We as a community are killing our own hobby. Our insatiable demand for every increasing complexity of simulated aircraft and the resulting performance problems that result are the cause. There is a school of thought that actually believes we can simulate it all, the entire aircraft...for $20. I suppose it is understandable considering that somehow 767PIC worked (probably as much luck as genius) and we were led to believe it was the beginning of better things to come. Every complex release since has had its problems and we are merciless with the developers. But don't blame them, blame us. Most of us have never flown a real plane, but many (not all) come off as if they are chief pilot for Boeing or Airbus. I honestly couldn't tell you if the flight dynamics are any good or not...I can only compare to other virtual planes. Right now PSS is the target du jour but for me I really don't understand the desire to fly a plane via computer from 100 ft agl to autoland....thats not flight simulator its "program and watch" simulator. For all of you that are frustrated download a freeware plane like the DC-8, hand fly up to alt and back down and navigate using charts, VOR's etc. its both a challenge and fun!!!. And if you have to have a paid complex addon, modify your expectations accordingly and expect multiple patches.Mark

Well said,The other slippery slope is the "free upgrade" path.Take for instance Flight One Software.Ultimate Traffic is a HUGE program for FS2002. By combining several years of AI tools, Flight One produces a program that INSTANTLY gives customers thousands of flight plans, Thousands of Airports, and Thousands of Different AI aircraft, to populate FS2002.This program is only made possible by years of work with AFCAD's, flight plans and models.The finished result is released towards the end of FS2002 and is hailed as a revolutionary program.Fast forward Several months. It is October 29. FS2004 has been released a total of 3 months.The work on the upgrade is progressing. Flight one will offer it for free. But, the forums are not filled with praise for Flight One because they are putting so much extra work in for free. Nope, it's been 90 days, and everyone is P*SSED, because it's not out yet. Despite that fact that a new version of Traffic Tools and AFCAD needed to be developed, despite the fact that the SDK for FS9 has not been released.Fast forward 1 more month. AFCAD2 has been released, All the AFCAD's need to be redone "BY HAND". Yet still more griping. Only 300 were released within the first two weeks after the update? And no one spent the extra 3 minutes to run fault checker.Amazing.People by a product initially developed for FS2002. Demand an instant upgrade to FS2004 within 90 days, then Gripe because the AFCAD's which must be done by hand, are either slightly inaccurate, don't include parking codes, or are not the "thousands" that had been included into the FS2002 version.If I were a developer, I'd tell everyone to pack sand. When UT 2004 gets done, it will esentially be a brand new product, as new trafic tools and AFCAD's had to be incorporated. It should have been a seperate version and should have had it's own price.But then that would have made a bunch of people mad, who feel that any flight simulator add-on should be made available for any subsequent version free of charge regardless of how much work it takes to do it.I wonder if these people thought they should have gotten Windows XP for free since they purchased Windows 3.1 10 years ago....Same mentality.

>Take for instance Flight One Software.I agree.Or take Damian's weather add-on - another excellent example.People often have no one else to blame than themselves. If you buy add-on products in the always flux simulation market the least you could do is to be an educated consumer - and know what's in the pipeline. So if you know that 2 months down the road a major upgrade is coming (that most likely won't be free) - plan ahead and don't buy now - just wait. If you don't feel like waiting plan to pay an upgrade fee but don't whine later ... Michael J.

I assume you are are refering to what is going on in that "other forum". The sad thing is, this is becoming a daily thing. I've often wondered how many people out there, may have/had the ability to produce who knows what terrific add ons for the flightsim community, but after seeing what goes on here, goes "screw this, who wants to put up with this crap"! There are legitimate complaints out there, but there are way too many, who are just trolling to start something and I have to say it, too many, who just don't have a clue what the hell they are doing. "Readme file? README FILE? I don't have time for no stinkin readme file" " I demand the most realistic aircraft panel possible. Hey, how come it won't start with Control-E?" John Fitzpatrick

I agree Mark. What some folks expect for $50 (vs. a real multi-million $ 777 simulator) can be pretty amazing as some of the threads we read will attest to. There are several other threads throughout this FS forum as well as others that touch upon the very subject you have brought up here. It's quite obvious that there are some very passionate people out there who have spent the $50 to buy MSFS and then shelled out $2000+ on a new computer system to handle it. I should know - I'm one of them. This game (let me say that again...This game) is obviously a tremendous hit for aviation enthusiasts. I don't know the percentages, but I imagine the majority buy the game (myself included) to look out the window of whatever aircraft we choose and see the beautiful scenery moving by or, even if for just a little while, sitting in the left seat of a large commercial jet to see how good of a job we can do flying 300 passengers from point A to point B. And who doesn't get a chill when breaking out of the fog at a few hundred feet on the ILS at night to see a brightly lit runway there before us? The thousands of posts in this forum alone is proof of the fact that MS has come very close to replicating an experience many people dream of and that there are those who enjoy it so much, they spend hours, days, weeks or months creating add-ons the rest of us can use to enrichen the experience. And IMHO, for $50, MSFS delivers one hell of an experience. Enjoy the ride.Jeff

>The other slippery slope is the "free upgrade" path.In principle I agree with your comments regarding the free upgrade concept. Having said that I believe that the developers (no one company being singled out here) need to temper their "marketing" attempts. They need to ensure that the product released meets the expectations created. There are consumer affairs/fair trading departments etc etc in most countries and many of them subscribe to the following ideals (in some cases laws)According to one regulatory authority, goods must be1. Of Merchantable quality'Merchantable quality' means a basic level of quality and performance that would be reasonable to expect, bearing in mind the price and the way the goods were described.2. Fit for the purposeGoods must do the job the consumer made known to the seller at the time of buying or that is clear from the circumstances of the sale. Purpose is often, of course, self evident, but not always. Consumers should be able to rely on advice from sales staff.3. Match description or sampleGoods must match any description or sample given to the consumer whether face to face, on the labelling or packaging, or in any promotional material. 4. Free from defectsThere must be no hidden defects which affect the merchantable quality of the goods. Of course, consumers can't complain about defects that were pointed out to them or defects they discovered before buying. When a developer crosses the line from freeware to payware they need to expect that customer complaints will increase due to the fact that they are now charging for their service.

I disagree. It's a developers choice whether to release a `free` upgrade or not. Nobody's forcing them, they do so in order to cement future business or to ensure sales now. That's the commercial imperative. It's then a recipients absolute RIGHT to then decide whether that upgrade meets the grade. The quality of the upgrade is not dependant upon the price, it's only dependant on the quality. After that you can consider value for money. In light of current events we have seen the best and worst of both sides. The Real Air boys have delivered, big time, and the poor old PSS boys have blown it. Is it fair to draw conclusions about the provision of free upgrades from those two extremes? Probably not.Overall though, I can't help but agree that you get what you pay for. As recent events prove, you pay peanuts you get monkeys. You pay nothing you sometimes get nuts. Allcott

You're right, but . . .This is an international community. To some, the cost of FS9 is an hour's pay, and to some it's a half a month or more before enough is earned to afford it. Therefore to many the only way many can fly addons is via freeware and free upgrades.While they do not have the right to expect it, I believe many appreciate freeware and free upgrades more than they have indicated.Of course, I could be wrong.-- Steve Cullen

Will, Excellent points all, and this thread has started what is probably a necessary dialogue, and I hope some of the developers are reading it. As far as Ultimate Traffic, I thought that the FS2004 upgrade was released last week. Flight 1 Software has always been a top quality developer, at least in my book, and as far as I'm concerned, they did a super job with Ultimate Traffic and the recent update. There are a couple features that don't work yet in FS2004 but they are very proactive about providing status updates for them. A lot of the frustration I've seen levelled at developers lately, some petty and immature and some right on the mark, IMHO, is centered more around good customer relations and support than the actual desire "to get a multi-million dollar full flight simulator out of a $50 game". This includes things like: a. Marketing strategies - Some are "overpromising and under-delivering"...which is the opposite of what management experts say you should do. b. Poor beta testing and a rush to market. Seems to be a growing habit...even if the software becomes a top add-on, there is often a lot of frustration on the part of the customer in the interim until the inevitable patches are released. Some of the bugs that have crept into some recent releases effect a wide variety of users and are almost hard to believe. If an aircraft had basic bugs that most teenagers would have noticed, most buyers don't care how many real pilots tested the FDE. Some developers are much worse than others in this regard. c. Patching for compatibility with two versions of MS FS has become the market standard. It should carry the same emphasis by developers as developing a "new" product to get a quick kill on the market when a new sim comes out. The developers seem to have sensed this opportunity quickly with FS9. I am disappointed in that. Although some deliver exactly what they promised, and are proactive about it. Most users and consumers can now separate the two. With a new version of FS every two years, I will no longer by an add-on if there is no intent to patch for the next version. On the other hand, I think users that expect stuff that was developed for FS2000 to be automatically patched for FS2004 free of charge are being unrealistic. Again it seems one patch for one new version is what most users have come to expect as the standard. d. Poor documentation with patches. The one that was just released is a great example. If a developer spends 5 months patching something, why won't they spend a couple days documenting how to install it? Would save a lot of wasted hours and unneccesary gnashing of teeth on the forums. e. Poor customer feedback and responsiveness. The developers vary, I respect those who say it will be released when it is ready..but at least give status updates on the problems and what is being resolved. Silence is always treated as non-responsiveness. If I bought a new car and some things didn't work, I would expect the dealer to answer my phone calls.. f. New and intricate security techniques...probably legitimate to prevent piracy...but still somewhat exasperating at times. The best I've seen is the FLT1 wrapper, wish they all used that one. Some add-ons are costing nearly $50 each now, close to what the original simulator software costs. Most of them are high quality and reflect the ever growing sophistication of what is probably a limited population of users, some of which probably spend hundreds of dollars to make flight sim an enjoyable and realistic experience. Some developers handle the customer service issues and the bond of trust with their customers better than others...I hope these are the ones that keep getting the business.regards,

Mark,I agree with you about the expectations that get generated everytime something new is out.My point of view on this is that this is a HOBBY. I enjoy it as a HOBBY, and I think if you go around wasting your time getting angry at something your doing as a HOBBY, then your sense of values is really screwed up and your wasting some valuable life time.To all the people who love to vent their anger (and I think that they are in the minority more than the majority) who don't like the results, if you don't like how things are turning out, walk away. Life far too short to get angry if your torque gauges don't work, or your not getting high frame rates....To all the rational people, keep shooting for the blue skys, I'll see you up there..Steve Brown

I agree about the free upgrade thing. When a developer makes a product for one version of FS, I do not expect that product to work in the subsequent version(s) of FS. However, when a developer promises that the product will be compatable with the next version of FS, there is an expectation that it will indeed be compatable ;) And when you are talking $40+(easy, these days with the price of products) invested in one or two products, and they won't work, then I can definately understand some frusteration.But we, as customers, have to realize that it does take time to upgrade and ensure that the product will work. But the developers also have to realize if they made a promise, they have to keep it. It is a two way road (I hate that phrase...)

The state of flightsimming is an individual concept. While I suppose trends may occur, in general I don't see it, what I do see is varied concerns within people that what they like will go away.My suggestion is to ignore what you don't like about flightsimming. That way you never have to fear that your fun will be ruined.

Customer demand is customer demand. Somebody will fulfill theneed. Im not real interested in defending commercial developerswho want to be rewarded for their work but defended for theirproblems. Deliver a quality product. If its not ready..ok...dont release it. If its half baked and customers complain, beprepared to deal with the result. That scenario works at yourlocal bakery or butcher shop as well as it works here. Yeah..we're merciless. If you want us for beta testers, then releasefreeware. However if you are releasing payware product then be prepared to have your product called substandard if it is.Im a FAN of payware. I own stuff from Dreamfleet, Realair Simulations, FSD, FSGenesis, PSS, and others. Im reasonable in understanding that nobody is perfect. However at the end of the day if you dont deliver the appropriate value for the money, expect a complaint or two.Eric

There's nothing wrong with Freeware, nor payware....provided that there is a clear 'boundary' of quality that differentiates the Free from the pay. The problem now is that the Freeware has become SO good, that it has raised the bar for Payware to ridiculous levels....!!Someone mentioned PSS earlier...lets use them again for an example. The Airbus A320 Pro was a great package for Fs2002, but as yet is somewhat lacking with regards FS2004...however, Project Airbus produce a freeware aircraft which when coupled with a decent panel, is everybit as good (or at least, the difference wouldn't equate to the

>The problem now is that>the Freeware has become SO good, that it has raised the bar>for Payware to ridiculous levels....!!There are some superb freeware models out there, I just downloaded the Shark Twin Otter:http://library.avsim.net/search.php?Search...004ac&Go=SearchProbably the best virtual cockpit AND virtual cabin. Now it wasn't so long ago that I heard that Wilco's A320 PIC touted the virtual cabin as an innovation.The problem with payware is not the features but the performance. When Wilco's A320 PIC was released for fs2002 there was no end to the complaints about that product. Sure it had loads of functionality but nobody got it to work smoothly on their high specced machines. It put me off buying that product.It is this problem that somehow stops me from unleashing my wallet, getting the basics right. Everyone expects a payware model relased today to work on a machine that is at least half decent (2Ghz+, not pentuim 2's). When they find it stuttering it's no wander that the customers feel they've been short changed.Currently Lago's terramesh is the only payware product on my machine. I have more products on my shopping list (Piper Meridian, UK2000 and PMDG's 737) these have all passed the customers 'fist of quality' and that's what I look for in a product.>We expect more and>better quality addons, for less outlay, or for free....how>long before the payware companies give up, or before people>like POSKY, Meljet, and Aerodesigns go payware??Better quality is just the natural evolution of the way things are. I expect better quality, why? Because the tools used to develop our virtual skies become better and more productive. Would we have had SRTM mesh for fs98? No! The tools and data for the job just weren't available. Now they are, and you just have to look in the file library to see high resolution srtm mesh being freely produced for many regions.Higher quality expectations aren't just limited to simming, it applies everywhere - your new car, the gadgets you buy, the appliances in your kitchen, the serices you receive etc. So I say keep up customer expectations, but be realistic in what can be delivered.