26 minutes ago, Reader said:

if it looks good and I can fly it, that's enough for me.

There are a lot of simmers who feel the same way and probably the majority do now with all the new ones that MSFS has attracted. For you, the Captain Sim, Carenado, and default MSFS aircraft are good enough and that is fine. For the simmers that desire more system depth they are not fine. Captain Sim, however, has a history of promising system depth and fixes, updates,and patches that they have repeatedly failed to deliver. The purpose of my post is not to bad mouth Captain Sim but to point out this history to the newer simmers desiring system depth and to be aware of getting lured into a purchase with promises of updates by the Captain Sim marketing. Captain Sim makes great looking aircraft and if that is mostly what is important to you than I highly recommend them.

Ted

14 hours ago, Reader said:

I wonder at these forums, which appear to have an automatic response to denigrate certain developers' products which is then allowed to run ad nauseam, whereas other critiques are either cut short or shot to pieces by acolytes of those products. To compare Captain Sim to PMDG is to compare a Rolls Royce to a Ford. Both are good at what they do but do it in different ways.

It's not the product being "denigrated"--it's the marketing tactics of getting money for an incomplete add-on under the pretense that it will be supported and fixed, and then summarily abandoning the product without ever delivering on completion or significant bug fixes.  That was the CS modus operandi for a long, long time.

The CS 727 and 707 certainly had more than just a couple minor faults...they had significant autopilot problems, an altimeter that would roll over the thousands counter instantly so that 9990 feet appeared as 10090 feet, fuel system issues, EPR readings that were completely up a duck's butt, an HSI knob that would keep spinning if you moused away from it, etc etc.  The fixes for many of these problems ended up as user hacks/mods--I know this because I wrote a number of them myself.

If you'll take the time to go back and read what I've written in the forums here about their 757 III in P3D, I have actually defended it as a decent, though certainly not top-shelf, add-on, and a refreshing departure from the abandonware disappointments from CS that preceded it.  I just don't relish the thought of going back to those old days, with jaded, disappointed customers stomping about, and the CS staff telling them that "...we are former Soviet special forces and we know how to deal with traitors..."  Yep, that was a real thing said in their support forums back when.

CS have, in the past few years, proven themselves capable of making and supporting passable aircraft add-ons, but there is also a longer history that people should be aware of when they revert back to the old practice of asking for money in exchange for an incomplete product with a promise of future completion.  It's absolutely fair play to revisit that history when it becomes relevant again.

7 hours ago, Reader said:

I am not a skilled airliner pilot in either the real or simulated world and if it looks good and I can fly it, that's enough for me.

The problem is that the CS aircraft are not priced at the "looks good and it flies" level. 757 with expansions is about USD $180 "on sale". That's a serious amount of cash.

So the PMDG/CS thing is not so much comparing Ferrari to Ford, it's more like comparing a Ferrari to a second Ferrari, but the second Ferrari has a bunch of stuff that is broken and/or is actually just a drawing of a Ferrari that may or may not ever be a proper, finished vehicle. 

Edited March 20, 20215 yr by OzWhitey

When I bought 757III, they roll out quite a lot update, so I don't have complain on that, but yes they go quiet for a while whit still not optimal flight dynamic and VNAV...

I think most of people just have problem with their price model...I fully understand...

But the magic of market is, the quality and price are never the same thing. They could charge 100m USD on 733 if they want, and one copy sold would be profitable.... No one could tell CS their product is not as good as PMDG so they should price it lower than them... that's... planned economy...

On 3/18/2021 at 2:52 AM, SAX702 said:

It may be the best B737-300, etc. simulation ever, or somewhere in between that an the simulated level in their B767/757.  Hard to predict.  What is easy to predict is that the CSHA (Captain Sim's Haters Association) members will be active, regardless.  

Exactly, well written. There is nothing there yet but still it has already started.

14 hours ago, w6kd said:

It's absolutely fair play to revisit that history when it becomes relevant again.

Fair enough. I would not have started down such a path as early as a webpage placeholder with scant details of a product that does not yet exist. I am sure that when and if it is available, the opportunity to comment will arise soon enough. In the meantime, in my ignorance of the nuances of deep systems replication, I will continue to enjoy those that do exist.

Edited March 21, 20215 yr by Reader

4 hours ago, C2615 said:

When I bought 757III, they roll out quite a lot update, so I don't have complain on that, but yes they go quiet for a while whit still not optimal flight dynamic and VNAV...

I think most of people just have problem with their price model...I fully understand...

But the magic of market is, the quality and price are never the same thing. They could charge 100m USD on 733 if they want, and one copy sold would be profitable.... No one could tell CS their product is not as good as PMDG so they should price it lower than them... that's... planned economy...

But they haven't sold any airplanes for 100m.  I think a developer may be talented at developing an airplane for the flight sim community.  But that doesn't mean they understand economics.  I believe only premium products sell well at a premium price.  So my contention is that CS would have sold far more of their airplanes using lower pricing than their current pricing scheme.  You could use the MSFS lower pricing/higher volume trend we are seeing.  

I'm the last person to arbitrarily get on a dev for charging too much for their product if I think the value matches the price.  When their is a gap between the two criticism eventually follows.  Developers may not like it.  But it takes a long time to re-write your history.