2 hours ago, Abriael said:

Wonder how many times this utterly toxic and openly hostile video will be posted. 

I'm beginning to wonder if you are not somehow connected to the developer without disclosing it here...

19 minutes ago, Farlis said:

I'm beginning to wonder if you are not somehow connected to the developer without disclosing it here...

Not only I am not, but I haven't ever interacted with them in any way, not even for their previous products (besides having purchased and used a couple). 

And if you don't understand how toxic it is to try to dismiss someone you disagree with by insinuating that they have "undisclosed connections" you likely should take a good hard look in the mirror. Not that this surprises me in any shape or form in a community where certain videos drooling overemotional negativity are considered acceptable or even worse, something to praise. 

I don't need any connection, hidden or otherwise, to want to counter this kind of toxicity that at times makes the flight sim community look worse than those of games that are often reviled like call of duty and similar. Vicious attacks like this against a developer that simply isn't great at communication, including very much unproven insinuations that they're being intentionally dishonest, are something I will always fight against. Zero doubt about that. I'm actually amazed that I need to explain it. 🤔

21 minutes ago, Amon1973 said:

TwoToneMurphy will 100% say if something is word not allowed, and in his stream last night, he told it how it is, and I think he's giving the Dev and chance, incidentally the aircraft flew perfectly fine, considering it's early access and all that. 

Gotta love the "word not allowed" lol. 

Definitely a fair assessment. only thing I disagree with is that those who want a more study-level experience would have to wait a couple of months. We're probably gonna have to wait a lot longer than that, but I doubt that was an intentionally precise assessment. Overall, a very good video and a positive example on how to approach this instead of grandstanding and making multiple videos to hurl mud at the developers without having even touched the aircraft.

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by Abriael

24 minutes ago, Farlis said:

I'm beginning to wonder if you are not somehow connected to the developer without disclosing it here...

Has over 30 posts on this thread in just over 24 hours all starting after that mess of a livestream.

Make of that what you will...

The mud is well deserved ... and on top of that I don't wanna hear any complaints about toxicity when the very same devs are putting down simmers who have valid concerns about a lack of Vnav and are making snide comments about other devs... a few posts ago certain people didnt care about the devs attitude but now all of a sudden they are crying about toxic..gimme a word not allowed break.

When the dev addresses the concerns made in the 737 pilots video about whats on the website vs whats actually in the product we can have a discussion.

10 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

Has over 30 posts on this thread in just over 24 hours all starting after that mess of a livestream.

Make of that what you will...

Imagine discussing in a discussion forum. Make of that what you will. Lol. 

10 minutes ago, Maxis said:

The mud is well deserved ... and on top of that I don't wanna hear any complaints about toxicity when the very same devs are putting down simmers who have valid concerns about a lack of Vnav and are making snide comments about other devs... a few posts ago certain people didnt care about the devs attitude but now all of a sudden they are crying about toxic..gimme a word not allowed break.

When the dev addresses the concerns made in the 737 pilots video about whats on the website vs whats actually in the product we can have a discussion.

The whole "Putting down simmers" thing is so massively overblown. They certainly haven't spent 40 minutes combined hating on anyone or implying they're being dishonest, or other not so nice things. And again, two wrongs don't make a right. 

The dev has no duty to address the "concerns" made by a youtuber who isn't capable to express criticism without throwing in silly appeals to emotion that have nothing to do with the constuctive assessment of the quality of an addon (which he hasn't even touched). Of course, I use "concerns" in a very lax way here, as these videos are closer to a smear campaign than the simple expression of "concerns." Again, the video by TwoToneMurphy linked above expresses plenty of concerns, but does so in a civil and constructive way. Night and day. 

If you want the developers to address your concerns, you can go ask them questions in their discord. Both them and the pilots that work with them have been fairly responsive.

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by Abriael

39 minutes ago, Abriael said:

Imagine discussing in a discussion forum. Make of that what you will. Lol. 

The whole "Putting down simmers" thing is so massively overblown. They certainly haven't spent 40 minutes combined hating on anyone or implying they're being dishonest, or other not so nice things. And again, two wrongs don't make a right. 

The dev has no duty to address the "concerns" made by a youtuber who isn't able to express criticism without throwing in appeals to emotion that have nothing to do with the constuctive assessment of the quality of an addon (which he hasn't even touched). Of course, I use "concerns" in a very lax way here, as it's more akin to a smear campaign. 

If you want them to address your concerns, you can go ask them questions in their discord. Both them and the pilots that work with them have been fairly responsive.

Those 40 mins is very much a conveyance of information to the public of the following

1. The product is not yet fit for consumption (You a product which engines are shutting down mid flight in your demo stream is fit for consumption?)

2 the product advertised is not what is being streamed systems wise with the details added in POINT BY POINT.

 

So if all you can decipher from that video is that the author is being a bit shrill with the title heading and you NOR the devs are addressing the  essence of what the video is about then yeah .... The mud is deserved .. Until The devs address these concerns the onus is not on me .. (Who has a product to sell?? .. FSS or me a potential customer?)  I expect what is advertised on their webpage to match " within reason" what i'm getting  if i was to spend the money for a product.

They haven't even met that "within reason" bar...

Ball is in their court.

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by Maxis

19 minutes ago, Maxis said:

Those 40 mins is very much a conveyance of information to the public of the following

1. The product is not yet fit for consumption

2 the product advertised is not what is being streamed with the details added in POINT BY POINT.

So if all you can decipher from that video is that the author is being a bit shrill with the title heading and you NOR the devs are addressing the  essence of what the video is about then yeah .... The mud is deserved .. Until The devs address these concerns the onus is not on me .. (Who has a product to sell?? .. FSS or me a potential customer?)  I expect what is advertised on their webpage if i was to spend the money for a product.

Ball is in their court.

1. The product is very much fit for consumption, as the hour-plus long video by TwoToneMurphy clearly shows. Is it good enough? Very debatable. What we've seen so far isn't at the level that I personally expect, so I'll be waiting. Of course, it depends on what you want from said consumption. The difference between the two youtubers is that one has not tried the aircraft at all and the other has, and is showing actiual footage of it, problems and all, being actually informative. Guess who's more reliable. 

2. There's massive difference between pointing out issues and appealing to emotion while heavily implying intentional dishonesty from the developer. Lies? Betrayal? The author isn't "being a bit shrill." He's openly smearing a developer to do some grandstanding. No one's "betraying" anyone here. 

What happened should be obvious to anyone that is able to approach this with any bit of rationality. A developer that usually works for others (Aerosoft and Microsoft) is selling a product on their own and they're not very good/experienced at communicating, so there has been some miscommunication. There is absolutely zero indication that they're being intentionally dishonest, and implying that is extremely uncalled for.

If you don't want to seek your answer because "the onus is not on you" then you don't want answers to your concerns. You're simply interested in hating. 

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by Abriael

8 minutes ago, Abriael said:

You're simply interested in hating. 

Again .. your interpretation .. which appears to be very much lacking . since you now think it acceptable to take personal shots at me for not agreeing with you

Thank you for demonstrating your reasoning skills ... Ill enjoy watching your defense of this type of shenanigans from  afar and make note of your affiliations.

You can have the last word but im sure as hell not giving a company who cant accurately provide what they advertised a dime of my money. Which for the record is a betrayal of trust in the relationship between a business entity and a consumer.  (There are laws against doing stuff like that in certain parts of the world). Harsh ? perhaps ... Incorrect ?? the hell it isnt!!

Have a good one.

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by Maxis

4 minutes ago, Maxis said:

Again .. your interpretation .. which appears to be very much lacking . since you now think it acceptable to take personal shots at me for not agreeing with you

What pesonal shot? If you have actual concerns, ask the developer. It's really pretty simple. 

If you're not interested in asking a developer who has provided direct ways to contact them, then it's pretty evident that your interest here isn't in having your concerns answered.

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by Abriael

12 minutes ago, Abriael said:

There is absolutely zero indication that they're being intentionally dishonest, and implying that is extremely uncalled for

Then they really have to put up the right information upfront, for example the E-Jet series contain not all 4 planes but only 175 for now and that 190/195 will be separate, like they have answered on that bad stream (and they said "probably".. even they do not know exactly what and how it will be really be), They have to write what they really sell now, that it is mainly the model and some default MSFS systems and correct what was reported or pointed out on their website.

Also they said the client is Aerosoft when in fact Aerosoft is the reseller. This has to be also corrected. And so on. 

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by Vali

6 minutes ago, Abriael said:

What pesonal shot? If you have actual concerns, ask the developer. It's really pretty simple. 

If you're not interested in asking a developer that has provided direct ways to contact them, then it's pretty evident that your interest here isn't in having your concerns answered.

If the Dev took the time and money to market a product. They have the time and money to correct whatever incorrect information is out there. That is a part of marketing and advertising and i am under no obligation to visit a discord or personally contact a dev who is trying to sell me something. Im waiting to see the "public response" from them and will eval based on that. Silence from them is a response.

Regardless ..

Enjoy defending them We will see if They actually give a word not allowed or not.

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by Maxis

Clearly, some advertising changes need to be made. This all reminds me of a Tedx talk that appeared in my YT feed the other day!

Image is powerful: Cameron Russell at TEDxMidAtlantic 2012

14 minutes ago, Vali said:

Then they really have to put up the right information upfront, for example the E-Jet series contain not all 4 planes but only 175 for now and that 190/195 will be separate, like they have answered on that bad stream (and they said "probably".. even they do not know exactly what and how it will be really be), They have to write what they really sell now, that it is mainly the model and some default MSFS systems and correct what was reported or pointed out on their website.

Also they said the client is Aerosoft when in fact Aerosoft is the reseller. This has to be also corrected. And so on. 

 

First of all, I'd like to be precisely pointed where they said that Aerosoft is their "client" because I haven't seen or heard it. if it's as reliable as the (false) allegation that they have thrown shade at PMDG, then it isn't very reliable at all. Secondly, we should remember that there's a language barrier in place. Aerosoft in this case isn't even technically a reseller, as they have an exclusive sales partnership (from what I could gather) outside of the official marketplace. Aerosoft is indeed their client (or better their publisher) for other products. 

So where did they say that Aerosoft is their "client" and in which context?

I agree that they should correct the information on the site and have another pass at it before the product goes for sale, but we shouldn't forget that the product is not available for sale right now. 

That does not mean that they're being intentionally dishonest, and implying that they are is very unfair.

12 minutes ago, Maxis said:

Silence from them is a response.

Yes, and that's not a response that is hard to understand when you're being viciously attacked.

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by Abriael

10 minutes ago, Abriael said:

First of all, I'd like to be precisely pointed where they said that Aerosoft is their "client" because I haven't seen or heard it. if it's as reliable as the (false) allegation that they thrown shade at PMDG, then it isn't very reliable at all. Secondly, we should remember that there's a language barrier in place. Aerosoft in this case isn't even technically a reseller, as they have an exclusive sales partnership (from what I could gather) outside of the official marketplace. Aerosoft is indeed their client (or better their publisher) for other products. 

So where did they say that Aerosoft is their "client" and in which context?

I agree that they should correct the information on the site and have another pass at it before the product goes for sale, but we shouldn't forget that the product is not available for sale right now. 

That does not mean that they're being intentionally dishonest, and implying that is very unfair.

Here it is, directly on their website:

 

And check this also: https://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/175132-flightsim-studio-ejets-question/#comment-1101317

Edited January 7, 20233 yr by Vali

Seriously Mods?

An individual posts 43 times now on one specific thread in just over 24 hours (by the way, that's nearly 1/5 or 20% of his total posting history on Avsim) in defence of a poorly previewed product. No-one thinks that's odd or worth querying?