Thanks John! :)

EDIT: I just re-read your post, Alex, and I realize that I misunderstood the intent of your message :) So the following is not directed to you :) My appologies :)How So?Quite simply, as this thread has shown, interpretation of correct functioning is as diverse as this community.One persons idea of accurate is anothers idea of 'bunk'.And it doesn't matter wether it says 'fully accurate' on the website or not. If ANY feature of the simulation the consumer feels is importatnt does not function the way the consumer feels it should, then it's grounds for 'false avertisement' and thus a lawsuit. Who determines the level of falseness? The individual. In THIS community there's no such thing as a standard generic idea of anything.JoeBlow Sue Freak:"Oh, XYZ plane doesn't have one of the latest SID proceedures one runway at XYZ airport! But the website states accurate departure proceedures! SUE SUE SUE!"Where does it end? The average person can sue for any reason and it doesn't matter if it gets accepted or thrown out. The damage is done the minute a developer has to retain a lawyer to address any lawsuits.Suing PMDG because the shade of color on a paint was off in the users mind and the website stated the accurate repaint was available.I mean really.... perhaps I'm just alone in the world here, but I guess I'm just not carniverous enough.

>And it doesn't matter wether it says 'fully accurate' on the>website or not. If ANY feature of the simulation the consumer>feels is importatnt does not function the way the consumer>feels it should, then it's grounds for 'false avertisement'>and thus a lawsuit. Who determines the level of falseness? The>individual. In THIS community there's no such thing as a>standard generic idea of anything.Uh huh.Look, Howard... it's simple. Try and understand.1.) It has nothing to do with assumed features.2.) It has nothing to do with desired features.3.) It has nothing to do with needed features.There is a standard that can be applied by any flightsimmer, be he/she dullard, halfwit, savant or Mensa-member....** If you accept money for a product that you are willfully selling, accept responsibility for it. No dodging, no lying, no obfuscation, and NO evasion of support. ** >The average person can sue for any reason and it doesn't>matter if it gets accepted or thrown out. The damage is>done the minute a developer has to retain a lawyer>to address any lawsuits.What country are you from, Howard? The "average" person couldn't retain counsel in the United States over such a cause -- regardless of your personal analysis of its merit -- because it would cost serious money. And, truth be told, the "average Joe" doesn't have those kind of resources. Try to remember that, like the rest of America, 90% of flightsimmers' exposure to attorneys and their procurement come from television melodramas, hackneyed films and junk Grisham novels. Unlike on television, the vast majority of those who bring cause to a court aren't halfwits. In point of fact, halfwits are the ones who threaten suit, but will never carry it out. And the ratio of half-witted lawsuit threats to actual lawsuits in this country is about a trillion-to-one since every yahoo likes to bandy the proverbial "L-word" (not the Showtime variant, speaking of hackneyed scripts) every time they get the wrong item in their McDonalds bag after exiting the drive-thru.So, please. There is no lawsuit, no Senate inquiry, no bi-partisan investigation, no suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. It's just a "formal complaint action" by an annoyed consumer; the American equivalent of "calling your Congressman" or reporting a vendor to the Better Business Bureau. In short, it has the effectivity of calling your Mom and moaning.So don't lose any sleep over it. Wilco/Feelthere aren't going anywhere. They'll trudge along, fix some bugs, and just when they've got a few major ones left, they'll announce another product and the current one will be left by the wayside. In other words, business as usual. Now THAT you can call a STANDARD.

>"It's called deterence. The same principle we apply to>criminals. It sends a message: don't screw with the consumer.>If you take a buyers money you better give them the promised>service/product.">>In the arena of simulation who defines what "screwing with the>consumer" is? Do you think someone at Feelthere sat down one>day and said "let's see if I can dupe the community into>buying this one?" I don't think that was their mindset.>>If litigation is the future of this hobby there will be no>more hobby. We're not talking about a firm that stole>thousands of dollars and vanished. We're talking about>expectations not being met and the consumer community (some)>not cutting the vendor any slack. Litigation and the threat>of litigation is getting out of hand. And 99 percent of the>time it is an idle threat by a member here trying to show off>or establish bona fides with one part of the community or>another. >>The best way to deter a vendor from releasing an incomplete>product is to vote with your voice and your wallet. >Litigation takes years and huge sums from both sides. And>there are worse consumer infractions that the courts need to>pursue right now, such as faulty fuel systems on cars that>burn people to death, or spoiled food that kills someone, or>mission critical software that loses or leaves exposed>sensitive data for a customer. A $50.00 entertainment title>isn't going to get a lot of people to care. And as someone>pointed out, using litigation to "deter" a vendor into the>perfect piece of software will raise the price of what is>essentially still a game in the eyes of the software world to>hundreds or thousands of dollars.>>-John >If it's a civil wrong it's duty of care, negligence, etc. I see none of that here. And get over the amount of liability. If someone stole $50 from your pocket would you say, 'hey', 'it's just $50 leave him go.' Or if you were #### slapped by someone on the street, leaving no mark, would you say, "hey, was nothing, not even hurt'. It's no excuse that quantum is only such and such if it's actionable. Time to send a message.

>To be honest I expect nothing less of people in the world>today than to go and sue whenever they get the chance.It's>just sad. Give Wilco/Feelthere a break and sometime to fix the>bugs. The product has only been out a week for crying out>loud. And what about the repercussions if any legal case is>won? Developers may just stop releasing anything for fear of>being critisised and sued. And i'm pretty sure that's a>situation no one wants.Let them stop releasing then. It's time they stop fooling with people's money and sending out bug infested programs expecting individuals to keep quiet for some ridiculous reason. There's no excuse. Time's up for playing fast and loose with peoples money.

Exactly, the good developers like pmdg, dreamfleet, digital aviation, and level d and many of the other quality producers out there WILL keep releasing products because they produce something worth the price and know the people will support them. Now if we keep being so "nice" and letting things go and not stopping something that is not right in its tracks, it will continue. If the poor developers stop releasing products it will only make our hobby better and we wont have these 170 reply topics where the ignorant and the intelligent keep going back and forth without letting up.

Here, Here!:-beerchug

Jeff! YOU WIN!!!! Your Perfect Flight A380 is on its way to you! :-badteeth

>** If you accept money for a product that you are willfully>selling, accept responsibility for it. No dodging, no lying,>no obfuscation, and NO evasion of support. ** I understand perfectly. I wasn't responding to anything you posted. I was responding to the person who called for 'legal action'. His words not mine. So perhaps in your fervor to voice your opinion you missed the intent of my reply. Not to mention that I've not seen anywhere where FeelThere has evaded support or anything you've described above. In fact they've even listed the bugs they will be fixing and provide quite efficient support via the FeelThere website.>What country are you from, Howard? The "average" person>couldn't retain counsel in the United States over such a cause>-- regardless of your personal analysis of its merit -->because it would cost serious money. And, truth be told, the>"average Joe" doesn't have those kind of resources. Try to>remember that, like the rest of America, 90% of flightsimmers'>exposure to attorneys and their procurement come from>television melodramas, hackneyed films and junk Grisham>novels. While I am from the United States, I fail to see the significance of my point of origin. The lawsuit being called for isn't in the US and neither is the intended defendant. How the average US citizen accesses legal counsel isn't really relevant here - nor was it the intent of my reply.>So, please. There is no lawsuit, no Senate inquiry, no>bi-partisan investigation, no suspension of the writ of habeas>corpus. It's just a "formal complaint action" by an annoyed>consumer; the American equivalent of "calling your>Congressman" or reporting a vendor to the Better Business>Bureau. In short, it has the effectivity of calling your Mom>and moaning.That's nice. The original point remains. Regardless of your interpretation of the probability of average US citizens successfully suing a flight sim add-on developer, my caution against such actions remains. I state again where the original poster called for legal action. Simply because his definition of legal action differs from mine doesn't negate my concern that such actions are not to be taken lightly. Reworded, that means it matters not who he complains to, it's a general statement to those who WOULD take actual legal action. Wether or not he does or did is moot. The only point I was trying to make. The poster afterall did state that he instructed his Brussels office to begin inquiries into legal action IN ADDITION to the EU version of the BBB. That was enough for me to respond.After all the 'average joe' has sued quite often (and successfully I might add) for far stupider things than missing features on an Add-on. And all it takes is a sufficiently po'ed consumer with a moderate financial background and a greedy enough lawyer to sue anyone for pretty much anything. And it doesn't matter if it succeeds or not. Just having to take the legal steps to counter a stupid claim takes money.

Just two notes of thsnks from me.....One: To AVSIM for having the courage and foresight to allow this thread to run.Two: To Mike T & Co for taking the time and trouble to post all the things I too feel.Ta

Since a $50 dollar airliner add-on doesn't seem to make too many happy lately, considering inflation and all,I can only hope that future releases from some of the best in simulated airliner design and function, will start running in the $100 to $150.00 bracket. Afterall, I'd seriously like to see these programmers get what they deserve for spending a year or two on high fidelity addon's where every system and function is mandated by increasingly "sophisticated simmers" who demand virtual reality that's just a "hair" beneath the real thing. I've done the "math" on this, condsidering I've known realistic expectations in the way of number of potential sales.When you add up the workload hours just to get the product researched, designed, programmed, and tested; and then the overhead of marketing and customer care, the hours involved become staggering!A full fledged airliner addon, now takes "teams" of creative artist's and programmers. Gone are the simple days!Since land, houses, food, fuel, taxes, etc. have gone up in the few years, since that "last" exciting airliner addon, then I can only hope that we're willing to pay more for what we expect. I don't believe an increase to just $75 would be worth the time...And I'm serious!L.Adamson

We dont need to pay that much for an addon, for heavens sake, all we want is a level d quality addon. Now how much does the lds 767 cost, I think most of us here know, $39.95. Feelthere comes nowhere near that amount of realism and they charge $50. Now if we could have really really realistic addons I would be willing to pay $100 for them, because instead of buying 5 crappy $45 addons I would buy just one or two quality addons. Yes the simple days are gone, fs is really not very entertaining if you arent actually simulating anything. Some addons are so poorley done its as if you are flying an imaginary plane if its nothing like the real thing.

Why wouldn't they allow this to run? A good thread with legitimate discussion on consumers' rights, and about the state of the addon "industry" nowadays. If AVSIM was to put a lid on threads like these, I would be very.... disappointed.Tero

This hobby is being ruined by people so scared that it might go away that they are willing to waste money to keep "developers" producing garbage over and over and over again. That's great for you, but the line is crossed when those people attempt to silence those who care about what is advertised and sold. This thread has been nothing short of an ownage trainwreck - it is difficult to read through it but that's the two camps. Camp one is the scared money wasters, camp 2 are the concerned consumers (and rightly so). The technical proof of misrepresentation provided by the OP pretty much gives an good picture of what has been released. The eyes (no window reflections in 2007!? for one) say the rest. I think the community needs to wake up and realize that protectionism kills. Protecting shoddy developers kills demand and allows everyone else to slack.Examine the recent trends (none company specific):- what release dates? nobody even gives those anymore- lack of patches - done when we get done.. 2 - 5 years from now - failing to answer to customer demand - our customers tell us they want it simple, so we give you simple. you must be the wrong customer if you want complex, but pay up. in other words, they fabricate what they want to make as what "some" customers request. - no refunds. those that do, use flight1. I am yet to get burned with anything bought from them.- forum censorship. trend is spreading. they don't have time to fix their stuff but they have plenty of time to delete content 24/7, rain or shine, christmas or halloween, #### or high water.. internet is down and you can't get patches? no fear, the internet for the admin is up so he can delete your post. yep. - details in all the wrong places. so you mean to tell me you modelled the brake lines and ran out of polygons and that's why the VC looks like manure? Great. I'll be sure to fly the plane from the brake lines in IFR so i can enjoy them...- overpriced. which wouldn't be an issue for quality, but that isn't really delivered in most cases. in fact, the more expensive something is, the worse off it comes out. It started with 10$, up to 15, 20, 25, 35, 40, 50, 60.. Yet the quality has been going opposite to price. Reccal the stuff released in the past year.. how much of it was actually....... **good**? My list is short. So short, i can fit it on a soda cap.

>Since a $50 dollar airliner add-on doesn't seem to make too>many happy lately, considering inflation and all,>>I can only hope that future releases from some of the best in>simulated airliner design and function, will start running in>the $100 to $150.00 bracket. No problem. Personally, I would rather spend $100 for ONE very good add-on, which works as it should and provides me fun instead of troubles and frustration, than distributing the same amount of money over a few mediocre products.There are only a few developers who could even dare requesting such a high price for their products - but, who cares? The release frequency of high-class airliner addons is pretty low, actually. You can maybe purchase one or two of these high-quality products per year - and skip everything else, because it isn't worth the cash.A high price tag doesn't mean a product won't sell. Remember the Aerowinx PS 1 simulation? It was pretty expensive, yet a lot of people purchased it, because it was, in many ways, unmatched by any other product.