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.

In my opinion any individual in business knows (or should know) the value of repeat business. Oh sure, you may get your sale for that one product but if you P...! that customer off then you can probably forget about any future purchases from that customer. A happy customer is worth far more than that one purchase and it should be a developers delight to support that user knowing the value of potential repeat business. After all that is the cheapest and most powerful form of advertising and a sure fire way of growing any business.Bryan.

<<<<<<<< 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? :(

No it is not like that. The nose really drops. The weight of the PT6 in front of you makes the nose drop. It's not like being in a cessna or even a lear and you just decide to pull out the power with a slight downward tilt. The TBM nose drops very fast. There is a lot of weight infront of the cockpit. You don't trim for it. Trimming would be a gradual type of application like a jet on final.

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 when it comes to the development of the product the developer is King. The developer makes all the product decisions. They are the ones making the investment, they are the ones taking the risks, putting in the efforts etc etc.If the customer does not like the end product they can of course choose to not purchase it. But of course trying determine what the customer may and may not like or accept is 'part' of what goes into the developers decision.In the end the final call as to what that product will be is always the developers.Regards.Ernie.

Excellent post Cody! :(

Parts of this thread seem to have moved away from reality.I disclaim personal knowledge of the finances of FS developers but common sense suggests they are small-scale with tight budgets and even tighter cash-flows.On that basis it is unrealistic to suggest, as some posters have, that they should stop work on future add-ons in order to fix bugs in existing ones. The developer would be unlikely even to survive if it did that.Similarly, there are unrealistic expectations of support. The cost of giving support in the form of a personalised response to an email will probably wipe out any profit on the original sale of a typical $50 add-on. However, developers could charge for it.“You can also buy Microsoft Personal Support, which covers consumer products, personal operating systems and desktop applications. You can buy Personal Support in packs of five incidents for £150 + VAT or on a pay-per-incident basis at £45 + VAT. For more information, please call us on (Monday to Friday 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.).”£150+VAT is about $270 and £45+VAT is about $80 – any takers?As far as quality is concerned a UK government advice is that: “• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.• Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.”It is unrealistic to expect that every feature of the original aircraft will be realistically modelled in a $50 add on. Those who expect that should buy a $15 million full motion simulator.

Parts of this thread seem to have moved away from reality.As far as quality is concerned a UK government advice is that: “• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.• Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.”It is unrealistic to expect that every feature of the original aircraft will be realistically modelled in a $50 add on. Those who expect that should buy a $15 million full motion simulator.

There you are... unrealistic expectations coupled with imperfect development can cause quite a headache.:(

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.

I agree 100%. I can think of two excellent developers that are constantly subjected to insults because their products do not offer a high level of complexity. Some insist that a B7XX is not a B7XX unless it models every system. They beg, demand and complain knowing all along that the systems left out were never advertised as being within the scope of the project.Ron, I like your idea of instituting rankings but I would take it a bit further. I would like the community to institute a system of rankings/standards that developers could sign on to on a voluntary basis. I believe it may help curb SOME complaining if people knew what they were getting from one developer to another. Without a community-wide set of standards, a developer's ranking is purely subjective.

I agree 100%. I can think of two excellent developers that are constantly subjected to insults because their products do not offer a high level of complexity. Some insist that a B7XX is not a B7XX unless it models every system. They beg, demand and complain knowing all along that the systems left out were never advertised as being within the scope of the project.Ron, I like your idea of instituting rankings but I would take it a bit further. I would like the community to institute a system of rankings/standards that developers could sign on to on a voluntary basis. I believe it may help curb SOME complaining if people knew what they were getting from one developer to another. Without a community-wide set of standards, a developer's ranking is purely subjective.

Thanks Duck...keeping it simple by having only three levels as outlined would be something we could adapt to as a community standard if you will.Consider the hassle Abacus receives because the community is unaware that Abacus provides entry level products and the community expects Intermediate or Advanced level.The confusion then is a proximate cause for sniping that is uneccessary and contrary to the best interest of the community as a whole.Can't speak for others but we'll probably proceed along these lines.

I just got done flying overseas for 18 hours (in real life). On my way, I had the occasion to speak with a 777 FO on his way to work (deadheading). The hobby, and my love of aviation, afforded me the ability to impress this 20+ year veteran (Delta) with my knowledge of his job. What helped me with this? Most certainly 1000's (if not 10's of 1000's) of hours in flight sim since 1983. For years, we had to make do with nothing even approaching the realism of today's "entry level" add-on. However, the bar is high now and an old adage on this topic comes to mind: "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right." What is unnerving to those of us at the developers' mercy is: the features left out, the bugs unfixed, the flaws unrecognized. Some of you devs are giving us titles that nobody else will, but when you stop at "mid-level" fidelity, it can get frustrating. My whole point is: some of you devs are facilitating the sating of our deepest fantasies with your add-ons. Towards that end, I'd HAPPILY pay $$$ for a hi-fi version rather than $$ for compromise. I realize most of you have done your homework and have found that the "detail nerds" don't actually pay the bills (the light-the-fires...-types seem to), but I think a high-end market would probably have more customers that you may realize. I'm expecting $100+ for the PMDG 737 and I'm going to be HAPPY to pay that.In any case, the hobby means more to some of us than would probably be considered healthy, but them's the breaks.I just got done flying overseas for 18 hours (in real life). On my way, I had the occasion to speak with a 777 FO on his way to work (deadheading). The hobby, and my love of aviation, afforded me the ability to impress this 20+ year veteran (Delta) with my knowledge of his job. What helped me with this? Most certainly 1000's (if not 10's of 1000's) of hours in flight sim since 1983. For years, we had to make do with nothing even approaching the realism of today's "entry level" add-on. However, the bar is high now and an old adage on this topic comes to mind: "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right." What is unnerving to those of us at the developers' mercy is: the features left out, the bugs unfixed, the flaws unrecognized. Some of you devs are giving us titles that nobody else will, but when you stop at "mid-level" fidelity, it can get frustrating. My whole point is: some of you devs are facilitating the sating of our deepest fantasies with your add-ons. Towards that end, I'd HAPPILY pay $$$ for a hi-fi version rather than $$ for compromise. I realize most of you have done your homework and have found that the "detail nerds" don't actually pay the bills (the light-the-fires...-types seem to), but I think a high-end market would probably have more customers that you may realize. I'm expecting $100+ for the PMDG 737 and I'm going to be HAPPY to pay that.In any case, the hobby means more to some of us than would probably be considered healthy, but them's the breaks.

"If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right." What is unnerving to those of us at the developers' mercy is: the features left out, the bugs unfixed, the flaws unrecognized. Some of you devs are giving us titles that nobody else will, but when you stop at "mid-level" fidelity, it can get frustrating.

I guess my issue (and Thraini's seems to be) is that the definition of something done "right" is very subjective. I wouldn't equate missing features to bugs and flaws. Depending on the omitted feature, it may make the aircraft perfect for me. I often get frustrated that the best aircraft from a graphics standpoint seem to be the most complicated ones to fly. For many, sticking to a single aircraft (or a combination of a few) is their perfect experience. I, however, like to bounce around from aircraft to aircraft which makes it difficult to fully learn the systems of one aircraft. For you, simulation focuses on the perspective of the pilot. For me, I am looking for a broader experience. I want the best scenery, ai aircraft, accurate ai schedules... I love the idea that I can fly around the Cayman Islands one day and do New York to Tel Aviv the next. Learning the ins and outs of a 747-400 by flying it regularly doesn't interest me. As a result, I generally don't buy highly complex add ons - I just won't use them enough to get my money's worth.The point is, people have different expectations for add ons. All are valid. Developers have the constant struggle of managing expectations. Laying things out ahead of time helps manage expectations and if the terminology was standardized across the community, everyone would benefit.Nonetheless, no system could ever be perfect. One of the developers mentioned in my previous post stated from the beginning that their product was not going to be highly complex but they still got a ton of demands and complaints in their forums from people wanting more complexity. I usually take the side of the consumer in these issues but it was difficult to watch dedicated developers deal with a barrage of demands from consumers that either didn't read the forums, documentation or chose to ignore everything the developer stated about the project from the day it was announced.

Ron, great idea, but there is a downside. You will also create 3 levels of complainers, and I speak from experiance. For the last 8 years I have managed an online flight game, which just shut down Aug 1st after 13 years online.We supplied 3 very seperate flight models, arcade, intermediate, and advanced. If we had to rely on only the advanced and arcade users, we would have closed years ago. Having seperate physics for different levels of players only served to create different complaints, not less complaints, just seperate. Each group of users all had their own ideas of whats broke, whats wrong, what should be modeled, etc.No matter what we did or didnt do, we always had those who were never satisfied. I am afraid its the same with FS, there will always be those who find fault and voice their dissatisfaction. In our case, we programmed for the majority, and explained to the rest that other options were not cost effective. As a rule users have no idea what is involved making even the simplist change, let alone coding from scratch. I know I didnt until I started working with the dev team, and it was an eye opening experiance. I now have a greater tolerance for FS addon's, unless I am intentionally lied to. That has happened once or twice and those developers are no longer enjoying my money, thats the best complaint I have to work with.You need thick skin to do commerce online, this aint Wally World.

In my perspective (and not just in the simming world) people complain more now days just about everything they possibly can.If they stopped complaining and started doing there would a lot less trouble in the world and they would be more happy.Unfortunately or fortunately the present world economy may force a change in attitudes.

In my perspective (and not just in the simming world) people complain more now days just about everything they possibly can.If they stopped complaining and started doing there would a lot less trouble in the world and they would be more happy.Unfortunately or fortunately the present world economy may force a change in attitudes.

I take the opposite view.Complaining is healthy... much preferred to passive acceptance... it keeps people sharper... forces some people to confront reality should their egos gets too large and they start to detach from reality... And, as they say in the army, when the troops "stop" complaining... that's when the officers begin to worry. It means something is very wrong.

I take the opposite view.Complaining is healthy... much preferred to passive acceptance... it keeps people sharper... forces some people to confront reality should their egos gets too large and they start to detach from reality... And, as they say in the army, when the troops "stop" complaining... that's when the officers begin to worry. It means something is very wrong.

Some complaining is healthy-but perhaps you have not been on the earth as long as I have-it is now unhealthy.Doesn't really matter as the earth/economy seems to have a way of purging such. I'll give you a recent example-Red Bull races cancelled...

Ron, great idea, but there is a downside. You will also create 3 levels of complainers, and I speak from experiance. For the last 8 years I have managed an online flight game, which just shut down Aug 1st after 13 years online.We supplied 3 very seperate flight models, arcade, intermediate, and advanced. If we had to rely on only the advanced and arcade users, we would have closed years ago. Having seperate physics for different levels of players only served to create different complaints, not less complaints, just seperate. Each group of users all had their own ideas of whats broke, whats wrong, what should be modeled, etc.No matter what we did or didnt do, we always had those who were never satisfied. I am afraid its the same with FS, there will always be those who find fault and voice their dissatisfaction. In our case, we programmed for the majority, and explained to the rest that other options were not cost effective. As a rule users have no idea what is involved making even the simplist change, let alone coding from scratch. I know I didnt until I started working with the dev team, and it was an eye opening experiance. I now have a greater tolerance for FS addon's, unless I am intentionally lied to. That has happened once or twice and those developers are no longer enjoying my money, thats the best complaint I have to work with.You need thick skin to do commerce online, this aint Wally World.

Haha, yes a thick skin and a NO BS sign on the support forum door these days. My three level suggestion is a starting point to alleviate the customer confusion somewhat and the unrealistic expectations a whole lot....The difficulty is that even those three levels become subjective in the eyes of those who fail to read and understand clearly.A vendor will have to clearly state the limits of each level and will still be faced with questions such as why don't you add feature ABC like vendor XYZ does in his "intermediate level" Corker 31J56 and by the way if it doesn't have feature ABC you guys suck and I'm never buying it!!!:(