A few months ago I purchased the Turbine Sound Studios JT8d sound set with intentions of using it with the Dream Fleet 727. After watching the Youtube videos made by the developer himself and seeing the "tested with the Dream Fleet 727" at the beginning of the video, I figured using them would go without a hitch.Once installed I loaded the 72' cold and dark and began the start procedure. Long story short, the start sound loops over and over until fuel is added and the engine(s) are started. It sounds like crap, for lack of a better analogy.After a few post (along with another unsatisfied customer) the developer, Christoffer Petersen, has I guess decided to ignore my queries, stating it's a "problem with the aircraft" and that he can't fix it. Wouldn't that be false advertisement? And how should I go about getting my money back? I feel this "gentlemen" has lied to and robbed me.

You are not the only one dissapointed in TSS product. One more here!I bought 737NG and 757. And what to say, two WORST sounds i ever heard!Some people think that putting microphone in front of the plane engine, is all that they have to do, to make a good one. Those freeware sounds from Avsim and Flightsim, are 100% better than TSS one.And for the support, forget it. They will only reply if you have problem install it, but if you want money back, because sounds are crap, like they is...you know the answer.

Poor support and/or a poor product is always a gamble. But a blatant lie as to what the pack will work with (ie. the Dream Fleet 727) is down right criminal.

It always sucks that one, (or maybe more), in the FS community actually has to buy a product in order to find out that it's no good sometimes. Coupled with the concept that many people who review products are stuck in the "Politically Correct" mode or may have other motivations, you might never know that a product wouldn't even be used as freeware until someone gets f'd and then tells everyone on Avsim.Sorry Zach but thanks at the same time :)Mark

It always sucks that one, (or maybe more), in the FS community actually has to buy a product in order to find out that it's no good sometimes. Coupled with the concept that many people who review products are stuck in the "Politically Correct" mode or may have other motivations, you might never know that a product wouldn't even be used as freeware until someone gets f'd and then tells everyone on Avsim.Sorry Zach but thanks at the same time :)Mark

You make a good point, Mark. My head ache is someone else's warning. I just hate being guinea pig. :(I also hate being made a fool of.

"tested with the Dream Fleet 727" at the beginning of the video, I figured using them would go without a hitch.Wouldn't that be false advertisement? And how should I go about getting my money back? I feel this "gentlemen" has lied to and robbed me.

Unfortunately it is more a case of 'advertising' than 'false advertising'. The person can say 'tested with such and such a product' and it actually means nothing, whereas if he had said 'successfully tested with such and such a product' you would have some recourse. It's the same when cosmetic companies say 'dermatologically tested'; which means nothing more than 'we tested it on somebody's hand', the fact that it may have caused a terrible rash or whatever does not prevent them from claiming that it was tested in such a way.It's a similar scenario when some sound set appears crappy to your ears; crappy is in the ear of the beholder (just like it is with music), so, sadly, you probably won't get very far on that score either.Where you may be in with a shot is in the claim that 'it is a problem with the aircraft'. If this is the case and you can demonstrate that this was known to the developer when they made the test claim (which seems a likely scenario), then they are falsely representing their product. Similarly, if there is no problem with the aircraft which would cause the sounds to be poor, and this can be reasonably demonstrated, then you have some recourse. The laws differ in most countries on that score, but generally speaking they are broadly similar to the Sale of Goods and Services Act in the UK, which states that 'Goods must be of merchantable quality'. This is your 'in'.Some of those trade laws are not applicable to internet purchases (which is actually a downright appalling state of affairs), but most of them are, and if you want your money back, then you could pursue that line of enquiry based on the laws relating to the country where the product and developer are based. It may be costly to do so, but often simply the threat of doing so when it seems you have a good case will be enough. Generally speaking, when you threaten people with an expensive legal claim and you seem to have a good case, it is usually wise for them to hand you back your cash rather than risk a (possibly large) legal expense to hang onto the relatively small amount of your money which they have.Al

I don't believe what I've been reading in this thread -- please tell me that I'm dreaming ... A single bug (with a workaround) and suddenly the developer is viewed as a criminal who engaged in false advertising ...Show me a product that has no known bugs. And by the way, the bug almost certainly IS in the 727. In the very narrow situation in question, Paul Golding probably accidentally specified that the sound in question be played repeatedly instead of once. So why don't you get on his case in stead of picking on TSS? (Can it be because Paul has not updated the 727 in years and has not announced any date for so doing?)You see, there is no way to construct a sound file that loops all by itself. It is panel code that starts and stops sound playback, and it is panel code that determines whether the sound plays once or is looped. A sound file might be played from more than one place in the panel code, and the playback might be correctly specified in all but one case, which is apparently what happened here.Are you really willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater? And by the way, how much are you willing to pay for perfection?xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxI must observe that many people who pirate software do so by first buying the product and then screaming bloody murder about some nit, then demanding a refund, and then continuing to use the product, their justification being "I was ROBBED".You're not one of those folks, are you?

I don't believe what I've been reading in this thread -- please tell me that I'm dreaming ... A single bug (with a workaround) and suddenly the developer is viewed as a criminal who engaged in false advertising ...Show me a product that has no known bugs. And by the way, the bug almost certainly IS in the 727. In the very narrow situation in question, Paul Golding probably accidentally specified that the sound in question be played repeatedly instead of once. So why don't you get on his case in stead of picking on TSS? (Can it be because Paul has not updated the 727 in years and has not announced any date for so doing?)You see, there is no way to construct a sound file that loops all by itself. It is panel code that starts and stops sound playback, and it is panel code that determines whether the sound plays once or is looped. A sound file might be played from more than one place in the panel code, and the playback might be correctly specified in all but one case, which is apparently what happened here.Are you really willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater? And by the way, how much are you willing to pay for perfection?xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxI must observe that many people who pirate software do so by first buying the product and then screaming bloody murder about some nit, then demanding a refund, and then continuing to use the product, their justification being "I was ROBBED".You're not one of those folks, are you?

Maybe you are missing my point, Mike. I thought I made it clear, but I'll try again.Go HERE and watch carefully, please:

If you buy something under the pretense it is going to work UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS--In this case with the DreamFleet 727-- but it doesn't, please tell me how else to put it. The product has been advertised as such, but it doesn't work! Go to my old post over at TSS's forums, and also understand I'm well aware of the "problem", as I stated there. The actual problem here is a misleading demo video made by none other than the developer himself.You can rationalize and philosophize on this one all day Mike. I understand you to be a reasonable and fair person, and understand where you are "coming from", but as far as the sarcastic "perfection" remark, it holds no water in this conversation. I'm a customer that was mislead by what I would call false advertisement, and that is no stretch of the term. I appreciate you sharing your vast knowledge of the inner workings of FS9 sound files as well, but the above still holds true. Thanks for your insight, though! :( Edit: I also wouldn't call it a "nit". Maybe you just don't mind a looping start sound.

Mike, If it makes you feel any better (I don't suppose it will), I don't think the man to be a criminal. I'm more shocked at his either:A)DishonestyB)Complete knowledge of, but lack of remedying the problem (be it on the panel side or the side where I'm misguided)B kinda points right back to A, though.I've used his sound packs since i could download and install sounds. I love them, and I want to be able to use them. They're really great and all that stuff. Just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and deters me from ever purchasing more for a reasonably complex aircraft.

Maybe you just don't mind a looping start sound.

That's right, I don't. When a sound file playback bothers me I simply rename the sound file so it won't trigger. Either that or I replace the file with another that doesn't bother me, though in this case it's a looping problem so that strategy wouldn't work.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxBy the way, when Dowson's AutoSave is running behind the Level D 767, the panel is not properly saved. Therefore you people ROBBED me, right? You didn't say in your advertising that this is A BIG PROBLEM THAT YOU REFUSE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT. You're guilty of false advertising, and you are criminals because you haven't fixed my pet bug.Get my point?By the way, here's reality ... http://www.flightsim.com/main/op-ed/ed421.htmFinally, you did call the man a criminal. Your exact words in your post #3 above were "... a blatant lie as to what the pack will work with (ie. the Dream Fleet 727) is down right criminal."xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxEDIT: In your opening post you gave the workaround to the bug -- which supposedly is TSS's bug. But re the AutoSave issue there is no bug workaround from Level D, right? How should people feel about the integrity of Level D as a vendor given that fact? (Or do you get a pass for some reason but TSS doesn't?)A worked-around bug is a nit, yes? Regardless of whose bug it is, yes?

Some of those trade laws are not applicable to internet purchases (which is actually a downright appalling state of affairs)

It would be appalling state of affairs if it were true.In fact, in the UK (and the EU) the Distance Selling Regulations give consumers buying over the internet more protection than those who buy directly. For most internet purchases, consumers have an absolute right to cancel within 7 days and receive a full refund.There are exceptions to the right to a refund. These deal with goods or services that the consumer could use, or otherwise take advantage of, and then seek to cancel and get a refund. They include, for obvious reasons, unsealed software. Other items are services which have already started with the consumer's approval, financial services, personalised goods, and newpapers, magazines etc.http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002334.htm

What you say is true, but what I was referring to is the fact that such legislation is not pan-global and can only be enforced within the boundaries of the country or collection of states which promulgated it. Until there is some kind of global consensus on the thing, that is indeed appalling.Al

What you say is true, but what I was referring to is the fact that such legislation is not pan-global and can only be enforced within the boundaries of the country or collection of states which promulgated it. Until there is some kind of global consensus on the thing, that is indeed appalling.Al

Even if there were a global consensus, I very much doubt it would cover downloaded software for the obvious reasons. Retailers in the UK wont give refunds on CD-based software that's been unsealed for the same reasons, unless it can be shown the CD is faulty and the software couldn't have been used.

True. In fact that's why Ariane (who are coming in for a bit of stick re activation on another thread) are a bit choosy about letting people reinstall on other hard drives, since doing so could mean someone is simply letting a buddy install their product on a second computer. Although to be honest, I don't think their argument holds that much water for one very simply reason: If I'd paid 100 bucks (70 quid) for a product - which in fact I did in the case of Ariane - any buddy who asked to install it for nothing from my copy would get told where to get off LOLAnd, that would be true even if it cost me tuppence.Al

True. In fact that's why Ariane (who are coming in for a bit of stick re activation on another thread) are a bit choosy about letting people reinstall on other hard drives, since doing so could mean someone is simply letting a buddy install their product on a second computer. Although to be honest, I don't think their argument holds that much water for one very simply reason: If I'd paid 100 bucks (70 quid) for a product - which in fact I did in the case of Ariane - any buddy who asked to install it for nothing from my copy would get told where to get off LOLAnd, that would be true even if it cost me tuppence.Al

I wouldn't either, but but some people would club together and buy one copy between them.