And with aerosoft the afcad won't of been tested with gsx. They can't be bothered. I've had this issue with numerous scenerys of theirs.

Another UK2000 scenery they are releasing to compete? Did Gary make them mad? There are a lot of airports they could do instead. A P3D and fsx EINN that has sode jetways is one that I think could be good. Eirsim is for fs9/fsx and static jetways. In America there are many airports needed, PDX, RNO, BIL, a long list.

 

 

A new EINN would be great but NOT from IDS please!!

 

 

I think we've all seen this and in all honesty this isn't only about Aerosoft but also true for some other publishers, developers and even communities. I think the common ground often is size, popularity, lack of competition or a mix of all of them. It's very easy to get cocky when you have something that people can't get from elsewhere...........................................................................................................................................

............................................ As for Aerosoft I hope they will manage to turn this bad situation around because just like many others I have lots of their products and mostly I've been happy so I hope they will be around for lots of years to come and continue to provide us with good quality products by ending any bad external relationships and sort any internal issues.

  

 

I absolutely agree with everything you have said and, as a big (and mostly happy) user of Aerosoft products down through the years, I too hope they will try to turn this around and improve their attitude to their customers, something which some other publishers/developers need to consider too.

 

What really annoys me with Aerosoft forums is they are too quick to lock topics. The Manchester Refund one being a classic example.

 

I posted my thoughts on it together with a few others. They were all reasonable posts and yet the moderator replies and then locks the thread preventing further discussion.

 

I was going to suggest that part of any airport spec should be the amount of VAS it consumes. That would tell me straight away whether it would be suitable for me or not. But they deny me and others that opportunity with their attitude. They need to rethink their policy.

I can understand if a moderator locks a forum when the discussion is becoming rude and aggressive, but I too have seen threads being locked, usually after a somewhat curt and dismissive comment from someone at Aerosoft, while issues are being raised by users in a very polite and reasonable fashion. Aerosoft really ought to look again at their approach to their customers and in their case it will have to start from the top down.

 

I also have often thought that publishers should indicate the VAS consumption on their products - it would be easy to do and then the buyer could make a more informed decision as to whether the product would be a suitable fit for their setup and potentially avoid a lot of the related frustration we see expressed in the forums. But of course then the publishers might lose some sales!

 

Bill

 

 

....usually after a somewhat curt and dismissive comment from someone at Aerosoft, while issues are being raised by users in a very polite and reasonable fashion. Aerosoft really ought to look again at their approach to their customers and in their case it will have to start from the top down.

 

 

Spot on there.

 

That Emanuel Hagen is an arrogant piece of work - his attitude, and tone (as much as a written post on a forum can have tone!!) is diabolical. Even if Aerosoft don't say thanks, and goodbye to IDS, they should at least reign this fool in too because his antaganostic attitude, even making allowances for him in presuming English is his 2nd language does Aerosoft no favours whatsoever.

 

Its also laughable that every post thats not blowing smoke up their asses gets marked down - look at Ray's in the Nassau & Manchester threads - they are polite, constructive even and in no way rude or aggressive yet they get minus points....anything by Mathjis or a mod gets the plus points regardless....comical.

 

Aerosoft almost used to be instabuy stuff years ago and when Aerosoft announced a product, it was something to look forward to. Nowadays its very hit & miss, I haven't bought anything from them for a long time and probably won't for a long time to come.

 

The issue has already been discussed here, and its clear Aerosoft have no quality control whatsoever anymore. IDS EGCC was clearly "thrown out" to compete with Gary/UK200 - and that's looking like it's gonna backfire, if it hasn't already!!

 

With all of Aerosoft's experience/knowledge in the FS addon world, they must be able to see that IDS are simply setting themselves up to fail with the way they design their sceneries. I wouldn't expect Aerosoft to throw IDS "under the bus" here, but they should at least acknowledge that their products do need a hell of alot of work/redesign and that they are going to work with them in making them more efficient.

 

They seem to forget that people buying EGCC, for example, are paying Aerosoft the cash for the product....they're not paying IDS....and in that I would reasonably expect Aerosoft to sort it.....and doing so in a much more customer friendly manner too wouldn't go amiss.

 

Regards

 

Steve

I have just noticed that Gate 258L and 258R in Aerosoft Heathrow Xtended are designated as 285L and 285R in the P3D AFD file. This has now been corrected on my PC :smile:

I think this one has run its course. Before it get worse we'll stop here.