The punters bring it on themselves. All the 'I can't wait's, 'My CC is ready' and tongues hanging out for anything new. Three days after a new release, the moans start.

Make no mistake, I have been part of that crew. (in my head anyway) I've bought scenery before the paint is dry and aircraft before it's filled with fuel. No more! I'll wait till the dust has settled and the truth emerges.

Can you imagine if everyone did that? Developers would have no choice but to finish their products before release.

I don't include products which state upfront that something is in development. I can then make a decision whether to partake....or not.

2c

I agree on that addiction (feeling pretty addicted myself), but to me it looks like "those" developers use begging for release as a mere pretext.

 

Wait!!! If I'm addicted and begging, I'll buy the other ones' products if they're released first, right? So I DO put some pressure on the good ones?!?

Good software developers tend to separate themselves from the rest of the herd and thus become successful on the strength of their reputation. I wont mention any names but anyone who's done their homework knows who they are. They still make mistakes but we should reward their efforts. I have bought aircraft add ons purely on the basis of who the developer is, not necessarily based on an interest on a particular model.

A few of things to point out:

 

1. No one has ever released software with zero bugs.

2. The odds of a software developer catching every possible permutation of what a user may or may not do when using their software are absurdly high.

3. Every single one of you use buggy software daily.  Windows is packed with 'em.  Absolutely packed.  Microsoft releases patches... but, you paid a great deal more for Windows than you did for any of your addons and the sales volume for the OS is in the millions whereas the addon is lucky to be in the thousands.

 

So... if you really want better software (as in fewer bugs)... you need to be willing to pay for it... which I'm pretty certain not a single one of you really are.  You would have to pay a much higher cost up front (hundreds, not < $50)... the development time would be in the years range for any single addon (not year... years)... and patches would also be in the months range (not days or hours).  Tech support would no longer be free, you'd have to pay for each and every incident.

 

In short... you're getting a far, far better deal now than you really think you are.  Are bugs annoying... sure... but you're only willing to pay for a Yugo.. and are demanding a Lamborghini.

Developers, by and large, are under-estimated, that's for sure.

 

Anyone ever tried to develop something themselves?!?

But the price points are relative as ours is a market in it's own little unique universe.  The problem comes up when PMDG are releasing planes for ~$75USD for a complex airliner or what was it- ~$40 for the Jetstream I think.  I think anyone who purchases addons has bought something like a complex airliner for somewhere between those two price points but does not come close to living up to either. 

 

There are a few companies out there pricing their products right on target like PMDG and Flight1 in house developed products (C510, C182).  High on the price scale but the best of the best.  Aerosoft, imho, is right on with their price points.  Argue all you want, but their Airbus Extended is a good product after a very active and quick patch cycle with a lot of direct involvement between the community and consumers.

 

On the other hand, consider how much MORE you may have spent on a CS product in comparison to something like the Airbus Extended, how much worse that product was and the void of any post release development.  And it's not just CS that is guilty.  Price point vs. depth of product and support after purchase are what define value in this market and it can only be measured against other developers. 

 

Of course what it really comes down to is learn your lessons or stop complaining.  If you are going to fork over $60+ USD for every modular CS release and then be shocked and appalled by what you get, I've got no sympathy for you.  There are clear warning signs that have already been mentioned in this thread and if one chooses to ignore them, they are at their own peril- not the least of which is that there are not many developers that can price their products like PMDG does and get away with it, and none of them start with the letter 'C', and I am referring to more than one here.

The question was:

 

"Who started the release w/o a quality check trend in payware?"

 

I would have to say it is you, the simmer, started the trend... not the developer.  I believe if it was not a successful business model developers would stop doing it as much.

 

I have owned my share of sub par products but I've never demanded perfection either. I'm quite frankly, amazed at how much they get right. I think the previous forum post nails it on the head when they talk about post release technical support, or lack there of, inherent with some developers. Understanding that there are going to be bugs with any software release, are they proactive in rectifying the most glaring ones or do they just sit back and collect the money.  This, I think, is what separates good developers from the inferior ones. Also, There is a huge difference in different products based on whom a particular product is geared for. The Just Flight F-Lite offerings come to mind. I've read many negative posts regarding different products that have more to do with someone not fully reading the product description and then find that it didn't meet their expectations ,such as a fully modeled FMS for example.

What's the phrase? "Caveat Emptor", or BUYER BEWARE.

 

The more educated and informed you are about what you're purchasing, the better off you'll be in the end. Crying and complaining to the developer, as well as pestering and begging the developer to release the product isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

As more and more developers release 'lite' versions of their products, the buyer needs to be much more informed and aware of what he (she) is purchasing. CS is an example with their L-1011; so is Carenado with releasing FSX airplanes for FS 9, without 2D panels. I was surprised to see this, but I bought the packages (C-337, PA-31) on sale during X-Mas so all in all, it's a minor bump in the road.

For software in general….

 

The testing piece of the software development life cycle is essential to ensure minimal bugs after a release. I don’t think many DEVs are investing in the QA for software these days because the quality is so poor. In addition, I don’t think that consumers are holding the DEVs responsible (demanding refunds etc.) to a degree where the DEVs feel the pressure to invest more in QA.

 

When I worked as a tester for a software development company, our QA team was just as big (employees) as the coding team, and the coding team was responsible for a certain amount of testing (code review) before we took a shot at it with thousands of test cases to poke holes in the product.

 

You won’t catch everything, but simple installs, compliance with 2 major graphic card manufacturers etc. would be covered. The simple errors that arise today indicate to me that QA is on the back burner for many DEVs. We are at an all time low in this industry where consumers actually pay to be testers (or employees) and are proud of it. We thank DEVs for fixing things they are obligated to do in the first place and should have done before taking our money.

 

My company had a superb track record for low issues after a release, and as testers, we were on the hot seat if something major slipped by us. We had bug stats and our jobs depended on keeping the numbers within an acceptable range. I had 3 PCs that I could use at the same time (low, med, high spec), I could load and run 4 OS images on each pc, and I was 1 of 10….so we all could cover a lot of scenarios.

 

Yes, most small DEVs won’t have those resources, and they should not be in the business of making false promises for ambitious software; because at the end of the day, the consumer gets nothing if they spend more time trying to get the product to work as opposed to enjoying it.

 

I also develop software and testing takes time. I can code something in 10 minutes and spend the next 2 or 3 hours testing the impact. However, when you “sell” something knowing that you have not invested a considerable amount of QA to ensure that product performs as you advertised (pc requirement etc.), then you have committed consumer fraud. IMO, many DEVs intentionally do this and have fooled the market such that it is now the “accepted” norm.

 

The question was:

 

"Who started the release w/o a quality check trend in payware?"

 

I would have to say it is you, the simmer, started the trend... not the developer.  I believe if it was not a successful business model developers would stop doing it as much.

 

 

 

Good point!

One thing I wish, and I beat this dead horse all the time, is that the reviews of the airplanes would discuss how "checklist complete" an aircraft is.  E.g. each step in (especially) the startup checklist works.  That by itself, would separate a lot of the good from the bad. 

I have never been a developer so I cant really say what really goes on and the internal situations without being in their shoes. But I do agree with lack of quality for certain products. 

 

What sets things apart IMO is developer participation with the community AND LISTENS and ACTS on the feedback. In bold because ive seen lots of denial there is a problem when clearly there is evidence many have the issue. 

 

I participate in a publicly available paid beta addon, and I enjoy it. Why? Because the developer watches and listens to the feedback of the users, and implements them into frequent updates. This makes a night and day difference to me. Yes its not a complete product but with so much 2 way communication, its why the addon is maturing in an effecient and progressive manner, compared to some addons that are so called finished and released with no care in the world to improve and fix issues. 

 

This is a very niche market, so their funds I can appreciate are very limited, as ours hard earned money. But we still demand addons. If the above is followed, I dont have a problem supporting it if Im able. 

QA is a very tricky thing.

 

There's something to be said for, though I know you'll hate to hear it, using customers as your final QA. The use cases possible with a large, uncontrolled QA situation are far more extensive, though the feedback may not be as technically informed.

 

Doing it that way, though, requires the right approach to communication (which is time-consuming, and can be discouraging for devs and even QA folks without hardened shells), and then a plan for responsiveness and communication afterwards.

 

It's all complicated by the ability to search on everything now, too. If I'm considering your work, it's very easy for me to see what others think about it, what issues are persistent and for how long, and what the developer has done to resolve them, with what attitude and within what time frame.

 

That all puts a leash on the whole effort that is far more rigorous than any QA team could ever be, even the best.

 

The single biggest mistake both developers and consumers make is being ignorant of how massively exposed they all are now on the Internet. I can post a complaint on something and it will show up top of search in an hour; if I'm an idiot in my complaint, the world now sees that. If I'm one of a number with the same problem over a period of time, that will be a huge, "hmmm.... maybe not" for potential customers, for years to come.

 

It's a good thing, ultimately, as it means the democratization of business. Quality will out, and win, and lack of respect from any direction will produce life-long humiliation.

 

 

 

I just bought a brand new airplane for FSX

 

Which one?

One thing I wish, and I beat this dead horse all the time, is that the reviews of the airplanes would discuss how "checklist complete" an aircraft is. E.g. each step in (especially) the startup checklist works. That by itself, would separate a lot of the good from the bad.

 

 

If those reviews considered expanded C/Ls and flows I wouldn't object either. Would be way more helpful for me than having two thirds of a review scrutinizing the external model, for example.