I dont know about any of you guys, but I am sick and tired of payware add-ons bugs slipping through the testing phase. Granted, there will always be problems, they cant replicate everyones system, and nothing is perfect. But to me, it seems like the testing of payware products is almost nonexistent. Awful framerates, crashes, missing nav data, missing textures, broken installers, screwed up airfiles, and many other bugs. I am not anti payware, in fact I love payware because they are usually very realistic products and the author's deserve the small amount we pay. But I just dont understand how such glaring problems can get through beta testing. In PSS's latest release (which is great by the way) the viewpoint for the VC is in the wrong spot. Granted, this is easily fixed, but why are such easily spotted issues let into the final product? Im just using PSS as an example, there are others of course. Again, nothing against payware author's, as I find their products usually of very good quality, but I would like to see more proof of beta testing.Let the flames begin.

I feel your pain, I truly do. But unfortunately, most members of the community do not feel the same way. Most feel that the Payware companies are doing us a really huge favor by allowing us to pay to beta test. So.....people like you and I are in the minority here. I have already accepted that. But I can tell you what I do now. Since most people are perfectly willing to fork out the cash to be paying beta testers...and that is their right.....then.....I just let them do it. I wait patiently for a couple months or so, while monitoring the forums, and, when these paying beta testers say that everything is finally ok, then I buy if I'm interested.Using this little trick, you will find that you're a lot less angry with yourself and your wallet at nights. Trust me.....

Agreed. I do the same.

As do I. Also, I stay away from vendors who use complicated and elaborate machine binding technologies. More hassle than it's worth. There's plenty of great freeware products for our hobby. If the payware folks wnat to make life difficult for the customer, then let them find their own way. It won't be off my money.

>But to me, it seems>like the testing of payware products is almost nonexistent. >Spoken like someone who has no clue what he's talking about...Unless you've been in the business and can back them up with actual facts (rather than rumours and wild accusations), don't make such sweeping statements.>Awful framerates, crashes, missing nav data, missing textures,>broken installers, screwed up airfiles, and many other bugs. >Performance and textures that don't show up (despite being there) are often caused by machine specific problems. As there are as many different machines out there as there are machines out there, it's impossible to catch all possible scenarios. Machine specific problems with installers ditto.Most people that think the FDE of a model is wrong think so incorrectly. While it is different from their expectations it is actually their expectations that are wrong and not the FDE.Sometimes something will go wrong during testing, or during the flurry of activity after testing.Mostly this is because the USERS put so much pressure on the company to release NOW!!!!!! that there is little else they can do.This is not a technical problem but a marketing failure in announcing products too soon in order to keep customers looking and beat the potential competition.>But I just dont understand how such glaring problems can get>through beta testing. In PSS's latest release (which is great>by the way) the viewpoint for the VC is in the wrong spot. >Granted, this is easily fixed, but why are such easily spotted>issues let into the final product? Im just using PSS as an>example, there are others of course. >Methinks you're not using PSS "just as an example" but this one sentence is the crux of your entire post and you're actually just complaining about them.It's the normal pattern...

I agree we are beta testers, but we have to pay a bill to be one.

It may well be the case that the author has had a bad experience with PSS products Jwenting, but he/she has made an effort to make their complaint is more generalised and I have to agree with them. I am not anti-payware and I do buy products that appeal from time to time. I dont have any PSS products, for no reason other than what they have hasn't grabbed me sufficiently to fork out the cash.I do have products from several other reputable firms. My experience with payware has been that although the makers strive to produce "better than most freeware" standards, many products from "good name" firms are simply way too underdeveloped at the point of release.Last year I was a beta tester for a commercial product & promptly reported my findings, having exhaustively tested their product (and I mean tested, not just taken it for a spin) and almost half my comments werent addressed before the product hit the streets. Needless to say the company issued several patches before users were satisfied. I recently purchased another addon from that same company & have to say it simply isnt up to scratch, despite a total rebuild & re-release on their part.The lesson for me is, as was stated above; take your time before ordering. If the forums report problems, wait. If there are no reviews, avoid it - theres a good reason why no-ones' reviewed it - and it aint just lack of interest.LonelyplanetXO

That is exactly what I do also. Let someone else pay to find the bugs and screw up their computers. By the way, this practice is prevalent throughout the entire software industry, not just flight sim addon products. If the majority of consumers would follow this policy of not buying until the software was finished we would soon be thrilled to find companies shipping bug free software at version 1.0. They wouldn't have a choice, they would have to.Tony

I know where you're coming from - I can only assume that the reputable companies do in fact conduct rigorous beta testing - yet some things just slip on by, glaring, basic, unreplicatable, you name it.I also accept this as 'life' - so I just wait until after release of the product, monitor the "after release/public beta testing/patch" phase, and THEN buy it! :)regards,Mark

>Spoken like someone who has no clue what he's talking about...Unless you've been in the business and can back them up with actual facts (rather than rumours and wild accusations), don't make such sweeping statements.Here is a fact: There are obvious bugs that are just skipped over, no matter what system they are on. >Methinks you're not using PSS "just as an example" but this one sentence is the crux of your entire post and you're actually just complaining about them.It's the normal pattern...I'm not complaining about PSS, PSS simply put out the latest release that was also the last straw. Just because consumers ask to release it, would it not be easier for the developer to fix the major bugs before releasing? Wouldn't that make the final release go smoother? It would, but they dont do that.

Hum, let me think of something in light of your post: from looking at the number of complaints about FS2004 in these and other forums, would you consider Microsoft is considering you a paying beta tester? and from your FS2002 experience, do you really expect a patch to be released for FS2004 thanks to your paying beta testing? last but not least, how many of you held back purchasing FS2004 because as always, as with any payware company, you would have expected it would be a payware beta version?Hum, maybe we shall all petition to Microsoft to force them build FS2006 for Macintosh only. This would avoid having to deal with millions of hardware, drivers, software and user errors combinations and remove a great deal of what the root of the problems is for 99% of the problems.Having said that, I agree with you that being primarily a hobby for many, including many developpers of payware add-ons, you could not expect the same standard of quality among the board. Luckilly enough, some few are working full time doing this and are building companies to offer better products, better customer service and a better simming experience to their customers. This maybe the main differenciation factor.So in the hope the problems you experienced with a few do not tarnish the will and efforts of the other companies, you should note that: all the FS distributors (like Wilco), all the FS eCommerce providers (like Flight1), FSD (to a great extent) and Reality XP, are the few in the crowd working 100% in this business and their income rely solely from this business. (forgive me if I've forgotten other leaders in their fields, feel free then to add your name in the thread). All the others to my knowledge, are offering FS add-ons in doing this as a part time (or week end) job and do not rely on this business for their income.Food for thought.

"Spoken like someone who has no clue what he's talking about...Unless you've been in the business and can back them up with actual facts (rather than rumours and wild accusations), don't make such sweeping statements."Indeed. What ever happened to expressing ones opinion? This is an informal forum and the man stated his frustration and obvious expatations shortfall. The only pattern that has become normal, is the defense of shoddy initial release payware by a small group of forum groupies. BobP :)

Can't understand why Part-Time developers can't have the same standards as full time developers. They could take more time nothing else. What I can understand is that full time developers be more careful with releases since one slip can damage their income. I can think of few part time developers that deliver some of the best add-ons and provide very good after sale support.For me the problem is always the balance between beta testing/developing time versus business opportunity and some times developer skills. The developer as to announce the product and create the desire to have it. Then the pressure began since the relation consumer/developer in FS is unique. However there's always two sides for the equation: The beta tester and the producer and it's wrong to blame one of the sides. The gold could reach market with bugs because the producer relied in poor beta testing or because the producer felt that the bugs weren't "show stoppers". However one never knows since the producer/beta tester relation doesn't allow to know the facts.Jos

... but I would like to see more proof of beta testing ...There are numerous developers with exceptional quality control that prove the system works. It has been said above, not all reported bugs/issues are corrected and make it to the final release; and some developers allow to be pressured into rushed releases.I have thought about adding a few "rushed" and truely bad releases, but will not do so afterall, we all know them. Some releases have matured to reliable products, and some developers have listened to customer complaints and matured to serious partners again.But to prove my point, consider these virtually bug-free softwares...- PSS Dash 8- PSS Avro Vulcan- Flight1 Meridian- RealityXP GNS530- RealAir SF.260- MAAM B-25- RCS B-25- Dreamfleet 2000 C310Some have undergone maintenance and optimizations, but you can use the 1.0 version of each of the above equally well. Quality control isn

It's called Extreme Programming: Software is released as a late beta! The beta testers ARE the customers! :-lolI wait until the addon has been out for a while :) The "companies" usually set an unrealistic deadline, release it with known bugs, and use the first customers as beta testers!! I can't believe people STILL fall for the lure of new payware!!! It's ALWAYS buggy! :-lolhttp://album.atomic-systems.com/showPic.ph.../AAV_banner.jpghttp://www.aavirtual.com :)