B757 Captain Sim

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

I don't know where you get that I am upset. I am not. I just want to know what statement you feel I need to post and what issue you are referring to?

[LAdamson 240]

Or,...they are plain lazy to continue>development for FS9.>Fact...In this business, when your "heart" is no longer in the specific project, then any future product (and sometimes forced product) isn't worthwhile anyway..Think about it. Good addon producers must have a continuing interest in what they develop. With all the non-certainties involving FSX, and not knowing a true direction to follow, I'm not at all surprised, that "good intentions" don't become reality.L.Adamson

[Staffan 12]

>Or,...they are plain lazy to continue>>development for FS9.>>>Fact...>>In this business, when your "heart" is no longer in the>specific project, then any future product (and sometimes>forced product) isn't worthwhile anyway..>>Think about it. Good addon producers must have a continuing>interest in what they develop. With all the non-certainties>involving FSX, and not knowing a true direction to follow, I'm>not at all surprised, that "good intentions" don't become>reality.>>L.AdamsonWell Larry,...what we really are talking about when it comes to CS aswell as some other unnamed developers, is customer responsibility and good business ethic. I really doubt that CS even have looked up the words in a dictionary."Let

[Guest edwardpat2004]

Ok. No more comments.Happy new year.

[Guest edwardpat2004]

I agree, they do have good products. This is not the point.

[mgh 89]

Iafraid your analogy is wrong. Unless the delivery contract states that a heater would be included then you have no right to one: you are both bound by the contract you signed. If you were foolish enough to sign a contract that didn't include a heater then that's your problem.As someone else said, if you really must have an FMC why buy an aircraft without one?

[Staffan 12]

>Iafraid your analogy is wrong.>> Unless the delivery contract states that a heater would be>included then you have no right to one: you are both bound by>the contract you signed. If you were foolish enough to sign a>contract that didn't include a heater then that's your>problem.>>As someone else said, if you really must have an FMC why buy>an aircraft without one?But you are wrong here,....A mutual agreement is as boundary as a written agreement.;-)

Staffan[/font size]

http://www.scandicair.com/images/fs9_pilots_club.gifFlightsimmer since 1987Dell Dimension 4600 P4/2.8 at 3.0 Ghz, 1024 Mb DDR333 Dual channel memory (2x256,1x512)AGP 256 Mb ATI Radeon X850 Pro ViVo flashed to a X850 XT PE, Omega 2.6.87 (CAT 5.12)DirectX 9.0c, W XP Home with SP2, E171FPb Flat panel monitor 17"370Gb HD (120 GB Maxtor, 250GB Samsung) 7200rpm ATA, Lacie 250Gb Extern HDBlogg: http://blogg.passagen.se/primeaviFiles: http://library.avsim.net/search.php?CatID=...&Go=Change+View

[mgh 89]

>A mutual agreement is as boundary as a written agreementThat may be true but you can't have a verbal agreement and a written agreement covering the same contract. The purpose of any written agreement is to set out the terms and clearly include what haspreviously been agreed verbally. It supercedes verbal agreeents for the sake of clarity in order to avoid controversy about who said what. In the the case of the car and its heater, unless the final written agreementt required a heater to be delivered then there would be no obligation to deliver one, regardless of what may have been said previously. After all, the purchaser had the opportunity to check the agreement and must be presumed to know and agree to what he's signed. Also in the case of CaptainSim, there was no mutual agreement regarding the modules. I'm sure none of the purchasers of the original model committed themselves to a binding agreement to buy any modules. Therefore there was no obligation to provide them.Finally, I have no CaptrainSim peoducts so I'm not defending them - I'm merely pointing out that the law won't always protect us against our own foolishness.

[Guest edwardpat2004]

You will excuse me, but with all due respect, what we're dealing with in my opinion is with a bad business practice and not legal technicalities that will not help to understand the origin of the problem. I have to remind that when CS announced their B757 on their website, they offered it by blocks, starting with block A, B and promissing to deliver at a later date the rest of the blocks, named C, D, E and F, to have at the end, a complete B757 product. Probably it was not a legal obligation, or even now it isn't either, but from the point of view of business, the fact of not continuing to deliver the rest of the blocks is like a "lie" for all that purchased the first blocks with the hope of having a complete B757 product after a certain, and reasonnable, period of time.

[LAdamson 240]

> Probably it was not a legal>obligation, or even now it isn't either, but from the point of>view of business, the fact of not continuing to deliver the>rest of the blocks is like a "lie" for all that purchased the>first blocks with the hope of having a complete B757 product>after a certain, and reasonnable, period of time.I get tired of the terms "promise" and "lie" used thoughout this thread. I'm quite sure that Captain Sim had full intentions of a continuing product, when first announced. But as they say "**** happens". And for a lot of reasons.L.Adamson

[mgh 89]

You don't know and I don't know what CaptainSim's original intentions were, but you assume that it deliberately set out to deceive and lie. Many companies in a wide range of fields fail to deliver on their aspirations for various reasons - sometimes they lack the resources, sometimes they go belly-up, other times they just disappear - see recent threads in these forums. Remember we are not dealing with major corporations with the resources to ride-out problems. Without being offensive to them, I suggest that the add-on developers are effectively "cottage industries" in comparison with the major software developers.I reiterate my point than anyone who wanted an FMC and bought an add-on aircraft without one was foolish. Caveat emptor is as true now as it ever was.

[Guest Reed203]

I do not have any Captain Sim products myself but after reading all of these threads about them, I never plan on purchasing one. From seeing screenshots, they do look like very detailed and great aircraft but just like others said, that doesnt matter. What does matter is the way they seem to be treating their customers. Be it a company that produces flightsim aircraft or a car company, no company should be able to promise something to their customers and then not go through with it or provide poor customer service. It seems that this isnt just a problem with Captain Sim though. Many FS companies seem to be thinking "Oh we are selling products for flightsim so that doesnt mean we have to provide complete support or live up to our promises. Its only a game." Frankly, that attitude doesnt fly with me. Like I said before, it doesnt matter what the company is selling, it matters that they are selling something. That something should be fully backed up with company support and also no empty promises, be it a $40,000 car or a $40 dollar 757 for flightsim. Just my 2 cents. Have a happy 2008!

[PittsS2B 33]

Well, add-ons for FS seem to be a cottage industry of sorts, so I've learned to adjust my expectations with regard to customer service where they're concerned, and certainly never buy based on promises. That said, I now avoid Captain Sim's planes on general principle, given their track record of failing to deliver complete products. Too bad, as I love the look of their 707 and 757, and really enjoyed their military add-ons for FS2002.John G.KTUS

[Mike_CFII_MEL 789]

Hi,Its amazing how time and time again, Captain Empty Promises starts out with good intentions and all the community gets in the end are unfinished aircraft!!!. The B707 - Still WaitingThe B727 - Still WaitingThe B757 - Still WaitingEver hear the saying "Fool Me Once Shame On You, Fool Me Twice Shame On Me"?If this company spent as much time fixing their aircraft as they do inventing these crazy schemes to get our cash, we would have some nice "COMPLETE" aircraft.Sorry L.Adamson, You'll "NEVER" convince me that CaptainSim HAS/HAD Good intentions. Not when we have numerous aircraft that have been waiting for an extended period of time (YEARS) to be completed.

[Staffan 12]

>>A mutual agreement is as boundary as a written agreement>>That may be true but you can't have a verbal agreement and a>written agreement covering the same contract. The purpose of>any written agreement is to set out the terms and clearly>include what haspreviously been agreed verbally. It supercedes>verbal agreeents for the sake of clarity in order to avoid>controversy about who said what. >>In the the case of the car and its heater, unless the final>written agreementt required a heater to be delivered then>there would be no obligation to deliver one, regardless of>what may have been said previously. After all, the purchaser>had the opportunity to check the agreement and must be>presumed to know and agree to what he's signed. >>Also in the case of CaptainSim, there was no mutual agreement>regarding the modules. I'm sure none of the purchasers of the>original model committed themselves to a binding agreement to>buy any modules. Therefore there was no obligation to provide>them.>>Finally, I have no CaptrainSim peoducts so I'm not defending>them - I'm merely pointing out that the law won't always>protect us against our own foolishness.Well,..it seams that you still afterall don