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

[Guest Wichita]

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

[Guest The Ancient Brit]

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

[ErnieAlston 33]

>Look at the homepage on their website. I

[Guest]

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....

[Sonar5 3]

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

[Guest Scott Campbell]

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

[Sonar5 3]

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

[Guest Scott Campbell]

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

[Sonar5 3]

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

[Guest]

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

[Guest Scott Campbell]

Joe,Oh I do know integrity pretty well (ever see my home page?). ;-)And I also apologize for all the incredibly stupid things I constantly say. :-lolOnly a few rare times have I actually flamed someone (and always provoked).I'm not innocent by any means, and I do believe strongly in the First Amendment of the Constitution. But I think Mr. Waterfield's response was, to say the least, not as tactful as it could have been.So all that said, I also hope Bob gets a rational response on track with the original post. ;-) He may already have. Maybe I should actually read the rest of the posts! :-lol :-lol

[Guest Jeff S KDTW]

I agree with you, Joe. :-)Regards,http://home.earthlink.net/~snyders2000/name.jpg

[Guest]

Well, the thread's not a total loss. At least you've got it right about the Ford.

[Guest Scott Campbell]

Bob,To tell you the truth, I didn't know Apollo was even still in biz. I have/had a bunch of stuff from them for FS98, some of it good, most so-so, all by other people (they just distributed much like Abacus).

[Johan_Dees 84]

Gentlemen,Calm down please.. It isnt all that bad.Companies now and then are annoying each other with these kindof actions, and in the heat of the moment things will be said.Eventually the dust will settle, and we shall see what happens then.If the Apollo bus is better, then so be it. The bar is constantlybeen raised these days, even on the day you release something, some one else already has it improved, and raise the bar a littlehigher. It doesnt seem to have an end. Thats how it is.Also, if this will force PSS to improve further then make no mistakeabout it (popular Bush saying, we will raise the bar higher.And on a side note: if it is a A340 they are making, then probablyDF has to worry, and not us.Take care, Johan[A HREF=http://www.phoenix-simulation.co.uk]Phoenix Simulation Software[/A]Unofficial PSS website:www.people.zeelandnet.nl/johd