In the open source communities, there are "bounties" as incentives for folks to write new software, such as drivers and improvements. I suggest this system:

1) Improvments go through an approval process
2) Depending on difficulty, a set donation target is set by the LFS development team with a donation system controlled by the team.
3) Development starts on an improvement when the donation goal is reached

For example, adding the Nurburgring is a high dollar donation target. Any thoughts?

You pay for the licences and you model it, and I'm sure LFS will consider it. But as LFS is and never will be open source I don't think you're ideas hold much custard (or something )

I'm suggesting a closed source version, as described above. Another plus is more revenue stream for the game studio behind LFS.

Quote from tristancliffe :

You pay for the licences and you model it, and I'm sure LFS will consider it. But as LFS is and never will be open source I don't think you're ideas hold much custard (or something )

Quote from tristancliffe :

You pay for the licences and you model it, and I'm sure LFS will consider it. But as LFS is and never will be open source I don't think you're ideas hold much custard (or something )

Doesn't CUT the mustard.

Back On-Topic: Im sure the devs would have considered this when starting off, but for now they have their own approach which seems to work, and which is unlikely to change now.

Remember, it is their project afterall.

mustard, custard, it's all the same (til you put it on your hotdog).

or you put it on your ice-cream.

....unless you mustard up enough courage to take it into custardy.

I like the way the devs do the job themselves. They seem to have a good grasp on what should be in the sim and what is or isn't viable. The community makes plenty of suggestions to give them ideas for extra developments or features.

Quote from tristancliffe :

mustard, custard, it's all the same (til you put it on your hotdog).

Or your wife!



Ah, yes, right, the topic...
I reckon the devs have it sorted as far as figuring out what to include and what to leave out. I also think this forum plays a vital role for the devs, allowing them to guage the general mood of the community and to see what the most popular/viable suggestions are. It's reasonably democratic, well documented, easily monitored and generally pretty civil. The devs do great work, but not even they can think of everything, so I'm sure they appreciate the fairly constant discussion here

The problem with bounty-hunters is that the devs want to earn the money. They want to feed themselves and pay their bills. They don't want to use our money to pay bounties.
For a free or project bountie-hunters are good. You have small amounts of money and have the community set bounties for features. Here the money-flow has a different infrastructure. It's not "Scavier manages developers, the community offers bounties for features to bountie-hunters" but "All money goes to Scavier, and Scavier develops".
If we'd change this money flow Scavier would be quite unpleased because some bountie-hunters get the money and Scavier has to live on the dole.

Vain