Another example of the class act that is JustFlight and exactly why I usually look to them to make purchases over other stores 👍

49 minutes ago, JustFlightScott said:

Quick message on this - You're all correct we have decided to remove the title from sale from our website for the foreseeable future. 

Pointless going into too much detail but since the release it's become evident that there are issues that need addressing with the aircraft and until they are sorted we don't see it as being fit for purpose and the last thing we want to be doing is having our customers spend good money on something that has issues in many areas deeming it to all intents and purposes 'faulty'.

Anybody who bought from us and is having issues with the downloading, installing or actual aircraft itself please get in touch with our support team who will do all they can to assist you.

Sorry for the inconvenience, one and all.

 

Respectfully, are you in contact with the developer over the alleged concerns and deficiencies, and if so, can you share what they have stated / what their game plan is in terms of resolving any issues so that this product reappears?

I'm a bit concerned that a storefront is choosing to make a product unavailable ("choosing for the consumer") without more of an explanation outside of "it's faulty". The slippery slope argument can rear its head in terms of the line between "not fully featured/not complex enough for experienced users" and "faulty". A plethora of actual bugs is one thing, but a mix of failures due to user ignorance plus perhaps lower fidelity features is quite another. There has been a lot of consternation in threads related to other products still on your website that shall remain nameless, so how "buggy" or "faulty" is too faulty to be available? 

Install errors, errors of basic functioning making it quite literally un-flyable, etc is worthy of a pull, but I'd argue for greater transparency if there are issues outside of that scope, noting that I'm not necessarily arguing against pulling this one with more information. Obviously your store your rules and preferences, but more transparency as to where the "pull the listing threshold" is would go far. 

Again, I'm asking for clarity with respect and admiration for JustFlight's prior advocacy and support to the FS community. Thanks!

I just hope it for sure will return for sale. Study level steam gauge planes are rare enough already.

1 hour ago, STK said:

Respectfully, are you in contact with the developer over the alleged concerns and deficiencies, and if so, can you share what they have stated / what their game plan is in terms of resolving any issues so that this product reappears?

I'm a bit concerned that a storefront is choosing to make a product unavailable ("choosing for the consumer") without more of an explanation outside of "it's faulty". The slippery slope argument can rear its head in terms of the line between "not fully featured/not complex enough for experienced users" and "faulty". A plethora of actual bugs is one thing, but a mix of failures due to user ignorance plus perhaps lower fidelity features is quite another. There has been a lot of consternation in threads related to other products still on your website that shall remain nameless, so how "buggy" or "faulty" is too faulty to be available? 

Install errors, errors of basic functioning making it quite literally un-flyable, etc is worthy of a pull, but I'd argue for greater transparency if there are issues outside of that scope, noting that I'm not necessarily arguing against pulling this one with more information. Obviously your store your rules and preferences, but more transparency as to where the "pull the listing threshold" is would go far. 

Again, I'm asking for clarity with respect and admiration for JustFlight's prior advocacy and support to the FS community. Thanks!

With equal respect I feel JF does not need to further elucidate their answer any further, nor do they need to justify their position. They said the plane as it stands currently does not meet their standards or expectations. That may change in the future but for now JF is not going to storefront it. 

And on a more personal level I find it incredibly cheeky for you to suggest a Publisher as long standing and reputable as JF would pull a vendor product without vendor discussion.  A bit over the top in my mind, but like I said this is a personal observation.

-B

Edited January 22, 20251 yr by btacon

4 minutes ago, btacon said:

And on a more personal level I find it incredibly cheeky for you to suggest a Publisher as long standing and reputable as JF would pull a vendor product without vendor discussion.  A bit over the top in my mind, but like I said this is a personal observation.

I expect that they notified the dev of the pull, but I'm asking if there was more substantial discussion (for our benefit, and to show that this dev is responsive to update requests and bug reports) beyond "We are pulling your product due to numerous customer concerns/complaints...". I would hope and expect that they are actively engaged in getting to resolution, but I've worked with entities before that simply "state the facts" and don't always make as much of an effort to maintain comms between a vendor and distributor. 

I only hope that if JF continues this practice, the "pull threshold" isn't decided by 2-3 youtube reviews or a staff member that decides that something below their preferred complexity level doesn't make the cut. They haven't demonstrated this in the past to my knowledge, but again, just a bit more clarity on this action would be courteous. Again, their store, their rules, and they are free to tell me and other users to "pound sand". 

3 hours ago, VeryBumpy said:

I just hope it for sure will return for sale. Study level steam gauge planes are rare enough already.

Even if they solve those issues, and that's a big if, because the MD-11 hasn't gotten any better and this plane was awful for P3D, it's still basically an FS2004 port. I would keep waiting.

On 1/21/2025 at 10:37 AM, Reader said:

It's 58 buckeroos.
Please don't let the fact that none of you have it stop you from panning it.
I wonder why anyone wants to be a developer when all that happens is that
numerous non-owners with their own agenda rush out at every opportunity
do do your product down.
I have no connection with this developer but their product looks just like a DC9
and we are told that it works in two simulator versions.
For some reason, Avsim members seem to think that developers should work for
next to nothing and sell their products cheaply.
Those are facts the rest is cynical sniping by those who have nothing better to do.

Yea go ahead and eat all of that up there!

Since you were so quick to judge other's wisdom and foresight on obvious poor quality products!😒

Just wish that Microsoft were even half as scrupulous re aircraft on the Marketplace...

4 hours ago, keithb77 said:

Just wish that Microsoft were even half as scrupulous re aircraft on the Marketplace...

What? There's a Marketplace? Who knew? <grin>

(spoken in 2024ese)

23 hours ago, STK said:

I expect that they notified the dev of the pull, but I'm asking if there was more substantial discussion (for our benefit, and to show that this dev is responsive to update requests and bug reports) beyond "We are pulling your product due to numerous customer concerns/complaints...". I would hope and expect that they are actively engaged in getting to resolution, but I've worked with entities before that simply "state the facts" and don't always make as much of an effort to maintain comms between a vendor and distributor. 

I only hope that if JF continues this practice, the "pull threshold" isn't decided by 2-3 youtube reviews or a staff member that decides that something below their preferred complexity level doesn't make the cut. They haven't demonstrated this in the past to my knowledge, but again, just a bit more clarity on this action would be courteous. Again, their store, their rules, and they are free to tell me and other users to "pound sand". 

Personally, I think it's fair to ask these sort of questions, especially if you are a dev that sells through the JF store. I would believe that they would have policies in place to help standardize metrics on whether something complies and should be left or taken off. It should not solely be based off of whatever a person assesses it to be at any given time, which is subjective. That could potentially be subject to legal ramifications (although I am certainly no expert on the matter). As a side question, I do wonder that since JF is willing to pull items from sale on their site for things like this, does that mean they also test the product before they list it for sale on their site. 

I don't think it's any of our business on a public forum to expect answers to further questions. If someone is concerned - contact them direct.

JF were kind enough to inform us here that they had pulled the item. I don't think many vendors would do that.

29 minutes ago, TrafficPilot said:

I don't think it's any of our business on a public forum to expect answers to further questions. If someone is concerned - contact them direct.

JF were kind enough to inform us here that they had pulled the item. I don't think many vendors would do that.

So the takeaway thus far due to a lack of follow-up is that a popular flightsim vendor can impact the sales of a developer due to the appearance of input by a half-dozen users at the very most, also noting that there was debate on at least one video review over whether the extent of negativity was deserved due to apparent procedural ignorance surrounding DC-9 systems and flight operations by the reviewer. (Unrelated to this aircraft, there are more youtubers than not who "review" aircraft by just blindly trying them out without making an effort at reviewing manuals or gaining any sort of fore-knowledge, attributing user error to product issues).

While it does indeed look like there are a number of bugs in this case, it would be courteous to know where the "bar" is in terms of how many/what type are too many, and it would be courteous to know if the aircraft developer has been engaged and is responsive. (Again, difference between JF messaging "we've pulled your product, good luck" and "we've pulled your product due to x, y, z concerns which don't meet our quality threshold as outlined in this accompanying standards document, please outline how and when you are resolving them").

I can only expect that for JF's next in-house release, if 2-3 users report let's say a half dozen bugs, or even just preference-based concerns with their product, that JF takes the same action in response (as in, they pull it from sale). I presume that developers reading this thread are noting the threshold it seems to take to have their products removed. 

The aircraft looks like a promising development once the bugs are resolved - hoping the dev is responsive and that all parties can come to a resolution in the coming weeks. We need more vintage types. 🙂

Edited January 23, 20251 yr by STK

I think it's less about bugs and more about the strange release structure on the developers side.

On Simmarket the plane released separately for MSFS 20 and 24 for $52 each. However what wasn't made clear is that if you buy one, you get the other free. Effectively you get both versions for $52.

JustFlight had a different structure - there was only one edition for $72 but that covered both sims as a proposition. 

So you have one store selling an edition that's obviously just costs $20 more for no reason at all. I can see how people can be miffed about that.

 

EDIT: Fundamentally my biggest problem with the plane is that it's Aeroplane Heaven quality for PMDG/Fenix money. Would you have paid $52 for AH 707? I wouldn't.

Edited January 23, 20251 yr by Georgleboui

15 minutes ago, Georgleboui said:

On Simmarket the plane released separately for MSFS 20 and 24 for $52 each. However what wasn't made clear is that if you buy one, you get the other free. Effectively you get both versions for $52.J

I am not sure how these could possibly be misunderstood, unless they were just ignored.

 

9 minutes ago, Reader said:

I am not sure how these could possibly be misunderstood, unless they were just ignored.

 

That was a later addition. The original listing didn't have that.

My point isn't necessarily about that either, it's specifically about the discrepancy between Simmarket and JustFlight.