While I do appreciate the support, again, I also recognize that my somewhat typically Norwegian approach to people isn't exactly the best communication style (particularly via text). Again, I appreciate the kind words, but do make sure to place them in the contextual realization that I am imperfect, and there's literal proof that I've taken a bit of a verbal bat to people on occasion.

No, I am not the best PR person out there, but I think if people look back through posts, I'd argue that they'd see an evolution. To me, that's all anyone has. Yeah, some people are naturals. Others evolve to be better at things.

20 hours ago, PATCO LCH said:

Kyle, may I say with all due respect I think with your analytical mind you would make a stellar University law professor!

Please don't take it wrong, I'm not trying to be funny but you are a smart dude and may just be wasting your time moderating a hobby forum with a bunch of old fellows playing pilot.(Such as myself). I know you stated once you have taught school before or am I wrong? I have wondered if you may just be over qualified intellectually leading to some of the frustration with folks here. I don't mean to sound smart but maybe something to think about.

My mother always told me that I should've been a lawyer. I think I found a happy medium in being a pilot, which I always tell people is an odd combination of paralegal, amateur weather forecaster, technologist (people will immediately jump to an image of a glass flight deck, but back in the 40s, that technology was similarly cutting edge), and someone with good hand eye coordination. The code/simming side takes care of the rest of my cerebral curiosities/interests.

This isn't my only job, though. I still have a day job (contracting - welcome to DC life), other roles within PMDG, flying, and the occasional side project. This is certainly not beneath me, or a waste. I really do like jumping into various threads getting at some of the greyer areas of aviation, or, sharing what knowledge I've picked up while working various aviation-related jobs. As someone who has had to take an 'alternate' (non-airline) path into aviation, I can appreciate the struggles of the people who have been "kept out" or forced to "drop out" for various reasons, be they age, medical, financial or otherwise. The sim gives them an outlet to experience what I have experienced, but it also gives me an outlet to experience things I will still likely never experience (flying a 400, or the 8, for example).

I do think that my occasional theoretical and nuanced approach irritates people, because it can come across as arrogant. It's completely unintended, but that's how I process through things. My first post in this thread is a great example. I didn't necessarily disagree with the assertion of the OP - I do believe that my approach to people sometimes is a bit harsh, and it's something I actively work on - but I wanted to provide a few counterpoints for people to think about, either on their own, or as a way to solicit feedback to find out where the line is for people, because this is a grey area discussion. It's more complex than a simple "right" or "wrong." I enjoy these types of discussions, but I think some people jumped into this thread looking for a bit of an outlet to say "this guy is kind of a [choice word]." Wrong? No. Helpful? Not as helpful as the more nuanced discussion where people can gain an understanding of each other...but again, a nuanced discussion isn't necessarily appreciated by many. It's a lot of effort, and it could come across as me simply distracting from the main point with a bit of rhetoric. Again, unintended, but I get it.

To be honest, I rolled my eyes particularly hard when I was at university because simpler discussions were usually dragged into stuff like "well, if you consider the context of the particular paradigm, one might find that the designer was truly aiming for an abstraction to the concept of 'modernism' based in the cultural queues taken from the assertions of power and imposition." In my head I'm thinking "so what you're saying is that the architects liked to design in a brutalist style...why not just say that...?"

Perhaps I type so much here in the forum because the code I write is so cut and dry...

 

 

Who knows. All the same, I'm really enjoying the discussion here, and appreciate reading everyone's feedback.

I'm not going to add much to this thread as i would only repeat what has already been said. And I'm among those who weren't overly impressed with PMDG's customer interaction in the past, but the way Kyle participates in this discussion is absolutely commendable in my opinion.

Hats off to you Sir, your honesty and openness is exemplary!

36 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

22 hours ago, PATCO LCH said:

 

My mother always told me that I should've been a lawyer

Kyle, Thanks for the interesting and introspective  reply. I could always picture you as the intimidating professor in "Paper Chase." The one who said "you will leave here thinking like lions."  I thought he was a pretty cool dude in his on way.

On a side note I think it would be interesting to have a similar autobiographical introduction from all our AVSIM moderators. Maybe a "meet the moderators forum. I guess you could just visit their profile.

Bit we should not need an introduction to AVSIM Moderators, we should be treated as people, not objects to be dismissed. Of course the same applies to Moderators, though I do not think we should have to prostrate ourselves before them.

As far as representatives of Developers are concerned there is a special relationship there.  We have paid their companies money which we expect to receive a product which performs as advertised.  All the advertisments say....runs on P3D pr Runs on FSX.  None say they only do so if we do not have X Y or Z running.  It is up to the developers in handling our queries to convey this reasonably and support the customer to a solution which does not involve the customer throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

In some cases this means the company should decide that it cannot meet the advertised specifications for that product and in this case a refund should be considered.

Edited November 7, 20187 yr by harrry

2 hours ago, harrry said:

Bit we should not need an introduction to AVSIM Moderators, we should be treated as people, not objects to be dismissed. Of course the same applies to Moderators, though I do not think we should have to prostrate ourselves before them.

I don't take this to be his point at all. My assertion would be that he made that point simply out of curiosity...not as a "please post a guide to understanding this specific mod so that I can interact with them more effectively." A cursory glance at the context of his point, I would argue, makes this rather clear. That's only my take, however.

5 hours ago, harrry said:

As far as representatives of Developers are concerned there is a special relationship there.  We have paid their companies money which we expect to receive a product which performs as advertised.  All the advertisments say....runs on P3D pr Runs on FSX.  None say they only do so if we do not have X Y or Z running.  It is up to the developers in handling our queries to convey this reasonably and support the customer to a solution which does not involve the customer throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

In some cases this means the company should decide that it cannot meet the advertised specifications for that product and in this case a refund should be considered.

Maybe I'm a little confused here, but are you talking about products interacting with other products? If so, I do have to ask, how exactly would you test for all possible combination of add-ons.

9 hours ago, harrry said:

Bit we should not need an introduction to AVSIM Moderators, we should be treated as people, not objects to be dismissed. Of course the same applies to Moderators, though I do not think we should have to prostrate ourselves before them.

Kneel Knave!  I has spoken!!

Harrry - we are all simmers. Many times I get into a discussion and someone will correct and/or disagree with my statement. That's the way it is. I certainly hope no one takes what I say as being right JUST because I am a mod - that would be foolish.

In matters Avsim however, arguing with the mods is not a recommended pastime but grovelling prostate at out feet is not required.  😂 .

Vic

 

6 minutes ago, vgbaron said:

but grovelling prostate at out feet is not required.  😂 .

Vic

But kinda fun. What's not to like?

1 minute ago, Ron Attwood said:

But kinda fun. What's not to like?

Hmm - now that you mention it - not a bad idea at all!  

Sorry... won't be groveling prostate... already married.

35 minutes ago, WarpD said:

prostate

Prostate? Hope not.

5 hours ago, Captain Kevin said:

Maybe I'm a little confused here, but are you talking about products interacting with other products? If so, I do have to ask, how exactly would you test for all possible combination of add-ons.

Yes I am, all computer products interact with other products.With flight sim products the range is not that big.  Many of these failed handlings are known to the developer at the time of sale.  None of these are generally disclosed.  The two  that are should never be there, no program should need to be run as administrator after installation and none should need the   antivirus disabled ever.

I am not saying this is easy but it is part of providing a product for sale and as I said disclosure of these failed interactions in sale documents and advertisments is rarely included.

None of this implies that there is anything wrong with the developer as a person.

 

Edited November 7, 20187 yr by harrry

1 hour ago, vgbaron said:

Kneel Knave!  I have spoken!!

 

In matters Avsim however, arguing with the mods is not a recommended pastime but grovelling prostate at out feet is not required.  😂 .

Vic

 

Speak for yourself, Vic!  My prostate is fine, thanks for asking.

Nothing like a probing topic.

8 minutes ago, charliearon said:

Speak for yourself, Vic!  My prostate is fine, thanks for asking.

On Flowmax myself. Great stuff.