Point taken but look at these, one your own paint I believe, the other specific for the 300 series both available here at Avsim.I suggest to you Tom, this is nothing more than jiggery pokery changing the window positions in the texture and is indeed the same model, texture touched in an effort to decieve many of you.The only thing added is a tail bump to the 400.

Hi Ash,>I suggest to you Tom, this is nothing more than jiggery pokery changing the window positions in the texture and is indeed the same model, texture touched in an effort to decieve many of you.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Hello Ash. Lets take textures out of the equation for a moment. In the shot below, I've superimposed a blank -300 model (darker profile) over a blank -400 model so highlight the differences in the model. Both shots were taken from a distance of 302ft with zoom set to 1.50. http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/37915.jpgGoing back to the textures, I'm not disputing the fact they are very similar for each version, but it is not just a case of "copy and paste" as you suggested.TomAFG.

Gosta, With respect. I used the 400 as the example dropping 300 textures into the model. If it was as you say, the doors and elevator track wouldnt match perfectly as they do. Once this has been achieved rearranging the window positions is the easy part. Somebody with the skill that Tishma has with a paintbrush could achieve this relatively easily.It is to all intense and purposes the same model, the only thing added being the tail bump. Ash

Ash...I've been watching this thread with interest... The 400 is clearly longer than the 300... Textures don't magically "stretch" a model. I'm willing to concede that maybe the textures are easily interchangeable, but the models are unique. Even if they were cut and spliced with GMAX versions of fuse plugs, that still makes them unique. Publicly continuing with the suggestion that they are otherwise just risks this forum's moderators to more hassles from Ariane. Heck--I would sue if someone made such representations about my product (if I had anything worth selling) in a public forum. State opinion as opinion--not fact. I think it's enough to say that the product is expensive for what you get and the marketing style hokey. But I've bought cars from people I don't like--it's up to the users to define their terms--not for us to preach them. Continuing with threads like this undermines the credibility of anyone trying to raise a legit point about Ariane. I suggest the moderators do what they always end up doing--throw this into the dustbin of similar threads... I'm half tempted to buy the BBJ--it looks nice and I feel I practically owe it to Bobbo considering how some people I formerly considered "web friends" and peers are acting...-John

Hi Ash,>If it was as you say, the doors and elevator track wouldnt match perfectly as they dohttp://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

....and then presumably, you clean up the slight texture distortion by re-drawing and adding a few windows etc., tweak the flight files a bit, and 'Bob(bo)'s your Uncle'... And then you call it 'all-new' in your infomercial and sell it at full price?Toni.

Hi Toni,OK, let's start again. A designer starts to build an airliner in GMax. The model will allocate textures in a certain way (have a look in your various aircraft folders, and you'll see how different designers have different approaches to texture mapping). He then designs another airliner of the same product type, say first a 767-200, then a -300. He will use the GMax model for the first plane as a basis for the second one, texture mapping included. Of course, the textures will have to be a slightly different size to allow for the difference in fuselage length (check out the FFX 733 and 735 textures for a good comparison). Still, they are different models. Following the logic presented in this thread, FFX would be the worst offender, as their first 737-400 model was compatible with the default MS 734 textures, meaning that they were identical models??!! I don't think anyone would seriously try to make that claim.Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

Hi GostaThanks for the technical insight and explanation. I now understand a little more about FS plane building.My point, however, is that if a designer is going to advertise a product as 'all new', 'totally remodelled', 'unique', 'ground-breaking' etc, that's just what I'd expect after parting with my money. As you have stated, each of the planes in discussion are based on a previous one. They are slightly altered (e.g. fuselage stretched), repainted, tweaked for flight performance and then sold as a new model. Hardly 'all new' etc.IMO, these are little more than upgrades from previous releases and should have a price tag to reflect this. After all, buy the Ariane -300 at full price in 'abc' livery, then buy the Ariane -400 in 'xyz' livery, again at full price. Effectively, what have you bought that's 'all new' etc? Exactly what you already own with a stretch, livery repaint and tweaked flight model to reflect alterations in size. And then you buy the BBJ which is the same old same old, but with winglets.... And then you buy the -800, which is.... etc. etc.If Ariane bring out a new plane (for example a 767) then I'd be more inclined to accept it as something 'all new' and pay full whack for it.All I'm suggesting here is that Ariane should reconsider their prices and their misleading advertising claims.Be well.Toni.

Hi Toni,I agree with you on the Ariane pricing policy. I simply find the product represents bad value for money and don't buy it.I am also aware of Mr Tishma's exploits in the past. However, this texture/model argument is somewhat counterproductive, as it does not serve to uncover any objectionable business practice on Ariane's part, but attempts to hold the fact they use a common design technique against them. To make such a claim in a forum like this is even more foolish, considering the people who frequent these boards. Amongst the ones who responded just to this thread are John Tavendale, Tom Everitt and John Cillis, all of whom have a distinguished record in FS add-on design. The best way to get your point across, would be to present an objective comparison to a comparable product. In this case, the only other 737-800 available is the freeware offering from FFX/SGA. Both are model only, so they're ideal for comparison. Start by listing the features of each aircraft, then compare how close the shape is to the real thing (use superimposition like Tom has done) etc. This will enable people to judge, which model they would prefer. Then you get to the pricing. Now you can list other payware aircraft add-ons in the same price range with a comparison of included features. Now people will have enough information to judge, whether the cost constitutes value for money to them, or not.As to Mr Tishma's business practices, you may want to post links to various articles on Avsim and elsewhere, which contain enough information for people to make up their own minds as to whether they want to do business with him or not. And that's the point - let people make up their own minds. Don't distort facts just to make your point, it will backfire in the end (some people in high places are currently learning this the hard way...).Also, there is often a lot more going on behind the scenes than what is apparent to the public.Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

GostaThanks again for the response. I fully respect your comments and your contribution to FS, just as I do John Tavendale, Tom Everitt and John Cillis. These and many others have my full support and gratitude for their contributions to our hobby.The key point, however, is that they don't charge money for their creations, neither do they use misleading marketing to encourage people to get their goods.I have no problem with the practice of basing one 737 on another as part of a design process (this makes perfect sense), but all I'm suggesting is that marketing the planes as 'all new' etc. as a means of substantiating the full price (as opposed to a more reasonable 'upgrade' price) is indeed bad practise IMO.I cannot think of another commercial developer who uses these tactics. Maybe that's why they don't attract the type of comments that Ariane always seems to.Also, comparing Ariane models to FFX (or anyone else) isn't really relevant. Much has been discussed about the nose shapes, flight characteristics, included features and so on, and of course 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. The issue here is not who's product is better than who's, particularly as the FFX planes are freeware.Tishma's past has also been exposed over and over and I would indeed encourage any 'newbies' to read the articles and make their own minds up about him. However, I can't see what facts have been distorted. Put simply, if it's not 'all new', 'unique' etc, don't claim it as such. As you said, let people make their own minds up for sure but from an even playing field based on truth, honesty and fact. 'Fly safe'Toni.

Hi Toni,>Also, comparing Ariane models to FFX (or anyone else) isn't really relevant. Much has been discussed about the nose shapes, flight characteristics, included features and so on, and of course 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.80 is an absolute bargain, while someone who is mainly interested in proper system simulation may regard $5 for just a model as a complete rip-off.Like you said, let people make up their own minds based on the facts. In order to enable them to make that decision, let's give them the facts in an objective, unbiased form.Cheers,Gosta.http://hifi.avsim.net/activesky/images/wxrebeta.jpg

IMO it's not warranted to make claims of 'all-new', unless the new model contains features previous models did not.I would consider a more 'genuine' approach for Arianes pricing policy to be of the pick-and-mix variety:1. Pay upfront for one of the basic models (Classic or NG) - there are significant difference between them at the level detail we're dealing with - engines,wings,gear,flaps,etc. - say $30.2. Pay only a top-up for additional variants (700, 800, 900, BBJ) and features like panels/sounds - say $5-10.3. Leave Paint schemes to the freeware community (since the value of the commercial product is enhanced by highly talented customers producing these and making them available, if they so choose - so is it a good idea in the long run to stand in their way).I've never bought an Ariane product although I consider a distinction between the actual model designers, and the geezer in the comfy leather armchair.Moreover, It's a shame the designers couldn't set themselves up with a more credible figurehead. Think of the splash they COULD have made (a la Eric and 767PIC)!

Thanks for bringing this up Ash.It is well known that Arianne, and it's owner (and his other sim companies) have been criticised by notable and respected figures in the sim community for years. The reason for this criticism has been due to the extreme poor quality of this company's previous products, which have bordered on breaching some kind of quality standards law - indeed some would say even broken that law.The owner fights back at his critics by threatening them with all kinds of action. May be his company has improved since then, but one thing I think I can safely say is that this guys track record certainly indicates that he is not in the Flight Simulation field for reasons of personal interest or any kind of passion for the subjet! No, no - it's strictly for the $$$$$ cashing in.It wouldn't surprise me if he had an army of posters all posting nice things about him and his company here - may be even here in this thread....Simmers, it's important to be aware of such possibilities! It's also important not to forget who is in the hall of shame...

I have been reading this post and I just wanted to put in my opinion.I recently purchased the United 733 2.0/TCAS II Combo pack for about $40.00 US. I, personally, am very happy with this 737 and the analog panel. I admit it was expensive, but I was happy for the combo pack. Everything works just fine. What I am even happier about was the way I was treated by them in Emails both before and after I was a customer. The person I have been dealing with is very friendly. This is unlike some support I received from another "well known" developer who makes good addons, but are very thin skinned and need therapy badly. My dealings with them were so bad, when I was trying to be polite, that they told me, in a mean way, that they didn't want me as a customer anymore. This was because I wanted support for an install that would not work. They have since recognised this as a problem, but told me I was asking for a ridiculous amount of support from them. They also run their support forum like something out of Goerge Orwell's 1984...showing only the good, and deleting anything that is bad (can you say PROPAGANDA?). I won't say who I am talking about, but I will say it's NOT Ariane, PSS, Precision Manuals, CaptainSim, Carenado, Flight1, Dreamfleet or Pilot's (you figure it out). In fact, I would say Ariane has been one of the top, besides CaptainSim, in being polite and respectful when dealing with me. I will also say that not one of these other developers has ever been as hostile, arrogant, or in need of some serious therapy as the "unnamed" meanies mentioned above.I think it depends on what is important to us as individuals. I like the quality of addons, but I also respect the quality of people I deal with. Ariane, in my opinion, has very high quality addons and people. I would rather do business with nice people than with total jerks. For me, Ariane has been in the former category.Jim