Well, it might or might not be harmful to Ariane, the reasons for the delete are pure speculation on my part, but I think it's a reasonable guess.Harm or not, there's nothing wrong with 'geeing up Ariane a bit' to try and get them to add features, and as you know, that forum even has a thread specifically for that very thing, where users can make such suggestions, but don't forget the overall ethos of Ariane differs a little from other developers. That's one of the things I think a lot of people have trouble getting their head around, particularly when faced with Ariane's claims about how good their 737 is, some of that being in the eye of the beholder, depending on what they want. And an understanding of where they are coming from with regard to those claims, will make more sense of them.There is little doubt that PMDG's approach to systems simulation is a tour-de-force, but that is not the only approach to 'believability' and is not exactly where Ariane are coming from, in that they want to concentrate more on a balanced approach to the overall cockpit experience, so they'll put systems in, and in some considerable detail, but they'll also factor in the usuability of such systems in a virtual cockpit, and how the look of that cockpit adds to the overall experience of driving an airliner with particular emphasis on keeping the frame rates up. It's not for everyone, some people are purely going to value cockpit system fidelity over any other aspect, and there is nothing wrong with wanting that, but I think the Ariane approach has its place too. Of course I also think that adding those missing sytsems would do more to justify the price, but there you go.Al

Well, it might or might not be harmful to Ariane, the reasons for the delete are pure speculation on my part, but I think it's a reasonable guess.Harm or not, there's nothing wrong with 'geeing up Ariane a bit' to try and get them to add features, and as you know, that forum even has a thread specifically for that very thing, where users can make such suggestions, but don't forget the overall ethos of Ariane differs a little from other developers. That's one of the things I think a lot of people have trouble getting their head around, particularly when faced with Ariane's claims about how good their 737 is. And an understanding of where they are coming from with regard to those claims, will make more sense of them.There is little doubt that PMDG's approach to systems simulation is a tour-de-force, but that is not the only approach to 'believability' and is not exactly where Ariane are coming from, in that they want to concentrate more on a balanced approach to the overall cockpit experience, so they'll put systems in, and in some considerable detail, but they'll also factor in the usuability of such systems in a virtual cockpit, and how the look of that cockpit adds to the overall experience of driving an airliner with particular emphasis on keeping the frame rates up. It's not for everyone, some people are purely going to value cockpit system fidelity over any other aspect, but I think the Ariane approach has its place too. Of course I also think that adding those missing sytsems would do more to justify the price, but there you go.Al

I have been contacted by Ed via mail... He assures me that my forum priveledges were removed by accident. I accept that from him and when we finally speak, I will remove my posts here on this forum outa respect for Ed and Ariane, as I believe he truley wants to do the right thing to make his product top notch and what it's original intend was to be.JB

Why do I get this strange feeling that Ariane is some kind of religious sect?

LMAOAl

Ulf,You gotta good chuckle outa me as well...Good post with great timing.JB

Ulf,You gotta good chuckle outa me as well...Good post with great timing.JB

Thanks :(

Buzz makes a fair point here in his appraisal of the Ariane 737. It does indeed fly very well, that's a major stong point of it in fact, and there are indeed several of those. But as he also points out, I would take the notion from Ariane that it is akin to some sort of Level-D trainer as rather over-zealous marketing blurb rather than an accurate factual description of what it can do.But, neither would I take that copy as a deliberate attempt to mislead anyone, because they are certainly not the only sim add-on maker to talk up their own product, and it is only natural that any maker is going to do that to some extent with their advertising, (after all, they do want to sell the thing). But if you are considering the Ariane 737, and to be fair it certainly is worthy of consideration if you can take the price, just regard some of the more extravagent claims about its fidelity to the real thing in terms of systems, with a pinch of sensibly-administered salt. Which is something you should do with all PC flight sim stuff, and of course was one of the reasons I wanted to review it.This is in fact also one of the reasons why I personally think that Ariane do not help themselves by remaining insular. They have a pretty good product. Sure it doesn't do everything a real 737 does, but that doesn't make it unworthy of attention or open to vast criticism any more than any other FS add-on which misses features. And lets be honest, all of them do in some way or another. Much of what Ariane do is because they take a different approach to the priorities of simmers rather than because they deliberately miss out stuff, and I think that's an approach that, whilst different, is worthy of some merit. But the secretive approach to marketing opens them up to criticism and makes people unduly suspicious of their product, and I think they'd do well to consider changing that, because I think it would help them sell more stuff.If Ariane do indeed have a licensing agreement with Boeing - and I'm sure they probably do if they are using the Boeing logo on the thing - then they would indeed have to be careful about associating themselves with official literature from Boeing that should not really be doing the rounds, which like the official stuff from most other airliner companies, is not generally meant to be circulated with no limitations. To relate to that, I could get just one Boeing picture cleared for use on my Avsim review of the Ariane 737, and I had to source pics of the real thing from other places to ensure copyright and reproduction was not an issue (which is another 'fun' aspect of reviewing), because Boeing, like every other company, are somewhat protective of their corporate identity. You can discover that for yourself if you like; go to the Boeing website and you'll find they will happily let you download wallpapers and various pics etc, but they are only for personal use and cannot be distributed, nor reproduced online, or linked to, without a further licensing agreement of some sort.So whether literature of that kind is widely available or not is less the issue than whether it is legally available to be distributed free of all restrictions, after all, the Ariane 737 for FS9 is widely available as a hacked torrent for free, but that doesn't make it right, and you become culpable when using anything originated in that way. So I can at least understand Ariane being a bit wary of things like that when you consider how much it would affect them if their Boeing licensing agreement were to be terminated. It may not be the reason they did what they did, but then again it may be.That is not to say I would condone all that has occurred with Buzz on the Ariane forum, and one would hope they reverse the decision, but you do nevertheless have to look at things from their point of view too in order to make a fair judgement on things like that.Anyway, I hope you can patch up your differences with them Buzz, because I certainly was interested in your views and comments. Al

Al,I agree with a lot of the points you make, but as far as Ariane's 'informercials' are concerned, I'm puzzled by your apparent acceptance of their practices.Basically, you cannot claim something in advertising that simply isn't there. Here in the U.K., it's covered by the Trade Descriptions Act. Sure, a little 'hype' to whet a potential buyer's appetite is one thing, but vast claims which are simply not true is purely misleading. If it doesn't do what the advertising says it does, then the buyer is justified in complaining and demanding a refund - that's basic consumer law.So spurious claims like ".....a full-featured FMS for professional operators" which isn't FULLY featured as advertised is misleading and should never be condoned as 'a little hype' to help sell the product.Suggestions that Ariane's simulated planes are used as a training aid for professional pilots must be seen as nonsense and as David Roch has already pointed out, it's laughable and he IS a professional pilot who DOES fly 737s.IMO, sell the product for what it is - don't hype it or lie about what it does or more importantly, doesn't do. For the high price tag that goes with everything Ariane offers, it's too much money to blow on something you 'll probably find lacking in a major way.Alternatively, maybe Ariane should start a "try before you buy" policy and then see how many people continue to vent their disappointment. My guess is that Ariane's bad publicity on the products would stop overnight as only those who really enjoy the planes would pay for and keep them...... Of course, that would probably adversely affect their overall sales figures until, according to their public, they got it right. But that's not a bad thing in a competitive environment, especially for such an expensive add-on.Toni.

Actually, in the UK, advertising copywriting is policed by the Advertising Standards Authority, not theTrade Descriptions Act, which is a lot more limited in its constraints and powers on the web than in other media forms too incidentally, but I take your point. My point however, is that if you look on the Ariane website on the part where you find info on the Ariane X2 737-900ER, which is the one I bought and reviewed, they do not claim it is fully featured at all. Here is a link to that very information page:http://www.arianedesign.com/Content.do?sta...ontent=featuresAnd here is the other one you can find:http://www.arianedesign.com/Content.do?sta...=specs/737-BBJ1Now I'll grant you that the copy on that page is a bit flowery, and I know all about that because I was an advertising copywriter for many years, so I've indulged in writing that kind of crap myself on occasion, but at no point in that features list on the first page does it make any mention of the FMC features, it does not even mention the FMC at all except in relation to keying in the IRS coordinates and to show a picture of it. The second page does mention the FMC and some features, but it does not make any claim about anything the FMC can not do, so that too, is not misleading. Badly written yes, but not misleading.There is one claim they make however which I will absolutely agree is total nonsense, and that is on the reviews quote pages, where it claims the biggest and most respected website for flight sim stuff (one that they cull quotes from), is one that I've never even heard of. Now whether they like it or not, the fact is that Avsim is the biggest flight sim website (in terms of traffic numbers from visitors, which is about the only true measure one can make for something like that), and although 'most respected' is largely a matter of opinion, I think Avsim has a good claim to that too. But again they can get around that by saying 'biggest and most respected', which of course is not a factual statement, but an opinion, and thus cannot be disputed. so although they are talking absolute cobblers when they say that, they are not actually lying, which is of course the essence of advertising copywriting, and I should know, because I teach a copywriting course in the UK.I also agree that to claim it is some sort of professional training tool is guilding the lily, but for all I know maybe some professional somewhere does use it for an aspect of training, and if that has happened even once, then they can claim it. That's why I said those claims should be taken with a healthy pinch of salt, as should all advertising claims.You can be assured that the review I've done makes no bones about what is and is not in the FMC of the Ariane 737, so you don't have to decode the marketing speak from the true features list, because my review for Avsim was aimed at doing that. And it does. And if the Ariane 737 was crappy, I would say so, because I don't owe Ariane anything (whereas I do owe any developer the courtesy of telling the truth in a review, and always will on Avsim), particularly in view of the fact that I did not get a free review copy, but paid for it out of my own pocket in order to do the review, which would be even more reason to be truthful if I was unhappy with it. The simple fact is, that it is pretty good, but in its present state, it is overpriced.Al

Ok... hopefully my last update to this thread and I'm gonna make it short.I have paid for the Ariane 73-800X2. I bounced around the idea of asking for a refund, but was torn because I do like the flight model. It's one of the only handflown Transport category FS addons that I can trim into a slot and it will ride the ILS right down to the runway. I also like the Model and all the extras. I still don't think it's worth it's price tag, but Ed at Ariane has made a bit of effort in the last few hours in patching up our relationship. I admire that and it is a noble effort. I am pleased to say that I will give Ariane the benefit of the doubt and help in any way I can to get what I expect outa this addon. Ariane has stated many times that they are gonna complete the product to what thier customers want and I think we all want a high fidelity 73 sim.We have to admit that Ariane has taken a beating in the past. I personally believe in the, "School Of Hard Knocks" and I think that Ariane will take a look at all aspects of good publicity and bad publicity that has come around to help make the correct decision to further thier business. I know I am being fair by saying that, Ariane probably has a bit more to lose than myself if they don't get this product to maturity. So, I will take the risk of hanging on for the ride.JB

If they add sid/stars I would buy

If they add sid/stars I would buy

Same here, but only after the newer version is reviewed as well. It's still an epxensive add-on compared to the other offerings.Thanks,Dirk.

I have found this thread only after the old forums came back online, and have found it intriguing, and in some places more entertaining than Terminator 2! I have been waiting, like many, for a good 737NG for FSX for a while, despite the fact that I have only been able to use X for 2 weeks. I have the old NG from PMDG since early 2005, and to be honest have had no problems with it. I also have the PIC 737, PSS Airbuses, 777, DHC8 and Concorde, and the CS 757 and 727(FS9). By strange coincidence I saw the Ariane page a couple of weeks ago and it seemed quite promising, but I knew there and then that I would probably not bother with it and wait for the PMDG 737NGX. I then stumbled across this thread late last night and have read it all the way through (it is 6am UAE time and I have some important stuff coming up today, but whatever), and I'm convinced that I made the right choice.Now, I would like to go over a couple of issues and offer my view (no matter how little it may be worth).First, the VNAV thing. From what I have gathered this is not fully implemented and to be honest that is a huge shortfall. It would be like Ford selling a mega power Mustang with no windscreen (as in complete darkness, not wind in the face): you could get around it by sticking your head out of the side window, but it is not an elegant solution, and would be very annoying considering the price you have to pay. It has been mentioned that in real life they don't use it during the descent. This is true when ATC sets a condition that makes it easier to just follow it directly using HDG or FLCH modes. However this would normally only apply in very busy airspace, and even then from what I have seen on the NATS website, LHR has some very interesting STARS that would be easily implemented in the FMC with holds and separation as dictated by ATC, and can be flown entirely using VNAV. One last VNAV point. A couple of summers ago I was fortunate enough to spend the second half of cruise right up to parking and shut down in an Air Algerie 737-600, 7T-VJU, on a flight from Oran (DAOO) to Adrar (DAUA) in the Sahara desert. There is no ILS in the majority of desert airports in Algeria, despite the fact that these airfields have almost always got rubbish visibilty, so on this flight the crew (Capt. Harrison Ford and FO. Mr. 70s throwback) used VNAV to fly the aircraft all the way down, through the desert sands floating around, on a downwind, base and final, constantly descending and slowing down (the Captain was able to continue to chat, hopefully due to the reduced workload and not my riveting converation :( ), right down to 400ft RA and a smooth touchdown on runway 4 (incidentally they taxiied at 35kts the whole time, and a similar story an a later flight in a 738, so I guess DAH don't have the "snitch" referred to in a previous post). This demonstrates the importance of VNAV, and shows that Ariane made a big mistake in not finishing it properly.The bugs in the FMC, I think, are just pointless and inexcusable, as many products perceived now to be outdated have no problems at all, like the PMDG 737/747 and PSS 777, and thats all I have to say on that.However the SID/STAR issue is not really a problem for me. The CS 757 has this problem too. It has no procedures at all for Heathrow-Heathrow for gods sake!-but I find this an extra challenge, programming procedures into the FMC. It really helps you get to grips with manipulating the FMC and is almost fun, but perhaps that is just my masochistic side. What I can't stand, however is when whole airports are ignored, like VTBS, or, more annoyingly for me, Kai Tak, which Wilco in particular seem to have a bit of a grudge with! I had this problem with the PSS A320, but the later A340 fixed that.Now on to the non-sim related issues: Activation, rip offs and false advertising.From what I've read so far, most users have been unable to get the product activated while some have. I am no expert in programming and techie type things, but one can only assume that these things depend on what PC you have, your net connection and payment method (what credit card you use), so for some it works and for some it doesn't. I'll go back to my Ford Mustang analogy (I just love those things): If you have an 05 model, and buy an aftermarket part for an 09 model, it may not fuction as well (or as badly) on yours. If this is not the case (which now I come to think of it it probably isn't), then people must be doing something wrong, but if so, shouldn't Ariane review their activation method and/or instructions to make them more streamlined, and if possible, idiot-proof?Also, I understand the whole security thing. Every developer has the right to protect their interests, but many don't conflict with those of their users. Piracy is a by-product of the modern age, and while we must do what we can to fight it, certain methods have the effect of pushing legit users over the edge. There is such thing as too much security, especially as many developers are not losing customers: the berks who download fake stuff would probably not buy it if they couldn't have got it for free, and may not be able to anyway. As I have said on the temporary forums, this is like the war on speeding. They go after Steve McQueen wannabes and end up nailing little old ladies doing 32mph, while the joyriders go on.As for the price, developers have the right to charge whatever they want, but we also have the right to say it is overpriced and poor value for money. Yes the PMDG 747/MD11 are also expensive, but they also state that they have provided free liveries to increase the value of their product. This may be a load of tosh, but it gives the sense that they are nice guys and care about their customers, and I feel more comfortable handing them my money. To me, money doesn't matter (I'm not loaded BTW, I'm 20 and unemployed) but I like to see what is being given in return, and the Ariane guys don't seem to be giving much in return for $100: one actual livery, and an average systems simulation that doesn't seem to be finished. It's all very well making updates, but if it wasn't finished in the first place it shouldn't have been released. The PMDG MD11 was delayed by months (years AFAIK), but the result was very well polished off and I will buy it without hesitation, and if there are updates I am ure they will be free. Unlike our dear friends at Ariane who will charge for stuff that is already unfinished and very expensive. Briefly, to comment on the livery packs, they are undoubtedly very nice but probably don't include the airlines I am after (the aforementioned Air Algerie) and should really be included to begin with, but it is not the worst example I've seen (that being the CLS 747:I paid the same as the other, far superior sims and then they have the cheek to say that if I wanted the cargo, which is pretty muuch the only way these old birds are used, or the more interesting liveries I have to cough up more money, and for what? A crap panel and a model that is marginally superior to the POSKY ones. I was kicking myself for weeks).And on to the false advertising. Naturally, any producer of any product has the right to entice us into buying their wares, and even to spice it up a bit to attract us more, but to claim that it is something it is not is simply lying! This cannot be ignored! If my knowledge is correct, Ariane is a UK based company, and the ASA can be pretty picky when it comes to the whole truthfulness thing, as I have recently seen on the net (I forget where) they have asked someone to change their advert because the product was depicted as being too shiny, or colourful, or something along those lines (sorry if I'm being vague, it is nearly 7am after all..), and the ad was re-made. As for the "Boeing officially licensed product" claims, didn't FS02 have that on the box? The default 747 and 737 are not exactly up to training standards, so this little blue patch should be treated with extreme caution.I would like to conclude that the Ariane 737 is a product that has great potential, but has been let down by some misled moves by the developers. I wish them the best but feel that the PMDG NGX will blow them into next week, both in sales and in quality. It would be a shame to see another FS developer die, but they would have brought it upon themselves.In any case I eagerly await Alan's review, seeing as the phoenix has risen gracefully out of the ashes.Sorry to have rambled on a bit, but this thread is one that I found quite interesting and I decided, despite the late/early hour, to give my opinion for what it is worth. I am surprised that this thread has gone on for so long, and would like to thank the mods, esp. David (your English is perfectly fine by the way :( ) for handling it so well.Anyway, time for me to bugger off to bed now...Out.DAH4062

Dear all,7 days after I purchased the Ariane Boeing 737-700 I am still waiting for the mail from Ariane Studios with the activation code. None of mails emails have been responded. This is all I have to say about Ariane Studios. If my experience helps other to prevent from purchasing from them, this post will not have been useless.Rgds,davidal

Has anyone got this addon? Is it really worth the

With the PMDG 737 NGX hopefully released this year, you gotta sk yourself: how much is the 737NG worth to you? Isn't there another plane you can use instead for the time being? At the moment I'm refraining from getting another Ariane 737, because I want to wait for the PMDG 737NGX. The 737 I did bought off Ariane is a very nice plane to fly and I haven't had any problems with it to date. The activation can be a hassle if only because you have to paste your key in multiple separate windows. Otherwise, I never had an activation problem of any kind and the aircraft handles as advertised. One note: I have the FS9 737-700, and so the visuals of this 737 are less good than what you'd expect from their FSX 737.But yeah, I say I wait for the PMDG, unless you want to spend 80 pounds now and see a pobably cheaper plane that is just as good be released later. I do not want to get in that situation, so I'm not buying any 737 until the PMDG is released. Oh, of course, I will buy an another FS9 Ariane 737 if it appears the PMDG 737 NGX will not be made available for FS9 (Or I'll simply get the old PMDG 737NG, which really doesn't look *that* bad, and gives me a ton of liveries to choose from!).