Bob Scott very lucidly pointed out the following:"Well, this forum is not your personal stomping ground in which other peoples' opinions are only eligible for publication up to the point where you enlighten the world with your policy. The poster's personal opinion of your policy is still his freely-stated opinion whether you like it or not."Another good point of his showing how you yourself are prone to color facts just as much as the op or anyone else is:"No, he didn't say a word about a need for you to put the RXP instruments in. He noted that the RXP instruments are far superior to the SimFlyers stuff, and he was swapping them. A point on which I agree...the SimFlyers GNS480 is predominantly just a repackaging of the default FS GPS unit, replete with its most troubling limitations (i.e. no ability to load/change nav track data after MSFS flightplan is loaded)."And as far as your trademark condescension goes, that should be apparent to anyone who speaks english. Or at least someone who understands emoticons.Honestly I can't think of a single instance where someone has been allowed to give a less than stellar opinion of an eaglesoft product here without you and/or your coworkers swooping in like a bunch of harpies. The thing is, Dreamfleet and its partners have been subjected to more criticism and abuse than Eaglesoft on these and other forums-in large part due to airlinerxp and their slower transition to fsx-but they have exhibited restraint and courtesy. At the very least, they treat user forums and users with respect. These are professional qualities which Eaglesoft apparently lacks, not even attempting to be polite to their own customers when they show the slightest hint of incomplete satisfaction, however expressed.

Weenie, your attacks against us are the stuff of legend around these parts...let it go before you pop something:-)Interesting to us that our Twin Comanche release brought such vitriol from our detractors and yet sales and user satisfaction are at a very high point!A conspiricy theorist would have a field day here...they might even assume that certain parties and their minions stir this stuff up near the time that Eaglesoft releases a new product. A brief look at recent history might even reveal some of the same names over and over :-lol :-lol Despite erroneous reviews, policy attacks, and third party vendor commercials we still have an extremely popular release with a high number of extremely pleased customers and repaints have already hit the street:-) Why even Avsims own Bear Cartright is posting here at Avsim SS Forum:-)By the way, have you or any of the detractors here tried her out? If not you should because she's a sweet package:-)You guys have fun now, ya hear :-lol

Oddly enough, I did - and promptly picked it up! Very nice work guys...DJ

>Oddly enough, I did - and promptly picked it up! Very nice>work guys...>>DJThanks DJ! Now if we could get all the satisfied guys to post here and offset all the negative garbage we would have a balanced thread eh? :-lol

I must say that reading through all the gibberish (as described in "Wikipedia" as a lack of literal sense, which can also be described as a presence of nonsense.), is somewhat disappointing.As a FS9/FSX user, I do appreciate the new levels of "eye candy" that's possible in FSX with bump mapping, etc.. I DO NOT consider FS9 models slightly re-designed to be compatible with FSX with a few changes as real FSX. Therefor, I might just as well purchase the FS9 model; use it in FS9, and be done with the problem.For a real FSX model, I want the whole enchilada, and not something that comes at the same price or just a bit more..........because it's in essence, just FS9 ported over.I expect to pay the real life cost's for a product that involves a lot more work. At the same time, it's also reasonable for an FSX only user, to be possibly quite happy with these FS9/FSX compatible models that are not up to the full FSX capability, yet reasonably priced. And I see the merits for this type of product.As I've said, it's quite disappointing to read through this thread, and find so many, that expect a LOT for very little; and then attempt to set price schedules, while making comparisons using FSX upgraded aircraft that are not much more than just FS9 counterparts merely ported over. L.Adamson

"The thing is, Dreamfleet and its partners have been subjected to more criticism and abuse than Eaglesoft on these and other forums-in large part due to airlinerxp and their slower transition to fsx-but they have exhibited restraint and courtesy. At the very least, they treat user forums and users with respect. These are professional qualities which Eaglesoft apparently lacks, not even attempting to be polite to their own customers when they show the slightest hint of incomplete satisfaction, however expressed."That's most kind of you to say and, frankly, I wish I were not even in this thread, but once our name gets brought up in a thread and gets responded to by others, including other developers, it's fair game, and I will respond. ;)Frankly, I will most-kindly disagree with you in one respect. We do not feel we have gotten much criticism over the time it has taken us to get into FSX. Never forget that these forums do not represent the majority of the FS community, just a small bit. Even then, the complaints I have seen here are minor. We know that we will never please everyone. While the AXP Airbus is delayed, it has also brought forth new technology, technology other developers may say is irrelevant (because they do not have it), but, none-the-less is technology that will benefit all of our products (DF and RXP) moving forward. You will just see a small hint of this new technology in our Piper Dakota, and Archer III for FSX but a HUGE dose of it in the AXP Airbus.Our FS9 sales remain strong; amazingly so! As such we see the need to support both versions while keeping prices that represent a good value. Ultimately we chart our own course, and do not always see the need to explain the details of it in public (competition reading). However I felt it fair to respond to Ron and his queries about what we are doing. We're friends. Though, and no offense Ron, you should know me well enough by now to know what I was going to do! ;) Even when we chart a course, and like a plane in the air, we will change it quickly if we see reason to. These days the FS market can be somewhat volatile / ever-changing.We play it day-by-day and, I dare say, you may never see a dedicated FSX aircraft model from DF. We might very well stick with the FS9 models in FSX, and then make the necessary changes for FS11, when I expect such will be mandatory.Right now we are spending our time on new, exclusive, and advanced technology. We are building for the future, and if that means we take a financial "hit" during the reign of FSX, and have to delay products for it, so be it. Believe it or not, we are doing all this with you, the customer, in mind, and for ourselves. We are taking a long term view.Last time I checked it is you folks who pay our bills, and my bills are nothing to laugh at!Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...R_FORUM_LOU.jpg

>I must say that reading through all the gibberish (as>described in "Wikipedia" as a lack of literal sense, which>can also be described as a presence of nonsense.), is>somewhat disappointing.>>As a FS9/FSX user, I do appreciate the new levels of "eye>candy" that's possible in FSX with bump mapping, etc.. I DO>NOT consider FS9 models slightly re-designed to be compatible>with FSX with a few changes as real FSX. Therefor, I might>just as well purchase the FS9 model; use it in FS9, and be>done with the problem.>>For a real FSX model, I want the whole enchilada, and not>something that comes at the same price or just a bit>more..........because it's in essence, just FS9 ported over.>>I expect to pay the real life cost's for a product that>involves a lot more work. At the same time, it's also>reasonable for an FSX only user, to be possibly quite happy>with these FS9/FSX compatible models that are not up to the>full FSX capability, yet reasonably priced. And I see the>merits for this type of product.>>As I've said, it's quite disappointing to read through this>thread, and find so many, that expect a LOT for very little;>and then attempt to set price schedules, while making>comparisons using FSX upgraded aircraft that are not much more>than just FS9 counterparts merely ported over. >>L.Adamson>>Larry, we agree. None of this should have taken place.We also agree that there is a general lack of understanding when it comes to true FSX development VS FS9 products "ported over" to FSX.The unfortunate outcome is that the proverbial "wool is pulled over some folks eyes" with regard to FSX development workload, product features, and pricing policies..all of which lead to more consumer confusion as developers make claims they cannot backup and their supporters proclaim as the standard which all other developers must follow.Meantime, we'll soldier on with our plans and hope for the best outcome despite the detractors and their minions:-)

"However I felt it fair to respond to Ron and his queries about what we are doing. We're friends. Though, and no offense Ron, you should know me well enough by now to know what I was going to do!"Correct Lou. Just thought it to be a valid question given the context of the discussion regarding our pricing policy. We expect that many developers will have to adopt similar policies as the paradigm shift continues and JL acknowleged as much with regard to his products.It is indeed a tough nut to crack completely and developers will need to come down on one side or the other eventually.Thanks for your forthright answers:-)

What I find most satisfying about review threads is the chance to read contributions from a number of different users who have purchased the product.Might some others who have the Eaglesoft PA-30 get this thread back on track and give us their impressions, too?Fact is, the intial posting by Eric, one user, would never be enough to dissuade me from making a purchase. One report about a new product from a reviewer does not a consensus make. While I appreciate the developer's desire to set the record straight, I really wish other users of this product would chime in. Criticism in general terms means democratic judgement over the suitability of a subject for the intended purposes, as opposed to the authoritarian command, which is not open for debate. Moreover, when it comes to criticism, I believe one should always hold in reserve those two little, inalienable, God-given words: "Says who?"By the way, thanks to Eaglesoft for including this GA twin in their lineup.Dennis

"Might some others who have the Eaglesoft PA-30 get this thread back on track and give us their impressions, too?I really wish other users of this product would chime in. By the way, thanks to Eaglesoft for including this GA twin in their lineup."Our sentiments exactly...perhaps a new thread about the plane so folks wouldn't have to wade through the other stuff:-)

I could not agree more! I've spent around $150 at Eaglesoft over the years. The rude and arrogant tone they take against customers who want better value or criticize a product is another reason I will never spend another penny with them.