Aerosoft Manchester X issues

[Rocky_53 1,579]

19 hours ago, Jimm said:

I must be getting really old when I have to Google IIRC, FWIW, AFAIK...anyways...

I don't know if the user should necessarily be at fault for buying the product, unless they didn't read up on it prior to purchasing.  I once bought a toaster from Wal-Mart, looked good, had the features I wanted.  When i got home, I unboxed it, plugged it in, grabbed a couple slices of bread, plopped them in and slid the lever down.  A few minutes later, the toast popped up and I looked at it....barely toasted at all.  I took two more slices, did the same thing, but set the temp higher...same results.  Finally, I put in two more pieces, set the toaster at the highest setting it had (which should burn the toast and set off the smoke alarm), but guess what, same results as before.  I boxed up the toaster, went back to Wal-Mart, told them it didn't toast the bread, I got a refund, and that was that.

Now, if I had gone to the manufacturer about this, I would have been met with several questions, such as, are your outlets at their proper voltage?  What type of bread were you toasting?  What was the ambient air temperature of your home at the time of toasting the bread?  Lots' of questions, that may or may not be relevant, but obviously part of the process to get a refund.  I later find out that the manufacturer stated that wheat bread was not compatible with the toaster and that room temperature needs to be at least 70 degrees.  Since I did not follow those two requirements, I don't get the refund and I'm stuck with a kitchen paperweight.  See, no two toasters are the same, despite them both being toasters.  The assumptions I had ultimately cost me $29.95 and now I have to buy another toaster.

Hi Jimm, I can see where developers are coming from. If you return a toaster because it doesn't work, you are left without a toaster. But if you return software after installing it, who's to say it doesn't work and you continue to use it.

[Jimm 437]

16 minutes ago, Rockliffe said:

Hi Jimm, I can see where developers are coming from. If you return a toaster because it doesn't work, you are left without a toaster. But if you return software after installing it, who's to say it doesn't work and you continue to use it.

I believe, more to the point, that it's all about the burden of responsibility.  Say a developer creates an airport.  It's fantastically detailed, accurate and performs well during a test run.  They submit it to a vendor, who agrees to sell it, with stipulations of profit percentage and what have you.  The developer gets paid no matter what but the vendor now accepts the burden of responsibility of something goes wrong, which in this case, is performance.  The vendor steps up and claims that during their testing, they found no issues with the product, so then they go through the process, just as we the customer, has to, to troubleshoot.  We give them a rundown of what we are running along side the add-on, the sim platform, and perhaps even the specs of our system (if it comes down to that).  Sometimes, the troubleshooting shifts into the blame game, where the vendor may say that the add-on doesn't work well with another add-on or another add-on is causing the problem.  This may all turn out to be plausible reasoning, but as you say Howard, what WE claim vs what the vendor and/or developer claims, boils down to belief.  I could swear up and down that EGCC does NOT run on my system, I get many errors, OOMs or other performance issues, submit the argument to the vendor or developer and it's then, whether they will believe me.  I have actually witnessed particular argument, and no matter what the customer stated, including screenshots, the answer was the same from the vendor: "since the vast majority of our customers have not reported this issue, we find it to be stable and performs well so something on your end is causing the issue, not our software".

I appreciate claims like that, because they are bold, solid and reinforce the fact that the vendor doesn't deal with sub-standard products, but when that claim is made in response to genuine issues, then I have to step back and question it.  Just because the vast majority of users haven't reported an issue with the add-on, doesn't mean that will stay true. As it has been discussed over and over, through various forums, everyone's systems run different from one another.  Without being provided proven information as to the environment a given add-on was tested, then how are we as users to know if the same will hold true on our own system?  If add-ons are tested with a fresh copy of a sim, no other add-ons installed except for the one in question, then that provides a baseline for comparison and would be of significant help in troubleshooting issues.

The way i see it, if a user has to engage a vendor or developer for days, with consistent data showing that a given add-on doesn't work, then I believe the user should be entitled to a refund, the serial/license deactivated and everyone can move on.

Back when AS came out with the very first series of Airbus's, I believe it was the Airbus X Extended, everyone flocked to buy it, including me.  Now, I did read the requirements and recommendations, and continued forward with the purchase.  Within a day or so, I discovered that the aircraft was designed to be run with a flight controller and mouse, but I only had the mouse.  It was stated in their requirements and recommendations section of the product page that using the flight controller was highly recommended.  I know I was probably splitting hairs, but I sought out the customer service folks, explained what had happened, and I actually got the refund, but not before them stating that it was required that I use a flight controller.  The point here, of course, is that I reached out to them, clarified the issue and they were forthcoming in giving me the refund and we both moved on.  This was a few years ago, and I am sure that nowadays, their policy is now strictly one of "no refunds" on any digitally delivered product.

This is how they choose to business now and that's fine, so for me as a customer, I choose not to do business with them.  I don't hate them or believe they are a bad business, there is just a difference of opinion. :)

[Nyxx 6,993]

So who's up for buying there Newcastle...............??? 

Joking aside Uk2000 works so well but then I fly into EHAM or LFPG, its like another world.

I Just bought UK2000 EGLL, because I was sick to death with the flicking runways and taxiways. Is it as nice as the AS versions? No its not, but in the FSL facing London ceneter I have gone from 25FPS to 30FPS,

Did a flight from UK2000 EGCC to UK2000 EGLL last night and coming into EGLL was Sooooo much better than when using AS version. 

But I still wish Gary would up his game.

EHAM is my#1 airport along with Flightbeams KDEN, there both breath taking and FPS and VAS is great. Gary needs to use better textures he really does. park up anywere at EHAM and ask why is Garys textures so poor? I do!

 

So anyway wanting a Newcastle, I would buy UK2000 Newcastle it's the safe bet.

I just read the support forum on there EGCC it was a great read lol.

BTW if there worked well and performed well then they would have hit's on there hands, shame really there EGCC looks great, shame it sux's. Looks like there nashua still does but dont ask was the reply someone got.

 

[fluffyflops 1,858]

Why after all these years do we still get that micro pause on touch down in UK2000 Gatwick and the new Manchester thats one of my many bug bears 

[Nyxx 6,993]

Ive never seen that Pete.

I've done about 10 flights in and out of EGKK in the last week and EGCC last night. Is it reported on there forums. Really not seen it myself.