Bob,Ryan's not the one I am pointing out with the bigger agenda. Those with the agenda though were hopping onto his post and using it to further their discrediting the Mustang and its G1000 simulation. I am pretty sure I met Ryan in Seattle with the PMDG team at AVSIM's conference and I don't have it out for him. He is on the other hand a member that should be considered a Commercial member because of his involvement with PMDG's development team. Now when I have a patient that has been seeing another doctor I don't start railing about what training that other doctor doesn't have, how I think their treatment has not been as good at that doctor's hands or how I might think I am a better doctor, that is unprofessional conduct. Now Ryan does have a right to opinions and had they been discussed in a different manner I might have taken the post differently. BTW I am not the one that alerted about that post but I did agree that the overall tone of the missing feature list and his involvement with a competitor made the post look in poor taste. Ryan might not have even thought about that before hitting the send button, I don't think he would purposefully get involved with railroading a Flight1 product.

I think there's a big difference between "discrediting" and criticising, even if it's pointed criticism. In the case of at least one poster, a few folks have illustrated that some of the performance expectations were not grounded in reality. Fair enough. Back to your analogy, though, if a Kawasaki dealer that also personally owns a few Corvettes is quoted in the paper that he doesn't like the new GM Bailout Edition Corvette, because it has imitation pork-skin seats, an ugly hood ornament that looks like Hank Paulson's head, and loses resale value faster than a subprime-financed Miami condo, I'm not considering him to be unprofessional or "talking his book," because he's providing discrete, verifiable datapoints, and because Kawasaki motorcycles don't compete with Corvettes. He's just another sports car fan with an informed opinion. Same in this case with a guy connected part-time to a developer of heavy airliner add-ons talking about his opinion of a VLJ he bought from a different developer. Any impact his opinions might have on Flight1's Mustang sales do not result in improved MD-11 sales at PMDG. And a number of us value his critical opinion, even if it's pointed. Characterizing his evaluation as being "in poor taste" is, in effect, "railroading" his contributions to a thorough public review.Finally, the unwritten professional code that lawyers won't talk about other lawyers, and doctors won't talk about other doctors, is exactly what allows the bad ones to keep victimizing unsuspecting new clients. That's not an institution worthy of defense.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

I think there's a big difference between "discrediting" and criticising, even if it's pointed criticism. In the case of at least one poster, a few folks have illustrated that some of the performance expectations were not grounded in reality. Fair enough. Back to your analogy, though, if a Kawasaki dealer that also personally owns a few Corvettes is quoted in the paper that he doesn't like the new GM Bailout Edition Corvette, because it has imitation pork-skin seats, an ugly hood ornament that looks like Hank Paulson's head, and loses resale value faster than a subprime-financed Miami condo, I'm not considering him to be unprofessional or "talking his book," because he's providing discrete, verifiable datapoints, and because Kawasaki motorcycles don't compete with Corvettes. He's just another sports car fan with an informed opinion. Same in this case with a guy connected part-time to a developer of heavy airliner add-ons talking about his opinion of a VLJ he bought from a different developer. Any impact his opinions might have on Flight1's Mustang sales do not result in improved MD-11 sales at PMDG. And a number of us value his critical opinion, even if it's pointed. Characterizing his evaluation as being "in poor taste" is, in effect, "railroading" his stated opinion.Finally, the unwritten professional code that lawyers won't talk about other lawyers, and doctors won't talk about other doctors, is exactly what allows the bad ones to keep victimizing unsuspecting new clients. There's nothing to be proud of in that.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Bob,That would be a fair analogy if we were talking about motorcycles and corvettes but with FS add ons there is only so much money spent so the decision to buy one add on over another many times impacts the sale of that other one.And regarding unwritten professional codes, it actually is written, my states codes are very, very clear about not putting down another in the same profession or touting yourself as being better. That is to protect the consumer from biased opinion which unchecked can certainly be poisonous. When actual malpractice is detected there are also codes forcing the doctor to report and take action. I wish your argument had more merit cause I have always enjoyed your input Bob, but this time you and I are in disagreement.

Since we were mentioned let me clarify something with regard to SID\STAR support for FS Products.Currently there is no economical way for 3PDS to offer such support outside Navigraph database or some "Home Brew" databse.We've been working behind the scenes with Navigraph with a proprietary base which offers the best integration to our own methodology.The fact that it's "not quite soup yet" should not be a hindrance unless users wish to fly every departure and arrival via SIDS\STARS.I say this because we believe the entire hoopla directed at the F1 team over SID\STAR support is a load of trash. F1 said they'll support SIDS\STARS and we are sure they will. They've never been dishonest with us yet and we doubt they're going to start now.It's clear that many here have jumped on the bandwagon of those who have an agenda against F1. Any mods care to lock this mess down? :(

Bob,That would be a fair analogy if we were talking about motorcycles and corvettes but with FS add ons there is only so much money spent so the decision to buy one add on over another many times impacts the sale of that other one.And regarding unwritten professional codes, it actually is written, my states codes are very, very clear about not putting down another in the same profession or touting yourself as being better. That is to protect the consumer from biased opinion which unchecked can certainly be poisonous. When actual malpractice is detected there are also codes forcing the doctor to report and take action. I wish your argument had more merit cause I have always enjoyed your input Bob, but this time you and I are in disagreement.

Zane;I respect your opinions as well. However, just because you say my argument has no merit simply does not make it so. There's a big difference between legally correct and right. The neutered regulations that allowed investment bankers on Wall Street to legally rob the country blind are pretty clear, too--but that doesn't make what the greedy pigmen did right. A code of ethics written and enforced by lawyers for lawyers doesn't necessarily do what's right for anyone but...lawyers.Anyway, my only real objection here is the attempt to squelch or diminish Ryan's opinion on the basis of anything other than the facts. He had some inputs to make and is certainly qualified to make them--the fact that he does some support work with a different developer on an unrelated product doesn't invalidate them...in fact it would seem to make his opinion more informed than many others. More than likely, this sort of commotion just focuses more attention on what he has to say, anyway. There is no code being violated here, real or imagined...just as we're really not talking about motorcycles and corvettes, neither are we really talking about doctors and their legal canons. It's just simmin'CheersBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Since we were mentioned let me clarify something with regard to SID\STAR support for FS Products.Currently there is no economical way for 3PDS to offer such support outside Navigraph database or some "Home Brew" databse.We've been working behind the scenes with Navigraph with a proprietary base which offers the best integration to our own methodology.The fact that it's "not quite soup yet" should not be a hindrance unless users wish to fly every departure and arrival via SIDS\STARS.I say this because we believe the entire hoopla directed at the F1 team over SID\STAR support is a load of trash. F1 said they'll support SIDS\STARS and we are sure they will. They've never been dishonest with us yet and we doubt they're going to start now.It's clear that many here have jumped on the bandwagon of those who have an agenda against F1. Any mods care to lock this mess down? :(

Thank you Ron. And you are 100% correct.Also, I tread lightly here (which is not my style by the way) when I say whether Ryan had a right to post or not, I can assure you that if anyone of my staff at Flight1 posted any kind of review of another developers work... objective or not, they would have their walking papers. I speak for no one else but myself and Steve Halpern but we would never allow an employee part time or not to discuss any other persons product in public. Period.Regards,Jim

I'm not sure exactly what all the 'hoopla' is about, but I would like one thing cleared up (and I think it should be made more obvious).Is there a product (aircraft) that has already been released that offers an updatability in its navigation system? Not being a commercial/instrument flier (yet) some of the verbiage and acronyms went over my head, but it seems like what was asked for would be a little 'all-encompassing?'

I myself am not worried about the NAVAID DB as I'm sure Flight1 will correct it as promised, what I am disappointed in is that it's missing VNAV functionality. That function is pretty standard for a payware Complex System aircraft. At least all the ones I have purchased up til now. At least it has FLCH mode. Other than that it is a beautiful model, and I'm glad I bought it, even though I have to run it on my Vista SP2 system. I personally find FSX SP1 on XP to run best on my system, and use that for most of my flying!!

I say this because we believe the entire hoopla directed at the F1 team over SID\STAR support is a load of trash.

Unless you're a customer to whom this might be important. They deserve to know what they're getting or not getting.

F1 said they'll support SIDS\STARS and we are sure they will. They've never been dishonest with us yet and we doubt they're going to start now.

No, they've said they will look at it...consider it...see what can be done. I've not seen a firm commitment to supporting SIDS/STAR or updateable Navigraph data, and that's fair enough. In my post, since moved to their locked-out users-only forum, Jim Rhoads replied that they have the ability to update the proprietary data in the panel, and would consider doing that in the future. An honest answer to a straightforward question. Easy enough to understand. But it was definitely not a commitment to Navigraph data updates, nor to SID/STAR capability. So let's not put words in their mouths.

It's clear that many here have jumped on the bandwagon of those who have an agenda against F1. Any mods care to lock this mess down? :(

Ah, here we go with that omnipresent eeeeevil hidden agenda again. And apparently it's so bad that open, civil discussion on the topic should now be banned. :( If somebody's got some evidence of this hidden agenda, please enlighten us. Otherwise, please understand that users and potential users are going to publicly discuss both the merits and shortcomings of your products.It's one thing to say, "well, sorry, but SID/STAR support is not something we intend to provide in this product," or "we'll consider that, but no promises." It's quite another for a developer to say "it's absolutely unreasonable for you to expect that capability in a $55 add-on." That's hard to sell to anyone already using the LDS 767, the PMDG 737, 747, or MD-11, the Flight1 ATR, or the Wilco Scarebus add-ons, which all do have that capability. To be fair, I have not seen an official representative of Flight1 say that. And if they did, it would be fair for customer reviews to cite it as a detractor.RegardsBob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

Folks. There are several people here with agendas to discredit the Mustang and Flight1 and I will not name them but it is pretty clear who they are. I can assure you there are some agendas.Either trust them, or trust Flight1's reputation.I hope you make the right choice.Regards,Jim Rhoads

Folks. There are several people here with agendas to discredit the Mustang and Flight1 and I will not name them but it is pretty clear who they are. I can assure you there are some agendas.Either trust them, or trust Flight1's reputation.I hope you make the right choice.Regards,Jim Rhoads

And I think that should be the last word on this. I am now locking this topic.