I get it, these payware devs are gods, and joe public buying their products should worship the ground they walk on and not ever question anything they do.................Thanks for clearing that up.I suppose if PMDG started charging $1000 for a plane, you and Geofa will be here to tell us how we are really getting our moneys worth, and if we don't like we should stop complaing and build the stuff on our own.The amount of brown nosing in this thread is off the charts.

Your post is rude. Period. This was a discussion we were having here.

I suppose if PMDG started charging $1000 for a plane, you and Geofa will be here to tell us how we are really getting our moneys worth, and if we don't like we should stop complaing and build the stuff on our own.The amount of brown nosing in this thread is off the charts.

Whatever...I don't own PMDG or Reality XP. Just isn't my interest.

Geofa, did you remove my post?

Geofa, did you remove my post?

No?!

Thanks. It was a simple response to the hoopla in this thread over FS Enthusiasts feature sets VS Real World Trainer feature sets and their respective pricepoints.It is both unrealistic and unworkable for FS Enthusiasts to to expect Real World Trainer feature sets at FS Enthusiasts price points.It has been my privilege to speak personally to quite a number of highly skilled programmers over the years and each has stated that RXP Units provide little more than an FS Interface to the Garmin Trainer System. Their view was that removal of the Garmin Trainer System rendered the RXP Units unusable for FS Enthusiasts.That said, the cost of ownership for RXP Units is in the work required to provide a useful FS Interface to the Garmin Trainer System. If RXP chooses marketing hyperbole and mixing/matching features/pricepoints as some other vendors do then it up to FS Enthusiasts to determine what features/pricepoints they wish to participate in.Nothing wrong with free enterprise even though some here seem to feel they are being bamboozled. :( To those I say, caveat emptor. :(

Thanks. It was a simple response to the hoopla in this thread over FS Enthusiasts feature sets VS Real World Trainer feature sets and their respective pricepoints.It is both unrealistic and unworkable for FS Enthusiasts to to expect Real World Trainer feature sets at FS Enthusiasts price points.It has been my privilege to speak personally to quite a number of highly skilled programmers over the years and each has stated that RXP Units provide little more than an FS Interface to the Garmin Trainer System. Their view was that removal of the Garmin Trainer System rendered the RXP Units unusable for FS Enthusiasts.That said, the cost of ownership for RXP Units is in the work required to provide a useful FS Interface to the Garmin Trainer System. If RXP chooses marketing hyperbole and mixing/matching features/pricepoints as some other vendors do then it up to FS Enthusiasts to determine what features/pricepoints they wish to participate in.Nothing wrong with free enterprise even though some here seem to feel they are being bamboozled. :( To those I say, caveat emptor. :(

I guess my question would be-would simmers really prefer that this product had never been made at any price?I'd rather have a lot of choices-some I will pass over due to price/what I need. To be honest-I only have 1 gps in my plane-having two is not all that important to me.It may be late at night-but I just don't get the logic of coming down on something that may or may not make your personal price point vs. having nothing...

Geof's question, in a roundabout way, causes me to ask another question to those who are complaining about the cost. And yes, your opinions are inherently complaints.How does the inability to purchase the RealityXP product at it's current price level diminish the entertainment factor of running a software game on a personal computer?The abilities of the product and it's interlinking of other products is beyond me and my flying skills, I must admit. But as some people are hardware/FPS "enthusiasts", so it seems there are many who "must" have the latest and greatest navigational aid to add to their collection. How many GPS units "must" you have to fly a route or an approach? And if you don't have more than the next person, does that somehow make the flying experience less immersive? And if the price entry point is more than you're willing to spend, does that make it "unfair"?I'm truly baffled by the criticism. A simplistic concept would be to buy it or get back to flying what ya got.

Gas is to expensive to take a long road vacation, so are suggesting I should make it myself ?

Lol it's just one of the alternatives and indeed drive green diesel fuel...Or another alternative is just not to buy it at all.Or settle for less my point is if you can't afford it there are alternatives.I don't saying I agree with the price because it's to steep for me too but I understand where they coming from that's the difference...If I tell you to work for example 1 euro or dollar cent per hour are you going to do that? Because if that's the case just give me your skills and you will have a new job offering lol (just kidding here)My personal opinion is if I would determine a price at a point everybody could effort it or almost everyone.But also a whole different software distribution system to many think here via the old way (actually find that very surprising).They call it to think outside the box.Cheers,

Geof's question, in a roundabout way, causes me to ask another question to those who are complaining about the cost. And yes, your opinions are inherently complaints.How does the inability to purchase the RealityXP product at it's current price level diminish the entertainment factor of running a software game on a personal computer

Again here is the whole attitude that "how dare you complain, just shut up and or leave . . ."Yes I consider my opinion a complaint - so what? There are plenty of other "opinions" elsewhere on this board that are complaints as well. What is so wrong about it? This happens to be about price vs value, others may be about quality, or the price of oil. An open discussion is just that, if AVSIM allows it and it does not get personal, as is starting already in some posts, why can't a discussion revolve around a complaint? I look at this as an open discussion about about the FS market as much as RXP.

A simplistic concept would be to buy it or get back to flying what ya got.

Based on that concept AVSIMs forums would be pretty bare. !Joe

It has been my privilege to speak personally to quite a number of highly skilled programmers over the years and each has stated that RXP Units provide little more than an FS Interface to the Garmin Trainer System. Their view was that removal of the Garmin Trainer System rendered the RXP Units unusable for FS Enthusiasts.

That's good! I'd sure hate to see each developer faced with mimicking a complete Garmin unit from the ground up! Afterall, Garmin spends years on programming these devices.So............. I'll patiently wait for the perfect Garmin 1000 & 696 hand-held for MSFS. Maybe the 1000 is already here.... I haven't checked out the Mustang...OK...................... what I really want is the 696! :( It's a portable; but has the higher resolution , colors, and clarity of the 1000 units.L.Adamson

Interesting read. The blurring of lines between FS as "Training Tool" VS Real World "Training Software" seems to be the cause of at least some confusion in the FS market place.FS developers have created a large number of realistic features but cannot bridge the gap between FS as "Training Tool" and Real World "Training Software" without overcoming the legal and liability hurdles.To be clear, FS cannot legally be used as Real World "Training Software" hence the MS decision to purpose build ESP.Those FS Developers who are also building Real World "Training Software" are or will be required to meet all legal and liabilty standards for the Real World Training Market and of course may charge whatever the Real World Training Market will bear. :( Flight Simulation enthusiasts have shown time and again that they wish to have the best of the Real World "Feature Set" at rock bottom FS Pricepoints.Without apology, let me say that such a scenario is unrealistic and unworkable.Finally, it has been my privilege over the years to discuss in depth the possibilities of implimenting realistic features with quite a few extremely skilled programmers who to a man agree that the RXP Units provide no more than an FS Interface to Garmins own Trainer System. An easy way to understand this is to remove the Garmin Trainer from ones system and watch what happens to the RXP Units.If RXP wishes to sell to the two markets already discussed then it's reasonable for FS Enthusiasts to expect lower pricepoints than their Real World Counterparts.If RXP chooses the path of marketing hyperbole to "dazzle" the FS Enthusiast with his brilliance and they pay higher pricepoints for RXP mixing and matching "feature sets" then they themselves must relearn the concept of caveat emptor, that is to say let the buyer beware. :(

Thanks. It was a simple response to the hoopla in this thread over FS Enthusiasts feature sets VS Real World Trainer feature sets and their respective pricepoints.It is both unrealistic and unworkable for FS Enthusiasts to to expect Real World Trainer feature sets at FS Enthusiasts price points.It has been my privilege to speak personally to quite a number of highly skilled programmers over the years and each has stated that RXP Units provide little more than an FS Interface to the Garmin Trainer System. Their view was that removal of the Garmin Trainer System rendered the RXP Units unusable for FS Enthusiasts.That said, the cost of ownership for RXP Units is in the work required to provide a useful FS Interface to the Garmin Trainer System. If RXP chooses marketing hyperbole and mixing/matching features/pricepoints as some other vendors do then it up to FS Enthusiasts to determine what features/pricepoints they wish to participate in.Nothing wrong with free enterprise even though some here seem to feel they are being bamboozled. :( To those I say, caveat emptor. B)

Sorry Ron but your answers are absolutly out of line.This is unfair and really unacceptable.Please refrain from this kind of comments about other developpers here.

David, posting realistic comments about the subject at hand is now prohibited?? I've attacked no one. RXP marketing issues seem to be the core of this discussion and it is common knowledge that caveat emptor applies to all markets and all products including our own.It is also fairly common knowledge that RXP Units are in simplistic terms an FS Interface to Garmins own Training Software.I've acknowledged that there is no issue with free enterprise or JLs Pricing Policies as long as buyers are provided facts about products.There does seem to be an almost worshipful attitude towards JL and what he has accomplished with his FS Interface and that is simply unrealistic approach. :( Anyway, Happy July 4th to ALL :(

Again here is the whole attitude that "how dare you complain, just shut up and or leave . . ."

Not my intention to limit proper discussion. But I complain if something doesn't work correctly. I do not whine and cry if I see something I "need" and can't afford. So let me ask you, Joe L.;"How does the inability to purchase the RealityXP product at it's current price level diminish the entertainment factor of running a software game on a personal computer?"

David, posting realistic comments about the subject at hand is now prohibited?? I've attacked no one. RXP marketing issues seem to be the core of this discussion and it is common knowledge that caveat emptor applies to all markets and all products including our own.It is also fairly common knowledge that RXP Units are in simplistic terms an FS Interface to Garmins own Training Software.I've acknowledged that there is no issue with free enterprise or JLs Pricing Policies as long as buyers are provided facts about products.There does seem to be an almost worshipful attitude towards JL and what he has accomplished with his FS Interface and that is simply unrealistic approach. :( Anyway, Happy July 4th to ALL :(

Ron-I have to question your continued critique of interfacing to Garmin's trainer.The fact of the matter is this is one of the very few nearly 100% rw avionics in the flight sim world. It fills a huge needed hole as gps is almost required for GA ifr flight now.How it is done really has no bearing to one who wants a real working avionic. Fact of the matter is the first thing I do when I buy one of your excellent planes is place the rxp unit in them.For me not having a real working gps unit makes a simming aircraft non flyable.That is not worship-it is practicallity and why I know more about a 430 than a friend I fly with who owns it. :( Now if you will do a 100% real working kln94 I will be even happier, maybe even a little worshipful.

Ok, I'm the one that brought up the issue regarding the linking to the trainer. The reason I brought it up was simply because someone was implying that RXP deserved the pricing because of the long, long hours involved in making the accurate Garmin GNS system. I simply pointed out that RXP didn't do that at all. They simply provided an interface to Garmin's own work.So... I think we should leave it at this: RXP didn't make a GNS, they made a quality gauge interface to Garmin's GNS simulator.