Sign in to follow this  
NotASenator

New Product Notices

Recommended Posts

To The Management -Once again I feel betrayed by AVSIM in the sense that it hasn't thoroughly checked out a product for whom it adds an announcement to it's news on the front page.Now granted, don't take this to supplement or replacement the fine review process here at AVSIM. But I believe AVSIM should at least go so far as to check whether or not a product exists, has major problems installing, or has any other issues commonly associated with the buy-online, instantly-install process many of us go through.My own case (and it's not the first) is with AirNav Systems FS Live Traffic X, featured last night and today on the front page. I purchased, installed, and otherwise did everything according to plan. Actually, it's almost impossible not to thanks to a very tight install process! But low and behold, no AI traffic shows up at all in FSX...anywhere. Perhaps it was my fault, so I wrote to the company via email last night, following their prescribed way of receiving support, and I haven't heard back word one. Moments ago I called their corporate offices in San Diego only to be met with an answering machine WITHOUT any other company verbiage except "leave a message at the tone".I wonder if they indeed are having so many problems with this software that they've just shut down the phones.In any case, AVSIM should have at least gone through this process or not have announced such a product on its website. I suppose it could be argued that AVSIM has no responsibility in this area, outside of their review process for which they receive a product(s) comp for review. But I disagree...contending that, because of AVSIM's position as the leading authority and conduit for Flight Sim related information on the internet, they should treat an announcement as an implicit endorsement BECAUSE their audience/market is assuming that they DO know of what they are talking about.I would encourage a change in policy at AVSIM to incorporate this responsibility into their public presence by requiring ANY vendor to illustrate the purchase/install process to them prior to being featured in any way as a new product on the front page, or any page for that matter, of AVSIM's website. I would also like to have others, who feel as I do, submit their own experiences in this area so that AVSIM management can better understand the impact that shoddy products, false claims, etc., can have on their own reputation as the leading authority in the hobby.Cheers,Bart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

We have one and only one responsibility when it comes to the front page; to publish news items related to Flight Simulation. A release of a product is news. The quality of the product (or not as the case may be) is your responsibility. We receive press releases dozens of times a day. Imagine the burden that your suggestion would put on our volunteers were we to try to achieve your lofty goal. We couldn't do it. Also, imagine us NOT reporting the release of FSX because it was "buggy" or any of a hundred or more recent releases that users have found flaws in. Simply stated, we would not be reporting product releases at all... I understand your frustration regarding the product, but to put the responsibility on AVSIM to protect you from your purchasing desicisions is inappropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>We have one and only one responsibility when it comes to the>front page; to publish news items related to Flight>Simulation.>>I understand your frustration>regarding the product, but to put the responsibility on AVSIM>to protect you from your purchasing desicisions is>inappropriate.Hi, Tom -Thanks for responding.Yes,it would certainly be an insurmountable task if AVSIM had to go through the processes you describe to determine if products were without problems. But I don't think I asked that AVSIM do that. If I wasn't clear, let me set the record straight by restating that I am only concerned with doing business with a company who's legitimate. As I have not heard back at all from the one in question as yet, I have no idea whether this was a scam or not. And it's precisely that issue I referred to when I suggested that AVSIM ought to have a policy geared to preventing any kind of implied endorsement of a company who "may" come under this scrutiny.The issue I had with the software purchased wasn't something that's new to me, being in the development business anyway, but finding a non-responsive entity -- one who gives every impression that it doesn't exist -- on the other end of the phone does have me concerned. I've worked with vendors for many years in business and in this hobby dealing with installation issues, and I'm sure this can be solved...were I dealing with another party at the other end of the line.As for asking AVSIM to protect me from purchasing decisions, I'm a big boy and I don't need your protection. Shouldn't I presume that I'm getting good gouge from you in the first place? I'd hate to think AVSIM going the way of today's FCC ethic or the total lack of ethic inherent on the internet today where everything is OK and no one has any responsibility for appropriate social or moral conduct.I know you don't see AVSIM that way, but I think you DO have a responsibility in this area.Cheers,Bart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am happy to report that the issue with the software developer has been resolved. On the one hand, it was my fault for not reading enough where I would have learned that there were three manual settings that had to be changed along with what I thought was an automatic install. It was also the vendors fault for clearly NOT making it clear that this would be required, unlike most other fully-installed programs.Tom, thanks for you time, and I still think my thoughts hold water, but in this case I'm also obliged to share responsibility.Cheers,Bart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am glad to see that your problem was resolved. However, I have a couple of problems with your above response.In your first message, you said; "Once again I feel betrayed by AVSIM in the sense that it hasn't thoroughly checked out a product for whom it adds an announcement to it's news on the front page." Betrayed?Then in the first message you continue with; "I believe AVSIM should at least go so far as to check whether or not a product exists, has major problems installing, or has any other issues commonly associated with the buy-online, instantly-install process many of us go through."In your second message in response to me, you then state; "Yes,it would certainly be an insurmountable task if AVSIM had to go through the processes you describe to determine if products were without problems. But I don't think I asked that AVSIM do that. If I wasn't clear, let me set the record straight by restating that I am only concerned with doing business with a company who's legitimate. As I have not heard back at all from the one in question as yet, I have no idea whether this was a scam or not. And it's precisely that issue I referred to when I suggested that AVSIM ought to have a policy geared to preventing any kind of implied endorsement of a company who "may" come under this scrutiny."You first ask us to check / verify that the product does exist, whether it has major problems installing or not, or has other issues associated with purchasing online before we post a news item on the front page. Then in your second post, you ask us to verify whether a company is legitimate before we post a news item on the front page, and you dismiss all those things you asked us to do in your first post. You also imply in your second message that we somehow "endorse" any company that we report on via the front page announcements.I am sorry you feel betrayed, again, by AVSIM. After reading your two posts, I am left to conclude that you really do not know what you want other than that AVSIM should protect you from your purchasing decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Allensworth -I did not expect you to take apart my responses as if they were personal affronts. They were suggestions. I doubt your readership agrees that AVSIM has no responsibility for accuracy in reporting, to which you allude I believe. The tone of your post above is insulting, particularly to a member of AVSIM in good standing for many years whose only desire it was to make things better for all of its members. I have felt for some time that AVSIM takes far too lightly its responsibility to report the news accurately -- or in this case, the accuracy of a news release. You seem to be glossing over this by saying that you have only responsibility - to publish news items. Don't you really think your readers can see through that? I'd be willing to wager that 90% of them can. I may be the first to call you on it.Still, I was willing to just take my lumps and bow out gracefully, but you insisted on personalizing this thread even further by insulting me again in your last post. You could have just said, "glad things got worked out."Thank you for your time, and I'm sure you've got better things to do. I know I do.Sincerely,Bart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of clarity, backed by two decades as a professional writer, I wish to communicate the fact that neither a review of anything (by neccesity a subjective act) nor a press release (published as a service, no different than a bulletin board at your supermarket) constitutes reprotage, and thus carries no burdens as such, rendering further adjectival ideals such as "responsible" or "accurate" wholly moot.Reporting is the gathering and summation of objective fact, communicated concisely and transparently.Reviews are the subjective experience of a particular (hopefully informed) individual from that individual's perspective.A press release is "news", but not "reporting", and is done on good faith as a service of notification.If Avsim were to send a writer to cover an event announced in a press release, I hold the utmost confidence that the reporting generated therefrom would be objective, accurate, and responsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pity that you didn't thoroughly check out how to instal the product before mounting your attack on AVSIM. If you can't be bothered to check that out why do you expect AVSIM should check the product for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the Monday morning chuckle. :-smile12My background in professional writing is considerably lengthier than yours, albeit less filled with accolade no doubt.In principle (or is that principal ??) I don't disagree with anything you've said. But consider for a moment your analogy of a press release to a bulletin board at a supermarket. What would you expect the store management to do if it were repeatedly barraged with 3"x"5 cards from sex solicitors of all kinds posted on its BB, as a sort of clearing house for their services? The store's management does have responsibilities providing its customers protection from this while maintaining a clean environment in which to shop for groceries.True. This is an outlandish example, but it has happened in more than one instance in various locations country-wide. And that responsibility was upheld in court.My point: you are responsible for what you wear....regardless.My ex, a life-long English teacher, would have had a field day with your first sentence/paragraph. I believe she used the notation "E" when referring to run-on. But before taking too much credit for being a professional writer with two decades of experience, it may well do you some good to employ a proofreader before citing that experience. To whit, what "constitutes reprotage?" I searched most of my still-living brain cells for a definition of that one, and finally found it necessary to search our beloved Google. Much to my surprise, the omniscient observer of our daily lives couldn't find one either. ;)No matter, I thought it was funny in an ironic kind of way, and it did bring a smile to my face as I enjoyed my first cup of coffee. Thanks.Cheers,Barthttp://acquiry.com/picts/BartMig110_sml.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're going to have English lessons here, then I'd like to point out that according to the Compact Oxford English dictionary "whit" is a noun meaning a very small part or amount or is an abbreviation from Whitsuntide.The phrase you wanted is "to wit" which that dictionary defines as "that is to say" derived from "that is to wit" meaning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry my reply bothered you. Grammar criticisms and references to finding my objective reply somehow humorous amount to an ad hominum response, and as such is fallacious and unproductive.You may notice that I did not criticize you, address you, and in fact made no reference to you whatsoever in my original reply. I objectively stated the current professional definitions of the terms involved for the sake of clarity. Backing that with my experience in the subject at hand merely communicates my perspective to the reader, much the same as when a real-world pilot states such a fact when replying to forum posts relevant to their particular experience. How is this a case of granting myself "too much" credit? Stating one has been a pilot for twenty years is not stating one is a *better* pilot than everyone else. Ironically, you claim a greater quantity of experience for yourself, then mistakenly criticize as a run-on a sentence containing no grouping of independent clauses improperly punctuated. Your ex may also teach high-school students not to begin sentences with prepositions, but we hardly apply that rule to writers beyond Secondary education."Reprotage" isn't obviously a typo of "reportage"? Sorry. Thankfully, the myth of equivalency between the professions of writing and those of editing, copy-editing, and proofing, is just that. They are not only separate professions; they highlight different skill-sets and different educational backgrounds. Thus I need not employ any editors to retain the validity of an argument.Lastly, whether my post is riddled with errors of grammar or absent a single one says nothing about the content of the point. Please don't paint one as the other. And while I appreciate the intelligence and humility implicit in your labelling of your example "outlandish", I must cry foul that this is not merely an exaggerated example but an outright non sequitur, since Avsim does not allow any such press releases and would obviously not type them into the system. To agree or disagree with your point as you make it fails to pass any comment on to the actual issue, which is your expectation that the publication of a press release equates to consumer research. Of course, if you can't accept this as a non-sequitur, the point still fails since Avsim, like the supermarket, doesn't allow offensively worded notices to be displayed, and the supermarket, like Avsim, does not research the notices it allows.To reiterate the previous point, do you really think the manager of the supermarket telephones every ad to make sure the apartment is still for rent or the bicycle for sale is as described?I accept my annoyance toward you is present in my reply. I ask your forgiveness for my inability to contain this and also your understanding that repeatedly suggesting a person's comments induce laughter while being inaccurate in the actual relevant example you use is the kind of passive, distracting jab that will only gain you one of two types of replies -- mine, which is admittedly terse and annoyed, or Tom's, which is a dismissal said better by it's absence than any words I could ever write.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>It's a pity that you didn't thoroughly check out how>to instal the product before mounting your attack on AVSIM. If>you can't be bothered to check that out why do you expect>AVSIM should check the product for you?Yes, sir. It sure is. And THAT'S just about to what I admitted. And I do not expect AVSIM to checkout the product, per se, as you suggest in a news release versus a product review (which I thoroughly agree they do very well!!). I expect them to check out the vendor. That's what I said.In so many words or less I said I was wrong. Now GET OFF MY CASE. I have as much right to my views as any of you do, including AVSIM and its management team. Cheers,Barthttp://acquiry.com/picts/BartMig110_sml.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"And I do not expect AVSIM to checkout the product, per se,"But in your first post you said "But I believe AVSIM should at least go so far as to check whether or not a product exists, has major problems installing, or has any other issues commonly associated with the buy-online, instantly-install process many of us go through." How would AVSIM do that other than by obtaining a copy of every FS product and installing it?If you make inconsistent public statements you must expect others to point them out to you in public.By the way, "per se" is a Latin phrase for "by itself". A per se matter is one that is alone and not connected to another matter, so I'm not sure what you meant by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I accept my annoyance toward you is present in my reply.Annoyance? Hardly. >I ask your forgiveness for my inability to contain this and also>your understanding that repeatedly suggesting a person's>comments induce laughter while being inaccurate in the actual>relevant example you use...No sir, you are not asking anything from me. While to some it may seem that way, I believe most will see this as the proverbial carrot, designed to elicit a response. >...is the kind of passive, distracting>jab that will only gain you one of two types of replies -->mine, which is admittedly terse and annoyed, or Tom's, which>is a dismissal said better by it's absence than any words I>could ever write.Rather sesquipedalian don't you think? Your entire soliloquy, that is. Your post is narcissistic and designed to impress others who aren't knowledgeable of credible writing techniques designed to communicate a thought in a terse, understandable way. If this is typical example of your writing style, then by all means don't give up your day job. That!, sir, is what I find funny "this" morning. Cheers,Barthttp://acquiry.com/picts/BartMig110_sml.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee Whiz, Dude!!!...You just don't know when to shut your face, do you. You started of bad and got worse. Have you read anything that you have said? You have accused only everybody for your failure to read the instructions. You have accused AVSIM of "once again" causing you to feel betrayed. And the more you go on,the more clownish you are getting.>It's a pity that you didn't thoroughly check out how>to instal the product before mounting your attack on AVSIM. If>you can't be bothered to check that out why do you expect>AVSIM should check the product for you?"Yes, sir. It sure is. And THAT'S just about to what I admitted."No Sir...You admitted nothing! What you said was:"I am happy to report that the issue with the software developer has been resolved. On the one hand, it was my fault for not reading enough where I would have learned that there were three manual settings that had to be changed along with what I thought was an automatic install. It was also the vendors fault for clearly NOT making it clear that this would be required, unlike most other fully-installed programs.Tom, thanks for you time, and I still think my thoughts hold water, but in this case I'm also obliged to share responsibility."You did not release AVSIM from your expectation of some responsibility to do all of your reaserch and hold your hand. You can dish it out by insulting Tom, but can't take it when you are called on it."I did not expect you to take apart my responses as if they were personal affronts. They were suggestions. I doubt your readership agrees that AVSIM has no responsibility for accuracy in reporting, to which you allude I believe. The tone of your post above is insulting, particularly to a member of AVSIM in good standing for many years whose only desire it was to make things better for all of its members. I have felt for some time that AVSIM takes far too lightly its responsibility to report the news accurately -- or in this case, the accuracy of a news release. You seem to be glossing over this by saying that you have only responsibility - to publish news items. Don't you really think your readers can see through that? I'd be willing to wager that 90% of them can. I may be the first to call you on it."And now you're trying to find and use every big word you can find to demonstrate your ability to use the english language. Fine! I'm Happy for you. But tell me...What good is it is you have already demonstrated that you can't read and follow simple instructions?AVSIM is not one person per se. It's a half million of us. You used the term,"member in good standing". Exactly what is that, and what does it mean? I think all of the members are in good standing,or their somewhere else. This site has rules and policies inplace which essentially say as long as you play by thoses rules, you can stay. If not...well, you know.Oh well... You dismissed "The Management/Tom/Mr.Allensworth by saying,"Thank you for your time, and I'm sure you've got better things to do. I know I do." Do yourself, and all of us you took it upon yourself to "make things better for",(Well,the 90%) and go do those "better things".LaMonte CrenshawMember In Good Standing (Sometimes...Other times, not so good.)AVSIM PARTICIPANTJan1,KINDWhen I push the button and it works, I'm happy:-)HP Media CenterPentium D 2.80 GHz Duel2.00 GB RAMNVIDIA GeForce 6200SEConexant Falcon II NTSCXP SP2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this