Complaint about the Go Flight Review

[Guest nutmeat]

GoFlight, in its latest software release, does provide the beginnings of a user-friendly key mapping program. Now, if the aircraft vendors would provide us with a list of key functions for their non-standard function implementations, this could all be made to work out. However, I do see a problem where, if the key mapping is not included in the aircraft.cfg, a user would have to do a key mapping before flying each different aircraft :-(.Having said this, I do have the complete set of GoFlight modules, multiples of some of them; I do not have the above mentioned add-on aircraft, but, for the most part, I have little problems with my hanger set, which currently has over 50 aircraft in it, payware, freeware, and default planes.This is the price that must be paid when diverting from the standards.

[Guest JeanLuc_]

This is good news!usualy each aircraft vendor with keyboard shortcut support do provide a tool to assign a key combination to an aircraft function.It really is a matter for the external hardware vendor to provide the means to the user to manage matching sets, per aircrafts... easily done via fetching the path of the aircraft folder for example, or through a transparent gauge to put on the panel for this purpose...Anyhow, with the news you just gave, I may start considering the external hardware with a different perspective now and try to offer a better support. If only I could have one set to test.Hope this helps!

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

"Is`nt the fact that Avsim sells these products and then reviews them a conflict as well?"If your intentions were objective, you would also have noted that we have scouraged products that we both sell and are paid to advertise. You fail to note that however. The truth is, we have a very structured review process and very strict seperation of our editorial staff from our "business" staff. One does not influence the other."I`m not trolling I am just saying that most of the reviews that I have seen on Avsim have glossed over facts that do not become apparentuntil the purchase has been made." That is a very self-serving, and incorrect, generalization. Please provide examples to back up your claim."Go-Flight setup can run into multiple hundreds of dollars and for that kind of magnitude you would think a reviewer could be a bit more in-depth with the pros and cons of such a purchase."I can't argue that it isn't expensive. "In depth" is a subjective measurement; yours. It was as in depth as the reviewer and the editorial staff deemed appropriate. If Maury Pratt, our Managing Editor, deemed it appropriate, that's good enough for me."This is just a thought Tom but in the future you may want a more objective reviewer that is not part of your staff to do reviews especially if you happen to sell them in your store."See, there you go again... Who are you to judge whether Aidan was objective or otherwise??? Tell me what your credentials are to make and issue that judgement?

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

"I think your reaction is a little unfortunate as it implies you believe that Avsim is beyond reproach and cannot be criticised."AVSIM has never been beyond reproach; believe me. We get brickbats daily and where they are fair and objective, we will acknowledge fault if it does exist. When it appears that an agenda is involved, however, and the criticism is less than fair or objective and a volunteer staff member is attacked as a result, I will get my hackles up. A statement like "Well maybe you were the wrong person to review it in the first place" is very agressive and uncalled for. Since our staff (all of our staff) are volunteers, imagine saying the same ilk to your favorite freeware author - its the same in my book - AVSIM is freeware contributed to by 40 some odd volunteers for your free use and pleasure. Our staff do this for the enjoyment of doing it and do a damn good job IMHO. So, yes, we can be criticised and are, frequently. But to state "Well maybe you were the wrong person to review it in the first place" will get an immediate reply from me.Oh, and just one other point... We have an Ombudsman. Name an online organization in our hobby that goes out of its way to ensure that fairness to our readers is monitored by such a person? He too is a volunteer, btw.

[Guest]

TomWe could go round and round on this issue till the cows come home but what would be the point?I guess it all boils down to agendas except I don`t stand to gain anything except maybe more honest and complete reviews.It`s a shame you don`t see it that way as well.

[Guest]

Tom, I feel you make my point even more strongly. You have spent 200 words defending AVSIM against a perceived sleight without actually addressing the point behind Iron Claw's statement. I just think you need to acknowledge that the fault was not with the reviewer if he posessed an unrepresentative selection of software, but with the Avsim editorial team who sanctioned the review under those circumstances. Again, he may have expressed it to directly, but the underlying point is valid and I think it should be addressed. We're not discussing a payware panel for $20.00, but a piece of hardware costing 10 times that.Oh, and I was serious about the alternative, comparative review, if you're interested.Cheers,AndyEGTR

[Guest]

I agree the key mapping will be a good start to getting things to work with third party panels, and hopefully this will be extended to the MCP (key mapping only works on the T8 and P8's if I remember rightly?).I would have thought using FSUIPC for the MCP displays would work as well?So I do not think making the MCP work with third party autopilots is impossible...BTW: please keep this thread about the MCP, not AVSIM reviews and how they are done, it has all been discussed before.Aidan did what he thought was right, I personally do not have any problem with that, the kit I am sure is great with default autopilots, that is why I brought it, and if it worked with the panels I use it would get 5 stars from me!RegardsBarry

[michal 44]

Considering that they are unpaid volunteers they do a decenet job reviewing things. Sure I disagreed with some of the reviews on more than one occasion usually regretting that some 'negatives' were not properly highlighted. But I hope you are enough of a seasoned simmer to know that ultimately it is buyers responsibility to find through the forums and other means whether the product suits your needs.Michael J.

[Guest jaapverduijn]

"(...) please keep this thread about the MCP, not AVSIM reviewsand how they are done (...)"Barry, that's kind of an odd request, considering that this thread IS about the review, as both the initial message and the thread title ("Complaint about the Go Flight Review") indicate. The thread is quite valid as it is. And always interesting to see Tom Allensworth's inability to perceive criticism/disagreement as anything else but "trolling". As a dedicated and delighted user of several pieces of Go Flight hardware, I'm pretty sure that Doyle will sooner or later do for the MCP what he already did for the Push-button element: make it compatible with key strokes which, in combination with the little Key2Mouse program, really expands its possibilities enormously. In the meantime the MCP may have a somewhat limited use for owners of some particular add-ons, and it might not be a bad idea to add this limitation to the "What I don't like" part of the review. But as long as such suggestions are considered "trolling" by the head honcho of this forum who happens to be also the head honcho of the AVSIM store where the MCP is sold, I'm not holding my breath. Jaap Verduijn.

[fspaan 1]

Following text I have added to the review feedback board:Hi,I have used flightsimulator for about 4-5 years now. The first items I bought when it got a bit serious were the Yoke and Rudder devices. Only a couple of months ago I have started to save money for the GF devices (the P8 and the 166).The reasons for me buying these devices:- The devices are multifunctional. You can assign a lot of functions to certain buttons and change these if preferred.- The devices are small. My ultimate hardware would be a home cockpit of a Boeing 747-400. This is simply not possible for me due to my knowledge, relationship, time, money and space. The GF devices are not really real, but come very close.- The devices are extendable. Due to the fact that you can extend your devices you can start with only one item and save your money to buy another one later on.- USB. What can I say? USB is just a good cable to use (perhaps Firewire, Wireless or Bluetooth in future?)The reasons that held me back are:- Price. In my point of view I think the devices are too heavy priced. I understand that cost prices can be high as there is a lower sales volume to spread the fixed costs, overhead costs and R&D over. However, 176 euros for one panel is slightly over valued. This also includes the cases to put the panels on.- Not really real. Due to the fact I had the dream to build a home cockpit, these devices did not fit in. Then again, it is only a simulator, so why bother? See the reason above to purchase the devices.-Prices of packages. For the Netherlands I believe buying a Flight Deck Console for

[Guest]

I am trying to avoid the thread getting personal, and keep it about the MCP and it's pro's and con's (as discussed in the review).Hopefully it will not need moving to another thread to keep it that way.RegardsBarry

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

"But as long as such suggestions are considered "trolling" by the head honcho of this forum who happens to be also the head honcho of the AVSIM store where the MCP is sold, I'm not holding my breath."Nice spin doctoring as usual Jaap. The fact that this thread continues to exist puts your spin way out in left field. This thread supports my earlier statement that we can take criticism just fine (thank you very much) and I am sure the editorial folks on our staff have read and digested it with interest. Your attempt, however, to turn my response to a single post into a grander and much larger statement about AVSIM doesn't hold water. I am sure that the readers here see your message for what it is.

[Guest]

Hello all,Aidan told me there was a hot discussion taking place here I should come and have a look. He wasn't kidding!First let me say that I greatly appreciate the support that AVSIM has given us these past few years. The flight sim community of users and developers is so small that we must find ways of working together so that we can all be successful. Think of what a miracle it is that an average guy like you or me can have such a realistic flight simulation environment right in our own homes -- and it's because of all the talented people producing the software and hardware that we all enjoy. I can assure you that no one is getting rich at this, it is mostly a "labor of love" that goes back to our childhoods, when something about aviation grabbed hold of our hearts in some way, and we do this because no other endeavor seems as rewarding, even though not financially!About cost -- It's funny, our experience is that about 1/2 of people we talk to say "Why is your stuff so expensive?" while the other half say "How can this be so cheap?" so I really don't know what to say about that. Here in the USA we have become seduced by unrealistically low prices on just about every material thing we could possibly want or need, thanks to retailers like Wal-Mart and overseas slave-labor manufacturing. I believe this rampant consumerism is very dangerous and could eventually lead to our undoing as a nation. Anyway -- for those of you who think our products are overpriced, I won't attempt to argue with you, but I will say that if you can find FS hardware with more functionality for the money anywhere on the planet, then buy it and also let me know about it! I said it earlier but I'll say it again -- we are NOT getting rich at this! In fact if I were after money, I would just bag the whole thing right now. I was making more than $100k a year as a software developer before I started GoFlight -- now it's hand-to-mouth, but at least I'm ticking off my heartbeats doing something that I enjoy. Hopefully the finances will improve as our product line expands and our compatibility broadens. I know from talking with some of the other guys making FS hardware that it's no different for them, in some cases even harder for those outside the USA.Now -- to the thing you care about most -- compatibility. What are we going to do about it? Here are some of the things that we're doing to help improve compatibility:1. I am adding key mapping to the GF-AC software. It showed up for the first time in version 1.26 for the GF-P8 module. I'll be adding key mapping for the other modules in subsequent releases. Using this key mapping for the P8, and thanks to the foresight of Wade and Laurent at Wilco, you can control almost everything on the 767PIC aircraft overhead panel. You can do this with other add-on aircraft to the extent that they have provided key sequences to control those functions. I haven't compiled a list of what these others might be, but if any of you wish to do that, I will offer to post them on our site for everyone to share.2. I have designed a new SDK that makes it dead simple for aircraft gauge developers to control our hardware without even knowing anything about it. This SDK has not been implemented yet, just designed. It is not the silver bullet however -- it still requires that the aircraft developers link my library into their gauge modules, so it's ultimately up to them to do this. And it's not likely that they will want to go back and update the gauges for planes that have already been released. But the main drawback of all is that although it will enable GoFlight hardware to work with these aircraft well enough, it doesn't do anything for Aerosoft, ITRA, etc. so developers are still faced with linking with multiple hardware support libraries for every flavor of device they want to support. 3. I've written an app called GFRemote for use with Project Magenta and WideFS. This is the approach to take to get the most realistic operation of the GF-MCP in combo with a GF-P8, allowing for VNAV and such. Enrico, Pete and I work together well and it's my intention to continue enhancing GFRemote, incrementally, as PM continues to evolve. It's easy to make small improvements as WideFS and PM are updated. You can download GFRemote from our Support page.Regarding autopilot -- Other possibilities that are out of my hands:1. Microsoft could include a more sophisticated autopilot in future revs of FS, or multiple autopilots, so that the big iron developers don't have to cook up their own. If it's part of the core sim, then it will be supported GF, and everyone else's, hardware.2. An add-on module similar to FSUIPC could supply extended autopilot logic for third party products, providing a new autopilot "standard" similar to what FSUIPC does for all of the standard sim data. Here is an opportunity for some enterprising freeware gauge developer out there to become the "next" Pete Dowson!3. The big iron payware planes could have a selectable realism level for their autopilots, where you could choose a "compatible" mode that would use the built in FS autopilot and a "realistic" mode for full-blown operation at the expense of hardware compatibility.Anyway, that's the situation at present. I hope some of you are still awake -- rest assured that this is a big priority for us to solve even though we are also developing new products in the meantime! Someone mentioned they wanted a throttle quad... ?!? :-)Cheers,Doyle Nickless - GoFlight

[Guest]

Hi Doyle,First of all, thanks for posting here on such a hot debate :-)Is it possible you could let us know a little more on what you can do on the compatibility front with the MCP.1. Any timescales for extending the button mapping to the MCP (I am not after a date, just: this month, this year, next year?)2. Have the third party panel designers been willing to give you the information you need to be able to make them compatible and it is only a matter of getting the time to implement it, or are they keeping the information from you?3. Is it possible to update you web pages to let people know that the MCP is not compatible so they can make an informed decision to buy or not to buy.Hopefully these are not too controversial a questions to ask...Just to make it clear, as I have indicated before, the GoFlight MCP is great and would be well worth the money (and the 5 stars), if I could just get it to work with the aircraft I use.RegardsBarry

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Doyle, thanks for posting. Looking forward to seeing you at Reading! BTW.. please bring my fully equipped, no options left out, stack would you? :-)