>I guess people buy add-ons from vendors who they trust.>feelThere is one to be known with one of the most outstanding>customer service so it's safe to buy from them. I agree it's>your choice to get it on the first day or after a month or so>however your example of buying a car with Sp is a pretty bad>example. I don't want to bash Dreamfleet but the 727's system>is nowhere nearby to the complex FMS driven add ons such as>feelThere's, PMDG's and LevD's. It's a nice add on but you are>comparing apples to oranges. I'm sure it's the same crowd who>are the first to flame the developer when it announces an SP>is the same who asks for more features and lower price. It's>impossible. Years back you released a textured tube and you>called it an airplane and it was a huge success. Today these>developers are releasing products that are compared to hunders>of thousands worth of training software. Don't laugh I know it>from fact some airline recommends some FS products to their>pilots to train themselves. In the meantime we pay this>product $40 or so. I highly doubt there is enough money to>make for these developers to allow them to have months of long>beta testing with real testers (not pilots and fans but>professional REAL gametesters).>So getting to the point; you are absolutelly right it seems to>be accepted to have one or more SPs after the release but I>think this can make these developers going and develope. It's>your choice to get the plane asap or wait a little for the>fixes but with all due respect we should not rant if a>developer releases something and fixes it within a few days.>>My 2 cents>>qfaluvraka Victor (Feelthere forums)

>Ricardo,>>you're the first who didn't understand what I've wrote,>congratulations!>>The fact that you've flown the Legacy successfully has>absolutely nothing to do with my statements.>>If you can't contribute, please don't post.>>P.S.: I'm no dude, and I'm a non-smoker, Mister. If you like>to make this a personal dispute, I must disappoint you since I>don't step down to your level.>>AndreasI understood your post very well: what you posted were a series of generic unoriginal statements, the contents of which have been mulled over on this forum too many times to mention. IOW, you are flogging a dead horse without contributing anything that hasn't been discussed before. The reason I responded to your generic rant in the first place was the fact that you used the just released Feel There Legacy as a "hook".Do you actually own this aircraft? If not, you are hardly in a position to comment on what its "bug cycle" may or may not be. Edit:Just to give an example of your off the wall statements:"IMHO it's almost ridiculous that either no one ever learns something from history (the FS world is small enough to allow for a learning effect), or many get a "kick" from bad experiences and look for them like addicted."Comparing Feel There's ERJ PIC 145 to the just released Legacy, IMHO, I see a significant "learning effect." Hence, your implication that "no one ever learns something from history" strikes me as a very broad brush with which you have chosen to paint almost all addon developers. ricardo

>One more time I'll ask. What is it lately that puts people in>this mood? It's a new moon for crying out loud so we can't>blame a full moon on it.>>Cheers,>>John>>Boeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanic>http://www.sstsim.com/images/team/JR.jpg>www.SSTSIM.comJohn it is nothing personal against you as a developer I'm sure, I have your product and can say that what has been mentioned above does not apply.In what you have asked, it is the continuing apparent ignorance of other developers (Feelthere being one of them) to keep as has been mentioned, issuing buggy product after buggy product, without fixing the last round of issues/bugs, whatever you want to call them. I have just received a refund for a product that I stupidly bought before release (Even though I knew the company involved) last year, 6 months after that they patched it to a flyable add-on, but it kept crashing on me and many others and still to date it is not fixed (They have a forum on AVSIM) In the end I got threatened by one of their team who happens to be an AVSIM member!! That developer is developing another well hyped add on and yet it has still not fixed the previous one.That is why more and more people are raising gripes and issues here, maybe the good developers (Yourselves being one) can crank up the heat as they are giving everyone a bad name and people are fed up of being short changed. Something silly like having a certified standard system, rather than a self proclaimed standard!! (You know who you are)Regards.Garry

Hi Garry,Not once did I think any of this was directed at SSTSIM. Nor should I as we provide a great product and excellent support ;-) . I am just annoyed at the generalized nature of the posts towards developers. If people have a beef against certain developers, they shouldn't make posts that encompass the whole. I understand the issues some may have with a few of the developers but if there's a specific problem from certain vendors, then lets hear the specifics and not generalizations. That in itself makes us all look bad.All I can say is that if some people are having a hard time with a certain developer, then speak with your money. After all it's yours until you spend it. A little research prior to jumping might save some grief.Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanichttp://www.sstsim.com/images/team/JR.jpgwww.SSTSIM.com

>A properly run Beta test program is not extremely>inefficient. Sure, there is some duplication but trust me, it>accomplishes more than you think. Where did you get this>notion from anyway?I'm curious if there are any metrics of critical software errors detected per hour of testing for the beta tests? I can see maybe for documentation and UI bugs, though is there a spec to test against? Is there a test plan? I'm "just a user" but I get the impression "beta tests" have a high marketing intent. I mean look at the MS Vista "public beta". Is this really a test? I'm not complaining -- I think it is the "state of the art" for consumer software. If anything, I think flight sim addons have an advantage in that I think most developers are also enthusiasts. I just don't think it is too realistic to think that you won't see post in-service bug releases. I also suspect if you really look at these releases, they include feature enhancements as often as bug fixes.Actually, considering the possible variations of systems out there, I'm surprised you can get an addon that works very well for everyone.scott s..

Your analogy of comparing FS add-ons to a car is flawed. I challenge you to find a $40 car that works as well as the, so called, flawed FS developers releases. If an add-on was worth the value of a car, then you might see some differences.I would also like to point out that most developers do this on the side and have regular day jobs. It is done as a passion and doesn't pay many bills in the end.None of this is an argument for having buggy addons. You speak like $40-50 is a drop in the bucket. Most high quality software - the full program e.g. the Call of Duty series or FarCry are in that price range. The latter are original software not addons which leech on an already finished product.And quite frankly, I could care little if this is just a "side" job. If it is just a side process then why charge anything for it? But if you do charge, and particularly in the range of prices appearing, you better be ready to take the heat if the program is buggy. If you can take my money you can take my criticism. Don't take my money and I'll shut my mouth and be grateful.

>Ricardo,>>Well done yet another topic you didn't read. Hopefully at>school tomorrow they will start teaching you how to read, it>will be very helpful in life!! I'm sure your parents will be>very proud of you.>>>Good luck.Well done on that response! :-rollAfter reading this post and all the others that complain about addons and developers I have come to my own conclusion that many of these posters must have some extremely high and even unrealistic expectations for an addon, as I have quite a bit of payware and all work as I expect. Yes, some have had service packs sent out, but none are unusable for me. I do know that it happens though, (Captain Sim for example) but quit lumping all developers into the same category.Funny, I was extremely dissapointed in the quality of the Feelthere Caravan (as many others). While the service pack made it much better, it still has issues which are easy to fix (I am a modeler, I know), but of course they decided they would not fix them and move on. Now do you see me running to the forums crying that this is an injustice and we should all hold out breath till it gets fixed? NO, I just chose not to buy from them again. If enough people do this towards developers the message gets out and they have to make a decision, but we are all to fickle and decide to cry on the forums instead. Either that or as suspected, many are perfectly content with their products and still use them, even though something might not be perfect in their eyes. I cannot think of any single addon that does NOT have something about it that I feel needs to be changed. Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/tfbeta.jpg

Bugs have become a necessary evil nowadays with increasing complexity of software and programming APIs. Most FS9 developers are excellent graphic artists, but lousy programmers, or the other way around.I have just re-installed my entire system over the weekend and had to setup a popular flight planner again. Well, out of the box/download, nothing really seemed to work (AS6 integration, save option, NAT paths, default save paths) and I spent about 30-40 minutes to go through their forum to find answers. Mind this: Those were all issues that could have been incorporated into a service pack, all issues that have be known for MONTHS, but the developer chose not to update. Aggravating? Yes. Because those are all trivial problems that can be fixed with a few lines of code.Another example: A popular ATC program which I tried to re-install. Out-of-the box the program did not work, because of a missing dll, which is not installed with XP by default. There was an option to check for updates, but the developer has forgotten to stream the lastest service pack (which is now a few months old) into the updater. The second place to look for a service pack was on their website. Nope, not there. So, I remembered a newsgroup and hidden there I found the service pack. Then I install it and it installs a new programs group with the same link to the same executable. Why? I don't know. Customer-friendly? Unfortunately not.Example three: A new add-on from a popular developer. The product hits the street and within a few weeks, we were greeted by at least 5 mini-service pack updates, but the download limit to download is 3. Now hundreds of customers have to send an email just to GET that update and to reset the counter. Just a small, but annoying logistical oversight.Another one: A popular add-on for AI sounds. The product is still being sold, but there is a serious incompatibility with another popular add-on. I ask in the forum, if there is any further development planned. That was 4 months ago and still noone bothered to reply. Of course, they didn't get my money and won't get it anytime soon.A last example: Another popular add-on originally developed for FS2002, but compatible and sold as compatible to FS9. Well, there are a few bugs (battery drain), which can be fixed with a few lines of code. But the developer announced not to issue further updates, yet it is STILL being sold for FS9.It is not always the lack of updates, but the way they are distributed. Or is it just a pure lack of interest from the developers, who are more focused in getting out another add-on instead of fixing the old issues.Another issue is the PRICE. There are a lot of add-ons out there that cost as much or more than the value of FS9. Personally, I think it is too high. A $30 price tag is okay with me for a highly detailed and documented plane for example and maybe $10 for an airport. You don't buy a $20k car and upgrade it with a few $10k upgrades as well, do you?2c.

>None of this is an argument for having buggy addons. You speak>like $40-50 is a drop in the bucket. Most high quality>software - the full program e.g. the Call of Duty series or>FarCry are in that price range. The latter are original>software not addons which leech on an already finished>product.>>And quite frankly, I could care little if this is just a>"side" job. If it is just a side process then why charge>anything for it? But if you do charge, and particularly in the>range of prices appearing, you better be ready to take the>heat if the program is buggy. If you can take my money you can>take my criticism. Don't take my money and I'll shut my mouth>and be grateful.>>Obviously you read something into my reply that wasn't there. Not all developers can be painted with the same brush as the thread starter did and I'm just pointing that out. Take that as you may.Not to be rude, but gaming software IS a drop in the bucket if you compare it to real high quality software. And I don't mean game software like Call of Duty which doesn't have global coverage, atmospheric reactions and flight dynamics all built into one platform. Try and get Photoshop CS2 or other high quality software such as audio aps and you will soon realise how inexpensive simming is. OK, lets see... if a developer spends several hundred to thousands of hours developing quality software, in our free time, we should give it away? I see you are versed in business practices that would benefit the add-on market. Using this practice, people won't get the likes of LDS or PMDG releases and will have to be happy with default and freeware aircraft.If you're going to complain about a release or specific developers, please do so, but don't get on the "We hate all Developers" bandwagon so easily. Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanichttp://www.sstsim.com/images/team/JR.jpg

>And quite frankly, I could care little if this is just a>"side" job. If it is just a side process then why charge>anything for it? But if you do charge, and particularly in the>range of prices appearing, you better be ready to take the>heat if the program is buggy. If you can take my money you can>take my criticism. Don't take my money and I'll shut my mouth>and be grateful.Len:Bingo.Bingo.Bingo.Bingo.Perfectly summed up. I, too, don't give a da*n about any of the myriad *excuses* (and that's what they are, folks) given by a plethora of developers which center on the premise that customers either (a) don't understand how hard it is to create such a wondrous aircraft/scenery/utility, or (:( expect too much for a "measly $XX.00.Both premises are so amazingly insulting that it boggles my mind. I soooooooooooo wish I could tell my own clients -- when a product fails to live up to the HYPE we ourselves, BY CHOICE, push on the public -- that they "just don't understand" and should accept the product as is, but that... hold the phone....wait!!!! Help is on the way! We're releasing a fix! "But **WHEN** is the fix going to be available?", the client inevitably asks.Ah, that's the clincher.--> "It's not our policy to give out release dates."

>If you're going to complain about a release or specific>developers, please do so, but don't get on the "We hate all>Developers" bandwagon so easily. Um, yeah, John. We customers would do that; unfortunately, as soon as a well-deserved bashing begins, it's deemed "unfair" and the thread is locked tight. Is it my imagination, though?... It often seems that if there aren't any advertising dollars involved, the attack is always allowed to continue, ad infinitum. :)

Fully agree with your posting and the previous one..Edmundo Cardenas

>>Ricardo,>>>>Well done yet another topic you didn't read. Hopefully at>>school tomorrow they will start teaching you how to read, it>>will be very helpful in life!! I'm sure your parents will be>>very proud of you.>>>>>>Good luck.>>Well done on that response! :-rollThanks Michael, glad you appreciate it.

aerdt, If I may, I

>>If you're going to complain about a release or specific>>developers, please do so, but don't get on the "We hate all>>Developers" bandwagon so easily. >>Um, yeah, John. We customers would do that; unfortunately, as>soon as a well-deserved bashing begins, it's deemed "unfair">and the thread is locked tight. >>Is it my imagination, though?... It often seems that if there>aren't any advertising dollars involved, the attack is always>allowed to continue, ad infinitum. :)So this makes it perfectly acceptable to attack/bash ALL developers in one thread whether they deserve it or not? Um, yeah JTEK99, that sounds fair :-rollCheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanichttp://www.sstsim.com/images/team/JR.jpgwww.SSTSIM.com