Captain Sim is having a great FS9 sale!

[BelgianTiger_2 22]

myeah same old rants like before etc...that last one,pilot53,his reply made me fall on the floor laughing!I think he is the supity itself because he went on and bought the package...:DAnywayz,i'm not gonna spend more words or time on this topic,i said what i wanted to say,nothing's going to change,move on :).Hope it gets sorted out for you guys!CheersSteven

[CanadaOne 36]

I'd like to see a Captain Sim rep get on board here and speak to the customers (virtual) face to face. I'm a big fan of Captain Sim and absolutely love the F-104, but if there are valid complaints then they should take the bull by the horns and deal with those complaints.Until then, I'm going to keep flying my gorgeous F-104 in FS9 and try to be patient until it's ready for FSX.Don't have many good F-104 screens. But this does show the quality of the cockpit.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/FZ02D.jpgThis is the Captain Sim site screen that sold me on the F-104. I couldn't dig out my credit card fast enough. I mean, how could you not want to fly something this insanely gorgeous? (It's even better with an RCAF skin on it.)http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/F104.jpgThis is my CS C-130 with the custom FZ02 scenery. Delicious ain't it?http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/hor...130portland.jpgMy C-130 with the MegaScenery PNW package.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/hor...16-56-02-45.jpg

[Guest Coneman]

I learned my lesson about buying payware based on future promises from 50 North. I was suckered into buying the 737 with the promise for "our today customers" of a vc and cabin. Of course that has been on their website for about a year now. I wouldn't have bought the Block F CS757 for the same reason. I did buy the Block B since it fits my flying style (limited time), and what I was getting was pretty well explained on the website. Where I am really tee'd off is with the KC130. It clearly states that it comes without textures or gauges for the vc, implying that you get a bare vc. You don't. Now I know that six bucks is isn't a bad deal, but I still feel mislead.

[Steve Dra 7,588]

True to my word, if CS even makes an attempt to see this matter rationally I will be the 1st to post it here.After some very cordial and construtive "Badgering" from a thick-headed customer, CS was able to provide this very imformative reply:(note that CS is replying to):"Nobody wants to bash CS, nobody wants to come to this forum and be terse with CS about thier handling of this matter. In the end, all we really want is some honest, sincere answers to what is going on. Everyone wants to see CS succeed in this endevor, not fail and leave a bunch of unhappy customers. So what do you say CS? Why not try an open discussion with your customers, and give us an update in the same tone as the example above? You might find that we may be initially upset at the news, but will appreciate your honesty and will continue to support you a bit longer if we have something to hang on to. As it stands right now, we have no confidence in your current method of releasing information. Its time for a change, don't you think? "CS reply: "Thanks, that sounds constructive. Personally I see 3 major points of conflict in the Block F (BF) story: 1. Some people think they never going to get the BF for FS9. Myth, because so far our FMC code works fine in both versions of the FS and I hope it will work in both versions upon release (please do not quote this as a PROMISE of FS9+FSX compatibility or FS9 version release. It's just a possibility). We'll make an official announcement of BF compatibility as soon as BF goes beta. Or IF at some point of development we'll see that BF is not universal anymore and requires some additional work for the backward compatibility with FS9, we'll announce that fact as well. 2. Some people think CS is technically unable to code FMC and going to drop BF somehow. Myth. We can and we will release BF. 3. CS provides no release dates. True. The only release date that available form CS is 'as soon as possible'. If you have some constructive questions please go ahead, we'll be happy to answer. Unfortunately we have no time for long 'heart-to-heart' talks because all of our members are extreamly busy. Also please keep in mind none of our team is a native English speaker so it takes twice more time to respond. So most likely our responses will remain short (aka rude "The thick-headed customer rplied with:"Very imformative and cordial replies, thank you. We still have a long way to go, but this is a very positive change that I look forward to seeing more of in the future. Trust me, replies like this do much to foster a better attitude from your customers. I understand that you can't make them all the time, but they are deeply appreciated when you do. And let me help you with one issue that may be due to the translation issue: In a previous post you asked me to search the forums about your upgrade plans. I know of the page specifically outlining your plans for FS9. What makes me nervous (and everyone else I'd imagine) is the use of the word "yet" in this statement: 2. Development for FS9 (including upgrades, 757 Block F/D, new products) is temporary on hold (but not finally terminated yet) until we release FSX upgrades for the 757 and C-130. At that point in time we will re-consider the FSX vs FS9 situation and announce our FS9 related plans. In the English language "yet" implies it is going to happen, just not right now as its phrased here. True, you do say you'll reconsider the situation at a later time, but most people won't get past that "yet" and read the rest of the statement. I know we are not supposed to suggest things of this nature here, but if that whole phrase (but not finally terminated yet) was just removed from the statement, I believe it would read more like you've intended, which is you won't decide anything related to FS9 until the FSX updates for the 757 and C-130 are complete. I hope this helps."This is not to say I want to rush out and buy every CS product :), but it is a move in the positive, which I will gladly post here whenever I see it. Trust is not an easy thing to earn, and is 10,000 times harder to get back when you've lost it, I'd say CS got 500 points back with that reply. :)Regards,Steve Drahttp://img47.photobucket.com/albums/v144/S...Dra/banner1.jpgDownload my planes at Avsim here:http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID...&Go=Change+ViewEdit: Changed the word think to thick, as in thick-headed. :-lol

[Steve Dra 7,588]

Here is another post from CS that will add another 500 points. :)"As far as FS9 seems to remain a major player on MS FS field for a while, we want to confirm what we are paying double attention to BF FS9 compatibility. "More to follow as I see them....but I hope to one day just encourage people to visit their site to get the updated info themselves and let this thread fade into oblivion.At this stage, I'm still very cautious, but optimistic. :) Regards,Steve Drahttp://img47.photobucket.com/albums/v144/S...Dra/banner1.jpgDownload my planes at Avsim here:http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID...&Go=Change+View

[tf51d 284]

1. Some people think they never going to get the BF for FS9.Myth, because so far our FMC code works fine in both versions of the FS and I hope it will work in both versions upon release (please do not quote this as a PROMISE of FS9+FSX compatibility or FS9 version release. It's just a possibility).We'll make an official announcement of BF compatibility as soon as BF goes beta. Or IF at some point of development we'll see that BF is not universal anymore and requires some additional work for the backward compatibility with FS9, we'll announce that fact as well.The one thing this does confirm, is that they have been developing for FSX not FS9 for Block F all along! In that respect, they have been deceptive with their customers. We all expected as was posted by them, that the systems modules were being developed (block D/F) for FS9. Not once did they say anything about FSX at the time. In fact, we didn't find out about it til after FSX was released. I think they just assumed most would just flock to the new sim and they would get a jump on all the other developers. It probably would have worked, had FSX not have the performance issues that it does. As you know though, complex aircraft takes a hit in performance in FS9 as it is, like PMDG, and LVLD, throw in the extraordinary visual detail of the 757 CS is known for, and and it may be even a little worse in FS9. Now comes FSX which is barely holding it's own just to get it on par with FS9, let alone the other bells and whistles, and the detail and complexity of this aircraft will send the FPS's right into the toilet! Look at the CS-757 FSX update as is, without systems. People are reporting mid single digits, add traffic (Like we're use to in FS9) and forget about it. I also have doubts at this point, that other 3rd party aircraft like PMDG, or LDS will fair much better. FSX right now is just too resource dependant, to support the type of add-ons we're all use to in FS9! Not without making significant compromises. Right now I think you can configure FSX to give you a very satisfying GA flight experience, but for Heavy Metal ATC, Traffic etc... it just isn't up to the task!!

[StamPilot 4]

Please, drop by the CS forum and see just how they are>treating this situation:>http://www.captainsim.net/yabb2/YaBB.pl?board=757generalYes, Steve and all, please check this page at CS forum:http://www.captainsim.net/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1154643804/75#75Quoting CS forum administrator:Personally I see just 3 major points of conflict in the Block F (BF) story: 1. Some people think they never going to get the BF for FS9. Myth, because so far our FMC code works fine in both versions of the FS and I hope it will work in both versions upon release (please do not quote this as a PROMISE of FS9+FSX compatibility or FS9 version release. It's just a possibility). We'll make an official announcement of BF compatibility as soon as BF goes beta. Or IF at some point of development we'll see that BF is not universal anymore and requires some additional work for the backward compatibility with FS9, we'll announce that fact as well. 2. Some people think CS is technically unable to code FMC and going to drop BF somehow. Myth. We can and we will release BF. 3. CS provides no release dates. True. The only release date that available form CS is 'as soon as possible'.

[Steve Dra 7,588]

>1. Some people think they never going to get the BF for FS9.>Myth, because so far our FMC code works fine in both versions>of the FS and I hope it will work in both versions upon>release (please do not quote this as a PROMISE of FS9+FSX>compatibility or FS9 version release. It's just a>possibility).>>We'll make an official announcement of BF compatibility as>soon as BF goes beta. Or IF at some point of development we'll>see that BF is not universal anymore and requires some>additional work for the backward compatibility with FS9, we'll>announce that fact as well.>>The one thing this does confirm, is that they have been>developing for FSX not FS9 for Block F all along! In that>respect, they have been deceptive with their customers. We all>expected as was posted by them, that the systems modules were>being developed (block D/F) for FS9. Not once did they say>anything about FSX at the time. In fact, we didn't find out>about it til after FSX was released. I think they just assumed>most would just flock to the new sim and they would get a jump>on all the other developers. It probably would have worked,>had FSX not have the performance issues that it does. As you>know though, complex aircraft takes a hit in performance in>FS9 as it is, like PMDG, and LVLD, throw in the extraordinary>visual detail of the 757 CS is known for, and and it may be>even a little worse in FS9. Now comes FSX which is barely>holding it's own just to get it on par with FS9, let alone the>other bells and whistles, and the detail and complexity of>this aircraft will send the FPS's right into the toilet! Look>at the CS-757 FSX update as is, without systems. People are>reporting mid single digits, add traffic (Like we're use to in>FS9) and forget about it. I also have doubts at this point,>that other 3rd party aircraft like PMDG, or LDS will fair>much better. FSX right now is just too resource dependant, to>support the type of add-ons we're all use to in FS9! Not>without making significant compromises. Right now I think you>can configure FSX to give you a very satisfying GA flight>experience, but for Heavy Metal ATC, Traffic etc... it just>isn't up to the task!! Very true Tom,CS took a big gamble on secretly developing Block D/F for FSX vs FS9 and lost. There can be no doubt that they were planning on being the 1st to market with a fully functioning commercial aircraft in FSX. I imagine the ultimate frustration came when they got the release version of FSX and found that their alpha verion of the FMC didn't work any better than it did in the pre-release version of FSX.Of course, had FSX been fantastic at release and they were the 1st to market (they still may be), they would be hailed as innovators to the hobby and customers would flock to them to get their commercial aircraft fix for FSX.Now that they know people are in no hurry to move to FSX, especially heavy metal types, you can bet that all focus is shifting (or will shift) back to FS9 (for the 757) so they can get ONE fully functioning plane to market.Despite the deception of this whole debacle, you have to credit CS for being risk-takers and trying to corner the market, which would have been good for them and us...if only FSX was not what it is.I'm sure they are in for some serious back-lash and thrashing from some angry customers, and this new era of glasnost from CS does not in any way exonerate them from the past...but at least we can hope that they will be a little more forthcoming in this matter and take the time to really listen to what we've been trying to tell them for the past how many months? :)I hope that we'll see some rapid development of the FS9 version very soon. I know CS is steadfast against giving release dates, but let's hope that they are a little more generous with the progress reports, and from those we can estimate when we might see Blocks D/F.Besides performance, my only other major concern is what CS will charge for Block F (They already list D at 6.99). We have to remember the people have already spent a good chunk of money on this plane, and CS needs to be really careful that they don't price this module too high whereas people won't buy it. I don't know if they'll offer thier current customers who already own all the other blocks a special discount, but that would go a long way in patching up any ill-will between them.Also, I hope that all commercial aircraft developers are quickly realizing that FSX is not the platform for heavy metal (at least for now) and may reconsider any plans to develop exclusively in FSX vs FS9. ;)Regards,Steve Drahttp://img47.photobucket.com/albums/v144/S...Dra/banner1.jpgDownload my planes at Avsim here:http://library.avsim.net/esearch.php?CatID...&Go=Change+View

[Steve Dra 7,588]

>Please, drop by the CS forum and see just how they are>>treating this situation:>>http://www.captainsim.net/yabb2/YaBB.pl?board=757general>>Yes, Steve and all, please check this page at CS forum:>http://www.captainsim.net/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1154643804/75#75>>Quoting CS forum administrator:>Personally I see just 3 major points of conflict in the Block>F (BF) story: > >1. Some people think they never going to get the BF for FS9.>>Myth, because so far our FMC code works fine in both versions>of the FS and I hope it will work in both versions upon>release (please do not quote this as a PROMISE of FS9+FSX>compatibility or FS9 version release. It's just a>possibility). > >We'll make an official announcement of BF compatibility as>soon as BF goes beta. Or IF at some point of development we'll>see that BF is not universal anymore and requires some>additional work for the backward compatibility with FS9, we'll>announce that fact as well. > >2. Some people think CS is technically unable to code FMC and>going to drop BF somehow. >Myth. We can and we will release BF. > >3. CS provides no release dates. >True. The only release date that available form CS is 'as soon>as possible'. >Thanks for the info Stam...but you're just a tad late in reporting it here....if you'll look a few posts up, you'll see I already reported it last night. :)And look at that Steved go over in the CS forum! He sure seems to be making progress with getting CS to open up at bit. Hmmm...Steved...that is so cool that he has my same first name... and I wonder if that d is the first letter of his last name? Hmmm...kinda' makes ya wonder doesn't it? ;)I sure hope he can continue to make things better over there, because I'm pretty sure that he's just another customer who wants to spend less time pushing CS into action and spend more time offering valid suggestions that they'll listen too. The tricky part is you have to get them to listen to you, and that's where the pushing part comes in. Its not how hard you push, its where you push. Aww...you'd have to read up on Sino-Soviet history to understand the tactics he used. (I guess, I mean, I