>Please understand that Microsoft can afford to sell their>software at such a low price due to the sheer volume of>customers. If they only had a market of 30,000 potential>customers, the price tag would be in the hundreds, if not>thousands of Dollars. Third Party Developers will only>potentially sell twenty to forty thousand units, which in>comparison, isn

>>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.>JTEK99,I will only answer your above quote since the rest doesn't deserve justification by responding to it.Excuses? Like I said in a previous reply that seems to get lost in this group stampede mentality, make your specifics known with the developers in question. If that doesn't work, post your arguments on forums in a civil manner and you would be suprised what happens.I wasn't going to bring this into the thread but with your reply I feel it's time. How many flight sim add-ons have you designed, released and provided support for? That is a very ignorant and uninformed statement when it comes to the majority of developers out there. If this is how you feel and want to lump all developers into the same group, then I suggest you don't buy any add-ons and thus avoid the disappointment you're obviously anticipating with ALL developers.Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanichttp://www.sstsim.com/images/team/JR.jpgwww.SSTSIM.com

>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 :-rollWell, John, I didn't say that.More importantly, if you think "fairness" is an entitlement of doing business in the world, I'm not quite certain how long you've been in business.The equation is simple, as it has always been: if you take money for ANYTHING, you're open to criticism. And if you or your business gets folded into a group that's currently being attacked, it might be "unfair", but it's also a sign that even developers should pressure *each other* to be more responsible. THAT duty has, in most cases, fallen to the customer; and, as this and hundreds of other similar (and/or locked) threads attest to, the developers aren't listening.Thus, the blanket attack comes and, quite frankly, there's nothing you can do about it except (a) defend yourself publicly as you've been doing or (:( unite with other responsible developers to put pressure on the "bad" ones in your particular industry.In short, you're in EXACTLY the same position the shabbily-treated customer is. Attack/defend in a public forum, or unite with others to further your cause.Put even more succinctly: join the club.

Maybe users put up with this, because they own computers. Those who buy a new one, as soon as it is released find it full of bugs, and go through the upgrade process. This has been going on since the 70's, when the first desktop was released, the Tandy Model I. Each month there was a new fix to bring it into the shop for installation. Almost as often there was a change to TRSDOS V1.... Then, the Model II was released. Way back then, when I owned five Model I's, used for different purposes, got sick of it, and decided NOT to purchase a new computer until the NEXT version was released. SO did not buy a Model II, as the Model I's were by then running well. A 14 year old son of a friend who was a hardware "expert" by then, had souped up my Model I, so it was better in my opinion, than even the Model II or III... (He went on to Georgia Tech, and MIT for grad work.) In the meantime also discovered by not having to have the "newest" model, that it also meant more than a $1000 saved each time I did upgrade to "my new computer." No headaches, or problems and today own very good systems, in both a Desktop, and Laptop, which together cost me less than most spend on their "new computer." Most would be surprised at the reduction in stress by waiting until computers and software have been proven to be bug free, before buying. Sometimes this can mean skipping an entire version. Bob

I'll be the first to say that twenty to forty thousand units is extremely high and a dream point for most of us. Unless poeple actually know the numbers, this kind of conjecture only adds to the angst that's developing towards developers these days. The number of releases that made those numbers can probably be counted on one hand.Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanichttp://www.sstsim.com/images/team/JR.jpgwww.SSTSIM.com

>I respect the developers that follow through with>fixes,enhancements and give older releases a new facelift.>Alot seem to capitalize on the "NEW" release which everyone>just has to have. They dump it on us,wash their hands of it>and begin the whole pre release hype for the next>latest,greatest all over again.Because I don't buy every aircraft made, Ive never bought one that has dis-satisfied me. Then, as I dont have to have it the day it is released, by the time I get it, usually am unable to find a bug in it. IF you buy from someone who "dumps it on us" and "wash their hands of it" in my opinion that is -your- responsibility. For you are not checking out the source or reputation of the seller, before you buy. IF we compare a purchase of a car, to the purchase of a FS add-on, then we also need to compare dealers as carefully as we would when purchasing a car. Those with complaints such as yours, evidently are -not- doing so. I've never bought a bad add-on, a bad computer, or a bad car. Bob

You may not have said it but you confirmed it in the above post.Actually fairness is a great thing in the business world and will get you a lot. You just have to know when to give it and take it away. BTW, I've run a successful non FS business since 1993.I am well aware of the developers in question and have been very vocal in the past about one of them to no avail. Creating a civil war between developers will do nothing. Most of the developers in question have sales that are very good so why should they change the winning strategy that they've adopted because the other developers say so. It just isn't going to happen until the end user starts using their common sense and keeps their money from them. Cheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanichttp://www.sstsim.com/images/team/JR.jpgwww.SSTSIM.com

>I will only answer your above quote since the rest doesn't>deserve justification by responding to it.Then I reserve the right to do the same with your own posts; there's nothing easier in a debate to create an ad-hoc, out-of-context argument to prove one's point. :)>Excuses? Like I said in a previous reply that seems to get>lost in this group stampede mentality, make your specifics>known with the developers in question. If that doesn't work,>post your arguments on forums in a civil manner and you would>be suprised what happens.Ah, well... it's not that I disagree with you at all. That's the way it *SHOULD* be. But, unfortunately, it's not, and that's why your own diatribe is so surprising. It's as if you're doing business in Hobbiton or The Shire; the real world business environment is quite different, no matter the industry.>I wasn't going to bring this into the thread but with your>reply I feel it's time. How many flight sim add-ons have you>designed, released and provided support for? That is a very>ignorant and uninformed statement when it comes to the>majority of developers out there. If this is how you feel and>want to lump all developers into the same group, then I>suggest you don't buy any add-ons and thus avoid the>disappointment you're obviously anticipating with ALL>developers.Hehe... now that's pretty funny. Not laughable, mind you, but funny. Again, you're back in The Shire. Come over to the real world and deal with REAL world business model of customer relations (and, by proxy, associated problems). Petroleum prices are extraordinarily high in the United States right now. I haven't owned a refinery, dug a single hole for oil, nor owned a petrol station. I'm ignorant about the production of gasoline and have absolutely no idea regarding the logistics of refining. And yet not a week goes by that I -- as well as millions of other Americans -- complain about the "Oil" or "Gas" industry. We don't single out Valero, or Exxon, or Shell, or Chevron. We lump them all together. How funny it would be if, say, Chevron came out with a press statement to say: "Hey... that's unfair! We're a more responsible company than Shell. Don't lump us in with those idiots! Our gasoline is superior!" You must, indeed, admit that it WOULD be funny to hear such a thing in a public venue.Now... hold that thought.That's exactly how you sound.And, by the way... if it's so doggone important to you NOT to be lumped in with "irresponsible" addon developers, then why don't YOU simply mention and attack specific a specific developer? I'm totally certain you've purchased and used at least ONE other developer's addon, and that you felt burned by the purchase since it didn't function as advertised. Yet, amazingly, you don't criticize a single developer at all in any of your posts.Do you know why you don't do that? It isn't your manners, though you'll likely claim it so. It's your pocketbook speaking. It's that unwritten rule that you don't attack another developer publicly since you know it would release a cavalcade of attacks from all the others. And that would hurt you financially.And do you know why that is? Quite simple, really. It's because you're all LUMPED TOGETHER. And you can't be "together" when it comes to getting praise and/or monies, but NOT be "together" when it comes to criticism.But wait.. there's some good news in this thread for you, John. Flightsim addon developers have it good; they're like the gas/oil companies mentioned above. Customers will complain, rant, whine for hours upon hours in every public venue about a given product; but, thank heaven, you're the only game in town and we customers have little choice but to buy those products. And keep coming back for more. You have fetish value on your side. :)

Before this thread goes out of bounds:firstly, I need to clearly state that I highly appreciate the work of add-on developers, may it be pay- or freeware. I'm pretty sure they all have noble intentions and no one wants to hurt another. And it's only legitimate that good work is sold for a given amount.I'd be a dreamer not to see the differences between other businesses and the small FS world, nor would I ever expect any software to ever be completely free of bugs and glitches.I certainly wouldn't say a word if some developer would release a product, people find some not so important bugs, and a service pack would be issued which resolves almost all of them not long after the initial release.Unfortunately, it doesn't work this way.Whether a bug is a major one or not is in the eye of the beholder: for me, a visually misplaced object on e.g. a critical flight instrument would have a greater negative impact to the overall impression of a product than e.g. the time the APU needs to start or whether the N1 value after the turbine runup is 100% realistic or not.The bug lists of new planes often contain items similar to buttons cannot be pressed, navigation instruments point to wrong locations, instruments are dead and cannot be used at all etc.Such bugs for me are ones which any user would almost instantly discover. It's a riddle for my why this kind of bugs still happen these days.In the end, the developer kind of abuses paying customers to play bug finders and product testers. To a certain extent, this is the way it has to be, even the most expensive software needs the broad base of customers to allow for efficient bug fixing.But what happens in our small FS world IMHO is often far from being reasonable.But I don't stop here only lamenting and ranting, I want to make some people think twice about the current situation and maybe start this or that process so future developments have a benefit from past situations.I want that the responsible persons (i.e. the developers) don't block my arguments by saying I'm an ignorant unknown and better shut up, but I rather want to bring some life to a world of repetitive mechanisms and help to make things better.Today, FS development too often means to be trapped in that bug-patch-bug cycle. Anyone can explain me the reasons it has to be this way? Any suggestions how to change this? So far, I've not read about someone offering an idea how to escape.Customers these days should be aware that whenever they buy an add-on, there's a big probability they buy sometimes very buggy software they're usually not happy with, and that it will cost them nerves and time waiting for a chain of service packs which eventually will still leave some holes open.Agreed, this doesn't happen every time, but too many times. I buy many add-ons, and I have my share in bad experiences, but the last release from FeelThere have brought a new quality to my disillusions (don't want to offend FeelThere here, though, they're great guys).Not that I'd refrain from buying from FeelThere anymore, the opposite is the case, I'm pretty sure I'm gonna buy the Legacy one day when the bugs are gone.But why not put more efforts in the pre-release stage? Dreamfleed for instance succeeded in this area, so it's generally possible, why not learn from this and make it better instread of rolling the same wheel over and over again?Enough said, needed to get this off my chest. Whether it helps is up to open-minded people willing to change something. I for my part are sceptical (and keep being disillusioned, which takes some of my joy with FS apart)...Peace.Andreas

>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.>>Regards.>>Garry> IF someone has a -specific- complaint about a specific product, then they would do much better to name the complaint, and the product. It would then help to prevent others from making the same "mistake." Then, let the chips fall where they may. When you buy something you are -satisfied- or pleased with, rave about the product, promote them however you want. Those who produce trash, will soon stop wasting their time creating something that will not sell. Those who make a good product, will make a greater profit from increased sales, and continue good work. Making general comments, about the entire add-on development community only results in those producing quality, giving up, and then we have nothing. For a couple of decades we had FREE add-ons of high quality. Then, many became very picky about what they got FREE, some of the best developers stopped making Freeware. Some just like to complain, and do so over and over, even when the product is free. Bob

My apologies

>I am well aware of the developers in question and have been>very vocal in the past about one of them to no avail. Creating>a civil war between developers will do nothing. Most of the>developers in question have sales that are very good so why>should they change the winning strategy that they've adopted>because the other developers say so. It just isn't going to>happen until the end user starts using their common sense and>keeps their money from them. John:On that, we are in full agreement.Unfortunately, if public criticism is censored, deleted or locked in any ostensibly public forum, then the buyer will continue to plunk down his/her money with little idea that the product is riddled with issues and that the developer may, indeed, bail out on support.It's a Catch-22, if I may use that clich

Andreas,I think your stance is a wise one, and one that would be beneficial to the entire community, if it were widely followed. There do seem to be a number of developers who fit the "bug-SP-bug" cycle, but there are those who don't. By closely watching the forums over time, it's fairly easy to tell which is which, and carefully consider one's purchases from those who market "lemons" (to borrow a term from the automotive community). The operative word in my last statement is "closely". Pay attention to the responses from the developer in his (or her) forum. Are complaints attributed to actual bugs in the add-on software, to shortcomings in FS9, or are they shown to be caused by operator error?One good example of how a complaint can take on a life of its own, to the detriment of the developer. An early reviewer of the Aeroworx King Air gave the product mediocre marks because, he said, the torque meters didn't work, and he suggested that Aeroworx consider a patch to fix it. Just two weeks ago (two years after that early review), I fielded a question on this forum from someone asking if there had yet been a patch to the product to "fix the bug where the torque meters don't work". In truth, there never was such a bug -- The Aeroworx King Air (like any complex add on aircraft) really requires some study of the manual and adherence to the checklists in order to be fully functional, and the reviewer missed the step in the checklist that calls for the inverters to be switched on. The torque meters run perfectly, and always have...as long as you remember to switch on the inverters. I've lost track of how many times that question has been asked and answered in the Aeroworx forum.The reality is that many of the developers have made truly astonishing products, and taken FS9 from the realm of semi-serious arcade game to that of low-cost simulation. The level of complexity demanded by the community is largely responsible for this shift, which makes it all the more astonishing that so many purchasers of these complex add-ons don't read the manual before posting a complaint to the forum. One developer's response to this phenomenon is to deliver a complex aircraft with a fifteen page manual, saying, "Don't expect a 300-page manual with this product; I don't believe in them." He may figure that he'll have to answer so many DRTM (Didn't Read The Manual) questions anyway, it's not worth his time to put together good solid documentation for his product.Certainly, the testing process needs to be a rigorous one, and developers would be well-served to find quality testers for their beta teams. An interest in the subject is only one of several requisites in looking for team members. They need to be knowledgeable coming into the project: of computer hardware and software, of the development process and the market, of real world aviation, of the sim, and when a complex aircraft is being developed, a fair degree of understanding of the aircraft itself. There must be a high level of dedication to producing a quality product -- people who are just looking for an early copy of the software should be avoided. And as if it's not hard enough to find someone with all those qualifications, the developer needs at least six or eight of them who are willing to give enough of their time to make the testing effective. (My guess is that the developers who consistently deliver bug-free products have a cadre of testers they work very closely with and treat very well.)My point (and I do have one) is that it's perfectly okay to carefully consider all of your flight simming purchases; it IS your money, after all, and you absolutely deserve the kind of quality that satisfies you. If you don't want to participate in "end-user testing", then don't!

Oh, well... I tried but am sorry you totally missed the point. Now go have a good read of those Tolkien novels. You may even learn what your analogies mean :( .Time to pull the pin on this one as it's obviously a waste of my valuable time :-waveCheers,JohnBoeing 727/737 & Lockheed C-130/L-100 Mechanichttp://www.sstsim.com/images/team/JR.jpg

>Time to pull the pin on this one as it's obviously a waste of>my valuable time.Finally, you're making sense. :)Listen, I didn't want to mention this at all since it would cloud my amazingly witty and brilliant argument. :-rollBut for the record, as an owner of quite likely one of the three best addon aircraft in the world (the SSTSIM Concorde), I will say that -- while I defend the "lumping" of complaints against developers in public venues -- SSTSIM really does stand tall above the various and sundry developers who have, indeed, sullied their reputations with less-than-adequate products. The SSTSIM forum is great, the development team has a presence there, and questions are answered forthrightly without the cackle of marketing/propaganda replacing honest and straightforward dialogue (the fora at CaptainSomethingOrOther's site comes immediately to mind).So,... feather in your hat, John, and one that's well deserved. But remember... there are a LOT of angry addon customers out there and their hue and cry isn't something to be cavalier about. The vast majority have a valid point; there are a LOT of developers getting cut throat about what constitutes a "functional" product and, sometimes, as a result of this malady, some of the good developers are going to have take their "lumps", too, however unfair the diatribe may be.Just my two oz. of Avgas, sans price-gouging. :)