AFS design bad support [Old, outdated thread]

[Lowflyer 97]

See, I don't buy the whole PMDG will charge you 3-4 times more thing. Just because PMDG can charge that doesn't mean that any old tat can be sold for 20 euros.

Apologies for not being clear enough. What I should've said was that 20 euros doesn't seem like a lot of money for the package in question. Could be that I'm wrong and the product is truly wretched. I admit the signs are all there. If you cram pretty much the entire Airbus range into a 51 mb file you must be cutting some corners and every time I see cabin interiors as detailed as this one I can't help getting the feeling that they're just doing it to take focus away from shortcomings in other, more important areas.

[High Plains Flyer 35]

I came across this because I was considering purchaing the A350 model from this outfit. Thanks for the heads up. It is interesting to note that a demo version was uploaded here a few days ago. It seems that a lot of people could be deceived and cheated.

 

With respect to some of the comments here. Some people think that the doctrine of caveat emptor is the law. It most definietly is not. Vendors are to supply a product which conforms to their descritpion of the product. They are not allowed to lie through their teeth.

 

If a product claims to have a VC, it should have a VC. To claim that the product has a VC when it does not, is fraud.

 

Second, outfits like Simmarket apparently take the position that they are not responsible for the products they sell. This is incorrect. The contract is between the consumer and Sim Market. There is no contractual relationship between the consumer and the developer, in this case AFS. If you are going to get your money back, you are going to get it back from Simmarket.

 

Perhaps a vendor can be excused to some extent if they were not aware of problems with the product when it was first listed. But once they become aware of the problem, they are equally guilty of fraud if they continue to list that product and continue to include the fraudulent claims concerning that product. Once consumers started posting negative feedback, they clearly were on notice that the product was not what was being advertised.

 

Indeed it seems that many developers and vendors live by the Ferengi first rule of acquisition: "Once you get their money, you never give it back."

 

It is an unfornate fact of life that developers and vendors get away with fraud. But it is unfortunate in the same way that consumers often get away with piracy. This is not rocket science, but plain every day honesty.

 

Another factor here is the consumer never gets a chance to really look at the product before putting down his money. Instead, he gives his money and HOPES the product lives up to its claims. And when the consumer discovers that he has been cheated, he is met with stonewalling and threats?

 

If people in this hobby don't want to become the victims of liars and cheats, they need to make it clear that such conduct will not be tolerated. If they don't want to pay money for substandard products, they need to hold the people peddling those products accountable. This means we don't make excuses for fraudsters. We don't try to justify the release of substandard products.

[mosteen 111]

Right on the money Douglas. "Cheap" is relative, price does not matter when a contract is breached, in this case by failing to deliver what is promised and described. The buyer fulfilled his part, the vendor did not. No need to bring out the popcorn, case closed.

[kannwar 47]

I came across this because I was considering purchaing the A350 model from this outfit. Thanks for the heads up. It is interesting to note that a demo version was uploaded here a few days ago. It seems that a lot of people could be deceived and cheated.

 

With respect to some of the comments here. Some people think that the doctrine of caveat emptor is the law. It most definietly is not. Vendors are to supply a product which conforms to their descritpion of the product. They are not allowed to lie through their teeth.

 

If a product claims to have a VC, it should have a VC. To claim that the product has a VC when it does not, is fraud.

 

Second, outfits like Simmarket apparently take the position that they are not responsible for the products they sell. This is incorrect. The contract is between the consumer and Sim Market. There is no contractual relationship between the consumer and the developer, in this case AFS. If you are going to get your money back, you are going to get it back from Simmarket.

 

Perhaps a vendor can be excused to some extent if they were not aware of problems with the product when it was first listed. But once they become aware of the problem, they are equally guilty of fraud if they continue to list that product and continue to include the fraudulent claims concerning that product. Once consumers started posting negative feedback, they clearly were on notice that the product was not what was being advertised.

 

Indeed it seems that many developers and vendors live by the Ferengi first rule of acquisition: "Once you get their money, you never give it back."

 

It is an unfornate fact of life that developers and vendors get away with fraud. But it is unfortunate in the same way that consumers often get away with piracy. This is not rocket science, but plain every day honesty.

 

Another factor here is the consumer never gets a chance to really look at the product before putting down his money. Instead, he gives his money and HOPES the product lives up to its claims. And when the consumer discovers that he has been cheated, he is met with stonewalling and threats?

 

If people in this hobby don't want to become the victims of liars and cheats, they need to make it clear that such conduct will not be tolerated. If they don't want to pay money for substandard products, they need to hold the people peddling those products accountable. This means we don't make excuses for fraudsters. We don't try to justify the release of substandard products.

 

Agree 100%. Honestly, people in this hobby can be so condesecnding sometimes. Why is it the OP's fault that he didn't do a whole lot of extra reading around the product and user reviews? Why should he have to? When a product is advertised a prospective buyer should be able to take it in good faith that the product he/she is paying for is exactly what is being sold. Going and blaming the OP in this situation because they took this advertisement from a large vendor in good faith is pretty darn arrogant and it puts the blame on the buyer instead of squarely on the vendor/developer. Which is where it should well be.

[XPX64man 130]

Yeah after all I thankfully got refund from Simmarket.

 

 

Simmarket always comes through. They are one of the best places there is to buy addons. :wub:

 

My suggestion is to never buy an aircraft sim that is under $35 unless you have heard great praise for it though out the Avsim forums, or you know the quality of the developer from past experience.

I know you have to sift through the comments about a product sometimes, to get the truth, but you can always get the feel if the comments are honest or just bashing.

It's always worth checking here first.

[mgh 89]

Does this add-on have a VC or not?

[simmerhead 885]

Thanks for the heads up. Based on the info provided by the seller and the product you paid for and got this is a fraud, or very misleading at best. A repaint is not the same as a different model. Sadly most addons are crap. Luckily we have serious shops like Simmarket out there who can put things right. Also, you could demand money back from your creditcard company since you didn't get the product you paid for.

[honanhal 1,420]

Second, outfits like Simmarket apparently take the position that they are not responsible for the

If people in this hobby don't want to become the victims of liars and cheats, they need to make it clear that such conduct will not be tolerated. If they don't want to pay money for substandard products, they need to hold the people peddling those products accountable. This means we don't make excuses for fraudsters. We don't try to justify the release of substandard products.

 

Very, very well said. This may be a niche hobby, and it may be true that sometimes we should be grateful for what we get, but I will never understand the strange Stockholm syndrome that makes some simmers so eager to make excuses for egregious developer behavior.

[xplanery 250]

Does this add-on have a VC or not?

Version with no cabin apparently has, however one with cabin modeled doesn't for some reason, and that wasn't mentioned anywhere. Or at least this is how it was when I bought it, of course after I got refund I removed it from my system so I have no idea if its developer has released new version of it or something.

[gbk1 1]

My experience with AFS DESIGN and the model designer person in particular has been more than happy.

 

One of their products has been updated, whereas the online store I've bought it from didn't offer a way of getting the updated product without purchasing again. I've sent AFS DESIGN an email and in just a FEW MINUTES I've got a reply with a Thank you for my purchase and download links for the updated product.

 

I've felt obliged to inform you about my good experience with AFS DESIGN since the support and the friendlyness I've been treated with has been outstanding.

 

P.S I've nothing no commercial or any other interest with AFS DESIGN

[xplanery 250]

Great that you have had a good experience. Even with those partially misleading product texts I wouldn't have made this thread if the attitude that he responded with hadn't been so bad, but maybe he had just a bad day or something, I don't know.

[DrzewieckiDesign 91]

DEL

I haven't realised that the topic was so old.

[xplanery 250]

If AFD had agreed to fix the issues with the models or alternatively compensate by providing a free product I would have written a positive review after the first one, yet he chose to threaten me with police for "looking at his files" and refused to do anything to fix OBVIOUS flaws with his product and its misleading info. That's absolutely unacceptable, now that I'm a payware developer myself I would never treat my customers like that. 

 

 

but they chose otherwise and they had the right for it. 

 

 

Any payware developer is supposed not to lie to their customers by claiming their product is something that it isn't. Also he shouldn't release a product with severe graphical bugs that are so obvious they can't be missed, yet AFS Design did just that. 

 

 

Paying 20 euros for an unusable and misleading product is not okay, especially when the developer refuses to fix it. In fact I would call it a SCAM. 

 

What if I released a scenery that CTD's your FSX in 2 minutes without mentioning it in product description and then telling any customers who wrote negative reviews that I won't fix it? Would you be okay with that? 

 

I don't know what made you post to this two years old thread, anyway your ideas of what's acceptable in business are quite bizarre if you think the behavior of AFS design in this case was anywhere near acceptable. I sure hope you don't treat your customers like that. 

 

FSCamp, you should ALWAYS contact a developer first, before writing a review.

 

 

A developer should ALWAYS make sure his product isn't severely flawed before releasing it to the public. Or alternatively if your product is a flawed pile of junk then honestly tell and show that in the product page. 

 

AFS Design very well knew that their product wasn't anywhere near for release and that the product page was misleading, negative previews are a natural consequence of that. Treating your customers badly results in more negative reviews.

 

At least in my country honesty is an appreciated value. If I feel scammed I believe it's my right and duty to express my feelings appropriately so that others might avoid the same faith. 

[DrzewieckiDesign 91]

I agree.

[xplanery 250]

**Note: This is an old thread based on an experience of an individual only, since then the support practices and product quality of the said developer may or may not have changed. Please don't resurrect this thread if you don't have anything meaningful to add.**

Hopefully now people should notice that this thread is old and by no means intended to be used as a bash campaign against the developer. I'm sure AFS design has some good products too and perhaps their support has improved during these years, who knows.