / FSX Acceleration on his or her PC, as some of us are still flying on FS2004 and even previous versions.
2. Development for other platforms may be limited if the Developer doesn't own these packages, such as X-Plane or the Open Source Fly! - which is obvious I know :)
3. Developing for FSX has it's Pro's compared to Fs2004, which is known however can be a choice we developers make too. However as we know converting an Aircraft made for FSX to Fs2004, means a completely new model and thus extra work. Therefore I think it also depends on what sort of products too as Scenery we can develop ways to offer FS9 support however Aircraft is a bit more work in regards to creating models that are built for Fs2004 .
 
How much money do you want to make?



For instance. If you make your software so difficult to run that they need a dual quad core i7 performance chips to run it at 30 FPS, then you will sell a few and your ratings will be 'great if you have a super computer' which leaves out the rest of the world.

If you want to make a ton, find the 'sweet spot' for your detail, graphics, etc, so that it will work as best as possible for 'average' machines.

If you make it too simple, it will not get good ratings, and will then again stall, as like with high end groups.


People love eye candy. They love to be 'hypnotized' with all the realism detail as possible. I have the freeware Pattonville, made for FS2004, and its amazing and still one of my favorites. It barely runs on my computer, and its farely powerful. I love that sceneries detail.

Great work that runs on most machines will find a huge following. They will follow the developer group and buy their work because;
* It works on their machines
* Its awesome!
 
I´d subscribe every of your words.
Just add one point:
- Never had been seen, new, good idea.
Just the "wow"-effect.
Can be the visible "subject" and or idea of the add-on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top