Maybe I'm just too picky

[Sonar5 3]

jimmie,You said:"If you bought an aircraft from one of them and was not satisfied then yes, you're too picky Or, there actually *is* a problem with your setup."I have to disagree and take issue with that statement.You know, just because someone does not experience the same expectations or efficiency in operation of an add-on that you do, does not mean that it is a problem with their system, or they are too picky.That is the problem with statements like yours and others I have seen here. Since you don't have any problems, surely no one else could possibly have them, huh?That is the same attitude exhibited here when people were having seasonal and memory leaking problems in MSFS2004, and the MS Minions kept saying.. Oh it must be you, and oh, mine works just fine. Then MS releases a PATCH that guess what addresses those problems.Pleaseee......Maybe this person is having problems because of a payware product. You don't know that the cause is not the payware product, so how about giving him a little slack.And as for those developers above.Have they ever released a PATCH for any of their products?If so, guess what, kind of shoots your theory out the window, huh?Regards,Joe

[mnmon 0]

"What kind of problems and "bugs" do you actually experience? You mention in your rather vague description: "strange" flight models - as a scientist you should know that no simulation is perfect and especially not one that runs inside Microsoft's $60 game. So, no addon will fly exactly like the real plane. Does this mean the flight model is "strange"? No, it can still be very good, within the limitations of the host sim it runs on." See my second post for a specific example of a strange flight model. And, BTW, I'm a physicist, so also have some knowledge of flight dynamics.

[JimmiG 244]

They have released patches but most of the time they just fix minor things. I have almost always been fully satisfied with the "1.0" version of products from the above publishers/developers with the exception of Aerosoft (their Beaver needed several patches to improve quality of the VC, their Katana had some problems with the initial .air file)."Since you don't have any problems, surely no one else could possibly have them, huh?"Yes, if:A) Their sim/system is incorrectly configured:( They have higher expecatations than me. E.g. I'm very happy with the DF Archer. Real Archer pilots may find a thousand things to complain about.C) In some cases, there could be a system-specific bug. In the case of addon aircraft that is highly unlikely though since those run at such a "high level" (meaning that there are many abstraction layers underneath. The addon planes interact with the sim, which passes things on and we all run the same sim)

[mnmon 0]

>"Well you didn't mention which addon aircraft you bought."> For two reasons: 1) I don't want this degrade into a shouting war over which developer is best; and 2) I wanted to point out what I see as a wider problem with payware aircraft and their developers. The physics defying plane did come from one of the more prominent names in addons. My basic premise: if I pay for an addon I expect it to have a level of quality superior to that of a free addon. One is a donation of someone's valuable time to the hobby, the other is someone making a buck and I won't cut them the same slack as with a freebie. And I would think all of us wouldn't. Caveat Emptor. Mike

[Sonar5 3]

And isn't that the point.Something minor to you may be a major point to someone else.You can't possibly average out users expectations.Any company that releases patches, and they should, means that their product did not work as advertised in their Minimum Specs and advertising.Unless said company says that you must have a product X computer in this configuration, they are open to question, and expectations, or they should issue a refund without any grief.If a User meets those minimum requirements, how is it their system? See.Yet that is the same Lame excuse trumped out by payware supporters when someone has problems and states that yes, it may be the developer and not the user. In other words, you are contradicting your forst statement by saying yes, they have released patches. Maybe you should choose a different tactic or inquire about the authors problems before making such and outlandish statement. Just a thought. You can certainly reply with anything you want, but give the guy a little slack. ;-)Regards,Joe

[Guest johns]

Mike, It is difficult to argue against what you say but it is no doubt sensible to read the forums before buying.There is at the moment an aircraft that is at the very top end of the price range that has been released for download and will in the near future be released on CD. When you read their forum there are numerous bugs that have been found and which I believe should have been found on such an expensive product before they released it.Recently on the forum of an excellent product it was vehemently denied after release that there were any bugs at all and lo and behold about a month later there was a service pack to rectify a long long list of bugs.There are developers who refund your money without question. I wonder if you have the same rights as if you had bought the product in a store where at least in the UK you have statuary rights to demand your money back for imperfect goods.

[JimmiG 244]

If a company releases a patch, why must that mean the initial product was flawed? It happens sometimes but not always.E.g. their 15 beta testers found the plane to work great. Then they sell it to the masses, thousands buy it and are happy with it. In addition the developer gets even more input from real-world pilots. This is when minor things like "slightly too much up-trim needed on take off" or "stall speed is 2 kts too high" are addressed. Requirements stated usually pertain to things like CPU speed etc. to get decent performance. They don't mention thing like joystick calibration or sensitivity settings, realism settings and so on.To Mike: Have you bought an addon from *either* Dreamfleet, FSD or RealAir? If so, were you dissatisfied with it? :)

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

I think I can guess the planes you refer to. I would suggest to you that the vast majority of the people who purchased both of those add-ons were very, very happy with them (in spite of the issues which cropped up after release and have since mostly been resolved). I know I'm extremely happy with the one I purchased. If a dev can satisfy 90% of the people who buy from them, they've done all they can hope to do. Anyone in retail knows that you can't make everyone happy.

[Paul Golding 92]

And there was I beleiving him when he said it wasn't him that drank all the beer!http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

[Guest yarvelling]

So much of this is subjective; and many of the problems encountered WILL be system specific. How many people here still post to complain that for whatever reasons, they just cannot get FS9 to run without a COTD. How many folks post regaling us all with their tales and experiences from their flights? Whilst Microsoft did indeed produce a patch to fi a few smallish issues, and make a few enhacements, it is obvious that the sim is not so badly flawed as to prevent it from starting! It thereby follows that in the few instances where COTD's are experienced, then it must be due to a problem specific to that computer.....If a developer produces an add-on aircraft that just refuses point-blank to leave the runway on every users' system, then it's fairly clear that the add-on has a problem, and most decent developers will issue a fix.Personally, I don't have too many problems with add-ons or the basic running of the sim, and yet there are some days when absolutely nothing seems to work properly! I'm sure we've all had days like that! It's as though, for whatever reasons, the PC just doesn't want to do what it should; Outlook crashes, FS9 won't shut-down properly, the PC refuses to shut-down, etc.... I guess it's just one of those PC 'blonde' moments that happen!!The only add-on problem that I've experienced recently was a couple of days ago.....everything was working well, the PC behaving itself, I fired up FS9 and set up a flight from LeHarvre to Duxford for the RA Spitfire. So far, so good! In flight, I decided to switch on the GPS to check my course....for some reason, by overlaying that 2d GPS object over the 3d VC, the Anti Alaising (4x) was gone. Jagged edges to the cockpit frames everywhere!! Switching to external views showed the same....Yuck!! I 'ctrl-paused' out of the sim and checked the AA settings through the Nvidia control panel.....the profile in the drivers for FS9 clearly showed it set to 4x AA.I restarted the sim, and recreated the flight. When sat on the runway, I switched on the GPS...same thing...bloody hell...all AA gone!! I tried a different aircraft after resarting the sim, and the GPS did not kill AA. Changed back to the Spitfire, and the GPS kills the AA!! I set up for AA to be application controlled, restarted the sim, and set it to apply it's own AA. Restarted that flight with the Spitfire, and this time, the GPS did NOT kill AA....so waht's going on here then? I tried the same thing again last night having reset it for the drivers to control AA, and this time, the GPS did not kill AA in the Spitfire!!So...is this a bug with the RA Spitfire? Or, is it more likely just one of those 'PC things'? I haven't seen anyone else here complaining about this problem, so I am happy to accept that it's just down to my system doing what it wants, and not what I want it do!!So, after all this, MNMOM, please accept that not all problems are the fault of the developer, and there's no point in being offended or defensive if a developer suggests that your system may be problem ;)

[mnmon 0]

"So, after all this, MNMOM, please accept that not all problems are the fault of the developer, and there's no point in being offended or defensive if a developer suggests that your system may be problem" Excuse me! If the flight model is seriously flawed, and the *I* fix it myself with a tweak in the aircraft.cfg file, how is it possibly NOT the developer's fault??? How can "MY SYSTEM" be at issue??? I really am not talking about system issues. I'm talking about flight models, fuctionality in VC's, plus just some general bugs (one was a loss of communication with any ATC when using the FMS; verified by other users). I think I have a right to be "defensive" about something I paid for. I can see that I am definitely in the minority in my viewpoint here: that I should expect a superior level of quality when I pay for something over a free item. As was noted in a related thread, prices are rising. I just wonder when the rest of you will reach your tolerence limit. Maybe I should start producing addon's, you people seem happy with anything :-sae Mike

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Mike, I agree with you on most points....FDE's are usually not system related, but joystick differences (calibration, etc) can make a good FDE bad or a bad FDE good. So that is one external that an add-on developer can't control.Visual model flaws though--they fall entirely on the developer. Once money changes hands, I think the developer should be honest when the model isn't right--and not blame deviations from the real world as being "well, that's the 3-view the mfr sent us", etc.... We have a rich resource at airliners.net. Developers should compare their work with what the real world shows. Or even drive out to the airport and take some shots of their own. Many developers do this, but many don't.Back to the panel though, system issues do come into play. If a gauge doesn't work, who is to blame? I run 98SE. I can't hold a mfr responsible for a gauge that doesn't work. However, if users running XP, SE, 2000, etc... all see the same flaw, then blaming the system is a pat answer the developer should avoid.Bottom line, is I do think when a mistake is made on the developer's side they should have the guts to say "oops, we made a mistake". Doesn't mean they have to fix it. But sometimes the system is at fault and outside of the visual model, it can manifest itself virtually anywhere.-John

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

I expect a superior level of quality over what I can get for free too. What I'm saying is that that's what I've gotten in almost every case with the payware I've purchased. That doesn't mean I expect it to be perfect and bug-free becuase that is an unreasonable expectation. I doubt I've ever purchased a piece of PC software that didn't have some issues.WIth regard to your flight model problem, the question I would ask is why was it that only yourself and one other person experienced the issue? I mean really, even if half a dozen people noted the same thing, do you really think there are only six people flying the add-on with the knowledge to notice such a glaring flaw? So the probelm is if it's not your system that is somehow to blame, why aren't dozens (or even most) of the people who bought the plane complaining of the same issue? If its an error in the aircraft.cfg file, theoretically it should be an issue for every single user shouldn't it? That's not to say you are wrong, I'm just looking at it from the perspective of the guy who has to try and determine why the plane might be behaving differently for one person than it is for most of the others...

[Guest]

oops... Too many hotshots :)

[Guest]

Mike, MOST problems people have with flight models are just their own incorrect assumptions about what those flight models should be.The number of times I've seen people complain about perfectly normal behaviour because they thought it should be something else is countless.