I posted something to this effect in another thread (my bad for soiling it) but I think it's an important enough issue that it should have its own.When is avsim going to take a stand against Captain Sim? There are tens of people over at their forums complaining that they get 4-7 fps with the fsx (not fs9) 757, even after sp1. It's clearly a programming error of the port over and Captain Sim has been nothing but rude to their customers who have paid 25-50 dollars for the blocks. It's absolutely disgraceful. Since these customers are not going to assemble for a class action suit, the only way I see they might acquire any redress is with avsim's (the community) putting pressure on Captain Sim. If an add on is unflyable on their computers then they should be entitled to a refund.Please check out as much of this thread as possible:http://www.captainsim.net/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1141312083/0Then voice your support here.

It's really not AVSIM's place to take a stand. They do their part by providing the venue to have the discussion.Not that it matters...this discussion has played out over and over and over again, and still people go waste their money. Anyone with the most rudimentary computer skills should be quite capable of finding that there's a giant black cloud of complaints above offenders like CaptainSim...and FSD...and Ariane etc.Caveat emptor is the rule of the day...people can avail themselves of the documented history and avoid dealing with these troubled outfits, or they can learn their lesson the hard way.I think the boys at CaptainSim are hoisting glasses of vodka (that you bought for them) in laughter over the idea of lawsuits or community pressure...Been a while since I posted the three truisms of dealing with these guys and their ilk:1. Caveat emptor (let the buyer beware)2. There's one born every minute3. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Ah, a man of the world.Points taken, but I actually didn't buy them those glasses of Vodka :). As you suggest, I looked into the product before I thought about buying it. Still, people deserve better and I do think it's Avsim's place, and certainly ours as a forum community, to take a stand. As to the former, Avsim have no trouble reviewing products so they should ideally have no trouble reviewing product support as well.

Bob, you left out4. I'll respect you in the morning.and,5. I'm from the IRS and I'm here to help you.Ed GreenKCLT

---

http://www.oncourse-software.co.uk/forum_images/fdc_beta.jpg

One cant deny you have a beef but after going over the CS threadi am at a loss to fault C Sims reply , bitmap size and the quantityof gauges have a very real effect of framerates .While there are ways i can change the refresh rate when i design a gauge the sheer number of them will at some point exceed a givenusers systems capacity to run smoothly .I do not design aircraft at the standard Cpt Sim does and thosei have released are designed to accommodate lower end systems bythe model having conditional display of the VC and Exterior modelbeing hidden when one pushes a button on the panel and the modelbeing drawn is reduced to a third of its size with only the important bits being drawn .My point relating that is if a given model is highly detailedit is not going to run smoothly on all machines and the only way around that is to simplify the model , this is not an option onhigh end addons ,unless the loadout chosen has provided " Lite " versions with no VC or some variations using low rez textures.Users can make modifications in some of the textures and panelif they find that their machines cant handle the addon but thebottom line is your machine is being pushed beyond its limits.I have not seen your system specs listed and your log in name is not used over there but one could not call the C.S forum postedunder a deluge of complaints and perhaps you could turn down a slider or two to boost framerates a little .And before you ask i do not work for any payware outfit , i do on the other hand have three pages of addons under Chuck Jodry here at Avsim and am also Director of Technical Services at WestCoastATC.com and one of the news editors at Avsim and have seenyour complaint before and with few exceptions the problem is the enduser having his machine setup for the bulk of their aircraft but highly complex models are demanding and most likely more than your system can handle C.J

I just love these simplistic transfers of responsibility. Let AVSIM take the lead... Boy, have we heard that a lot over the last ten years or so. Okay, tell you what... You send me a check for $60,000 (that's $5,000 a month for 12 months) to retain a lawyer, which we will most certainly need, to pursue whatever windmill you want us to tilt at. Be ready to extend that for a second year, and if things get really ugly, commit to pay us whatever it takes to protect AVSIM from law suites for liable, slander, ad nauseam. Okay?

A demanding aircraft like a PMDG is one thing. This is something else.As I said in my second post I don't myself have the add on. What I did see is people with everything from pentium 4s to conroes, 6600s to 8800s, complaining that they are unable to fun the 757 in fsx with frame rates even remotely flyable, i.e. under 10 fps. Go back and check. Contrary to what is normally the case, it has nothing to do with the quality of the systems attempting to run the add on but rather the programming itself. The textures and animations alone do not account for it because the fs9 version, while not easy on frames, does not bring systems to an absurd halt as does the fsx version. Again, there is evidence to suggest a mistake was made in the port over. We are also talking about a plane that does not yet have the F block fmc. Regardless, there is something evidently wrong and Captain Sim have done little to fix the problem. The many customers with mid to very high end computers who are unable to run the add on should get refunds; it's plain ethics.To Tom:Actually I was talking about something simple and not easily subject to libel claims like amending the fs9 review to include one of the fsx product. Stating that performance is worse than most users would be willing to accept is the way to do it. As far as non-official avsim, that was my original focus: "avsim's (the community) putting pressure on Captain Sim".

http://www.avsim.com/pages/0902/pt_again.html

Bilko's post is for precedent. Thank you.Here is a page at the Captain Sim forums where people with high end systems complain. It also includes an obnoxious response, IMO, from Captain Sim. http://www.captainsim.net/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1141312083/60

I don't fly heavies at all and even I know not to deal with CS. I am also forming my own list as to vendors that I will never deal with again due to their poor attitudes and customer service. Every time I fire up FSX in vista and it CTD's on me I feel a little like the same way that you feel now. We learn and move on. Put your post in the forums for all to see and hopefully the next guy will learn from you. I also recommend to call your CC company and have that purchase charged back after you explain to them your problems and what you have done to try and get it fixed with the vendor.________________________________________________________________________________________________Intel D975XBX2 'Bad Axe 2' | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.20Ghz | 2 GB Super Talent DDR2 800 | Big Typhoon VX | eVGA 8800GTS @ 565/900 | Seagate 2x320GB SATA RAID-0 | OCZ GameXStream 700W | Creative X-Fi | Silverstone TJ-09BW | Matrox Triplehead Setup

Guess that is one way to deal with a problem, deny that it exists.I seem to remember that there is a precedent for that sort of methodology......:-lolEd GreenKCLT

---

http://www.oncourse-software.co.uk/forum_images/fdc_beta.jpg

"As I said in my second post I don't myself have the add on. What I did see is people with everything from pentium 4s to conroes, 6600s to 8800s, complaining that they are unable....."Are we talking FSX or CS here???rewind - relive it all again and again and again....FYI - with PMDGs 747F I'm getting less than half the frames I get for the default cessna in FS9!!! (yet I see no one bashing PMDG for that - weird)

Bilko's post does not provide a precedent that has any bearing on this issue. The PT affair was not about product. It was about trying to "own" an entire industry. AVSIM and I were the only organization in the community to stand up to him and the AA lawyers. PT threatened to sue me a number of times. I repeatedly asked him to do so. I would have hawked my house and depleted my retirement to go after the guy, but he never gave me the opportunity. I am not willing to do that, or put AVSIM in the position of having to do so over a product from anyone.You successfully avoided the question; to whit... are you ready to put YOUR money where your mouth is? I think not.And that goes to the heart of my earlier response. It is always easy to put the responsibility off on someone else. If your principles are as high as your expectations of AVSIM, then I would suggest you commit to financially addressing the liability that WE WOULD would assume in fulfilling your expectations.

We am ex-Soviet military and know how to deal with ze traitors.Comrade Colonel Sim.

Tom,Obviously I don't have that kind of money and very few people do. Your question was rhetorical for that reason so I didn't answer it directly. My suggestion that the 757 review be revisted to include the fsx version is something I hope you and the reviewer / editorial staff will consider as being legally protected criticism. Keeping your and avsim's well being in mind, that's what I propose.For now, I'd expect people to continue to come forward here and voice their complaints about Captain Sim support.