I wanted to write a quick off the cuff essay and gather some thoughts in regards to Flight Simulator addons and our opinions of them.Let's get our hands dirty then, shall we?When I started working commercially, I often had very opinionated positions on developers and their products. Having worked with quite a few clients over these last 3+ years, I think my position has changed significantly. I think as consumers, we often find ourselves grabbing onto the perceived or truly negative aspects of a product and using that as a launching point to express our concern of monetary loss versus compensation of "immersion" or "expectations" in a product. A recent topic got me thinking about what it is we are indeed complaining about.The big question is what is YOUR expectation of a simulation? I think this severely influences our opinions of products, but it seems to be a moving and shifting bar when developers craft their wares. Let's face it, none of us want to depart with our hard earned cash only to find a defective or unusable software that doesn't meet our expectations. Where is the line drawn however? I'll offer my experiences, as I walk both sides of the fence.I make videos, both commercial (for developers) and non-commercial (for myself and my fans). Some of you are aware of this, many more however are not. Seeing as I walk the line (as I am an avid consumer of FS goods AND work with developers closely) I have come to realize a few truths. They are as follows:1) No product is "bug free."2) No product has ever made everyone happy.3) No consumer in their reservations and expectations will ever say a product is 100% perfect (for the most part).4) No developer has the resources, time or money to make a product they are truly satisfied with.While these are generalized truth-isms about our hobby, they still apply. The relationship between developers and consumers is much different however than is commonplace in a marketplace of goods. Let me explain.... or try anyways.When you purchase a typical good (let's say a stereo for example), you typically are not buying the product directly from the developer. While it may have the creator/developers name (Sony, Polk, etc), you generally bought the product through a vendor. The vendors tend to range from small businesses to quite large franchises or departmentalized stores. The developers themselves range from small mom and pop developers, to the more common large company format. If you have an issue with the product, you are rarely able to speak directly with the developer (engineer or otherwise) who produced it, and RARELY is their intent or market for the product given publicly. This leaves you with dealing with the product through the vendor, or speaking to another party which is detached from the product directly, to provide support. This also applies to software products. When was the last time you espoused your issues with a Windows OS directly to a developer or someone who COULD make a difference in the direction said product is being supported?In the Flight Simulator world, particularly with addon developers, these barriers are broken down. If you have an issue with a product, you often can directly mail that developer, discuss with them on a forum or in some cases even call them. Often, but not always you will get a reply from someone who works with that team directly. There are not nearly as many "barriers" between yourself and the developer. We witness this on these forums, and many others throughout the community, as many developers post and interact with the community at large. I think this is because the developers and consumers as a whole ARE the community. Developers are as much active participants as the consumers. This tends to set the tone for discussion.Now, let's look at some of the things with which we complain about. Fifteen or more years ago, nobody could have believed where Flight Simulation would have lead. We had an idea, but the fidelity of these simulations has significantly increased. As consumers, we were content that to start our planes we would flick a digital pixel on a 2d panel placed against a 16 bit pallet of brilliant and vibrant colors with little to no interaction with other planes with an inherent lack of systems simulation being the standard. Did your fuel pump increase your fuel pressure? Perhaps. Did it matter? Maybe. We often just shrugged it off and seemed content with "what we had." Nobody can deny that for example some of the hardware, such as joysticks and rudder pedals is of higher quality then some of those old fashioned Atari style joysticks we used to fly with.As the years passed, we have come to expect more from our wonky hobbies. Developers have upped the ante with system failures, gorgeous graphics, weathered virtual cockpits, hydraulic systems that must be charged before our brakes work, etc. With each new release from developers, we froth at the mouth for some of the amazing and ground breaking things that they have developed. In perspective, it wasn't long ago however that we were amazed that we could "re-paint" our aircraft! We could make our old tired and true Sopwith Camel red and put Iron Crosses on them, flying about the simulated sky pretending to be a long dead aviator as we buzzed between skyscrapers near Chicago Meigs field.Today, we find ourselves irritated that as we utilize our engine more it does not simulate the wear and abuse we put on it. We sometimes prefer to have our simulations with bump mapped flecks of paint missing to feel immersed. We see companies produce a system of great engineering and ask why not all of our products emulate this as well. I think in this mad dash for immersion and simulation, we forgot that this is a rather close knit community. I can go to a number of forums or development groups and find myself in a circle with some of the same people I see here on AVSIM's forums.I found myself the other day complaining that a particular plane that did not have an attitude indicator that could be locked. As I set there a bit frustrated at my inability to lock said attitude indicator, it hit me that the cockpit I was sitting virtually in was utterly stunning. As the engine ran the gyros could be heard humming, the RPMs were fluctuating slightly and I could count the rivets on the wing. It humbled me a bit. How had I come to this point that I was dissatisfied with a simulation simply because I couldn't "lock" an attitude indicator? Simple. I had come to expect this level of fidelity. Did this mean that this particular developer purposely omitted this? Absolutely not! They might not have even known it could lock. Heck, they may simply have realized that this product needed out the door or they might be feeding their family Ramen noodles.Now, I'm a realist. I completely understand that this will not keep high fidelity products from being developed... and they should continue being developed. This also doesn't mean consumers will be "happy" with products that do not meet their expectations. I do think however that sometimes we need to all take a fresh breath of air and give products a fair shake before we shrug them off as being daft. Most of us depart with a fair share of money for our products that we use, and we likely have a few products that get used more than others because of our particular preferences. Many of us even feel that some of the default planes are "unusable". Is this because they truly are unusable, or because we have come to expect more from our simulation and what immerses us?I think many here who purchased FSX when it came out can say that they logged many hours in the default planes, and enjoyed them when we did. Does this mean however that several years after it's release we should send an e-mail off to Microsoft about how the airliners omit the implementation of a working flight management computer? Or better yet, if it did, that we would mail them because it is missing a hold function?Now we have opened another can of worms. We paid good money for some of these simulations! We want our hard earned cash (which is time, as we are paid for our time and work) and want our dollar (or equivalent funny looking piece of paper or metal) to stretch! If I paid good money for an addon, I would expect that it doesn't crash the instant I use it. I think it is reasonable however that I should check to ensure that my system is capable of handling said software. If I'm running my simulator with a thousand dollar weather emulator that runs a networked server which interpolates weather data as reported by some national weather authority, it is indeed quite possible that my environmental software I just purchased doesn't know what to do. Ok, perhaps an extreme example, but essentially what I am saying is that every setup and system is different.When we call support for our computers, those people we call "idiots" ask us to make sure our cord going to our computer for internet is plugged in. Why? Because, they have found that a lot of people simply forget to check before they call. At the same time, we scoff when we "know better" and ask for level II support, but quietly go away when we realize that we did indeed forget to plug said cord in. We've all done it. Admit it.So, where are we now? We are in an age in simulation that is on the threshold of offering the amazing. Short of having a probe stuck in our nose, we are able to experience things in our hobby that we have never been able to do before... at much less the cost of sitting in the real cockpit. Outside of some of our amazing quality addons, we would have to pay thousands of dollars (or equivalent yet again) to simulate this same environment, but we do it in our home instead at a fraction of the cost all the while drinking a beer and sitting in our pajamas while our significant others yell at us to take out the trash.I ask that the next time you are frustrated at the coefficient axial of the torsion for the tempered glass on your slip turn coordinator (and yes, I said this gibberish on purpose) that we ask ourselves what we are truly complaining about in context with the product we indeed have. Let's save the bashing and true complaints for real issues, and let's help our developers by "asking" or politely discussing our particular preferences and level of immersion.To developers, remember, we just want to be immersed.To consumers, remember, we developers have to put food on our tables too and are human.We can already see the negative impact this is having on the community in the lack of freeware when compared to payware development. Let's not all shoot each other in the foot.If you read this far, thanks for your time in listening to my not well polished but long winded discussion on the subject.Kind regards,-Cody BerglandOwner, Jaggyroad Films

Well said; I agree 100%-Ramon

Good post, Cody.There seems to be an influx of complaining recently. Perhaps it's always been there or maybe I have been around for so long I have become numb to most of it. I am most certainly no stranger to reporting an issue I have with a add-on, be it small or large in scale, but I like to think I do it in a respectful and professional manner. It is unfortunate that some feel compelled to put-down, bash, belittle a developer for an issue with an add-on rather than doing what they can to help resolve the issue. I have sent bug reports to a good deal of developers regarding issues I have had with various add-ons, and so far I have never once received a rude response, been ignored, or told my issue was insignificant. I like to think this is due to how I approach a situation.Sometimes I wonder if some of those that complain and send reports to a developer act the way they do on this forum in their emails, and that is why they aren't receiving the response/attention they are looking for. People are people, and as much as "the customer is always right!" works in a training manual for minimum wage jobs at a local retail store, it isn't how the real world works. If you want respect, you gotta give it. Many of these developers aren't relying 100% on FS Development for their income, they do this as a hobby. Will every issue get fixed eve if you are polite ad respectful? No. Get over it. Think about that next time you make a "demand" or post a rude and/or disrpectful comment. If you just can't maintain self-control, perhaps through a chemical inbalance brought about only by errors in Flight Simulator add-ons, those of us who can maintain our sanity await your contribution to FS add-on development "made your way...the perfect way". So, for those out there who feel the need to fly off the handle at the first sign of something they dislike about an add-on, I encourage you to put yourself in check first. The good Lord gave you two eyes, two ears, and one mouth so you look and listen twice as much as you yap. I know this, I have done a lot of yapping.

Well said! Though I would like to add one thing...I believe many complain because we tend to focus on the negative, and this can be seen in non-flightsim aspects of society. Are the news likely to focus on a successful local business that just broke into the international market, creating new job opportunities in the community, or on a scandal at the local mall involving a rude employee slandering a patron?If something is great on an addon, I say "Great!" and enjoy it, but the bad/buggy parts get a bit more focus. For instance, I find the Captain Sim 757 to be drop-dead gorgeous and admire it in spot view every time I fly it, but I'll still come here and whine about the autopilot suddenly deciding to pull an Immelman. This is because I'm trying to find a solution for the problem, whereas exclaiming "It looks gorgeous!" is nice, but doesn't help fix its ground-bound attitude.Compliments for products do get tossed around fairly frequently from what I see, though, especially in threads where someone asks for a this-versus-that recommendation (This is modelled exquisitely! That has amazing systems! etc etc etc).

Interesting responses. I find more and more that when I have an issue with a product, I try to focus on the scope of the product rather than my opinion of what it should have been. The latter is subjective at best. If for example, I have an issue with a non-functional autopilot, I have a few things I could ask myself.-Are the features of the autopilot that are implemented usable? -Do they perform the function as advertised?-Is the system made to be functional in a way in which I am NOT using it? If so, should I relearn my methodology?I'll admit that I have had products where I spent two hours flying only to have an autopilot or other item cause the whole flight to be a wash. Those are extremely frustrating, because you feel that the product itself caused your issue as you feel as if you utilized the product the proper way it was intended. I have lost several good approaches to this and it has caused me a lot of heartache. I feel in some way, those are legitimate examples of issues that are unresolved. If however I am complaining that the system does not feature a hold feature, or perhaps it is missing a step down or vertical flight envelope, I am less inclined to be frustrated, as it simply appears that this was not the scope of the simulation otherwise it would have been included.Just a few days ago, when my internet was being annoying (in and out), I sat down with a product that I felt did not meet my personal satisfaction in realism, as it did not have some of the features I have come to love. I looked at the product with a fresh set of eyes and flew the darned thing. Everything worked as advertised. The only issue I had was clipping of the model from the VC when shifting my position too far to the right or left with my track IR. This last issue was of big concern to me a long time ago.... now, it didn't bother me at all. It had tainted how I felt about the product all this time because of this one issue. Flying the simulation further, I found that I had allowed myself for no particular good reason to misjudge this product. Would I like to see this part of the product changed? Sure. Will it ruin my flying experience anymore? Nope.I'm finding myself flying aircraft I wouldn't have touched even a few years ago and enjoying the simulator more than ever, while STILL enjoying those simulations that are more more complicated or advanced.

I guess it should be said, that before one complains, maybe they should learn to programm, build a model and try sell it, then put up with all the complaints from the " i want it now". generation. Well im content, ther are only 2 planes i am unhappy with, and i can see so much in fsx, Cheers

I guess it should be said, that before one complains, maybe they should learn to programm, build a model and try sell it, then put up with all the complaints from the " i want it now". generation.

What? Not everyone is cut out for making high quality models. Like me - I have no idea how to make one so I pay developers to do that!

What? Not everyone is cut out for making high quality models. Like me - I have no idea how to make one so I pay developers to do that!

I'd like to pay a developer to make a quality TBM 750/800, but nobody ever listens to me. lol

Maybe I'm in denial, but it doesn't seem to me that the complaining is any louder now than it ever has been. It seems to come in cycles, though I've no idea why. Phases of the moon? Who knows. Depending on which forums you visit, you'll see an awful lot of satisfied customers who are chomping at the bit to get their hands on new add-ons, too.You know what's really funny? Sometimes I think the loud complaining falls into the category of "there's no such thing as bad publicity". Case in point: there was a heated discussion on this forum recently in which a few users were unloading about a particular developer's new release. Until I read that thread, I hadn't given the plane much thought. After reading it, I had to go check it out. I have to admit, I was intrigued. It's entirely likely they'll get my business as a result. Weirder things have happened.... :(

I guess it should be said, that before one complains, maybe they should learn to programm, build a model and try sell it, then put up with all the complaints from the " i want it now". generation. Well im content, ther are only 2 planes i am unhappy with, and i can see so much in fsx, Cheers

This is wrong. Somebody is selling a product, of course we as customers are entitled to complain about shortcomings. If the developers are not competent enough to build the product they advertized then they shouldnt have sold it in the first place.

I found myself the other day complaining that a particular plane that did not have an attitude indicator that could be locked. ..They might not have even known it could lock.

...or, it just may be that the developers modeled an attitude indicator that does not have a cage lock, much less a knob to pull.Typically AH units with a cage lock are reserved for aerobatic aircraft, or at least those in which one might expect "unusual attitudes" frequently. The very common KI-256 has no cage lock, but does feature a flight director bar for example.Before folks begin to "complain" about a "perceived fault of omission," it just might be a wise idea for them to do a bit of research, otherwise they simply wind up looking and sounding -well- ignorant at best, and pompous idiots at worst... :( Excellent post otherwise, Cody!

Totally agree with the OP! To me, it's all in the eye of the beholder (and, of course, the power of the system and hardware the user owns). Over the years I have seen a lot of faults with the various FS programs and the subsequent addons but I have learned to live with the issues. The FS program still works and I can still fly and learn about the various flight systems and that's really all I want. Some others want perfection and no matter how good the sim or addon, there will always be lots of complaints and few at-a-boys. Over the years I have seen so many complaints about MSFS because they get crashes they think were caused by the flight sim but were actually caused by the computer system. So, when they are flying a PMDG, LDS, or CS aircraft, they blame it on the developer and fail to realize it could be their computer system. I have learned to live with the minor and sometimes major issues with FS and commercial addons. I hope others will take a deep breath and learn to live with some of the issues in FS like I have. Again, good post by the OP and I totally agree!Best regards,Jim

I would like to file a complaint about this thread! People who make sense could potentially influance those who complain, and if they stop complaining, there goes about 80% of my daily entertainment!I say BRING ON THE COMPLAINERS, where else can you have this many laughs, free!

...or, it just may be that the developers modeled an attitude indicator that does not have a cage lock, much less a knob to pull.Typically AH units with a cage lock are reserved for aerobatic aircraft, or at least those in which one might expect "unusual attitudes" frequently. The very common KI-256 has no cage lock, but does feature a flight director bar for example.Before folks begin to "complain" about a "perceived fault of omission," it just might be a wise idea for them to do a bit of research, otherwise they simply wind up looking and sounding -well- ignorant at best, and pompous idiots at worst... :( Excellent post otherwise, Cody!

Naturally, you are correct. In the context of the attitude indicator I was talking about, without going into much detail I am 100% correct in that it does indeed have a cage lock, and the aircraft in question does indeed have the ability to become "aerobatic." I omitted the developer and the aircraft because in this context it does not matter. With that said, I had spent over 8 hours on the real aircraft with an owner going over every rivet and line and snapping hundreds of photos for work I happened to be doing at the time.In the context of what you said however, I often see people confuse information about aircraft and stating complaints that are ill-informed. As you well know yourself, and as I have seen as well working so closely with other developers, we get accused of doing some rather interesting things... which are indeed correct on the developer end, and then have the privilege of telling the customer that their information is incorrect. Sometimes with very irate customers, that can be a very soothing moment after being raked over the coals for something that is actually quite correct.

I wanted to write a quick off the cuff essay and gather some thoughts in regards to Flight Simulator addons and our opinions of them.Let's get our hands dirty then, shall we?When I started working commercially, I often had very opinionated positions on developers and their products. Having worked with quite a few clients over these last 3+ years, I think my position has changed significantly. I think as consumers, we often find ourselves grabbing onto the perceived or truly negative aspects of a product and using that as a launching point to express our concern of monetary loss versus compensation of "immersion" or "expectations" in a product. A recent topic got me thinking about what it is we are indeed complaining about.The big question is what is YOUR expectation of a simulation? I think this severely influences our opinions of products, but it seems to be a moving and shifting bar when developers craft their wares. Let's face it, none of us want to depart with our hard earned cash only to find a defective or unusable software that doesn't meet our expectations. Where is the line drawn however? I'll offer my experiences, as I walk both sides of the fence.I make videos, both commercial (for developers) and non-commercial (for myself and my fans). Some of you are aware of this, many more however are not. Seeing as I walk the line (as I am an avid consumer of FS goods AND work with developers closely) I have come to realize a few truths. They are as follows:1) No product is "bug free."2) No product has ever made everyone happy.3) No consumer in their reservations and expectations will ever say a product is 100% perfect (for the most part).4) No developer has the resources, time or money to make a product they are truly satisfied with.While these are generalized truth-isms about our hobby, they still apply. The relationship between developers and consumers is much different however than is commonplace in a marketplace of goods. Let me explain.... or try anyways.When you purchase a typical good (let's say a stereo for example), you typically are not buying the product directly from the developer. While it may have the creator/developers name (Sony, Polk, etc), you generally bought the product through a vendor. The vendors tend to range from small businesses to quite large franchises or departmentalized stores. The developers themselves range from small mom and pop developers, to the more common large company format. If you have an issue with the product, you are rarely able to speak directly with the developer (engineer or otherwise) who produced it, and RARELY is their intent or market for the product given publicly. This leaves you with dealing with the product through the vendor, or speaking to another party which is detached from the product directly, to provide support. This also applies to software products. When was the last time you espoused your issues with a Windows OS directly to a developer or someone who COULD make a difference in the direction said product is being supported?In the Flight Simulator world, particularly with addon developers, these barriers are broken down. If you have an issue with a product, you often can directly mail that developer, discuss with them on a forum or in some cases even call them. Often, but not always you will get a reply from someone who works with that team directly. There are not nearly as many "barriers" between yourself and the developer. We witness this on these forums, and many others throughout the community, as many developers post and interact with the community at large. I think this is because the developers and consumers as a whole ARE the community. Developers are as much active participants as the consumers. This tends to set the tone for discussion.Now, let's look at some of the things with which we complain about. Fifteen or more years ago, nobody could have believed where Flight Simulation would have lead. We had an idea, but the fidelity of these simulations has significantly increased. As consumers, we were content that to start our planes we would flick a digital pixel on a 2d panel placed against a 16 bit pallet of brilliant and vibrant colors with little to no interaction with other planes with an inherent lack of systems simulation being the standard. Did your fuel pump increase your fuel pressure? Perhaps. Did it matter? Maybe. We often just shrugged it off and seemed content with "what we had." Nobody can deny that for example some of the hardware, such as joysticks and rudder pedals is of higher quality then some of those old fashioned Atari style joysticks we used to fly with.As the years passed, we have come to expect more from our wonky hobbies. Developers have upped the ante with system failures, gorgeous graphics, weathered virtual cockpits, hydraulic systems that must be charged before our brakes work, etc. With each new release from developers, we froth at the mouth for some of the amazing and ground breaking things that they have developed. In perspective, it wasn't long ago however that we were amazed that we could "re-paint" our aircraft! We could make our old tired and true Sopwith Camel red and put Iron Crosses on them, flying about the simulated sky pretending to be a long dead aviator as we buzzed between skyscrapers near Chicago Meigs field.Today, we find ourselves irritated that as we utilize our engine more it does not simulate the wear and abuse we put on it. We sometimes prefer to have our simulations with bump mapped flecks of paint missing to feel immersed. We see companies produce a system of great engineering and ask why not all of our products emulate this as well. I think in this mad dash for immersion and simulation, we forgot that this is a rather close knit community. I can go to a number of forums or development groups and find myself in a circle with some of the same people I see here on AVSIM's forums.I found myself the other day complaining that a particular plane that did not have an attitude indicator that could be locked. As I set there a bit frustrated at my inability to lock said attitude indicator, it hit me that the cockpit I was sitting virtually in was utterly stunning. As the engine ran the gyros could be heard humming, the RPMs were fluctuating slightly and I could count the rivets on the wing. It humbled me a bit. How had I come to this point that I was dissatisfied with a simulation simply because I couldn't "lock" an attitude indicator? Simple. I had come to expect this level of fidelity. Did this mean that this particular developer purposely omitted this? Absolutely not! They might not have even known it could lock. Heck, they may simply have realized that this product needed out the door or they might be feeding their family Ramen noodles.Now, I'm a realist. I completely understand that this will not keep high fidelity products from being developed... and they should continue being developed. This also doesn't mean consumers will be "happy" with products that do not meet their expectations. I do think however that sometimes we need to all take a fresh breath of air and give products a fair shake before we shrug them off as being daft. Most of us depart with a fair share of money for our products that we use, and we likely have a few products that get used more than others because of our particular preferences. Many of us even feel that some of the default planes are "unusable". Is this because they truly are unusable, or because we have come to expect more from our simulation and what immerses us?I think many here who purchased FSX when it came out can say that they logged many hours in the default planes, and enjoyed them when we did. Does this mean however that several years after it's release we should send an e-mail off to Microsoft about how the airliners omit the implementation of a working flight management computer? Or better yet, if it did, that we would mail them because it is missing a hold function?Now we have opened another can of worms. We paid good money for some of these simulations! We want our hard earned cash (which is time, as we are paid for our time and work) and want our dollar (or equivalent funny looking piece of paper or metal) to stretch! If I paid good money for an addon, I would expect that it doesn't crash the instant I use it. I think it is reasonable however that I should check to ensure that my system is capable of handling said software. If I'm running my simulator with a thousand dollar weather emulator that runs a networked server which interpolates weather data as reported by some national weather authority, it is indeed quite possible that my environmental software I just purchased doesn't know what to do. Ok, perhaps an extreme example, but essentially what I am saying is that every setup and system is different.When we call support for our computers, those people we call "idiots" ask us to make sure our cord going to our computer for internet is plugged in. Why? Because, they have found that a lot of people simply forget to check before they call. At the same time, we scoff when we "know better" and ask for level II support, but quietly go away when we realize that we did indeed forget to plug said cord in. We've all done it. Admit it.So, where are we now? We are in an age in simulation that is on the threshold of offering the amazing. Short of having a probe stuck in our nose, we are able to experience things in our hobby that we have never been able to do before... at much less the cost of sitting in the real cockpit. Outside of some of our amazing quality addons, we would have to pay thousands of dollars (or equivalent yet again) to simulate this same environment, but we do it in our home instead at a fraction of the cost all the while drinking a beer and sitting in our pajamas while our significant others yell at us to take out the trash.I ask that the next time you are frustrated at the coefficient axial of the torsion for the tempered glass on your slip turn coordinator (and yes, I said this gibberish on purpose) that we ask ourselves what we are truly complaining about in context with the product we indeed have. Let's save the bashing and true complaints for real issues, and let's help our developers by "asking" or politely discussing our particular preferences and level of immersion.To developers, remember, we just want to be immersed.To consumers, remember, we developers have to put food on our tables too and are human.We can already see the negative impact this is having on the community in the lack of freeware when compared to payware development. Let's not all shoot each other in the foot.If you read this far, thanks for your time in listening to my not well polished but long winded discussion on the subject.Kind regards,-Cody BerglandOwner, Jaggyroad Films

Cody-a great post and glad to see you back here..