Nice post Cody, I agree with a lot of what you said and frankly I am surprised at some of the smallest issues people complain about.The other day there was this guy on the FSDT forum who installed the trial version of KFLL and KLAS. Then he posted in both the KFLL forum and KLAS forum that he had found bugs in the trial. He had attached some screen shots for both things he was complaining about and the issues were so small that I, how own both sceneries, had never even noticed.Then when he asked FSDT if they would be fixed, the FSDT responded with a no, thats how it was designed and nothing will change. Same answer with his "bug report" on KLAS also which was a screen shot of a very small misalignment of the airport with the underlying photoreal texture. Then the fellow goes on to basically say he wont buy those two sceneries until those two bugs are fixed, even though the developer told him nothing will change.I mean come on, you aren't going to buy something because of such a small detail? Personally, I would rather have the FSDT version with its "bug" over the default version of either scenery any day.I agree that some peoples expectations have gotten so high that it would be nearly impossible to please them. I have plenty of addons that have little things that go wrong every now and then, but I try to not let it ruin my flight. The way I look at it, I would rather have all my great addons that work right, look good and for the most part do what they say they will do 99% of the time, than to have no sim at all or be using just the basics that FSX comes with.

Nice thought provoking post Cody. From a personal point of view what really anoys me about developers is when they know there is a problem with a particular product (acknowleded from their side) yet they insist the problem will not be fixed until another product they are working on has been released. That to me is not an acceptable attitude. Leaving an end user with a buggy product just because you have their money does not excuse a developer in this case from producing a timely fix.But your right, a respectful attitude from both sides goes a long way. At the end of the day communication is what its all about.Bryan.

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!

Not intending to pick on you in particular, but none of us (I'm willing to bet) pay developers to create high quality models. What we do is buy their products - along with hundreds of other simmers - and in doing so contribute a small part towards them covering their development costs, and maybe even make a profit.We certainly are entitled to our opinions on the products we buy (and maybe even on about those we don't buy). What else are discussion forums for, after all, if not sharing our views with others. Where it sometimes breaks down is when we forget that our individual opinions on product quality, bugs, missing features, etc. etc. are just one view among many. The job of the developer/reseller is to figure out what the bulk of his customers are looking for, while at the same time trying to realize his own financial and technical ambitions for the product. No easy task.

Nice thought provoking post Cody. From a personal point of view what really anoys me about developers is when they know there is a problem with a particular product (acknowleded from their side) yet they insist the problem will not be fixed until another product they are working on has been released. That to me is not an acceptable attitude. Leaving an end user with a buggy product just because you have their money does not excuse a developer in this case from producing a timely fix.But your right, a respectful attitude from both sides goes a long way. At the end of the day communication is what its all about.Bryan.

I don't fully agree with that. Sometimes, the developer simply does not have a choice. As the OP said, for developers the FS business is a "live or die" situation, and like anybody, they will choose for the option to live. When the developer is short on cash, or feels he needs to release more in order to sustain his family (or even just himself), I don't think customers have the right to demand that bugs are fixed first. If we'd demand that, we risk the developer not being able to continue in this line of work and thus we'd have inadvertently shut down his services to us. I'm quite sure this is not what we want.Cody, I agree with you 100%. Sometimes, we must simply face the fact that what we have is what we have. If the plane works as advertised, than there is no problem with the product, only with the user. I think a prime example of this is Aerosoft's Airbus X, which is still in development. from the very beginning, two things were stated:1) The model is awesome;2) it will be of intermediate system fidelity.However, in a way that eludes me, some people do not seem to be able to acknowledge this second point and keep asking (sometimes demanding) that feature x or y is included, otherwise they won't buy it. This is simply the way it is: it will be of intermediate difficulty. People then complain that everybody wants a high-fidelity systems simulation, but this is simply not true, which brings me to my point: We are a small, but vocal minority!it is simply not true that most people who buy the Airbus X (who will buy it, actually) want a high fidelity systems simulation. That is but a fraction of the community. Most people simply want an Airbus to fly that is better than the default, but they do not want to meddle with the more complex parts of the Airbus aircraft. Much of the irritation and unhappiness, I think, stems from this fact: many people do not realize that what they want is not what the majority wants, or needs. You, Cody, touch upon this fact, but in a different way. I want to specifically highlight here that most people simply do not care less about the existence of such and such ECAM message or whatever. Those that do want it, then start with a barrage of complains to Aerosoft because it is not what they want. Every time, they then have to be told that this is simply not what Aerosoft envisioned for their product.In the end, Cody's message is the key: be happy with what you got if it does what it says on the packaging. If it does what it says, it means the developers have made what they wanted. You can kindly request or ask for new features, but you can come with complaints because you think the product needs feature x or y. No, it is the developer that made the product and he is generally the one that will decide what the product will do and not do. As Cody said: "customer is not king", which is something many people seem to think...

Here's the way I SEE it. FSX Acceleration will now cost about $30 US dollars.Most well developed, less bugged add-ons, cost more. What offers more value to you?Draw your own conclusions, but disregard the numbers. This is not about how many copies of FSX will be sold, but about "value."I can assure you that if customers were not forgiving, SOME developers would not be in business. That's because even the best developers have very little knowledge of customer service. In other words, "they don't place real value on a customer." Not all, but some need to see it from the customer's view point.Yet, we still support developers who just want to move on to the next project.

Not intending to pick on you in particular, but none of us (I'm willing to bet) pay developers to create high quality models. What we do is buy their products - along with hundreds of other simmers - and in doing so contribute a small part towards them covering their development costs, and maybe even make a profit.

Yeah that's what I meant when I wrote it.... should have written: "I prefer to be a user instead of a programmer!"

Here's the way I SEE it. FSX Acceleration will now cost about $30 US dollars.Most well developed, less bugged add-ons, cost more. What offers more value to you?Draw your own conclusions, but disregard the numbers. This is not about how many copies of FSX will be sold, but about "value."I can assure you that if customers were not forgiving, SOME developers would not be in business. That's because even the best developers have very little knowledge of customer service. In other words, "they don't place real value on a customer." Not all, but some need to see it from the customer's view point.Yet, we still support developers who just want to move on to the next project.

Why "disregard the numbers"? Why tell everyone to ignore the exact reason why a single addon from a third party developer costs more than the actual FSX product itself? Especially since you then proceed to point out it's about "value".As for value of a customer... they make a purchase and the transaction is done, that's the total value. Anything beyond that (support, etc.) is a cost.If you find that a rather 'cold' view... it's actually no worse than your view that developer's products should be cheaper and sales numbers should be completely ignored in the discussion.

.... the thing I have a problem with is the lack of or no support at all of some add-ons. I was able to help the developers out when UT2 was in the works and thru that process I saw issues, then saw them fixed only to see them re-appear when another issue was fixed. Then I saw things that didnt seem right to me or had thoughts on how it COULD be better but quickly learned why an idea to make it better infact would make it worse. I am using UT2 as an example as I was able to get a small inside taste of a developing add-on. Thru my experience in that I appreciate the add-on more as it does exactly what the developers setout for it to do. Will it make everybody happy... hell no but it works per the design of it and they way the developer intended it to work and they support their product and at the very least you can get a answer to a question you may have. I have a particular add-on (not going to mention the name) that has no support forum and seldom answers questions via email and when they questions are answered turn out to be a false hope. If they would simply communicate with their customers I am 100% sure some of the issues we BIT#$ about would be overlooked or at least understood and we would then be more likely to spend our hard earned money again with them. For me communication/support is the biggest problem even before a issue with a add-on. Look at the support we get from the guys at GEX? Ask them a question and "BAM" within a short time you have your answer or a darn good explanation why it has to be a certain way. By them doing that, it educates their customers and before long the customers end up helping each other out. I will step off my soapbox now. :(

No, it is the developer that made the product and he is generally the one that will decide what the product will do and not do. As Cody said: "customer is not king", which is something many people seem to think...

The customer is king if he decides to stop buying. Incidentally the idea that it is acceptable business practise to refuse to fix a bug as quickly as humanly possible (rather than wait for another product release) is not so. Many users who may have had their patience tested by 'buggy' releases have in future decided to wait for developers products to be fully tested. Carenado is an example of this because some of its latest releases have had dodgy flight models, there have also been users who have refused to buy the Sibwings Birdog until its flight model was fixed.So IMHO it is not correct to make the assertion that the developer is king.Bryan.

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...................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

Excellent post Cody, well said.I can recall when all we had were 6 airports worldwide and 4 default planes, and the entire world was featureless green or blue, and anything greater than 10 fps was something to brag about. True, technology has advanced and we should expect more than that now, but when all we talked about was how to fly (not what we wanted available to us, as there were no choices about that), we used to have some great conversations in what was then the embryonic internet environment. Some, like me, learned to fly RW aircraft just from the comments that more experienced simmers made about technique, etc. You still see some of that attitude if you visit the Elite forums, a sim which is not open architecture and is virtually unchangeable.Jump to 2010, and I think that no matter which add-ons we buy, we are never satisfied. I'm not sure what we are looking for- Real flight? Immersive to the point that the product would compete with a real level d simulator? Maybe we get bored to easily (you have to ask why we even sim if that is the case). I think we should look at our hobby as the glass being half full, not half empty. There is a great community here, and FSX offers us a window to flight that we have never seen before, we should accept it and embrace it and just remind ourselves how cool that really is. And maybe say "thanks" a little more to those who spend their time on staff here at AVSIM, and those who do give us products fir this wonderful hobby.Thanks, Bruce.

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

Even if you could get a developer to make one, I don't think you will be able to simulate the landing characteristics of that plane. I have about 100 hours in a TBM700 and it has by far one of the strangest landing characteristic of any aircraft that I have flown. As you pull the power out of the TBM, the nose wants to drop(being so heavy with the front mount engine). So you let it drop a little, then pull it back up to hold it off for a flare. It really isn't a common straight descent profile. There is a little step down to do it right. I imagine the PC12 is the same way to some effect. But, I don't have any PC12 experience to comment. It is the strangest feeling when you fly it the first time. Especially coming from a background like mine flying Navajo's and King Air's.

The customer is king if he decides to stop buying. Incidentally the idea that it is acceptable business practise to refuse to fix a bug as quickly as humanly possible (rather than wait for another product release) is not so. Many users who may have had their patience tested by 'buggy' releases have in future decided to wait for developers products to be fully tested. Carenado is an example of this because some of its latest releases have had dodgy flight models, there have also been users who have refused to buy the Sibwings Birdog until its flight model was fixed.So IMHO it is not correct to make the assertion that the developer is king.Bryan.

I agree with that. In general it is my stance that both customer and developer have to give, and not just take. The developer should give at least adequate support, and should listen to the criticism of the customers. The customer should be willing to except shortcomings and be pleased with what he has bought provided that the product works the way it is advertised. However, he can not demand that the developer adds stuff because he (the customer) wants or needs it.

Even if you could get a developer to make one, I don't think you will be able to simulate the landing characteristics of that plane. I have about 100 hours in a TBM700 and it has by far one of the strangest landing characteristic of any aircraft that I have flown. As you pull the power out of the TBM, the nose wants to drop(being so heavy with the front mount engine). So you let it drop a little, then pull it back up to hold it off for a flare. It really isn't a common straight descent profile. There is a little step down to do it right. I imagine the PC12 is the same way to some effect. But, I don't have any PC12 experience to comment. It is the strangest feeling when you fly it the first time. Especially coming from a background like mine flying Navajo's and King Air's.

That's ok. As long as it looks good and is somewhat realistic I would gladly pay. :( Interesting flight characteristics!

Even if you could get a developer to make one, I don't think you will be able to simulate the landing characteristics of that plane. I have about 100 hours in a TBM700 and it has by far one of the strangest landing characteristic of any aircraft that I have flown. As you pull the power out of the TBM, the nose wants to drop(being so heavy with the front mount engine). So you let it drop a little, then pull it back up to hold it off for a flare. It really isn't a common straight descent profile. There is a little step down to do it right. I imagine the PC12 is the same way to some effect. But, I don't have any PC12 experience to comment. It is the strangest feeling when you fly it the first time. Especially coming from a background like mine flying Navajo's and King Air's.

<<<<<<<< scratches head...... every plane I have ever flown wants to drop the nose if you pull back the power, isn't that what the elevator and trim are for? :(

Interesting subject Cody. One that was been cussed and discussed many times in this community.One point that should not be overlooked in these types of discussions is the fact that there has always been an adversarial relationship between vendor and customer.This is true of brick and mortar establishments and of course carries over to our virtual world as well. Wholesale and retail business models deal with this on a daily basis.The adversarial nature of business stems from the historical fact that customers assume that a vendor will not deliver product value in exchange for value paid.The customers perception is that they've overpaid for what they've received and there we have the basis for customer complaint.We see this manifested often in public forums. A recent post loudly calling for Boycott of a vendors products because he did not perceive value is an example of this behaviour.Having said that, allow me to say that customers assumptions are based somewhat in truth or fact. Brick and mortar, or virtual establishments often do not deliver full product value for value paid.That situation requires an ear/responsivness to customer service but it does not follow that good customer service equals subjecting ones self to loud, rude, untrue accusations, or to false claims.We have been considering a grading system for our products for several years now. Such a system would allow for three distinct product levels which would clarify what customer level the product is aimed towardsEntry Level: Aimed at the newcomer who does not wish to own a complex product.Intermediate Level: Aimed at the majority of simmers who wish to own a more realistic simulation in terms of Systems.Advanced or Professional Level: Aimed at those simmers who wish to have as much realism as can be deliverd regardless of costs.We find that whenever we provide honest and forthright information there is less confusion for customers and therfore less of an adversarial attitude.For us, customer service is extremely important but have been forced over the last year or so to reject those who insist on attacking and or abusing us personally or posting vicious or untrue statement about products.One only need to re read the comments from this community about MS about the time FSX went RTM to understand how vicious this community can become...