AirSimmer A320 RELEASED

[3-2-1-Now 126]

Hi,

What I don't get is, you took the ET team's money tauting "No Compromise" and PMDG quality.

First, ET are still the ET, working as before, on the Advanced product. This has not changed.

Then you released a product by your own admittance was flawed and that you were disappointed to release.

Yes, we are unhappy with it, as it is not meeting our standards. e.g. localizer capture hunts very slightly (but is still better than some other add-ons). When exiting a hold, it doesn't quite align with the inbound track and over shoots slightly (but otherwise flies it very smoothly indeed), the hold track changes very slightly in radius on the ND as the aircraft flies, but again the aircraft actually flies it very well, with correct entry procedures. These are all bugs in our view, but do not affect the way the aircraft actually flies, or otherwise affect its operation.

Now you are saying the ET team had nothing to do with the "Basic Version", then who did?

ET didn't even know of the existance of Basic until release day. The Beta Team tested Basic heavily. None of us suffered CTDs when we finished. These were jumped on the second they occurred, to ensure as CTD free a release as possible. They were always #1 to be fixed at any point they occurred. What must be recognized is now Basic is "in the wild", the myriad of configurations can throw some unexpected problems. We are working very hard to resolve them all.EDIT:

just looking for a management suggestion why your suggestions were not used properly in a "disappointing" release.

Ditchdigger: Do you own the product????Best regards,Robin.

[Riah069 157]

No blame Mike,I understand you are there for suggestions, just looking for a management suggestion why your suggestions were not used properly in a "disappointing" release.

No problem mate :) I guess at the end of the day the powers that be make what ever choices they feel they need to make. All of the ET members could cry at the blue moon till we were blue in the face about something that should be added or fixed but that all we can do is suggest we dont have the power to say "That goes in that gets fixed etc etc" Were just there to, as a larger audience pick up on stuff that the internel team has missed.RegardsMike

[Ditchdigger 0]

Robin,Was watching your boards for close to a year, FSX release mainly.Not a 320 fan, but more for the alleged 330/340.I wanted to be on board this, really did. Then the constant delays, the agreement with Flight 1 was in January of 2007 and according to the your website the release was a few months away. I get it, been there, delays happen. But the pay to play beta was a major flag for me and I also believe for most other simmers. You add the disaster that is the "Basic Release", I do not think it could not have gone worse. The no update policy as of now, and the very fact your company released a product for financial gain that they knew was flawed and disappointed with. Times are tough for everyone and you expected people to give you their money in exchange for a "disappointing" product so you could be bailed out. Your company will never get a dime from me.

[FleaJump 7]

Good grief :( I am somewhat astounded at the way add-on developers prices have been increasing lately.As much as I like the items that are out there right now, I simply refuse to pay such extortionate price hikes such as these out of sheer principle alone.Airsimmer is yet another company that will never see any money from my wallet.Yes, I know that this is just my opinion, but I bet there are a lot more people out there thinking just the same as I do, but don't post their feeling for fear of being flamed for having an opinion in the first place :(

Your refusal to purchase the Airsimmer A320 out of " SHEER PRINCIPLE ALONE" is very noble indeed, and has thus been recorded on sacred scrolls by awe-struck historians using those quaint chicken-feather ink-pens, for posterity, and the enlightenment of mankind.There is no doubt that the folks at Airsimmer are losing more sleep every night over your formal declarations here, and I can imagine them sobbing piteously all the way to the bank as they go to check up on the payments made by all those who just want to fly this beautiful creation, and have absolutely no interest whatsoever in grandiose pronouncements from the throne.RegardsTony Selario

[flightwatch 68]

Hi,Very few people are reporting CTDs (<1% of all support requests are to do with CTDs). None of the Beta Team are seeing CTDs (myself included). Every time a CTD was encounterd in testing (and throughout development), it was fixed immediately.If people register for support, and raise these issues in the correct place, we can help. We do not provide any support anywhere else for one reason - we will not help pirates fix their problems.Yes - these modes are included and operate exactly like the real aircraft. The difference in Basic is when you use managed vertical mode, "behind the scenes" it is OP CLB/DES, with a pre-determined speed profile (250/300/M0.72).Actual OP CLB/DES are fully functional, as are all other modes.Best regards,Robin.

Robin,Please state the facts as they are. As of right now, there 46 separate reports of ctd's in the thread that Ryan pinned in the the support forum 2 days ago. That's not including the other stand alone threads and posts in the customer support and regular forums (still think I don't have your product?) To correct your post: Very few people are not reporting CTD's. Another fact: As of right now, there have been 180 separate threads in the past 5 days that are reporting bugs. Another thing that has been practically non existent in the customer support forum is the presence of a developer. You guys have Ryan taking the brunt of the fire, and forwarding problem reports to you. Here's an idea: Cut out the middleman, man up, come to the forum yourself, find out whats wrong directly from us non-customers, and fix it!! Furthermore, I am not the only one that feels like an ET member (ETv2 as one poster said). I bought a release candidate that is less advanced, and less stable than what the real ET has. But hey, what do I know...

[samdim 26]

Please state the facts as they are. As of right now, there 46 separate reports of ctd's in the thread that Ryan pinned in the the support forum... Another fact: As of right now, there have been 180 separate threads...

Hello cohort,It's all true, but the truth can be shown in different manners.If 1000 people open 1000 threads reporting the same bug, it doesn't mean there are 1000 bugs.Something like this happens on Airsimmer support forum.- most of the users are reporting the same bugs. Few of them are critical (AP problem, lost of joystick axes, CTD on approach...), they are now well known and the developers are correcting them with high priority.- many reports are false bugs - not everybody knows Airbus operations well and sometimes they take a real procedure for a bug.- many reports are of kind "No CTD so far, but noticed a little gap in the 2D panel..."- people who don't have problems normally won't post bug reports :)Concerning the non-presence of developers on the support forum. This is time saving. In my first example with 1000 threads reporting 1 bug - there is no need a developer reads them all, he just have to read one and correct The bug. We have a special team (Ryan and others) that sorts bug reports, filters false bugs, eliminates already reported bugs - and submits the bug reports to the developers. It's a huge work - so why should we assign it to developers while Ryan and Co do it very well? Believe me - ALL (distinct) bug reports have been reported, stored in the Bug Reporting System and distributed to the dev team.We all acknowledge that there are bugs (it was clearly stated in the product description), but it's not such a disaster as you depict it.

[Guest Astradan]

Robin,Was watching your boards for close to a year, FSX release mainly.Not a 320 fan, but more for the alleged 330/340.I wanted to be on board this, really did. Then the constant delays, the agreement with Flight 1 was in January of 2007 and according to the your website the release was a few months away. I get it, been there, delays happen. But the pay to play beta was a major flag for me and I also believe for most other simmers. You add the disaster that is the "Basic Release", I do not think it could not have gone worse. The no update policy as of now, and the very fact your company released a product for financial gain that they knew was flawed and disappointed with. Times are tough for everyone and you expected people to give you their money in exchange for a "disappointing" product so you could be bailed out. Your company will never get a dime from me.

Oh well, I guess AS will have to accept your view. Luckily, for every you, there's a me, that feels the current product (although wrongly branded, and admittedly unfinished) is still excellent as it is, and truly ahead of the game in many areas. I will support AS as there are no high quality complex A320 offerings out there for the sim at the moment, so there is no point in castrating and lynching a team who's vision is to give us the Airbus of our dreams.I agree that whoever has spearheaded the 'marketing' and PR for Airsimmer has done an awful job and has let the development team down. i). it is NOT a 'basic' or 'lite' aircraft, even in it's current form. (ii). the upgrade policy decision is poor, because the 'Advanced' is clearly an incremenetal step from the 'Basic', ie.... once someone buys the Advanced, they're not going to use the Basic any more (general view).However, I still think the AS A320 was a bargain for $40 dollars and I have completed many happy and successful flights in it since buying, without a single CTD.They have my support and many others out there.

[Guest AVN8tr]

Uhmm maybe the real way to look at 100 differents threads on the same CTD issue.. is that there are a 100 different bugs that can cause it... I dunno. Call me pessimistic but if it really was "the same bug" it would be fixed by now. I'll meet you half way and say 50... :)

[Guest belga1]

Hello,The hunting season is open.... Good luck all Regards.Gus.

[psolk 3,057]

"First, Basic is NOT for those wanting the features of Advanced, so, if you skip Basic and wait, you only pay $89.95. VERY reasonable, and LESS than PMDG for an equal (if not greater) feature set"What bothers me the most are the continued claims that the advanced version is going to be equal if not superior to PMDG... You would think after this Basic release and some of these issues they wouldn't still be calling out PMDG and trying to compare. Just keep the mouth shut and deliver a completed product rather than telling us how great it is going to be and how it will be equal or better than PMDG... Thanks but I don't need more vaporware; when the advanced version is complete and released then compare yourself to PMDG all day long, until then what exactly are you comparing, an unfinished product? Not much of a comparison in my book. So, until you deliver us a completed advanced product let your actions do the talking, not your mouth with more promises that may or may not ever come to fruition, no one knows what the future holds and nothing is definite...Just my .02 but stop worrying about PMDG and start worrying about AS.-P

[flightwatch 68]

I am not some militia leader trying to reign in the troops. I haven't demanded a refund. Quite the contrary; I have been researching the issues. I've been trying different settings and suggestions. Heck I have even been in the forums trying to help other people with their issues. I don't want AS to fail. They have a product that has amazing potential. It looks good, sounds great, and flies very nicely. Unfortunately, FOR ME, it is very buggy and I cannot fly it right now because of the ctd issue. OTOH, I am extremely happy that the people running virgin fs9 installs are not having any issues. Unfortunately, I am not willing to dump all the rest of my great addons for the sole purpose of running 1 single plane. Especially seeing as the only other addon I have ever had an issue with is the CS757.

[teeps 0]

I'm an ET member, I own the LDS 767, and PMDG 747. I haven't bought the MD-11, as after the 747 (and having children) I realised I'm more likely to enjoy a short haul aircraft. I do not own the Basic edition.At the moment the ET version (i.e. the advanced) is the only thing that get's my limited simming time, for two reasons: 1) I want to help get it sorted so everyone can enjoy it; 2) it is already an aircraft which I count as being up there with my experience of PMDG and LDS, despite its uncompleted status. I think I'm still under the NDA, so I don't want to be detailed, but the ET version has true depth of simulation, and while there are bugs, I completed a flight from Glasgow to Stansted with no CTD's, nor any other problems (except the ones I deliberately chose to make to test various fixes). As I flew along I enjoyed the fantastic VC, the depth of systems and their proper responses to situations, the gorgeous external model (and I'm flying in the Airbus house livery, so it's not even a snazzy paint job). Once I'd caused myself a problem and had to revert to hand flying for the last 100 miles I also enjoyed the flight handling and FBW responses to my control inputs.I know everyone will have their own viewpoint, but I see that the developers are committed to the A320, and everything I've seen leads me to conclude they will get the kinks worked out, and produce an excellent simulation. I feel sorry for those who have bought the Basic version and are suffering CTD's, but I think in fairly short order they will find a patch will make them very happy with their purchase - NB, that's not insider info, so don't take it as 'Airsimmer said...,' it's just my opinion!

[FleaJump 7]

If I could earn a dollar for every condemnatory post about Airsimmer or their A320 in this forum, I'd be rich from just the past week's worth alone, yet in also reading the building stream of positive reviews posted by those who have actually purchased and flown her, it is evident that likes of the Wilco Airbus already lag well below the new performance, complexity and realism benchmarks now established by the Airsimmer A320 Basic, meaning when that Airsimmer A320 Advanced version finally does shake the last of her bugs and take wing, the competition will find themselves riding the chop in the AS320 contrail a good while to come.Tony Selario

[ZachLW 37]

It's always the same folks causing a "stink". When the advanced version does finally come out, the same folks will be putting Airsimmer's feet to the coals--again. But we all know this by now. As predictible as the moon and the tides.Thanks Airsimmer developement. I'm thankful that there's even one more developer producing quality addons. (Thats the only thing worth saying I have in this thread.) Prodound, I know.

[Guest bebo]

This plane's virtual cockpit looks alot like FSX default A321 e.g. the gauges