I don't like the 'demo' system. Last week I downloaded KSFO, used the RA Spitfire, did the startup and took off. By the time I was at 1200' - half of the the airport was black. Purchase killed.

Are you saying you decided not to purchase it, because the demo wasn't long enough, because the scenery disappeared too quick after you took off ? So, if there was NO DEMO at all, this might have been better ?Maybe you haven't understood how the Trial works. It's not that you only have 5 minutes, and then it's finished. You only have 5 minutes AT TIME, if you restart Flight sim, another Trial will start, and this will go on without limitation, and without expiry date, and the scenery works exactly like the real version, during those 5 minutes.Also, it should be noted that the Trial time start from the moment you select the airport from the menu so, if you just started Flight sim, created a flight on that airport, and this was your first flight on that place, the loading time was probably longer, so your first demo period didn't last the whole 5 minutes. But that's not usually a problem because, not having any limitation on the number of times you can launch the Trial, on the next Flight sim start, going there again should probably take much less, and you should be able to use your 5 minutes entirely. And, of course, exit, switch on a different airplane, try it again, and so on.

If this was a Flight1 product Tom, we others and Umberto would not be having this depressing thread. There's a lesson here.

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/243449-positive-security-package-results-flight1-flt1chk4dll/

I tried the DFW demo & some of your so-called features turned me off the product. The bump & specular effects are totally unconvincing, I'd rather they'd be disabled. UK2000 & ORBX stuff is so much more polished & doesn't have a flaky DRM system to deal with either.

I really don't know what your personal tastes in scenery have anything to do with this, if you don't like our textures or our design style, they surely wouldn't look better if we removed the DRM features from the Addon Manager and use it for the scenery features only. We would still continue doing sceneries that way, because that's how WE like them, and the opinion is shared by many.

Just a small point here: I installed the QW 757 and FSX came up with the message "do you wish to install" etc the virtuali module. I clicked "NO" because I had no idea what this was at the time.

That's the normal FSX Trust screen. If something is asking permission to run, you might decide not to trust it, but you have to expect the product that just installed it will not work.

I realised this module was essential to run the QW 757 at all. I concede that the 757 pdf does refer to the module.

If you install any PMDG airplane, and don't trust Pmdgoptions.dll, I doubt the airplane will load correctly.

That's the normal FSX Trust screen. If something is asking permission to run, you might decide not to trust it, but you have to expect the product that just installed it will not work.If you install any PMDG airplane, and don't trust Pmdgoptions.dll, I doubt the airplane will load correctly.

Yes Umberto, correct. I really don't want to give you a hard time here, but the point is, you do not normally expect that installing an addon from one developer will result in a pop up trust screen for ANOTHER developer whose products one has never purchased! Natural caution understandably leads to suspicion and some confusion. This is not the same as installing FSUIPC, which is not protection software and is also known about universally. Of course NOW I know why, and can make an informed decision, but I did not have that information at the beginning, and that's partly the thrust of Tom's original post. All I am asking is that you make this clear and that somehow you encourage other developers using your licensed protection software, which you euphemistically call "ADDON manager", to also make the same thing clear BEFORE purchase.

Hey guysLets NOT get into slagging off the actual quality of the product. As you've seen, I'm as 'anti' the installation/activation method as many here. Which is what this thread is about - NOT the product.

I'm not sure that the trust screen really counts as notification, or as a means of giving a user a choice. The trust screens normally appear in quick succession on first launch of a new product. As Rob mentioned, it's not customary to expect that one of the modules comes from another developer or serves some obscure purpose - the normal encounter with a trust screen has to do with accepting, say, a gauge.As for the user giving consent via the trust screen, well... there's a term in U.S. law called "contract of adhesion." It refers to a contact where one side has all the bargaining power, and the other side doesn't really have a chance to negotiate. A typical example would be the fine print on the back of your ticket to a baseball game that says that by buying the ticket, you waive your right to sue the team if you're hit with a batted ball. You have the choice of either waivng your rights or not attending the game. These contracts typically don't stand up well in court - there's usually a more specific law that intervenes (did the team neglect to put up a screen behind the plate?) I'm not sure if the trust screen is technically a contract of adhesion - I'm not an attorney (though I'm married to one) so I'll defer to those who are. [EDIT: it might be.] But it strikes me that a choice betweeen "trust this module" and "don't use our software" isn't a real choice. If I had the option of rejecting the module and still using the software, maybe in some more limited way, then that would be more like a normal bargaining process, and the trust screen would actually mean something.

Hey guysLets NOT get into slagging off the actual quality of the product. As you've seen, I'm as 'anti' the installation/activation method as many here. Which is what this thread is about - NOT the product.

I agree completely. The products are quite good and after my Simconnect (mis)adventure, I continue to use them.However, as others have pointed out, there are other products that are quite good (like Orbx and FT), even if not as "far reaching," that don't involve all this rigamarole. So I think it's legit to ask if the quality is worth the extra work. In my case, all's well that ends well, but others might legitimately disagree.

The products that FSDT make and bring to market speak for themselves. It seems to be an argument on methodology which frankly sedates me. The fact is that many simming enthusiasts would be much worse off without companies like FSDT & RealAir. Can we please just hug this one out?

That combined with the fact that potential customers can't even read forum messages about possible user problems with e.g. Virtualli makes QW a definite no-go for me.Too bad as the BAe and the 787 did look promising.E.g.the A2A Spitfire with the super realisistic accu-sim module enhances FSX a lot and it doesn't need any of this stuff

Totally wrong. There is a 'non registered' forum where TOSN of information is available before purchase, as well as another ton on info available on their website and through email.QW certainly isnt alone in restricting access to registered support forums, and a few who do are posting here.http://forum.qwsim.com/viewforum.php?f=6

The products that FSDT make and bring to market speak for themselves. It seems to be an argument on methodology which frankly sedates me. The fact is that many simming enthusiasts would be much worse off without companies like FSDT & RealAir. Can we please just hug this one out?

Sorry you're bored. Yes, let's change the discussion: "The products are good, so let's not pay attention to what's going on behind the curtain, and let's make sure consumers don't get to find out if there might or might not be problems with add-ons. Quality is its own winning argument."Sure.

As Rob mentioned, it's not customary to expect that one of the modules comes from another developer or serves some obscure purpose

The QW757 doesn't install the Addon Manager only, it ALSO installs FSUIPC, that QW licensed too so, you will see the same question about it, if you didn't had fsuipc before, or your installed version was different. Many other airplanes installers install fsuipc as well, so it's not uncommon at all to install an airplane from a certain developer, and being presented with a trusting question belonging to another developer.

I'm not sure if the trust screen is technically a contract of adhesion - I'm not an attorney (though I'm married to one) so I'll defer to those who are. But it strikes me that a choice betweeen "trust this module" and "don't use our software" isn't a real choice. If I had the option of rejecting the module and still using the software, maybe in some more limited way, then that would be more like a normal bargaining process, and the trust screen would actually mean something.

But you are just making my point here, the Trust system is there to inform you about only two things: 1) A new executable that has been just installed is trying to run 2) IF the executable is digitally signed, will tell you who made it, which should ideally help you knowing who's to blame, in case it doesn't workThe trust system can't really inform you to anything more than that but, it can't tell you if that program performs correctly. You really have to assume that, if a product install something, it's really needed for it to run, and you should expect malfunctions without it. So yes, the only real choice you have, is not to Trust it, if you don't "trust" it (pardon the pun), but you'll not be able to use the software.Maybe this is seen more as a problem with QW, since they decided not to have a Trial, but the issue is, we designed the whole system around the idea of the Trial, so our customers usually download the scenery first, and then purchase it, which means they get in touch with the Addon Manager immediately.

Are you saying you decided not to purchase it, because the demo wasn't long enough, because the scenery disappeared too quick after you took off ? So, if there was NO DEMO at all, this might have been better ?Maybe you haven't understood how the Trial works. It's not that you only have 5 minutes, and then it's finished. You only have 5 minutes AT TIME, if you restart Flight sim, another Trial will start, and this will go on without limitation,

I understand how the trial works, Umberto, I've tried a good number of your products - and do indeed like them: BUT -I like to cold-start at a gate or parking spot - not on the runway, running. Maybe that's my issue, but a rushed takeoff and a quick circuit before it disappears is not my idea of a trial. Every one is different. One cannot see SFO in three minutes. One cannot see ORD in three minutes. Perhaps three ten or fifteen minute flights and then it disappears - fine, or - like FS Captain - limit it to that one airport only - or some combination - or just don't offer a trial. If the trial can cause a negative reaction for whatever reason - then you should not offer it. I'm not going to take five little flights to see if I like it. I will buy an addon based on the screen shots and forum recommendations from the 'heavy-duty' simmers (they know who they are!) and that is usually good enough for me. Take George's (FlyTampa) Boston.. Magic. If FT still produced the West Coast as they did for FS9 I would have owned every one for a long time. My FS9 LH 'Maddog' route used to begin in Vancouver, and end in SanDiego, and I enjoyed every second of it. That area has no good representation from any top dev. Your products are a shade behind FT in 'perfection', but I will for sure have purchased Chicago, McCarran, Kennedy and Fort Worth long ago if it were not for this kludgy trial. As I said before - if this were a Flight1 product we wouldn't be having this talk. It might be a bitter pill to swallow when someone asks for a refund - but that openness has given them an awesome reputation from our side of the fence. No arguments - refund. Boom. I tried EZCA three times and returned it three times before it stuck, thanks to the continuous updates. Now v2.0 is on it's way - and they'll have another sale.Anyway - thanks for taking so much time here, Umberto; it's been a pleasure reading your responses, and marveling at your patience and very professional manner - it hasn't changed over the years!

And it really gets on Peter's last nerve when 3rd party programs automatically install FSUIPC, as it might not be the latest version and it may cause all sorts of support issues for him. He has stated that fact many times in his forum.

This just to inform anyone that, the updated Addon Manager installer, which will ask to update the QW757 Gauge ( only if it's found ), is already online on our website ( the "Stand-Alone Addon Manager" link on every Info page )I'll probably be able to update and upload all the rest of the FSDT installers around tomorrow, and Flightbeam and QW installers should be available shortly so this should address the main complain Tom was having.I would like to stress that, we constantly update both the Addon Manager and the installers, trying to make it more user-friendly so, if anyone have other suggestions how to improve it (sometimes, even replacing a text with a better description might be enough), by any means let us know, there's no need to start such rant to get updates, nobody really asked for user-controlled deactivation, but we added it anyway.

To me it seems like problems are occurring with only a few people. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and can choose to buy what they want. If you don't want the Addon Manager then don't buy FSDreamteam or FlightBeam products. You will be missing out on some great stuff but that is your choice. I own EVERY FSDreamteam product and as long as there quality stays the same (which I'm sure it will) I will continue to buy every new release. I also have bought FlightBeam KSFO and with all these on my computer i have had 0 problems. The way i see it is that if you choose to stop buying there products then you are the one missing out.

And it really gets on Peter's last nerve when 3rd party programs automatically install FSUIPC, as it might not be the latest version and it may cause all sorts of support issues for him. He has stated that fact many times in his forum.

That wouldn't be a problem with our installers (including the QW one, which I wrote), because the fsuipc.dll contains versioning info embedded in the .dll, and our installer honors that because it checks every file for that info (and if there's none, it will check the file date) so, if the user already has a newer version of fsuipc, it will not be overwritten by the installer.