Sign in to follow this  
Johan_Dees

The new Apollo Fly by wire technology ......

Recommended Posts

Hi!After visiting their website, I still do not understand what precisely is being offered. Plane, panel, airfile? All three?Also, they advertise a pretty nice looking Boeing Glass cockpit for FS ....98. Anybody familiar with the project or products?Thanks in advance...BobP :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Seems to me they just wanna score some points by flaming the PSS Airbus Product in there "Advertisement" (they call it a comparison) .. JEALOUSY ??Probably ... and Highly illegaland All from a "Company" that still has the main links on there website set to MSFS 98 and DIRECTX 6 ????Come On !:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TOTALLY Irrelevant !!Whoever has the better product (I havent seen theirs and I dont see there name in our customer list) it is NOT right to Flame another product in the name of Advertising ??Jeeez ,"Dont buy a FORD they are CRAP... buy a CHRYSLER they are better!"Yeah Right !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seriously though, flaming or no flaming, and objective replies only please, does anyone know what these guys are offering? Sounds like they may have a brilliant flight model, but will they have all the various systems, overhead, MCDU, etc. etc. modelled to a comparable standard as the Phoneix product???And Phoenix, perhaps this could be a little cue for you to do an unbeatable Airbus 340 really really quickly...??? :-) well, I wish anyway.... :-)Sunil Mulay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Whoever has the better product (I havent seen theirs and I dont see >there name in our customer list) it is NOT right to Flame another >product in the name of Advertising ??I remember the Cola wars in the US in the 80's, that seemed to be legal and acceptable advertising. This doesn't seem to be much different. Don't know about outside the US though.Regards.Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Graham,I would not be to concerned. Their website is far worse than yours use to be! (grin). i.e. the Boeing Glass Cockpit is 3dfx compatible....There are similiar "guess the product" commercials that show here in states. Sound great, but have no clue on what they are selling.By the way, I am the proud owner of your Airbus series. Just took delivery and still have a lot to read and practice. It is fun learning the Airbus procedures.... thanks.Have fun!BobP :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing advertisements are allowed in Germany, so they aren't doing anything illegal. You guys have released the first try to simulate Airbus FBW in FS, and so you are guys everybody has to compete with and of course all upcoming FBW Products will be compared with your Bus - you have to live with that :)And to be honest, if I think of some posts in your forum about other products, you aren't innocent angels either... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can tell Apollo's been workin on these things for like 2 years. The same ad for these products has been on their website for well over a year. The addition of the help file, and the comparisions to PSS is obviously very recent.Regards.Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Racko I don't think you will find a single example in our forum or anywhere else where we have compared ourselves to another product except in response when we have been compared. Then you will find our response has been on point dealing with the difference. It is PSS's policy not to compare ourselves or to say anything about our competitors' products. We feel that every product stands on its own.Robert KirklandPSS SUPPORTsupport@phoenix-simulation.co.ukhttp://www.avsim.com/pss/phoenix.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you didn't start a thread with a comparsion, that's right. But some statements about competing Products, namely Eurowings Prof., were not really very nice and friendly.. - However you are right, I won't find an example, because all threads i can think of were deleted :)What I wanted to express in my first post - you guys should relax, phoenix-1s post was flaming at it's best, and I think we all should wait until we can get our hands on the Apollo product - so far there is only a PDF file and an anouncement, and I haven't figured out how to use PDFs in FS, so I'll stay with the PSS Airbus ... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Racko I think you need to read their press release I think using terms like "so-called professional", implying that we merely copied a Boeing air file and that we had no professional pilots testing our product is a little more than flaming. If they want a comparison, then I suggest they get a third party to do it as do the Consumer Unions. And maybe they ought to try fewer insults and get there facts straight.What they did was as my daughter says "slimy". Robert KirklandPSS SUPPORTsupport@phoenix-simulation.co.ukhttp://www.avsim.com/pss/phoenix.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BobP,My reading of the Apollo site is that a navigation system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A company by the same name released a scenery design package back in the FS 5.1/FS98 days called SOD--scenery object designer. It wasn't too bad,few bugs here and there and some inovative things but...support?? LOL,not a chance. These guys were from Germany if I remember right and AETI--Marty Arant was the US distributor--this was back in the CompUserv days. Marty went out of his way to try and help as much as he could and the ones of us who spent the money tried to help each other. No support or bug fixes were ever seen.David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mouse,The spelling of industry as Industrie is fair enough since it is the name of the company to which they refer,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read through their comparasion, I didn't see anywhere in there a "flame" of PSS. They were comparing the programming of their Airbus aircraft to the PSS one. I appears to me the only one doing any "flaming" here is you Graham. I wasn't aware that comparing competing products by manufactures was illegal.All they are saying is that their plane flies closer to the real thing than yours does. We call that competition in the real world.Last, possibly the person who did the comparsion is a paying customer of PSS. I would tend to believe that instead of some's implied view that they stole a copy to do the test with.This smells of a "prempetive" flaming by PSS of a possible competitor.Dale BakerLet the fires begin....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,Interesting thread to say the least.I do not own any Apollo or PSS products, but I will add my nickel to what Apollo is attempting to do.It is called a Marketing Strategy. It is a quite popular thing to do. Prime example is the Oracle ad campaigns. Oracle shells out millions for ads at conventions, etc.. That they do not even attend.Apollo puts out a marketing ploy about their product coming closer to reality than the PSS product.Now here is my point. Apollo says:"THE most realistic Airbus technology now for FS2002!World wide Terrain radar, Flight Envelope ProtectionWith support from Airbus Industrie, &Airbus Test PilotsTest flown by real A340 Airline Pilots!"Maybe true, maybe not. We'll see when the product is released. Anything else said is purely conjecture and a total crock of you know what. From BOTH SIDES. Apollo and PSS.I can appreciate where PSS would be pretty ticked off because they cannot defend their product since the competitor has not released theirs yet. Pretty brilliant marketing ploy on Apollo's part, I say. Doesn't mean I agree with it or condone it. It just means they were thinking outside the box, as it were and should be commended for doing so.Now PSS has posted this:"Seems to me they just wanna score some points by flaming the PSS Airbus Product in there "Advertisement" (they call it a comparison) ..JEALOUSY ??Probably ... and Highly illegaland All from a "Company" that still has the main links on there website set to MSFS 98 and DIRECTX 6 ????Come On !"I read the PDF completely and find that they did compare flight modelling with the PSS. ANd PSS's response in this thread was nothing but a FLAME, IMHO. And Then, this, Phoenix said:"TOTALLY Irrelevant !!Whoever has the better product (I havent seen theirs and I dont see there name in our customer list) it is NOT right to Flame another product in the name of Advertising ??"I just have to disagree, companies flame competitors all the time, and I do find it relevant if they have a better product for that is what determines what I buy.Remember 3M.. MMM, "We don't make the products, we make them better". Well if Apollo succeeds, who will be eating the crow? Just a thought.One More by Phoenix:"It is PSS's policy not to compare ourselves or to say anything about our competitors' products."Remember, you said it yourself. It is not your policy, but that does not give you the right to tell other companies what their policy should be or should not be, IMHO.Also, Phoenix says:"Racko I think you need to read their press release I think using terms like "so-called professional", implying that we merely copied a Boeing air file and that we had no professional pilots testing our product is a little more than flaming."They used the term on Page 15 of their English PDF located on their website, and if an ATP performed that procedure using your AIRFILE on a checkride, that they may not pass.*-* Robert, I really disagree that you can say they implied that you took a Boeing Airfile. Please....That statement is what I call Flaming to the tee. The Author IMHO, was talking about your bank angle increasing constantly over time and the effects of neutralizing stick forces in your aircraft. Well, is that what happens or not? They never stated that you had no professional pilots test your Airbus. Where does it state that. I beleive you sir, should be the one apologizing for those statements, IMHO, but that is your choice to make, huh..?And then you call what they did, Slimy... I think a quick look at your own posts in this thread will assist others to form their own opinions.If you want respect for your products, they will pretty much stand on their own, but If you are worried about publicity, you brought this one on yourselves in this thread by your first post.Maybe you should post a separate thread on your site refuting what they said about your product comparison. That is unless what they said is true about your flight model. Here is your chance to shine above the fray, and it is your choice as to how you respond.Me.... I just would have gone about it a different way, that is all.As to its legality,...Please.... It would be slander if not true, but if it is true, then PSS may need to be the ones making an apology here, not Apollo.And AVSIM rightfully took the unbiased approach and should also be commended. They put a press release right on their front page like they always do. :-) ********************************************And to Bob, the original Author. I apologize to you sir, for posting my little rant. I unfortunately cannot comment on either product, but I do hope you find the answers you are looking for. :-)Best Regards,Joe :-wavehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...that a post like this in the PSS forum would be deleted by you immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmmm,Deleted....Maybe, maybe not. But I hope this one stays as it is relevant to MSFS2002, and the original Author had no malfeasance in his original post. He just asked a pretty straightforward question and whammo... defense mechanisms kicked in and how that happened is the responsibility of Phoenix IMHO, and the original Author would not be served by removing this thread.Regards,Joe :-wavehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe,No arguement from me. I think the original post is quite relevant. Perhaps just some selective deleting by the crew? ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, Scott :-)Selective deleting would be appropriate if personal attacks were made. Does the word Slimy amount to a personal attack. I guess that depends on the threshold of the reader.I look at this thread as a lesson for others to look at what they post and to have accountability in what they write. If this stuff was deleted, I feel a greater harm would be done.And who knows, if enough people read it, the Author, who deserves an objective response, may actually get one. :-)But, who knows.. I've been wrong before, and when I am I ALWAYS APOLOGIZE. It is called integrity... Know what I mean.. :-)Regards,Joe :-)http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on indeed! How long would your post have survived in your own forum? I really don't think you yet understand what it's all about in the commercial world. Talk to your lawyer. Complain to your wife. Beat the dog. But, please, don't again bore us with your hurt feelings.Trip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this