The question was:

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

 

In terms of delivering a known buggy and incomplete aircraft to market (to fund further development or pay outstanding wages) that would have to be AirSimmer with the A320. Captain Sim must have seemed to think this was a good idea. It is a disturbing trend and one I wont support in any shape or form.

As a sidenote:

 

I'm still a proud owner of a boxed product, airplane as version 1.0, for FS9. The box came with an extensive printed manual, including a thorough tutorial and numerous rw charts. Two servicepacks would follow the initial release, of course.

 

The amazing facts, as compared to today's "standards":

- Even though it was a version 1.0, it still got boxed in that very state.

- Even though it got boxed as v1.0, it would still be complete (as compared to its advertising) and did not have a "show-stopping" bug (though some severe autoland issue for a number of users with low fps).

 

I can't remember any other v1.0 box so close to its promoted feature list - especially not for FSX.

 

Again, just a sidenote ...

If you really want to go back in time - and step outside of flightsim a bit - the trend really started with Microsoft and Windows.  That was the beginning of "we'll release it now in sort-of-OK shape and fix it later."  IBM, by contrast, decided to take its traditional approach to OS2 - "let's spend a couple more years tracking down every bug we can find so it'll be flawless."  Guess which side won.

 

Frankly, the current approach in business as a whole is faster/cheaper/just good enough.  Excellence doesn't count for much anymore.  It's just not profitable.

(...)  Excellence (...)'s just not profitable.

 

Just to sum it up, kind of ...

 

 

To add to this: Honesty isn't either.

 

- We see work-in-progress, released and advertised like a finished product.

- We see all those "download products are not refundable", which is not true, for example, for Germany (and probably not true for most countries in the European Union, either). In Germany, regular law of contract is applied. Addons are regarded as standard software, and standard software is regarded just as your brand new car, contract-wise.

 

Ever seen a developer/publisher/retailer who'd admit that? (Flight1, actually, might be the only exception to that rule.)

a particular 757 that came in separate parts

in my opinion, not really the same thing, but ok

 

outsourcing work

Great point, probably why we wont ever see the repairs

 

 

 

I would have to say it is you, the simmer, started the trend...

I understand, maybe it's just the first time I've noticed the issue since learning how to use the simulator

 

 

Which one?

I'd rather not say, the plane is fine, just a few obvious things is all

 

 

 

AirSimmer with the A320

also, in my opinion, not exactly the same thing, but again, yeah

 

 

 

I'm still a proud owner of a boxed product, airplane as version 1.0, for FS9.

I have a bunch of planes like that too, good old days I guess

 

 

 

really started with Microsoft

I knew it!

 

 

 

 

Regards;

 

Fritz

 

 

 

 

with a number of high-fidelity addons that are expected this year.

Including the FSL A320?

The truth is, just like a good murder mystery, we all did it!

 

Bugs are inevitable. They just are. But considering what a developer is trying to do its amazing any products reach the market.

 

Here's what I mean.

 

If you look at the recent release of the aerosoft airbus extended. Firstly, this isn't just about the AAX. This goes for every developer.

 

The scale of creating a flyable A320 for fsx is no easy feat.

 

First, it takes a huge team at airbus billions of €'s to design an aircraft from scratchand millions more to improve it.

 

Take all that, designed by the best in their fields and try to create a working facsimile in a seven year old sim that wasn't designed for modern pc architecture.

 

Now add into the mix the fact airbus aren't to keen to tell aerosoft, or anyone, how an A320 actually flies, meaning aerosoft have to work with willing airlines to backwards engineer the whole FBW system for example.

 

Then consider that your producing the add on at a key price point of just €40. This cuts down the amount of people you can throw at the project so you can make a small profit.

 

So you've got a small team, trying to squeeze a million euro aircraft, into an old sim without the support of the aircraft manufacture helping you understand.

 

That's pretty stressful and unsurprisingly, problems turn up. Progress slows and a release date begins to slip.

 

Time now to add in a nice mix of impatient simmers who begin to get annoyed that their new toy isn't with them now this second. Queue the complaints, the moaning and other nonscense. Pressure is now really on the poor developer.

 

Beta testing throws up more bugs and the date slips even more. The cries get louder in the forums.

 

Eventually, a pretty good version is released. Now the number of people flying the aircraft jumps from perhaps 30 or 40 to hundreds, all with different systems, different add ons and different hardware. Bugs are found that no one has seen before.

 

The developer starts tackling them and in the end, a service pack is released. But not before people have thrown tantrums, sworn never to buy another product and generally got in a huff.

 

The result is evident. The developer is grumpy over the bad reaction of some. A few simmers are unhappy, some still at the slipping release date and threads like these crop up now and again.

 

So what's the message? Give developers a break, at least those who deserve it. We all know the ones to avoid but a little empathy with the guys and gals who work hard to try and cram a pint into a half pint glass. It's not easy, not always a full time job and with the best will in the world, no product is bug free.

 

Best wishes,

Jess B

Let me throw in some differentiating between developers, publishers and, maybe, project managers.

 

There are hardly the developers to blame, when an addon gets released prematurely ...

I think this trend is about to be stopped dead in it's tracks with a number of high-fidelity addons that are expected this year. 

 

There's an unknown company working on an A320 for FSX that should stop the trend. :wink:

Now add into the mix the fact airbus aren't to keen to tell aerosoft, or anyone, how an A320 actually flies, meaning aerosoft have to work with willing airlines to backwards engineer the whole FBW system for example.

 

 

Might that not be the easiest part ?.... Is there any FS aircraft that does not  FBW  ?... :rolleyes: