You could have found the meanings of "compliant" and "compatible" in less time you wrote your last point. Perhaps you were too busy thinking of insults?

 

Nice try, Gerry, but... gambit declined.

 

To all - arguments about style and ad hominems aside, Gerry actually makes a good point.  Having an installer that works flawlessly in P3D is sort of a baseline expectation.  The bigger victory will come when some developer or other creates a product that is designed from the ground up for P3D and takes full advantage of its features.  But I'd argue that, as important as that it, it's beyond the scope of this particular discussion.  All that people are asking for here is that a major developer create a dedicated P3D installer instead of asking users to create a variety of kludges and improvisations.  

 

Personally I think that's a reasonable request.  Whether A2A's business realities allow it is another matter.  Businesses get heavily invested in a current platform and have a hard time diverting resources to the next one.  That's why leaders in the next phase are often fringe players who have nothing to lose by fully committing to the new platform.  Am not trying to accuse A2A or anyone else of anything here - just saying that them's the conditions.  

 

The compatible (vs. compliant) product that Gerry hopes to see might come from A2A (maybe as a result of their Redbird development) or it might come from some development house that none of us has yet heard of.  Time will tell.

 

EDIT: Oh, one more thing.  While many of us are requesting or demanding that developers do things to make our P3D lives easier, none of us has access to any of the basic information that they'd use to make the decision (like the size of the install base, the cost of the development work, likely impact on future sales).  I suspect that we'll have to be open to some sort of extra cost, whether it's a fee for an installer, or a cross-licensing fee, or a new purchase of a whole new product (the scale depending on the amount of reengineering involved).  Some (was it Milviz?) have already talked about additional fees for P3D products.  I'm sure that as developers do this, it'll touch off a whole new round of protests.  We've seen it before - "I paid for this for FS2004, why should I have to pay for it again for FSX?"  Answer: at some point the labor involved requires it.  Price of progress.

 

EDIT II:  And yet another observation.  This is a weird time in flightsim world - maybe even an unprecedented time.  For more than 20 years, Microsoft published regular editions of Flight Simulator, which meant that developers had a timetable to work with and the confidence that Microsoft marketing would help build and maintain a user base.  Suddenly, there's no such expectations.  We've got an abandoned legacy product that the majority uses, a cottage-industry product that doesn't have the marketing support to grow fast (X-Plane), and a specialty product by a defense contractor that has barely any marketing behind it.  If you're a developer, where do you put your resources?  Against the big legacy product that will die slowly, or one of the smaller, newer ones that may never get big enough to support you?  I'd hate to be the one making those decisions.  Competition is good - but not necessarily for the competitors.

Just to clarify, in case it is needed, I am not upset by the fact that CB made a request of A2A - I am appalled at his attitude and complete refusal to accept the "answer".  He asked about an installer - fine - he received an answer - fine - hi didn't care for the answer or it wasn't what he wanted to hear so off he goes - not fine IMHO.

 

I too would like a native P3D2 installer for A2A products BUT unlike CB, I am willing to enjoy their products in P3D currently using the methods described while waiting for said installer. Some people just HAVE to look at the glass as half empty.  :(

 

 

Vic

Just to clarify, in case it is needed, I am not upset by the fact that CB made a request of A2A - I am appalled at his attitude and complete refusal to accept the "answer".  He asked about an installer - fine - he received an answer - fine - hi didn't care for the answer or it wasn't what he wanted to hear so off he goes - not fine IMHO.

 

I too would like a native P3D2 installer for A2A products BUT unlike CB, I am willing to enjoy their products in P3D currently using the methods described while waiting for said installer. Some people just HAVE to look at the glass as half empty.  :(

 

Firstly, it wasn't all about the installer, I disagreed with what Lewis said about the C172 being fully compatible with Prepar3D 2.x, which is simply not true. And I disagreed with his statement that this is an illogical statement (it is easier than you think to update an installer), and his whole attitude towards me and MikeT707. This is not how you treat customers or potential customers unless you like to turn them off.

 

Secondly, I'll bring back up something I said previously. Let's say a future Prepar3D patch causes a major incompatibility with the C172 and A2A expect Lockheed Martin to fix it because they don't fully support it, would you enjoy that product as much? Unless A2A prove that they can provide support for their products on the platform, I won't get the C172 because I cannot enjoy it with such fear.

 

If you have anything else to say to me, do it via PM because this thread was already done.

 

 

 

This thread is really kind of weird. Potential customers ask for P3D2 compliant products before they are willing to spend their money on them and a "professional" developer spends hours in this thread accusing people of expressing irrational requests. You guys are excellent programmers but you should seriously think about taking customer relationship management classes. Your behavior is extremely unprofessional and you should better spend your time on updating your products so they work flawlessly in P3D2 (including a proper installer) instead of bashing potential customers...

 

I don't see that I have bashed any customers at all and I'm sorry you see it that way. We have open forums you can post your interest at and also ask thousands of customers about there experiences including P3D customers so you can ask directly whats up and get unbiased opinions (I still believe we are some of the only developers to have open forums for support + customer community use?)

 

Any of my replies about assumptions where aimed at the random posts by chaocticbeauty and at no one else. He has through the course of the thread been accusing us and other developers of all sorts of nonsense and also making absolute wild accusations with what I can only guess from his posts is someone with little knowledge on the workings of the industry, our company, other developers or even Wes and his team at Lockheed.

Any of my replies about assumptions where aimed at the random posts by chaocticbeauty and at no one else. He has through the course of the thread been accusing us and other developers of all sorts of nonsense and also making absolute wild accusations with what I can only guess from his posts is someone with little knowledge on the workings of the industry, our company, other developers or even Wes and his team at Lockheed.

 

Maybe you should take a look at your posts, the "fact" that you're officially supporting Prepar3D 2.x with the C172 is complete nonsense. Providing a workaround to get a product installed is not official support. It's a workaround.

 

Your attitude towards MikeT707 wasn't good either.

There are no words for the irony you present me.

There are no words for the irony you present me.

 

That's great, I don't want to hear again from you.

Its ok NDA's prevent me from correcting most of your posts. I thought you might take heed of my comments about your assumptions. But I guess for you its more just post a guess or tell thme they are lazy etc and hope no one questions you on it :rolleyes:

 

Sorry, I dont back down to bully's

As I read through the various Comments, I can see that there's two sides to this coin. Hopefully the happy median is not too far away. ..

 

On one hand, I too wish devs would commit the sooner to have their products support p3d....but devs are right to pause before saying they have achieved that support.

To install into p3d is one thing, but to utilize the benefits of the platform will take more than just a makeover.

 

I can see that a2a is a top notch developer, and would look at the deeper aspects of the platform, not just the installer. I also think they are in this market for the long haul... Which means, at some point they will have to weigh p3d support that more heavily.

 

The best thing right now is p3d is maturing to point o replacing fsx for many people . The momentum is building, it's just a matter of time before history repeats.

Well, I will say that I still might purchase the 172, as I think it is a good product and it can add a new dimension to learning flight.  I am considering other purchases as well including the Aerosoft Twin Otter and a couple of Carenado planes.  I would also really like to get the Captain Sim L1011, but unfortunately that does not work in P3D.  I do own the CS 707 and 727, but am very reluctant to load them into P3D becasue that might cause problems for my P3D installation, and I do not want additional issues as the platform is still stabalizing. 

 

I also am considering the Mejestic q400, but the main reason that I have not yet purchased the q400 is there is not a P3D installer, and it was even on sale a couple weeks back.  Maybe it is just my issue, but I just simply do not have too much time to devote to flight sim (three kids, demanding career, etc. blah blah, blah), and I would much rather spend my time flying and enjoying the experience rather than dealing with problems. 

 

To me a native P3D installer gives me more confidence as a consumer that the installation process will work properly in my platform of choice.  Like I mentioned, I own CS products that do not have a native P3D installer, and I will not install those products in P3D.  I also own several Orbx products and I have installed only those products that have a native P3D installer and I will wait for the native installer for the other Orbx products that I own.

 

I have not yet purchased the A2A 172, but would really like to.  I just do not want to tinker with a work around within the installation and have problems.  Perhaps sometime in the future I will be so inclined to get the 172 and use a work around in installing the product, but I have to say that I do find products with native installers as having the potential for less problems.  In any case, best wishes to A2A and Lewis, thanks for your engagement in the conversation.  A2A products do seem very good and I do hope to be a customer in the future.  Perhaps I will take the plunge and give it a shot with the work around, but a native installer would really be appreciated.

Although I can see the point CB is making , I honestly don't understand all the drama here. The A2A C172 is a great aircraft which really gives GA flying a renewed lease in realism. It works perfectly once installed and there is clearly support provided for the aircraft on A2As forums.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes... the a2a 172 is a top notch choice.. . And it works in p3dv2...which has as much to do with LM providing backward compatability as well as a2a providing updates.

 

As a matter of fact, p3dv2 offers so much in terms of an environment, who would prefer flying this bird anywhere else? Not I! ;-)

As a matter of fact, p3dv2 offers so much in terms of an environment, who would prefer flying this bird anywhere else? Not I! ;-)

 

Oh, I don't know, maybe people who like Reality-XP.  Just sayin  

The C172 is my only A2A installed in P3Dv2.and looking fwd for the Archer :-)

 

It's an A2a, what else can we say? :-)

I hope A2A start a line of Accusimmed GA aircraft. That would be smazing

 

I flew the 172 from Penzance to the Scilly Isles in blustery wind today. It feels and sounds exactly like the real 172 in those conditions. Amazing

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk