5. Don't remove a feature or two just because Laminar is not too thrilled with it. Even if Laminar offers these updates for free, IT DOES NOT GIVE LAMINAR the right to remove something that some or many users may be using or find useful.

what the heck do you mean that laminar doesnt have the right to modify a feature in its software .. please explain better your rationale.

I fail to understand why you don't understand what I posted, hence the two quotes above. Note the word "remove" in my post as opposed to the word "modify" in your post. Be that as it may, let me just illustrate it with something specific and exagerate a bit to make my point clearer.If the "autopilot" feature was completely removed ( or broken ) in an update when it was was working fine in a previous update/version, will that be acceptable to you as a user, assuming you understood the feature, were able to use the feature successfully, as intended and appreciated it in prior update/version?We can go into different reasons why the "autopilot" may be removed, but the fact that it was removed from lthe latest and future updates will be acceptable to you ? Where should the line on compatibility be drawn ? Or does that not qualify as a compatibility issue ?

For a minute, I thought that was Austin, in Amsterdam, when his XP10 demo wasn't working worth a *****

Edited January 23, 201214 yr by LAdamson

I fail to understand why you don't understand what I posted, hence the two quotes above. Note the word "remove" in my post as opposed to the word "modify" in your post. Be that as it may, let me just illustrate it with something specific and exagerate a bit to make my point clearer.If the "autopilot" feature was completely removed ( or broken ) in an update when it was was working fine in a previous update/version, will that be acceptable to you as a user, assuming you understood the feature, were able to use the feature successfully, as intended and appreciated it in prior update/version?We can go into different reasons why the "autopilot" may be removed, but the fact that it was removed from lthe latest and future updates will be acceptable to you ? Where should the line on compatibility be drawn ? Or does that not qualify as a compatibility issue ?

Doesn't feel like you are trying to be constructive ... your thought process is to far out to be constructive.

Doesn't feel like you are trying to be constructive ... your thought process is to far out to be constructive.

Constructive criticism, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. Where you stand depends on where you sit.

what the heck do you mean that laminar doesnt have the right to modify a feature in its software .. please explain better your rationale.

You asked me and I obliged, I thought quite lucidly.Now, you find my reply/explanation not "constuctive". Which is it ? Not "constructive" or unclear ? Did you read/understand the example I gave in my post ? What is it in my post that you do not understand now ?I used the word "remove" in my original post and YOU CHOSE to replace it with your own word, "modify".Yet, you do not understand. Or is it that YOU CHOSE NOT TO UNDERSTAND ?

"Why would I pay money for something that is no good?"the thread starter has a valid point, and it seems many who tried XPX the first time were equally frustated.is it their fault? no way.if I were responsible for XPX development, I think I would have to learn a lesson about customer OOBE, Out Of Box Experience. (there was actually a folder deep down in windows xp named OOBE with a nice tune playing in the background while XP installed for half an hour.)why critisize a potential customer who comes here and reports his first impressions? most successful companies now have what is called complaints management. wouldn't XP's developers (or marketing department, if only they had one) be better off if they made sure that first time users of their demo were overwhelmed and couldn't wait to purchase the full version instead of bashing for not trying to work their way through an unfinished beta version? You may critisize Microsoft all that you want, but they sure know how NOT to turn prospective buyers off. thats what I call a professional attitude. making a successful product and making a product successful is not only about flight models, FAA approval and what have you.Said the car dealer: "Sorry to hear you you didn't like your test drive, but its not the car's fault it is you who has to learn how to drive such a fine advanced car. after some tweaking it will get better and you will get the hang of it. just go to the various forums and ask politely how the ESP and GPS etc. work. Then buy the car, and only then come back and ask for advice, politely."I recall my car dealer showed a somewhat different attitude. The first time I opened and sat in that car it was such a fantastic experience I wish I could go back to relive this moment and buy that car one more time. When I came back later to actually pick it up it turned out they needed to re-work a minor detail on the tank inlet, and so they invited me for a free steak dinner "while-u-wait". the dinner was more expensive than XPX. That aside, this purchase was the best OOBE moment I ever had. No wonder they are now one of the worlds lagest car manufacturers world wide. but then again, their engineers don't work as their part time sales managers either.

Edited January 25, 201214 yr by fly_like_an_eagle

I agree with most of what you said, eagle, except one point. Microsoft DID know how to release a product that was very complete (features were acceptable and didn't leave an unfinished feeling), although performance of the product out of the gate has always been marginal to good. Now, MS seem to have disregarded what has made their products successful and led many of us to believe the next iteration of the franchise would be better than ever and is instead aimed at a totally different user base.LR is a small team making a big product, but that doesn't allow them a pass when a product is released that is very rushed and incomplete with many deficiencies in many areas.When a software product is released, the designers will have a set agenda and outline of all the features they need to have in and working 100%. The software will not ship until that has been accomplished. The performance guidelines would stipulate that it must perform with normal settings on all the machines in the development center. This product, even during development, will hit a stage where feedback is needed as to the performance impact on differing sets of hardware and software. This would be the beta stage where hundreds of people are given the test software. Feedback on performance bottlenecks is analyzed and fixed by the development crew, all the while features being rounded out. Once the features are code-complete, the beta testers are issued a release candidate (no longer beta title, but if this tests well, will be the shipped product - this stage is where they find out if they need to go back to the drawing board). Once any landmark features are ironed out to provide the expected experience, the product is boxed and sent to distributors.It seems that XP10 had a feature set that consits of: Draw Planet, Draw Road Data, Draw buildings in placements algorithmically generated, download and parse weather data, draw weather, flight models that fly, AI aircraft that taxi, take off, navigate and land at selected random destinations and routes.Once they had that, they sent it out to us as their product we bought. We come to find out that it's missing the many needed assets for accurate business/residential districts and for the most part, only has residential buildings. The clouds are very framerate unfriendly and need further enhancment to allow any normal amount of cloud cover to not render a slideshow. The complaints go on and on.Sometimes I feel like XP10 is like the final part of the Michael Keaton movie "Gung Ho" where he pushes a few cars out of assembly line where they have a body, interior and wheels, but the windshield, engine and transmission are all missing. Not that they can't be put in, but it's not very usable in its current state. XP10 can be great, but at current it isn't. We were told that XP10 would have plausible autogen, a new cloud-puff rendering system that would allow us to have thousands of puffs at various levels that would give a great visual representation with little impact on the FPS, and the most realistic flight model possible in a simulator.Well, the cloud puff system looks great, but it's far from giving good FPS, even on top-of-the-line graphics cards like the GTX580 or Radeon HD6970 with any nominal level of clouds on a cloudy day AND the autogen. It's like you can have autogen or you can have clouds, but not both. I can't wait for the day that this all changes. But we were not told that XP10 would be so incomplete and we also weren't told that what we saw at KSEA was due to a massive 3rd party addon. None of the scenery at KSEA is representative of the default scenery that will be included with the final product we would be purchasing.Once those deficiencies were brought to light, a somber mood came over the forums, and for good reason. We all thought we'd be getting more out of XP10 and instead were let down, only to be told by the stoic XP users that we just have to be patient. The problem is that I can be patient as I have faith that Austin will not let us down, but I'm also told I'm a trusting fool. Only time will tell if my trust is misplaced or well placed.