Couldn't have said it better Tom. I will add too, that were it not for the kind of FS user who has a copy of Flight Sim, who perhaps picks up a boxed Abacus airliner in a PC game shop for a bit of entertainment whilst buying some games, we probably would not even have a host sim for the PMDGs et all who make the fancy stuff we are so fond of. For we can be sure that if it was only a small cadre of hard core simmers that were to have bought a copy of FS when MS got hold of it, then it would never have even made it past a timid suggestion in a board room, even with Bill Gates advocating it. After all, he can afford a real jet aeroplane if he wants to go flying.Most of us have likely dropped a few grand on flight sim stuff over the years, and a lot of us are real world pilots too. But that's a very different market to Joe Blow buying a look-alike airliner so he and his kid can play with it on their PC. But like it or not, they are the main buyers of FS, not those of us with a 737 cockpit mock up in our back bedroom and bookshelves groaning under the weight of aeroplane technical manuals.So I will always be grateful for the existence of Abacus for their contribution to the world of flight simming beyond the realms of our happy hard core bubble, and their position as a stepping stone to a wider world for many simmers. Not forgetting of course, their FS Design Studio add-on, which pretty much single-handedly kicked off the world of freeware add-on aeroplanes that we are lucky enough to have available, and is still a very cool product, that alone being a major contributor to the success of such websites as Avsim. Many of us may have moved on from the kind of thing that Abacus offers, but without them, there probably would have been less chance of there actually being anywhere to move on to. I'm not suggesting that all hard core simmers should immediately commence buying Abacus products. But we can be a bit less derogatory about them, in considering what they are actually aimed at achieving, and measuring our comments with that in mind.Al

Okay, Tom and Al. Some very fair comments and I don't want to pour gasoline on a smoldering fire and turn this thread into a controversy. And I totally agree about the contribution Abacus has made by making user-friendly modelling tools available. Awesome products like Rick Piper's HS748 and David Maltby's BAC 111 and Comet were all made with FSDS. THANK YOU Abacus. Al is right - we have all benefited from their contributions to the hobby.But this thread was started by someone who purchased an Abacus product that was advertized here on AVSIM and hyped as an accurate representation of the 787. Yes, you can say that they should have spent time searching through the forums and reviews. But the reality is that Abacus DO advertise their products so that serious simmers can see what they are offering, and sometimes the hype works. I would normally never buy one of their add-ons. (not talking about some of their other products - just aircraft add-ons) But occasionally the hype sucks you in. In my case it was the (then) latest iteration of their Flight Deck product. I WOULD LOVE to have a decent simulation of naval air operations in FS9. (Yes guys - I do have the AlphaSim CVN65 and it is awesome - but I mean a package that gives you a full range of operations)... It was absolutely awful. As I stated in my post, Abacus were totally courteous and helpful in resolving this and I have no complaints about their customer service or business practices. All I and some of the others on the thread are trying to do is express soliditarity with the guy who thought he had been ripped off by believing the hype about the 787 and express our frustration that such a venerable add-on producer seems unable or unwilling to move past the FS98 standard. As my Dad used to say, "if a job is worth doing, it's worth doing well!" Abacus clearly could produce far better products instead of churning out the same old freeware quality add-ons and continuing to market products that are obsolete. I can tell you that I felt ripped off by Abacus when I discovered the wonderful world of AVSIM and realised how poor the quality of those products I had bought off the shelves of my local software store really were. Until I discovered AVSIM, I had no benchmarks to measure the products I had purchased. When I found out that I had purchased products that were old and recycled from earlier versions of FS, I DID feel like the guy who started this thread.I'm not wanting to start an argument with people I deeply respect such as Tom and Al. Nor am I trying to slam Abacus as a company, as my one contact with them was a completely positive experience. But the reality remains - they continue to market aircraft add-ons that could be much better, no matter who they are purchased by, and all it would take is a reasonable amount of effort to improve their products. They can still be "light" and geared toward the entry level simmer, but why sell them such outdated work when you could offer them something decent? It's a bit like selling candy to kids. They will buy anything in a bright colored wrapper that looks good, like Abacus products always do. So put something inside the wrapper that is worth buying. Abacus is far more likely to draw new simmers further into the hobby if they get something that is better than the planes that came out of the box. Abacus are not better than the defaults and in many cases are noticeably inferior. They are just different. It doesn't have to be that way. I think the comments that have been made in this thread are legitimate complaints, even though some of the language may have been a bit strident. (And I did apologize for my own unnecessarily harsh use of the word "competent.")

Just curious, did you work on that one?

As a matter of fact I did. I was contracted to produce the 2d panel(s) and gauge systems. The entire glass system is original, but I was somewhat hindered by a complete lack of any actual source documents for them, as the manuals are not yet available. I had to make reasonable assumptions based on my thirteen years as a gauge/systems developer.Understand that because ABACUS contracts with independent developers for a specific project, they can only offer compensation based on their budget for each portion of the project. In other words, they set the specifications based on what they can pay the developer.To be frank, I'll admit that I had to think long and hard about whether I wanted my name associated with ABACUS......so in the end what I delivered to them was the result of several hundred hours beyond what was contracted for. I also developed the panel/gauge system for their C162 SkyCatcher release. Again the G300 glass was completely original, but unlike the B787 I had actual Garmin source documents to work from. Even so, it too was many hours "over budget..."In the final event, I'm quite pleased to have given them far more than what they actually contracted for, and consider the extra, uncompensated time as a terrific learning experience!I would also reiterate what Tom so eloquently wrote; you folks are not ABACUS' target market... :(

First of all I would like to say thank you to Avsim like the other posts for bringing us together, Dev and Consumer that NO other Flight Simulater Comunity does. And my second thanks goes to Bill for bringing together with the Eaglesoft dev team such an amazing plane. You know what I'm talking about Bill :D. You can spend $30 dollars on the Eaglesoft DA-42 by the way defaintly a best buy :D. Anyway off the advertising and back to the point :D. I used to use Avsim just for it's file libary wich again more thanks for. But the real point of Avsim is not anymore a FS file sharing site it's a community it's a place were people of all ages can come and talk passently about all things FS. But that woudent be possible without you THANKYOU avsim for Been the largest FS site in the world and most importatly bringing us together :D.

I once had the Abacus 787 Dreamliner, and after 30 flights, I removed it from my system. I discovered that although it it had a nice passenger cabin and a unique virtual cockpit, the instruments were mostly default and everything about the plane was completely inaccurate, within the geometry of the aircraft itself and the way it flies. The way it flies doesn't look like the actual 787 tested a few months ago. Abacus has done better than this, particularly with their Carrier Strike Force package. Regards,Dave

...the instruments were mostly default...

Did you not read my post just above? There is not one "default gauge" in the entire package! Every gauge and all of the artwork was done by me over the course of some 583 hours of billable time, although I only contracted for and got paid for 200 hours...I'm not faulting you for your opinions, but please do try to be objective and accurate in your statements... :(

Short of having using a crystal ball, Abacus were in no position to know what the 787 flew like when they created their version of it, because nobody, not even Boeing, knew for sure that it would even fly, let alone its exact flight characteristics.The product was essentially a fun guesstimate of what the 787 would be like, being aimed at those who were prepared to accept that and in doing so, desperately wanted to whizz around in something that looked a bit like the real thing.Al.

Did you not read my post just above? There is not one "default gauge" in the entire package! Every gauge and all of the artwork was done by me over the course of some 583 hours of billable time, although I only contracted for and got paid for 200 hours...I'm not faulting you for your opinions, but please do try to be objective and accurate in your statements... :(

Please note that I have the earlier 2008 version and not the version you have just aformentioned. Regards,Dave

Please note that I have the earlier 2008 version and not the version you have just aformentioned. Regards,Dave

Ah, that explains everything, including why they contracted with me to code an entirely new panel and gauge system... :( The "original" was pants...

My first commercial FS purchase was made from Abacus. In those days, one wanted to "try the waters" on inexpensive products.A second product inspired me to begin what eventually became Eaglesoft Development Group. At that time I became aware of a number of now prominate FS Developers who "cut their development teeth" providing content for Abacus.As Tom and others have said, Abacus aims for "entry level" products as opposed to so called "medium level" or "high end level" product lines.For those reasons it is difficult to see how "hammering Abacus" is a worthwhile pursuit and it would seem that consumers should simply understand how things are structered.In our view, Abacus "fills a gap" for the community as a whole. :(

It seems to me that Abacus had no business providing a plane that has yet to be provided by the manufacturer for public consumption. On the other hand, the flight sim public shouldn't have expected much given that the plane has not been introduced to the airlines for official use. Plenty of blame to go around on this project.

Ah, that explains everything, including why they contracted with me to code an entirely new panel and gauge system... :( The "original" was pants...

Well, I don't really know for sure, but Tolga and Turgot's lack of gauge knowledge causes them to use the default gauges, that's what I've noted from them so far..Regards,Dave

It seems to me that Abacus had no business providing a plane that has yet to be provided by the manufacturer for public consumption.

So by this view developers must only produce aircraft that actually exist ?Ridiculous.Regards.Ernie.

To each, his own. If I PAY for a plane that is to be in real world production, I would like for it to be fairly accurate. If they want to provide an experimental and sell it as such, then my expectations change. Is that ridiculous?

Perhaps not a ridiculous expectation, but without doubt an unrealistic one if you care to examine all the evidence available...Anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the 787's development, will be more than aware that the real 787 was a long way from flying when Abacus got its 787 on the shelves. That alone ought to tell anyone who cares to think about it, that the Abacus version is more about providing a fun 'what if' experience than being a study sim, particularly in view of the focus of the Abacus product range. Even Boeing themselves could not have made a complete study sim for the 787 at that time, because they hadn't flown the real thing. When Boeing originally rolled out the 787 for its first photocall, it was little more than an empty shell, because they had all kinds of teething troubles with their dispersed production model and the major use of composites to build the thing.What is more, half of the published projected performance figures for the 787 and indeed the rival A350, are little more than pie in the sky marketing wish lists, which invariably have to be downgraded when it comes to actually making a real aeroplane. For example, having to beef up the wing centre section of the 787 when it failed during stress testing, which made it heavier, reduced the range, increased the take off and landing speeds, reduced the climb rate etc, etc. And that's just one component of literally hundreds of thousands which go into making a Boeing 787. Thus the goalposts are and continue to move where the 787's flight performance is concerned, only now beginning to be broadly known with any degree of certainty.So to expect that a company known for doing 'lite' intro products, which has nothing much to do with the real 787, could (or even intended to) make an accurate simulated version of something which, not only had the construction details not been finalised, but that had also never even flown, is indeed an expectation that is on the fanciful side to say the least. Even from a visual model standpoint, it's more than apparent what you are getting if you look on the Abacus website, because there are actual Boeing pictures alongside screenshots of the Abacus 787, one of which makes it rather apparent that the nose profile is a somewhat loose interpretation of what the real 787 looks like.So what you end up with is a product that, short of Abacus having a crystal ball, is always going to be really aimed at those who simply want to have a play with a simulated craft that 'looks a bit like a 787' and 'flies a bit like a 787 might'. And it should be obvious enough that this is what it will be if anyone cares to use a bit of common sense.To expect otherwise and complain about it, well, you might just as well complain that if someone makes and sells a model of Yellowstone - the 737's projected replacement - that it doesn't fly like the real thing. You could pay me, Abacus or even PMDG to make one, but the mere fact that you hand over some cash isn't going to change the reality that we'd be well into the territory of wild-&@($* guesswork and speculation in making such a thing.Al