38 minutes ago, KL Oo said:

Agreed.

 

A number or bugs were identified thru the beta (pre release because now we're all beta testers) process that were reported multiple times but not fixed (or even commented on from the dwceloper).

 

I understand the developer has some personal issues but this is the same behaviour and MO we saw from him  with UT2 where he disappeared and never came back. Occurres with other developers too as tooting says. It leads to credibility issues.

 

Unfortunately I don't see the bugs with this program ever being addressed. That said, for me and my needs it's the best that is currently available.

Okay, what boggles me, if Flight1 is selling the product (they have access to the code), why not give it to another developer).  At this rate, the company and customers are held in limbo if for whatever reason the developer stops updating the product.

All contracts can be null and void in situations like these between the developer and publisher as publisher is the one paying the developer.

Edited June 20, 20187 yr by Skywolf

2 minutes ago, Skywolf said:

Okay, what boggles me, if Flight1 is selling the product (they have access to the code), why not give it to another developer).  At this rate, the company and customers are held in limbo if for whatever reason the developer stops updating the product.

All contracts can be null and void in situation like these between the developer and publisher as publisher is the one paying the developer.

Because its money, they are selling it for money on the assumption that Tom will finish it at some point, which is exactly what happened with ut2 it never did get updated and Tom rebranded, renamed and sold it an 'all new product' 

19 minutes ago, Skywolf said:

Okay, what boggles me, if Flight1 is selling the product (they have access to the code), why not give it to another developer).

Because currently it does what most people want most of the time.

The defense rests.

Your witness. 

Best traffic program since UTII is UT Live.

Regards
bs

2 hours ago, tooting said:

his product is no different to the beta version he released.  All I want is for developers to release finished polished products like PMDG and not abandon products half way through which is what he did with UT2 and also what he did with UT live.  Its the same with BBS,QW,Captainsim etc etc 

When I go to work to do a 12 hour shift, I dont do half a flightplan, I dont do half a load sheet, I dont apply for half a slot, I dont put in half the MELS into the system, etc etc.  But im sick of developers doing half a job and then selling it to us

I agree.  If I did that at my job, I'd have my license pulled.  It demands perfection, in an imperfect world.

Thank you everyone for responding on this thread.  I got the answers that I was looking for. 

 

Very grateful

 

Have an excellent day

 

-Skywolf

Edited June 20, 20187 yr by Skywolf

6 hours ago, Skywolf said:

Okay, what boggles me, if Flight1 is selling the product (they have access to the code), why not give it to another developer).  At this rate, the company and customers are held in limbo if for whatever reason the developer stops updating the product.

All contracts can be null and void in situations like these between the developer and publisher as publisher is the one paying the developer.

Because that is not how things work out in the FS Developing World.

As an example, If I decide to sell my products using F1, they will not get my source code, the source code remains mine and nobody else's.

What F1 does is provide the licensing protection, a forum and depending on the partnership deal they will promote the software via their website, all these for a share commission which can be very high in my personal opinion.

Not everyone has the same resources and sizes as PMDG, hell I wish I could have such funding and afford a team to help me to run my company like they do, but the reality out there is that most FS Developers start this as a part time job and in the vast majority of cases is all a 1 man business job.

If things go well of course then we go through the expansion process, but this is not always the case.

I have been extremely lucky to meet the right people who has put a wonderful and experienced team behind me, which will not only help me to test my products but also with all the required support when the time comes.

Although I am not revealing who they are at this stage, I know they will be reading this, so I would like to say THANK YOU guys, your support and work means the world to me.

So this is the reality of the situation, when a FS developer gets into serious trouble he is pretty much on his own..

My two cents,

Simbol 

9 hours ago, Dave_YVR said:

..... It's not a dig at PSXSeecon in any way, but users aren't going to see or have models or paints for every aircraft that PSXSeecon is getting traffic data for. 

That's not correct.

You will ALWAYS see an aircraft in your Sim for a real aircraft PSXseeconTraffic is geting data for.

A livery (out of what the user has installed in his Sim) is searched in a best effort matching process in –up to- seven steps:

1. registration code
2. airline and type
3. airline and similar type(-s)
4. Generic Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier or ATR livery and type.
5. random airline and type
6. random airline and similar type(-s)
7. a default livery, chosen out of a number of liveries from the same aircraft category (Heavy, Middle, Light or Helicopter)

Edited June 20, 20187 yr by kiek

9 hours ago, Dave_YVR said:

It's not a dig at PSXSeecon in any way, but users aren't going to see or have models or paints for every aircraft that PSXSeecon is getting traffic data for. 

You wanna bet ? I have a 90 to 100 % hit rate. I spent 3 months creating quality ai FTX, FSP, FAIB and BAVI. Huge colection of GA and have it more covered than UTL could ever do.

7 hours ago, newtie said:

Because currently it does what most people want most of the time

Yes, maybe, but in about 12 months time, it will seem outdated, including the schedules. Remember, this is the second time this UT product has been stopped in it's tracks. For many, this will be the last.

9 hours ago, Dave_YVR said:

 It's simply from not displaying nearly the same amount of traffic.  

As is known, you can adapt the amount of traffic in PSXSeecontraffic as well as UTLive. PSXSeecontraffic allows specifying the numer of gates filled (35% at present) with the live planes obviously given by just those live at the time (or that specified in Live Traffic). UTLive allows specifying the number of Airliners and GA planes which I have set to 60% and 80 %, resp. right now. Given these settings a glance upon KSFO in FS-FlightControl which displays AI aircraft shows a - very roughly - comparable number of planes.

Plus, you can limit the radius of traffic around your plane in both programs as well.

Kind regards, Michael

3 hours ago, ZKOKQ said:

Yes, maybe, but in about 12 months time, it will seem outdated, including the schedules. Remember, this is the second time this UT product has been stopped in it's tracks. For many, this will be the last.

I don't use it. :>)

 As an example, display 200 ai in UTL, a custom Bgl setup or PSXseeconTraffic and the frames will be for all intensive purposes the same is all that I'm saying. 

Go to any large airport with identical time and weather to compare how much traffic is there at 100% and UTL and most certainly a custom Bgl will most likely have more traffic than PSXseecon and therefore also have a heavier impact on performance.

18 hours ago, Skywolf said:

why not give it to another developer)

Because code does not work that way. You can't just look at a program that somebody else wrote and go "oh, so that is how it works". There is a threshold in size and complexity where it is actually cheaper to write your own product that does the same thing instead of trying to understand what someone else did.

Transition projects are only viable if the original code is either very simple or very well documented (which a developer working in his basement, assuming that he will be the only one who will ever have to understand it, never really does - it is very hard to instill this even in professional developers who are paid for it) and maybe if a couple of the original developers are around to help out.

Then there is the matter of intellectual property. Unless a developer transfers the IP to Flight 1 and gives them the sources, they have no right to do anything with/to the product.

And - as hard as that may be to accept - the flightsim market just isn't big enough to fund big projects. Flight1 would be taking an awful risk with a move like that, because (after having paid off the original developer to acquire his code) they would have to pay the "other developer" without any guarantee that he will succeed - or that the final product is sold in enough quatity to get them back their money. 

Best regards

Edited June 20, 20187 yr by Lorby_SI