+1 for this article, of course not every plane has to be study level but it should also not look like FS98!

https://fselite.net/originals/opinion-developers-stop-with-the-frankenstein-aircraft/

Edited July 6, 20214 yr by rob0203

Good article but I think there will be more of the same because there clearly is a market for it and its selling well. I dont think a high proportion of the buyers of these planes are angry users with their fingers burned.

It suggests there are a lot more casual flyers who don't care if the cockpit is inaccurate - as long as the outside of the plane is.

Edited July 6, 20214 yr by sanh

12 minutes ago, sanh said:

Good article but I think there will be more of the same because there clearly is a market for it and its selling well. I dont think a high proportion of the buyers of these planes are angry users with their fingers burned.

It suggests there are a lot more casual flyers who don't care if the cockpit is inaccurate - as long as the outside of the plane is.

Agreed, it may not be a product that people on here want to buy but neither does anyone on here have the right to specify what other people can buy.

Fully agree with the opinion piece, but people will buy this stuff so the market will supply it. An easy buck from the naive newbies who don't yet know better (I don't mean that pejoratively, I just mean the many newcomers MFS has attracted are being taken advantage of).

Puts me in mind of a guy who said he'd never buy any payware and all payware was rubbish based on the only payware purchase he ever made... Abacus. He logged thousand of hours in flight sim and never spent another penny on software.

Edited July 6, 20214 yr by ckyliu

This article raises a few good points, but I really bristle at the attitude the author seems to display that considers anything that doesn't meet their standards of excellence to be "shoddy".   Like I said an an earlier thread about the CS 777:

 

Quote

Just because their output doesn't meet some random Avsim member's arbitrary definition of "quality" doesn't mean folks like Mr. Bredok lack integrity or don't have pride in their work.  To imply otherwise feels to me just as snobby as looking down on someone who can only afford a mobile home but who works hard on it, keeps it up, mows the lawn, landscapes, and treats it with at least as much pride as any McMansion owner treats his own prefab home.

 

There's a difference between building a Hyundai and building a Yugo.    You may not find any appeal in either, but folks whose wants and needs are met by a modern Hyundai are generally unlikely to be disappointed by it.   Yugo buyers, on the other hand...

From what I've seen, Bredok3D seems to be making Hyundais, and that's fine by me.  

(Now the recent CS releases, on the other hand, definitely look more like Yugos from what I've read of them.)

Edited July 6, 20214 yr by kaosfere

Nice to see someone say something nice about Bredok3d I have their 737 but haven't learned to fly it yet.

11 hours ago, Matchstick said:

Agreed, it may not be a product that people on here want to buy but neither does anyone on here have the right to specify what other people can buy.

Paying for a model with default systems that are not equivalent to the models is not good practice, that's just my opinion. Should be freeware

Edited July 7, 20214 yr by jbdbow1970

Badly-written opinionated tosh for the most part. By way of example, how many times could the author get the word first in one paragraph?:

'It first started with the Bredok3D Eurofighter Typhoon, which first released in November of last year. As one of the first fighter jets available for the simulator...'

Poor writing ability aside, even though this should matter for the standards of a website article, reporting that these things are selling like hot cakes, but then also claiming that they 'upset the community considerably' is quite clearly contradictory claptrap. Even if the guy could for some reason lay claim to knowing the feelings of an entire community.

Some of us may not like such products and that's their choice, but slagging off developers who make what people want to buy is a bit too much of an elitist attitude for my liking, and not one which will help to popularise flight simming to a wider audience. Making stuff like that is not an excuse for poor standards or QC of course, but cheap and cheerful stuff is often fun, and as ever there is no compulsion to buy these things if you don't personally approve.

1 hour ago, kaosfere said:

This article raises a few good points, but I really bristle at the attitude the author seems to display that considers anything that doesn't meet their standards of excellence to be "shoddy".   Like I said an an earlier thread about the CS 777:

 

 

There's a difference between building a Hyundai and building a Yugo.    You may not find any appeal in either, but folks whose wants and needs are met by a modern Hyundai are generally unlikely to be disappointed by it.   Yugo buyers, on the other hand...

From what I've seen, Bredok3D seems to be making Hyundais, and that's fine by me.  

(Now the recent CS releases, on the other hand, definitely look more like Yugos from what I've read of them.)

Rob, I completely disagree. Moreover, I blame Bredok for paving the way for the even more inferior products. And by inferior, I don't mean "my version of inferior", I mean FACTUALLY. Like the recently released KingAir based on YOUR work AND incompatible with it at the same time. Nice tip of a hat towards the WT developers, eh? We are gonna make a commercial product incorporating their work AND will make people choose between the original WT CJ4 and my aircraft - they can't have both. 

3 minutes ago, Chock said:

Badly-written opinionated tosh for the most part. By way of example, how many times could the author get the word first in one paragraph?:

'It first started with the Bredok3D Eurofighter Typhoon, which first released in November of last year. As one of the first fighter jets available for the simulator...'

Poor writing ability aside, even though this should matter for the standards of a website article, reporting that these things are selling like hot cakes, but then also claiming that they 'upset the community considerably' is quite clearly contradictory claptrap. Even if the guy could for some reason lay claim to knowing the feelings of an entire community.

Some of us may not like such products and that's their choice, but slagging off developers who make what people want to buy is a bit too much of an elitist attitude for my liking, and not one which will help to popularise flight simming to a wider audience. Making stuff like that is not an excuse for poor standards or QC of course, but cheap and cheerful stuff is often fun, and as ever there is no compulsion to buy these things if you don't personally approve.

You seem to make a ton of excuses for bad products lumping them under the "cheap and cheerful" category. You know what's "cheap and cheerful"? The excellent BlueMesh historical bird, the Dorand from RealPhysics, the A1R Ryan ST-A... Those are cheap AND cheerful, cause they look good, and they fly well. Virtualcol, MScenery, CaptainScum, and Bredok don't do that. They might be cheap, but certainly not cheerful. 

Well they did do some work on the external model and VC, so I don't think this stuff should be freeware.  It takes work and skill to make a 3D model and textures and they should be paid for that at least.

I don't see anything wrong with cheap minus the cheerful.  None of us reading this will buy that.  The newcomers that do will use those products, and some of them will move on to more advanced add-ons....thus growing our userbase...a net positive.  I bought some Abacus and CLS back in the day, I learned and grew.  I don't begrudge myself for buying something that wasn't very good, I got some enjoyment out of it and learned and advanced.

15 minutes ago, BostonJeremy77 said:

You seem to make a ton of excuses for bad products lumping them under the "cheap and cheerful" category. You know what's "cheap and cheerful"? The excellent BlueMesh historical bird, the Dorand from RealPhysics, the A1R Ryan ST-A... Those are cheap AND cheerful, cause they look good, and they fly well. Virtualcol, MScenery, CaptainScum, and Bredok don't do that. They might be cheap, but certainly not cheerful. 

I agree that those you mention are great, are indeed so, and said so in my reviews of a couple of them, but what I did not do was completely dismiss the other offerings in my reviews of those. I simply presented the facts in my reviews and let people draw their own conclusions from an informed standpoint, allowing them to make choice based on some pertinent knowledge. Doing this is not 'making excuses' for stuff, it is presenting them as they are, often taking a hit on their purchase price when doing so, in order help people avoid the same if they subsequently deem the product not to their liking.

If I think something is very good, you might note I say so in my reviews, whereas if something is less so, I don't actually say 'don't buy it', I usually say something along the lines of 'it's up to you'. Feel free to spend a ton of your own money on these things literally the moment they go on sale, and then spend time reviewing them for no reward whatsoever other than that of contributing to the hobby in general if you care as much about people in flight simming as I do. So if you think that is making excuses, well, you're entitled to believe that, but it couldn't be further from where I'm coming from.

Edited July 7, 20214 yr by Chock

I’m ok with cheap and cheerful as long as they work well.  I was contemplating the Virtualcol Embraer until I watched Chock’s review video and saw the issues with pitching up and down etc…did not look fun to hand fly.  Maybe if they tidy that up at some point I’ll pick it up.

Similar with the Bredok3d 737, I was thinking of buying it because a decent number of people here seemed to be having a good time with it and I would like to have a 737 in my hangar to tide me over until PMDG releases theirs, but then I started reading about some pretty significant issues (I think with the autopilot?) so I decided against it.

30 minutes ago, Chock said:

I agree that those you mention are great, are indeed so, and said so in my reviews of a couple of them, but what I did not do was completely dismiss the other offerings in my reviews of those. I simply presented the facts in my reviews and let people draw their own conclusions from an informed standpoint, allowing them to make choice based on some pertinent knowledge. Doing this is not 'making excuses' for stuff, it is presenting them as they are, often taking a hit on their purchase price when doing so, in order help people avoid the same if they subsequently deem the product not to their liking.

If I think something is very good, you might note I say so in my reviews, whereas if something is less so, I don't actually say 'don't buy it', I usually say something along the lines of 'it's up to you'. Feel free to spend a ton of your own money on these things and then spend time reviewing them if you care as much about people in flight simming as I do. So if you think that is making excuses, well, you're entitled to believe that, but it couldn't be further from where I'm coming from.

I don't know if you know this, but that's EXACTLY what I do. I own pretty much almost everything released for MSFS thus far and I write reviews for all of those on the MSFS Forums. With the exception of a few aircraft that were graciously provided to me by the developers, I purchase every single one - my entire idea is to inform others of my initial impressions of the aircraft. I don't go as in-depth as you do and I also don't make videos. But I have ZERO issues saying things like "stay FAR, FAR away from this". I think we may just have to disagree in our style, but I feel that refraining to state your actual feelings on the aircraft is not doing what you think you are doing - saving people the frustration in buying worthless junk. 

Edited July 7, 20214 yr by BostonJeremy77

1 minute ago, BostonJeremy77 said:

I think we may just have to disagree in our style, but I feel that refraining to state your actual feelings on the aircraft is not doing what you think you are doing - saving people the frustration in buying worthless junk. 

Probably more than you think if you actually watch my stuff; I might not actually come right out and say it, but I suspect I make it fairly apparent what I think , and where there really is a big issue, I make that fairly plain. For example the Captain Sim Cripple Seven fiasco where they were attempting to 'do a Papa Tango' with liveries; you can still see my pinned comment about that up at the top of my comments on the youtube review even though the situation is now resolved (and I have absolutely no intention of unpinning it either). So whilst I don't actually say 'don't buy' it on that review, I'm pretty sure anyone who has watched the conclusion at the end of it where it is taxying in after landing, can fairly easily determine what I think about it personally, even though I do leave people to draw the conclusion themselves.

I guess it's the 'glass half full, versus glass half empty' position. It's the same thing, but I'm inclined to at least be optimistic until evidence proves otherwise as to the potential for patches and improvements down the line. However, if that does not happen, then it gets stored up as an factor  which then impacts any subsequent product reviews from the same developer as a point to mention in regards to support. Thus these things do have an impact in the longer term on how I approach talking about a particular developer and how likely they are to stand by their product.

A good example of that is the recent Nemeth Yakovlev 18T, which I held off on reviewing for a short while because initially it absolutely sucked in terms of frame rates. However, I suspected this was something Nemeth would address quickly, and they have, so now I have a review of it in progress. It still has some things I'll be critical off in my review, but the FPS will not now be one of them.