Why do some third party devs collapse

I'm not writing this to have a moan, but just out of concern for the whole DCS project which I have been following since the days of Lock-on and derive a great deal of pleasure from. Lets say, to begin with, that the greater majority of projects are brought to completion, but there are a significant number of third party projects that only seem to get so far and then disappear into the ether. Why is that? The hard question is whether DCS sometimes issue a licence to projects that they have not sufficiently well estimated for business model? a proven record of prduction and completion of projects? Something like Razbam had been around a while and had a good reputation in FSX, also Metal2Mesh, but I wonder about others and it makes you very cautious in buying any early access models that may or may not continue to be developed, the Hawk and Normandy map come to mind. I'm only asking and not asserting since I dont know. Ive written this having just purchaced the channel map which is really quite beautiful and contrasted it with the Normandy Project and the very absent Ugra Media - so much potential still. And I've wondered whether DCS has any means of picking up half done projects if devs pull out.

Thanks

Neil.

Because DCS is more demanding in terms of flight- and systems-modelling than FSX (and simulations like it).

Developers coming here from FSX et al will find quickly that merely creating a nice 3D model doesn't cut it in DCS. Not every developer has an aeronautical engineer on hand to whoop up a realistic flight model.

 

Developers coming here from FSX et al will find quickly that merely creating a nice 3D model doesn't cut it in DCS.

Well, unless you're razbam, and tons of people make excuses for your various fails over the years.

Well, unless you're razbam, and tons of people make excuses for your various fails over the years.

Spot on!

What kills these projects is a lack of money. 3d modelers are cheap and plentiful. So making those pretty screenshots is relatively easy. But ultimately someone has to code it. And we all know how projects that are only 99.999999999% perfect are badgered endlessly. See razbam as an example. Experienced software developers able to build flight and systems models are very expensive on the open market. DCS does not offer the raw sales numbers to support them. So not only do they have to put up with the DCS community, they also have to be willing to take a big pay cut along with it. There are some willing to do it as a project of passion that can also afford the pay cut, but not enough to go around.

What kills these projects is a lack of money. 3d modelers are cheap and plentiful. So making those pretty screenshots is relatively easy. But ultimately someone has to code it. And we all know how projects that are only 99.999999999% perfect are badgered endlessly. See razbam as an example. Experienced software developers able to build flight and systems models are very expensive on the open market. DCS does not offer the raw sales numbers to support them. So not only do they have to put up with the DCS community, they also have to be willing to take a big pay cut along with it. There are some willing to do it as a project of passion that can also afford the pay cut, but not enough to go around.

No money and angry, anal retentive neckbeards? What's not to love?

.. Lets say, to begin with, that the greater majority of projects are brought to completion, but there are a significant number of third party projects that only seem to get so far and then disappear into the ether. Why is that? The hard question is whether DCS sometimes issue a licence to projects that they have not sufficiently well estimated for business model? a proven record of prduction and completion of projects?

Perhaps, but rather than trying to limit candidates to those who already have a proven record/business model for other simulation environments, I think it would be better to ask for "proof of concept" - i.e. that anyone who wishes to obtain a 3rd party developer status, must have "solid contents" developed for DCS World specifically in order for ED to have a better basis for evaluating whether they have "what it takes".....and for this I guess it might be a good idea to make an SDK more openly accessible/user friendly.

@seaeagle

They already do that. Applicants must pay extensive licensing fees upfront and provide proof of their ability to do the work. That's one of the things ''wouldbe devs'' often complain about, that it's ''too hard'' to get permission. That's good. Those complaining are the half baked ones that wouldn't make it. Once in a while somebody will crap out half way through, that's life. But afaik, this has only really happened twice in a big way. The WWII guys, which ED chose to honor themselves, and VEAO, which prompted a complete rewrite of terms of service.

You REALLY think making access easier is going to REDUCE the amount of failed projects? @@

@seaeagle

 

They already do that. Applicants must pay extensive licensing fees upfront and provide proof of their ability to do the work. That's one of the things ''wouldbe devs'' often complain about, that it's ''too hard'' to get permission. That's good. Those complaining are the half baked ones that wouldn't make it. Once in a while somebody will crap out half way through, that's life. But afaik, this has only really happened twice in a big way. The WWII guys, which ED chose to honor themselves, and VEAO, which prompted a complete rewrite of terms of service.

Well I don't know how exactly they go about it these days. I just remember how some third parties with extensive experience from other sims came into DCS with a long list of aircraft they wanted to develop, where you could see that there was just no way in hell they could achieve that in DCS.....even if they had a decade:) .

You REALLY think making access easier is going to REDUCE the amount of failed projects? @@

It might. What I meant was that it might allow candidates a greater insight and develop a project further before contacting ED - i.e. more matured contents as "proof of concept" for ED to evaluate. I don't see how that would increase the likelihood of failed projects - its still up to ED whether or not to grant the licence.

I don't think it's really a relevant topic on our end, tbh. Who cares if companies come and go? That's their problem. Anybody that needs business advice from random forumites who quite literally have little to no idea what's happening is doomed. That's as poorly prepared as you can be.

Devs come and go for a variety of reasons, I'm sure underestimating time and costs is a common issue. They're professionals, though. It's THEIR PROBLEM. Not ours. Unless they take money, it's very much not our business. To be honest, that's what causes 90% of business failures in EVERY industry ''oh this is harder than I thought''

THAT has only happened twice, as I already mentioned.

WWII guys : honored by ED. That's why we have the WWII stuff.

VEAO : Resulted in a ToS overhaul so it doesn't happen again.

Nobody else took money or ever produced anything substantial... so who cares?

They aren't "devs", they are businesses. Even if they are competent and have a track record, is NO guarantee of the next project being a blockbuster success. Or even arrive at early access.

Sometimes a key employee gets cold feet, distracted by personal issues, such as family, financial problems, depression or substance abuse, gambling. They might have gotten a promotion they did or did not deserve, but then maybe got a very different change of workplace personality, becoming too demanding and unreasonable, or abusive even. That can chase other employees out the door. Or invite an inquiry into the company.

Sources of money may change their attitudes and policies. Job/career prospects in the region or profession can suddenly gut your company of semi- irriplaceable employees, and simply offering them better probably won't change that if they are informing you that 14 days from now is their last day... their already gone. Maybe itwas about the money, maybe it wasn't.

Maybe the corporate culture became hostile to what your employee wanted as a life/work balance.

Often, companies that are quite competent at their core product/service, don't survive because of common business issues, markets changing (fewer customers demanding more, growing market but faster growing competition, cost/demands for future product/service will leap ahead of what the company will be able to do), corruption by owner boss financial guy just deciding he wants to make big money at the expense of the future of the company. Or the owner just wanting to cash out to retire now. Even a local tax law change can have deep implications for not only one company, but an entire regional industry.

I'm confident that ED's requirements for approving a developer project don't harm or hinder any projects that have a good chance of getting to early access and completion. I think it's more the other way around: if a dev can't meet ED's basic requirements, it's PROBABLE that they couldn't complete a project to their own satisfaction, much less the extreme perfection that some of today's DCS customers would be demanding.

Think of it like this: if a new employee can't figure how to enter the building (ED basic requirements to get project approval), then how can anyone have confidence in them to build an airframe? (the module proposed).