Why I will no longer purchase any add-on Aircraft...

[LAdamson 240]

>So exactly who and/or what is "the Target"? Realism is>obviously NOT the target as no serious simulators provide an>outside birds eye view of the AC in flight. As I've said>before the 2D or 3D panels is NOT the major killer of frame>rates, it's the 3D AC model.>>I'm involved in my flight sim -- I have $1000+ in GoFlight>equipment, $7K in real flying lessons, $5K computer, WideFS>(registered), FSUPIC (registered), FS Live, with FS Tracker>(running on a separate laptop), a host of scenery and many 3rd>party payware AC, actually read the AC manuals (some very>lengthy but with no actual working startup procedures), etc.>etc.>I buy "most" aircraft for external graphics (of course I know very well who produces the best flight modeling to go with them); usually keep panels on the simple side, and use shift Z for important readouts.Instead of blowing $5K on a new computer & $1000 in GoFlight equipment, I purchased a dual axis auto-pilot & new Garmin 296 GPS instead. Comes out about the same, price wise.As to the computer, I'm recreating flight with planes that interest me. This includes the "whole" aircraft; and sometimes even rivet patterns. I'm not here, just to play "cockpit", as I can always go to the garage (RV6A) or airport next door, to do that.L.Adamsonedit: I'm a "target" that wants realistic looking models to "gaze" at. Therefore "realism" IS the target...

[n4gix 4,947]

>I have yet to see>an add-on AC (from retail channels) that provides multiple 3D>models (other than AI models).All I can say to that is this: You haven't been looking closely.Eaglesoft's bizjets have always offered more than one model in the same package, so we can cater to nearly everyone's needs.Good grief! The Cessna Citation X has no less than FOUR separate models that one may fly: Deluxe, Normal, Lite and Ultra-Lite!As I said, you paint with too wide a brush... ;)

[mgh 89]

So, you know the addon business better than the suppliers in it?Why don't you create a your own product for the mainstream market and make a fortune?

[Guest Lionel Goh]

Rob,Some of your statements mentioned are rational and make sense.But some don't.I personally am a modeller/texture artist(or you could say once) myself. If you really study what's going on the actual thing that brings your system to a halt is the textures, not the models. I'm sure most modellers would have tried to cut as many polygons as possible , but you should know, no much how much cutting you do , its never enough :)Secondly, this is my opinion only, but you can't compare the default aircrafts to those that you pay for. If you look closely(If you have Active Camera or something) or take a walk around the plane, you would notice a lot more detail, accuracy and such. I think most people buying payware wants to get the add-on that simulates the real-life object the best, as of course this is a simulation. I'm not sure about you though.Let's all be honest, the default aircraft that microsoft provides(especially the commercial ones) are total crap.Therefore, I don't think there is evena basis of comparison when it comes to payware and the default addons.Moving On, what kind of performance do you get from your 5K computer with defaults and with the payware(let's say ur PMDG 737 series?)It would be very nice if you could give a detailed description about that :)Thanks for hearing me rant.

[Guest iholrf]

>I think most people buying payware wants to get the add-on>that simulates the real-life object the best, as of course>this is a simulation. I'm not sure about you though.>>Let's all be honest, the default aircraft that microsoft>provides(especially the commercial ones) are total crap.>Therefore, I don't think there is evena basis of comparison>when it comes to payware and the default addons.The first para above is the key to this whole argument I think. Some of the payware is targeted to the "extreme" simmer. Niche marketing is common practice. It is a valuable part of a market economy. This is the primary area to apply the caveat emptor rule however. Perhaps a requirement to disclose the performance hit a niche level add-on has on a machine could be enforced. One group for a scenery add-on for Toronto were very clear on their website about the performance hit it would add. I was informed when I used it and was not surprised when my machine crawled along at about 1 fps (although I was disappointed to seem my machine perform so poorly, but MSFS has always been hard on it). Maybe through the creation of a "standards" forum and certification program for freeware/payware add-on for the MSFS series of sims (a community driven organization), we can ensure that all users have the benefit of being informed purchaser/users.The second para is the argument for add-ons. If the default AC were spectacular then there would be fewer requirements for third party add-ons. I know I was quickly bored with the default stuff. I was quickly bored with the add-on stuff too (sim flight is a pale pale comparison to the real thing). I discovered the real fun of simming was developing for it. :)I think the point that has not been stated clearly enough is the notion that payware or freeware developers are sincerely trying to make the best model they possibly can and that no developer wants to hear about somebody having enormous problems with their product. It must be understood that developers put their heart and souls into the process and want everybody to love their product as much as they do. Contrast this with the companies who employ developers. Their primary interest is in making money (as they should be) and not necessarily the best model they can make. Acclaim Software's demise last year is a prime example of how flash and candy are not long term solutions to financial success. The danger we face is letting the vocal minority rule the direction development takes as a whole.Life is about balance. But balance sometimes has different requirements for different people. Some people are prepared to live with high levels of induced drag, others are prepared to live with high levels of parasitic drag, while others are not prepared to live with any drag at all and prefer it laminar.Live and let live I say, just be clear about where it is you live so I can be informed when I go there. But I also have to mirror some other opinions expressed here. Before complaining, one needs to ensure one is prepared to do the work. Do it better if you say it can be done. In fact, I need tons of help on my project. Your optimizing skills would be most welcome, Rob! :)CheersShad

[Guest robains]

I don't why I need to keep stressing this:My desire is to NOT take away the realism nor the details. My desire is to provide alternatives in the same package. But I need to keep reminding people, I'm NOT trying to take away anything, only add alternatives.EagleSoft apparently provide multiple models and textures -- I will look into them. For any future AC purchases, I will ask before I buy -- if they do not offer alternate frame rate friendly models and textures, and full refunds, then I will not purchase.I'm a software developer/manager -- the reason I now purchase 3rd party AC is because there just is not enough time in the day for me to produce my own AC. Finding enough time just to enjoy FS "as is" and putting in flying lessons is hard enough.As it stands right now, there is nothing on a box that warns "3D Screen Saver Inside" ;)3rd party AC market is not so niche, they sell to big chains like Fry's Electronics, CompUSA, BestBuy, etc. etc. What I've never seen from any AC publisher is a "return policy" -- none have offered to refund full amount if the customer is not satisfied.

[n4gix 4,947]

>3rd party AC market is not so niche, they sell to big chains>like Fry's Electronics, CompUSA, BestBuy, etc. etc. What I've>never seen from any AC publisher is a "return policy" -- none>have offered to refund full amount if the customer is not>satisfied.Once again, you are painting with too wide of a brush... It is abundantly clear that you haven't conducted as extensive a "marketplace survey" as you have tried to imply.This is a logical fallacy known as the "Hasty Generalization..." :* First of all, only a very tiny minority of FS add-on developers have any presence in the retail distribution chain. The margins are simply too thin to allow for any further dillution, without significantly increasing the retail price to the consumer.Secondly, Flight1, as well as most of the developers who use their e-commerce system do - in fact - offer refunds to dissatisfied customers.http://www.flight1.com/view.asp?page=tos"Refunds and ReturnsProducts may be returned or refunded within 30 days unless otherwise noted at the time of purchase, or if the item is a special sale or close-out item. If your order was purchased from a file using the Flight1.com Download E-Commerce system, we will require you to fill out a simple affidavit stating proper removal of the title and keys from your system (this can be handled via e-mail). In some cases, a similar affidavit may be required for boxed or CD ROM titles also.On boxed or CD ROM titles, only the product price is refunded, not the shipping. All products must also be returned in excellent condition, with no items or inserted material missing. In some cases, a 15% restocking fee may be applied."

[N400QW 205]

>"I'm a software developer/manager -- the reason I now purchase 3rd party AC is because there just is not enough time in the day for me to produce my own AC. Finding enough time just to enjoy FS "as is" and putting in flying lessons is hard enough."

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"What I've never seen from any AC publisher is a "return policy" -- none have offered to refund full amount if the customer is not satisfied."Glad to see the thread has remained fairly civil and balanced in my absence. I attached the above quote because I believe Flight1 has such a policy, there may be others. So the use of the word "None" should be qualified as "None that I have seen".A number of times I've seen mentioned the fact that you feel the problem with performance isn't with the panels, it's with the 3-d models. What 3-d models have you purchased where the performance is sub par? Feel free to qualify your response with screenshots illustrating performance. To rule out the panels as the performance culprit, have you tried to slave the aircraft to one of the default panels just to see if there's a performance gain?PMDG is another provider that has different models in their packages--lite, with VC, with VC and cabin, for their 1900D. Their "lite" version is an excellent performer and I tend to prefer it. I think the reason people keep calling you to task regarding the issues you cite is regardless of your background, you still have to establish your bona fides before you make statements against virtually an entire industry. We have had kids come in here claiming they were developers, and I suspect janitors, fishermen, etc... I don't think dropping the "troll" bomb on you is fair--people have a right to gripe and if you read through my posts in the forums, you'd know where I stand on that. But reading through your followup posts in this thread, I still don't know what products you own where you've found performance is sub par and where you've solicited assistance in troubleshooting why. That's where a picture is worth a thousand words. I haven't seen any concrete examples of the performance issues you cite--no followup showing your system settings, your sim settings, and the products installed on your system. Anecdotal reports are great to back up your own experience, but authoring a thread based on those alone isn't enough--I believe one has to have first hand experience with a specific product before they author this type of thread. I believe you do, but I am still unclear on what products. You also suggest you know the market, yet seem unaware that PMDG and Eaglesoft offer products exactly like what you suggest. The Flight1 172 was one example where it's suggested performance is poor, yet those of us who own it have had stellar performance. I haven't seen you respond directly to comments regarding any of these products, other than saying you'd give Eaglesoft a try.I have seen aircraft add-ons for sale in the big box electronics stores--notably Fry's which carries a lot of Abacus products. But those products are lightweight compared to many of the "on line only" offerings. Most of the best on line vendors are out on the web only and they keep costs low by keeping middlemen like Fry's, Best Buy etc out of the equation--and they offer products that, dollar for dollar, exceed almost everything I've seen sold in the big box stores. -John

[mgh 89]

Horizon Simulation offers a 30-day refund on its software provided the seals are not broken. It provides software on CD.On its Terms of Trade page it even provides two links to UK government sites. One sets out consumers' rights in relation to home shopping and the "cooling off" period; the other relates to consumers' general rights.There are ethical companies in FS.

[Guest robains]

Bill,Please do share YOUR marketing survey and research with us. If you're able to get my PMDG, Flight1, and Phoenix to accept a full refund of the AC I purchased, then I'll buy you several beers or whatever beverage you enjoy. I have tried, and yes technically some do offer a limited return policy but it is NOT based on customer satisfaction and those willing to issue a refund will provide credit towards another purchase not full money back.There is no serious flaw that prevents the operation of these AC, I can and do turn down all kinds of other details (look out the window and all I see is just a big blob of fuzzy green with not a single cloud in the sky and virtually no objects) just so that AC has a reasonable frame rate (which I define as 30 fps). 1600 X 1200 4xAA and 8xAF -- this is the static that matches my LCD's native resolution -- about the only aspect of visual quality I'm not willing to compromise.John,I'll be happy to provide pictures and fps specifics, but based on the responses so far I believe this to be futile waste of effort.PMDG now offer a B1900C and a B1900D and with either of those AC I do not encounter significant changes in frame rate, however, their 737 series in any variant causes a huge fps hit.Fry's carry much more than Abacus now and they've even started do MegaScenery stuff along with FS Terrain series, Phoenix PSS Concorde, and more. But I guess I'd need to take pictures of the software from within Fry's store before you'd believe me -- maybe hold the SF Chronicle in front of it. ;)Anyway folks, I've said what I needed to say and really can't afford the time to continue on with this. For anyone else observing this thread, please just keep in mind, if there wasn't a problem with 3rd party AC frame rates, magazines like Computer Pilot (and others) wouldn't dedicated sections of their AC reviews on how to "improve frame rates" -- just go thru past issues and you'll see the pattern. Sure it isn't an issue with everyone (add-on publisher), but it does appear to be an issue with many.Best of luck to you all,Rob.-- officially parked at the gate on this issue

[Guest Lionel Goh]

Rob,I'm so sorry for wasting your time.I'm a curious fellow.Coudl u do me a favour and tell me how huge the hit is(in terms of numbers) and the after and before result?

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I'm curious too--I'll accept screenshots from Rob for the PMDG 737. I've heard others say there's a performance hit, but I've always assumed it was the panel's complex avionics. I'd like to see four pics measuring fps:~A spot view screenshot of the PMDG 737 with the panel slaved to a default panel.~A shot of the VC with the panel slaved to a default panel. Obviously, no gauges would appear.~A spot view screenshot of the PMDG 737 with no panel edits.~A shot of the VC with no panel editsThose shots would isolate whether there was some glaring issue in the 3-d model or whether the fps impact was caused by the gauge/panel.On Flight1's 172--I still think Computer Pilot--if the article reads as Rob mentions--is way off base for including fps optimization tips for the Flight1 172. That aircraft is excellent out of the box and if there's a performance hit vs. the default aircraft, it's a slight one. I wouldn't trust a Computer Pilot review of any aircraft if they cited fps issues with the Flight 1 172. But not having read the article and seen the context they reported in, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. However, Flight 1 includes the option with most, if not all, of their aircraft for reduced (DXT3) textures. Computer Pilot could have easily been commenting on that, which isn't a slight at all against Flight1's products. It's an option they offer to allow users to scale the product to their systems--exactly what Rob says "most" vendors aren't doing.-John

[Guest ben252]

Rob, just try to produce a complete aircraft yourself, I think your viewpoint could use the experience

[n4gix 4,947]

Please do share YOUR marketing survey and research with us. If you're able to get my PMDG, Flight1, and Phoenix to accept a full refund of the AC I purchased, then I'll buy you several beers or whatever beverage you enjoy. I have tried, and yes technically some do offer a limited return policy but it is NOT based on customer satisfaction and those willing to issue a refund will provide credit towards another purchase not full money back.

Once more you speak from ignorance. I previously posted the exact terms of Flight1's return policy, which hasn't changed one iota since 2005.In a nutshell, it is a "30 day no questions asked refund of your TOTAL purchase price, debited to your credit or debit card." Period.