AVSIM Is Very Supressive When People Complain About FSX

[DadJokeCinema 145]

I suppose until I respond to this, threads will keep popping up.It should be noted, first off, that there are more appropriate forums here for this sort of post.Had the original post been phrased as yours is, it would have been fine. I don't think anyone here actually has a problem with people stating their opinion. The thread that was locked (and therefore, is still right there for everyone to read...it was not deleted) had a tone and purpose that I decided was not conducive to any kind of good conversation.On top of that, let's dissect exactly what was suggested in that post:Ignoring, for a moment, the aggressive and insulting language used, the actual concept was this - ACES studio should stop creating add-ons and work on making FSX run better. I would suggest that this is exactly what they are doing now that Acceleration has gone gold, they are working on a second patch for FSX to improve perf and then moving on to FS11. It as if I went into a car forum and said "GRR I HATE FORD, I wish they would make a midsize sedan!" Turns out, they do. On top of that point, your thread here illustrates the much more important element of why the thread was locked. You rationally express your points and concerns in a manner that provokes the same level of rational conversation in response. You never use the term "half baked so called next gen simulator" or suggest that only insane people would buy the add-on. These are the sort of things that get threads locked around here.If the author of the locked thread would like to voice his concerns in a constructive manner in this thread, I'm all for it. You mention journalism, but even if AVSIM has news stories and reviews, the forum is not journalism. Even though I know personally many members of the ACES team, and I consider them my friends, I don't think they are going to be offended by posts bashing them or criticizing them. And no one is trying to suppress anything. If we were, we wouldn't be locking posts, we'd be deleting them and banning the people who speak out. Wingnut certainly wouldn't still be here.The decision to lock the thread was made because I decided that the wording of the original post did not promote the mature discussion of flight simulation. That's all.On topic, I agree that both products mentioned suffered from being released earlier than they should have been, but I don't think in either case these were errors that can not be recovered from, and I think SP1 for FSX and the upcoming SP1 for Vista addresses that.

[nudata 10]

Very good message. It makes the proper point that the tone of the message has to be civil. This should serve as guidance for furture posters who feel unfulfilled by FSX. Again, well said and quite on-point.One added point - I believe that responding people should not in-turn cause further pain by telling the angry customer that "their system works ok" (ya-ya). This is meaningless and only increases the anger of the original poster. Hopefully, if the original language is not too harsh, respondents will try to uncover the background of the frustration and offer aid. Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

[Jeff Nielsen 1,386]

I have to tell ya Dick,Your post raises some other very interesting points which probably could use some face time.I don't want to comment on the other poster getting locked or whatever, maybe it was the way he said it, everyone's all excited right now, who knows, but...We all really need to be carefull that when we're trying to get our points accross we don't start inadvertantly censoring everyone else in the process.Keeping in mind that Avsim is a private forum, it has been open to public 'general' posting and in my opinion, as most of you well know, has to be played as such...meaning, you have to let people complain, whine, praise, get mad, get sad, get happy, get whatever so long as it doesn't lead to physical harm, etc..I do not agree with this assumption though: "While a very good commercial reason"Anyone selling anything knows that first off, an unsatisfied customer who can be educated and then satisified, especially in public, will bring 10X the amount of revenue back to you, if you've handled the problem honestly and quickly. If they can't be pleased or the problem can't be fixed at least that customer will most certainly respect you and probably still recommend you to someone else. So, I think they probably look at those folks as opportunities, otherwise they wouldn't respond to them at all.My personal opinions in all this are still the same. FSX should not have seen an XP/DX9 release because most of us would not justify a hardware upgrade for modest gains.If it had been for Vista/DX10 out of the gate, the perception, at the very least, would have had most of us jumping for new hardware, etc.. We would also have justified the expense for other reasons.The bottom line is 2 OS version and 2 SP's are 2 confusing and troublesome for most to want to mess with. Keeping it simple is still the best policy IMO.Oddly enough, that's what the original plan called for, but like I've said before....just like in real aviation, we also had to take the long and the hard way around. This time I fear we may be blowing people out of the hobby. If we're doing that, then we certainly can't afford to also be adding to it through the forums.I still think that around X-Mas or the new year, for me anyways, a new XPS with Vista and FSX/DX10 will be well worth the money. You just have to cut through all the stuff and try not to let your melon get busted.Edit: ...but if anyone would like to censor me by correcting my lousy typing...feel free! :D

[Pete S 7]

............>So let's try an experiment:>>Microsoft made a significant error with two products Vista and>FSX. While in different categories they share some unfortunate>similarities. One is that they were sold before they were>complete. Two they lacked sufficient differentiation to move>many customers to the new program. I have no intention of>buying Vista and while I use FSX I am not satisfied with the>design that did not take into account the customers who did>not have very fast PCs. With Vista it was a marketing decision>and with FSX the technologists held to much sway.>>Now, let us see what happens.>>Regards,>Dick Boley>>A PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yokeOk, Dick. I'll bite! }(Vista was in development by MS for a number of years,I guess it could have remained in development for perpetuity, but there has to be a reasonable limit!As far as I can tell it does what it's supposed to do. Granted there are some problems, but at least for me, I have'nt had any show-stoppers. My biggest problem is getting used to the changes.FSX was designed for high end PC's, MS never made a secret of it. All of their previous Flight Sims were on the bleeding edge of technology, and I wouldn't expect them to make an exception for FSX. If your system doesnot run the sim at it's full potential, the way I see it , you have three choices:1- Don't run the sim at full potential2- Get a better PC3- Stay with FS9 until you decide to go with Numbers 1 or 2 above.People who do have adequate PC and get a good FSX performance, shouldn't be held back because others don't!You are entitled to your opinions, as am I.Pete S. :-beerchug Did I cover everything? ;) :-wave

[Manny 1,293]

Dick,I have been unhappy with certain things on FSX and I have never shied from stating those ISSUES.But there is a difference between that and trying to get into the motives behind the ACES Team or trying to bring ones hatred for "M$" in such tirades.I understand, occasionally an outburst of frustration may be slip up...and hopefully the moderators would be forgiving. But if someone just goes on a tangent, it becomes disruptive. And if that disruption causes the ACES members to be non communicative or non participative in this forum, we lose big time. We can't have it both ways and some moderation is absolutely required IMO.To a large extent AVSIM moderators have mostly errored on the side of letting tirades here more often than not.Manny

[Geofa 108]

First via a post above-nothing was censored-only locked-anyone can read these locked threads.If one looks at the locked threads one will see exactly what Brian mentioned going on.In the editorial section I stated:"Opinions that are expressed with malice, labels that tend to incite , or posts that have a clear intent to incite a fight get locked here. This forum is for enjoyment-not an outlet for internet rage."That is my criteria. Those that don't want to play don't have to.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Guest Thad]

Dick,I believe I know which post you

[Guest Frank Betts 2]

hmmm Geofa, you out to go back to the early days of hanging around Flightsim.com forum and check out the verbal fights you and I and a few others would get into. Makes what your talking about look like a picnic. Just plain nasty. ;)Frank

[MarkW 1,493]

>FSX was designed for high end PC's, MS never made a secret of>it. All of their previous Flight Sims were on the bleeding>edge of technology, and I wouldn't expect them to make an>exception for FSX. >If your system doesnot run the sim at it's full potential, the>way I see it , you have three choices:>>1- Don't run the sim at full potential>2- Get a better PC>3- Stay with FS9 until you decide to go with Numbers 1 or 2>above.As talk of FS11 begins, I sit here thinking, how many people will learn from the FSX/Vista experience. The smart strategy is to wait until you are satisifed with reviews, other simmer's experience, appropriate amount of addons to be released and only then jump in. My guess is we will be on the same merry go round in about 24 months. You really have to laugh at those who don't learn from experience.Mark.by the way...I did learn and have yet to upgrade to FSX/Vista. With SP2 and Penryn's around the corner...the time is near.

[Geofa 108]

which is why I left there many years ago (approx. 1993) and came to avsim. :-)

[LAdamson 240]

>hmmm Geofa, you out to go back to the early days of hanging>around Flightsim.com forum and check out the verbal fights you>and I and a few others would get into. Makes what your talking>about look like a picnic. Just plain nasty. ;)>The Pro-Pilot days...:-lol

[rgerdes 4]

Hi FrankFrank Betts 2? Was that your father who use to design scenery for one of those previous sims? :-)Looking foreward to some for FSX.....Bob

[Geofa 108]

Yeah those were the days..Despite the verbal fights I don't remember ever degrading to the stuff we see today-I remember substance and not insults and raw anger(maybe on a certain site that I left)-but perhaps I was younger and I am now older and can't remember diddly. :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgForum Moderatorhttp://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[bdenley 0]

Sadly for some of us, that new 'monster' Vista system is still reduced to a slug by (even the SP1) FSX. I can't tell you how discouraging that has been. I spent $6K+ for one reason: to be able to play FSX is style! It's tough to face the fact that this system never will allow that.You might want to wait a year or two until a much faster system comes out. Vista and DX10 won't help much as yet.

[Guest LSflyguy]

I'm not going to rehash the many good points that have been made above. And I agree with you that Vista and FSX weren't sufficiently "mature" at the time of their release. HOWEVER.... For me personally, FSX Deluxe has been perhaps the single greatest bargain I've ever purchased in computer software. Even on my older computer (AthlonXP 3200+) I've turned my sliders down, kept my expectations in check, and have spent countless hours enjoying this sim -- and it's only getting better. I most certainly would NOT have preferred to wait until November 2007 for FSX to be released in a "more perfect" form! (For me, the key point of differentiation from FS9 was the great improvement in scenery quality.) I'll admit that I've been lucky. Others with systems not too different from mine have had a difficult time getting FSX to install/run properly, and I certainly don't dismiss the serious problems that have been reported nor do I "blame the messenger." I believe a lot of us on this forum should be much less judgmental. A lot of us could also be far more polite, and avoid casting aspersions on the personal character of fellow posters or ACES employees. But if I'm not to belittle someone who is dissatisfied, then likewise I shouldn't have to suffer insults because I happen to think that FSX is a huge step forward for flight simming. I believe that the ACES team members whom I've met are a whole lot smarter than some of us give them credit for. I'm convinced they are making an honest, diligent effort to advance the overall quality of flight simming, when they could just as easily sit on their collective rear-ends and enjoy Microsoft's near-monopoly in the flight sim arena. (Or even worse, make FS more "arcade-like" to appeal to the lucrative teenager/Xbox market.) I don't agree with you that "with FSX the technologists held too much sway." I think the main problem with FSX was that they made an educated guess, about 3 years before release, that CPU speed would continue to increase, and thereby determine what they could put into the sim. Instead, the major hardware thrust was toward multi-core computing. ACES has had to scramble to keep up with the trend towards multiple cores, and SP1 has given us some clear progress in this area. Shall we all condemn ACES because their crystal ball was a bit fuzzy? I'm much more inclined to be forgiving of a developer who's making a legitimate, honest effort to "push the envelope" and not sit on their laurels. I've also been a flight simmer since the mid-80s, and I've become accustomed to the fact that my PC is VERY likely to need an upgrade to use the full capabilities of a new FS release. So the whole brouhaha over FSX's initial performance is not something that's entirely new or unexpected. Apparently it was against some people's religion to turn their sliders down. Finally, rather than viewing the FS franchise as one "perfect release" followed by another every 2-3 years, I've come to look at it as more of a cyclical thing -- in some ways, almost as a subscription model that costs me an average of about $15-$20 per year. We get a new release, it has some great additional features as well as some problems, then we get a patch, and then the process starts all over again with another new release. (Some people seem to have forgotten that even the much-beloved FS9 needed a patch to achieve its full potential.) So I welcome each new release, knowing that it will probably have some flaws, along with some cool new features. I expect that it will probably need to be patched, especially if it's pushing the limits of the hardware envelope. And I also look forward with great anticipation to the new expansion pack, and hope we'll see more such releases from ACES/Microsoft. I do have high expectations for the quality of the sim, but I also realize that Rome wasn't built in a day. Sorry for the rant. I just think that if people back off a bit, and understand that we are dealing with a highly complex, constantly-evolving product that will inevitably have a few hiccups, then we'll all get along better and probably have fewer ulcers along the way. Best regards, - Lee