perhaps its value driven! You P3ders are getting as bad as the Xmen. I wants.

 

It's not illogical to ask for full Prepar3D 2.x support. Let's say that 2.3 causes a major incompatibility with the C172, and it's up to A2A to fix. When they don't want to (or can't bother) to update a simple installer, can I have confidence that they will fix the major issue?

Wow, I had no idea it is so hard to update an installer and get in touch with Lockheed Martin to fix a simple issue after all. I'm sorry. Orbx probably have superhuman powers.

 

More total utter assumption and  tosh. My word you are making the P3D community look bad

More total utter assumption and  tosh. My word you are making the P3D community look bad

 

Look at you! You can't be serious, especially after saying that you officially support Prepar3D 2.x.

As one of the few developers supporting P3D the hostility from you guys leaves a damn sour taste in the mouth and makes one wonder indeed. I suggest you stop and think before posting, and also only use what you know, not what you think or assume is correct.

 

I am very interested in purchasing and supporting A2A products.  However, as a company that is in business to attract customers, retain them, have them purchase new offerings, as well as be advocates for your company and refer others to purchase, please understand this point:

 

We have a valid concern and your statements will turn potential customers off.  It is an arrogant statement to tell potential customers that we need to stop and think before posting.  What we are doing is stopping and thinking before we give you our money.  We are the customer.  We give you money for a product and it would be intelligent of you to listen to what customers say in regards to reasonable requests, which this is.  

 

We, as well as many others that are not commenting here, are simply wanting assurance that your product is P3D-compliant.  NOT that we can use a work around in order to shoe horn in a product into the P3D platform.  I do not want an additional workaround.  It is not too much to ask a company to create an installer in order to assure that it will work in the platform.  Orbx does it, so does REX, so does Carenado, so does Active Sky, so does Aerosoft, and so do many other third party vendors, so I would hope that A2A would be in the same class.

 

I can assure you that many potential customers of your would welcome the clarity that an installer can provide in terms of the 172 working properly within P3D.

I am very interested in purchasing and supporting A2A products.  However, as a company that is in business to attract customers, retain them, have them purchase new offerings, as well as be advocates for your company and refer others to purchase, please understand this point:

 

We have a valid concern and your statements will turn potential customers off.  It is an arrogant statement to tell potential customers that we need to stop and think before posting.  What we are doing is stopping and thinking before we give you our money.  We are the customer.  We give you money for a product and it would be intelligent of you to listen to what customers say in regards to reasonable requests, which this is.  

 

We, as well as many others that are not commenting here, are simply wanting assurance that your product is P3D-compliant.  NOT that we can use a work around in order to shoe horn in a product into the P3D platform.  I do not want an additional workaround.  It is not too much to ask a company to create an installer in order to assure that it will work in the platform.  Orbx does it, so does REX, so does Carenado, so does Active Sky, so does Aerosoft, and so do many other third party vendors, so I would hope that A2A would be in the same class.

 

I can assure you that many potential customers of your would welcome the clarity that an installer can provide in terms of the 172 working properly within P3D.

 

Totally this! Fully supporting Prepar3D 2.x is a very logical request, especially after seeing what other developers have done for this. I'm waiting for the day the C172 will slip in and function perfectly in Prepar3D 2.x so I can buy it, and instead everything I say is called an utter tosh. Talk about turning a customer off...

It's not illogical to ask for full Prepar3D 2.x support. Let's say that 2.3 causes a major incompatibility with the C172, and it's up to A2A to fix. When they don't want to (or can't bother) to update a simple installer, can I have confidence that they will fix the major issue?

 

Quite simply yes it is illogical. Look at 2.1, it broke all manner of things for aircraft and Lockheed fixed it. Just as they have done other things we and other developers have told them about or they have noted down for future fixes as and when they see it required.

Quite simply yes it is illogical. Look at 2.1, it broke all manner of things for aircraft and Lockheed fixed it. Just as they have done other things we and other developers have told them about or they have noted down for future fixes as and when they see it required.

 

Wrong, it didn't cause incompatibilities with aircraft, it exposed XML errors by the developers. They didn't fix anything, they just made the XML parser more loose, like it was before.

 

And then there's the installer. Come on. Orbx updated 80+ installers, can't you update one? If you're calling this official support, then I can't expect anything better from your future releases.

 Talk about turning a customer off...

Lewis, there are many potential customers that are likely having second thoughts.

 

Quite simply yes it is illogical. Look at 2.1, it broke all manner of things for aircraft and Lockheed fixed it. Just as they have done other things we and other developers have told them about or they have noted down for future fixes as and when they see it required.

Rex, Active Sky, Aerosoft, Carenado, Orbx, and others who have created P3D installers would disagree in terms of an installer being an illogical request.

C172 works in P3D, future products will no doubt natively install into PD3DV2 and the C172 may do one day.

 

Suggest you guys taking issue with anything I've stated start posting here;

http://a2asimulations.com/forum/index.php

C172 works in P3D, future products will no doubt natively install into PD3DV2 and the C172 may do one day.

 

That's the problem, right now it just "works", and it "may" fully support Prepar3D 2.x. That's not enough for me to buy it.

Lewis, there are many potential customers that are likely having second thoughts.

 

Rex, Active Sky, Aerosoft, Carenado, Orbx, and others who have created P3D installers would disagree in terms of an installer being an illogical request.

 

I'm not talking the installer but the expectation that no matter what your P3DV2 product will work even if a patch is released that totally screws things up or changes how something works altogether. P3D is a moving target its up to the P3D guys to keep the compatibility as advertised by them.

 

 

future products will no doubt natively install into PD3DV2

Why bother, just have people use that work around you offer.

That's the problem, right now it just "works", and it "may" fully support Prepar3D 2.x. That's not enough for me to buy it.

 Fair do's then why all the argument and accusations that we are lazy, we dont work with lockheed, the effect issue is ours when its not and gawd knows what else????????

 Fair do's then why all the argument and accusations that we are lazy, we dont work with lockheed, the effect issue is ours when its not and gawd knows what else????????

 

Can you prove that you're not lazy and working with Lockheed Martin by updating the installer and getting the strobe light issue fixed?

Why bother, just have people use that work around you offer.

 

Just cant please some people.

 

Mouth-gift-look-horse

Can you prove that you're not lazy and working with Lockheed Martin by updating the installer and getting the strobe light issue fixed?

 

What makes you think we haven't reported since prior to v2 release the effects issue as have other developers? Another assumption.