Here's the 2008 AVSIM Review:

 

http://www.avsim.com/pages/1008/carenado_180F/carenado_cherokee180.htm

 

Makes it about a 7 year old product!!

 

...and at around 27 Euros or $35 when released this also demonstrates that with real inflation taken into account, current aircraft addons with at least twice the complexity, quality and development time are in real terms generally very much cheaper than they were seven years ago.

Guys, you seem to forget that FSX:SE is a re-release, so it is obvious that the DLC's will also be re-releases. (Apart from one, so far).

 

Just makes one think, yet again, that FSX:SE & it's DLC's, as released on Steam, are plug 'n play's targeted to Steam's users/gamers/newbies, as an addition to yet another aviation type game they are distributing. So, their releases are for the newbies & gamers (mostly) that have not flight sim'd before.Maybe as a stop-gap to their own eventual release?

 

Actually a good marketing plan to introduce a flying game, non-combat, to their gaming users, easy to install, without tweaking, fiddling, etc.

 

 

so it is obvious that the DLC's will also be re-releases.

 

Yep for sure. Of stuff from the beginning of FSX Time, that Time Has Forgotten!!

 

 

 

Actually a good marketing plan to introduce a flying game, non-combat, to their gaming users, easy to install, without tweaking, fiddling, etc.

 

Reading the SE threads I hardly think this is true!

However, those DLC's so far released, are still great, for the newbies that are getting into the game. For us oldies.... 'Yawn' been there, done that. Still, there are some gems out there.

However, those DLC's so far released, are still great, for the newbies that are getting into the game.

 

Really? Have you actually read the reviews on Steam?.

Robert, Some of those DLC's are great. I have them from the good old days.

Yup. I have read the reviews. But, at least some developers are giving them stuff. Oldies, yes. Still think that there should be some freeware DLC's there as well.

Also such a pity, & I know it was a license issue, that Dovetail did not do a LM & release FSX:SE with some new planes thrown in. THAT would have been a deal maker for some & would have differentiated it from FSX.

 

& Still say that FSX:SE is for the newbies & gamers on Steam. Who know, there might even be new devs out there that enjoy flight simming.

Be careful... While steam has improvements in VAS management, there is a nasty terrain.dll crash that keeps happening. Don't know if dovetail will fix it. 

Yes, they will.

Be careful... While steam has improvements in VAS management, there is a nasty terrain.dll crash that keeps happening. Don't know if dovetail will fix it. 

 

 

Yes, fixed in nxt version. G3D too.

 

Pete

Thanks for clarifying guys- this has been one error that has vexed me, as I thought simply dialing back on settings (autogen, detail radius, no AI traffic) would prevent it. It just pops back during the quietest period of a flight (in cruise, usually over large expanses of water). I've been baffled. Pete- your FSUIPC has succeeded in trapping a lot of errors however, I don't know where I'd be without your module! 

Also such a pity, & I know it was a license issue, that Dovetail did not do a LM & release FSX:SE with some new planes thrown in. THAT would have been a deal maker for some & would have differentiated it from FSX.

 

...But, at least some developers are giving them stuff. Oldies, yes. Still think that there should be some freeware DLC's there as well.

 

I mean no offence, and I think you are sincere in your comments, but you don't seem to have grasped the business intentions of Dovetail at all. How on earth do you think that Dovetail can possibly "throw in" some new planes when their opening price for FSX-SE was less than a cup of decent coffee in some parts of the world? Who do you suppose is going to donate free aircraft, some of which - if they are half decent - would take up to a year of full time development by real people who pay taxes and have families to feed? If they wanted to contribute free stuff they would do so completely outside of DTG's marketing aims, and they certainly would not give away their hard work to them.

 

Avsim has a thriving freeware library with tons of good stuff, donated by people who do so because they are not part of, and do not wish to be part, a commercial structure, and certainly do not contribute to some organisation is going to exploit their generosity for their own ends.

 

I've contributed quite a lot of freeware in the past to Avsim. I did so because I took pleasure in it, and because Avsim is free to join and offers a huge range of freeware without any commercial aims. Why would I want my freeware to be part of a marketing strategy of a company like DTG whose sole purpose is to maximise profit at my expense?

 

LM offers its sim with added additional content which they no doubt also included as part of their marketing, but the big difference is that they probably rewarded those contributors fairly, and they could afford to do so because they marketed their product at a price which didn't entail their revenue to be reliant on the exploitation of others.

 

You seem unable to grasp that Dovetail sees itself as able to launch a product for peanuts because it hopes to rake back some profit in two ways: firstly to raise the price on the back of what it hopes are favourable reviews from those who purchased at the launch price, and secondly to SUBSIDISE that peanuts launch price by making a profit from DLC later on. And that means in effect that DTG is gambling on DLC authors subsidising their own operation by accepting derisory royalites. No-one but those who have either been duped on the promise of thousands of sales, or the frankly naive, would ever have agreed to this. And that is why, as I have repeatedly told you but you don't seem to register it, that at least five respected developers have told DTG to get stuffed.

 

So effectively, Dovetail was hoping to prop up their profit by exploiting developers on the mythical notion that they would sell thousands of cheap DLCs  for which DTG awarded themselves a large cut, while not paying the developers a decent cut. Those developers have been sucked into this paradigm on the promise of shed loads of sales. It has not happened. Moreover, most of those developers were issued with NDAs which forced them not only not to discuss the peanuts that were offered, but they were even forced not to discuss that negotiations took place at all. I know this because I have that unsigned NDA right in front of me. It was fortunate for me that I could learn this after not signing the NDA because a third party working on behalf of DTG lied to me and I was therefore not constrained to silence because I was lied to. When someone lies to you an NDA, verbal or otherwise, is not enforceable.

 

There is another arm to this discussion. DTG appointed a third party whom they tasked with approaching developers in order to scour around for suitable DLC. That third party claimed he was an exclusive contractee to Dovetail. It turned out he was not. Therefore some developers were misled. I reported this to Dovetail and have not received a written reply. Thus for some developers there was a three tier layer of middlemen: Dovetail itself, Steam, and that third party. ALL of them were claiming a cut, and the accumulated cuts far exceed what the actual AUTHORS of the software were being offered.

 

This is not what I assume you might call healthy capitalism. It is a completely distorted version of capitalism which attempts to manipulate a market in a completely UN-capitalistic way, because through secrecy and threats (NDA) it seeks to establish an artificial market where those contributing to it have no negotiating freedom, except to say "No". But saying "no" after you've signed an NDA means you are constrained from warning others that the deal is rubbish, and moreover gags like this effectively restrict proper free trade. If you have any doubts about this please look up the arm of contract law (on both sides of the Atlantic) concerning duress and unconscionabilty and unenforceable contracts.

 

We now come to two subjects which many here conflate. I am not traducing but telling the truth. I have said repeatedly and consistently that FSX-SE is CLEARLY a better sim than FSX-MS. I have clearly acknowledged that through the recompiling of the source code it runs better. Of that there is no doubt. So I will say, yet again, well done to DTG for doing that. The rest is poppycock and, happily not being constrained by any NDA it is my right, indeed my duty to say so. The fact that the steam edition of FSX runs better (but not twice as well, as many are falsely claiming) does not diminish or excuse the business model underlying it.

 

I am speaking personally, but if I had legacy products I wanted to get rid of cheaply, I could do so by simply making them available at a knock down price at the most expensive commission you can find on multiple re-seller portals, and I would still make twice or three times as much as through Steam and Dovetail. It is abundantly clear to me that some very naive and now severely restricted authors have signed up to DTG not knowing that their software will bring them almost zero profit. It is a fair deduction that between 5% and 10% of steam customers write a review. :Looking at the total number of reviews DTG has sold a tiny number of DLCs and the profit for the authors has been negligable. I have also monitored those reviews and I am absolutely clear that some of them have been removed.

I DID enjoy that! Well done that man. :smile:

 

EDIT: I should explain I enjoyed seeing the facts of life spelt out.

Rob,thanks for your comments. I & others here understand a lot more about what has gone on behind the scenes. I'm also sure that a lot of us would like to know what is actually in the NDA. (hint!).

Thanks for clarifying for me as well,re my earlier comments.

 

Regards,

Robin

Rob,thanks for your comments. I & others here understand a lot more about what has gone on behind the scenes. I'm also sure that a lot of us would like to know what is actually in the NDA. (hint!).

Thanks for clarifying for me as well,re my earlier comments.

 

Regards,

Robin

 

Well, I had explained a lot of this before. I also gave a broad outline of the NDA wording quite some time ago. The above post summarises everything into one post. Thanks for your patience.

 

 

At the tail end of the chain, at least one dev I'm familiar with was offered a pitiful 5% of the gross sales. On a $50 product, that amounts to a pathetic $2.50...

 

5$ on a 50% Product,  That's crazy stuff altogether. I would of never though it would be that low. 

That's hardly a normal practice for all Developers?