nrunning24

I'm not speaking on the specifics of this product from CS. I don't own it and have no use buying it. I'm speaking on the fact that from the second it was released lots of people have been up in arms on it for pretty ridiculous reasons. If it worked perfectly as described (aka sound and apu worked perfect, no bugs etc.) it wouldn't have changed the discussion about it here one bit.

There will always be impulse buyers that don't do product research, you can't help that. But really would be curious about the "no clue" comment because I see that 2 ways. Are there people that had no clue it was a re-skinned 747 before buying but actually care about those details, sure I can concede that. But there probably are lots of people who have "no clue" because it doesn't affect there actual enjoyment of the product until someone comes along and tells them that they bought a non-realistic "cash-grab" and have been deceived. Only to leave out the part that a "non-cash grab" product will actually be +$100 (or at least 3 times the price) and they will have to spend hours learning how to "realistically fly" said aircraft.

Why do I always see the assumption that most of the people buying these releases are "unsuspecting" vs they are making an informed buying choice? I feel like the "serious simmers" just live in their bubble and assume that anyone buying something they see no use for as uninformed or unsuspecting. Lots of MSFS flyers want to quickly fly around a realistic looking environment. They want a detailed exterior 777 so they can replicate there reality (aka from outside the plane or in the cabin). Most probably couldn't tell you the main differences between a 777 and 747 flight deck. Should those people not be able to purchase products that fit there needs? Should they be required to learn complex airliners to have a fun experience? Should any developer giving them products they want be shunned for "cash grabbing".

The Bredok 737 has been a top seller on SimMarket for months, and honestly anyone running a flight sim business should have taken notice. Obviously the big boys (FSL, PMDG etc.) wouldn't want to tarnish there rep this much but lets face it CS is hated by the "hardcore" simmers anyway. If you are a FS business owner who already has very detailed 3D models of underserved MSFS airplanes you should be re-skinning them right now. The market has spoken and this is what people are paying for.

For Simmarket just download the original installer again. Once downloaded if I go into the properties it shows version number 2.0.

The fact that a not yet released scenery showed up for sale on a Chinese piracy website says that someone on the Beta team had no problem stealing the scenery for their own gain.

Does FSL provide a repaint with every possible registration number for any particular airline? Why is PMDG being held to this standard..... You can still get access to the exact same airline liveries, just not every single registration #.

I get it feels weird to have them be gone, especially for people who initially got excited that the whole fleet of reg#'s were there for some airlines.... But really come on.... Name one other airplane developer who has provided an entire airlines fleet of reg#'s as a free download for their product. I guess its all biased on degrees of realism, but flying a 777-200LR instead of a 200ER is a much bigger difference to me than flying a different reg# with the EXACT same repaint. Your welcome to pay inibuilds to do a fleet pack for you if its that important. Not the biggest PMDG fan in the world but this is a pretty outlandish reason to be "done" with PMDG as some have stated up-thread.

I don't see what the fuss is all about...... You still have access to a couple free repaints for each airline. Why do you need a bunch of repaints that are EXACTLY the same except for the registration #? Seems we are just trying to come up with reasons to be upset at this point.

Just as an FYI you made a big point about doing an intersection departure at Berlin when requesting performance, yet you took the full length #'s on the video. You can tell because there is a "F/L" next to them. If you had scrolled over you would have noticed that each intersection would have its own performance #'s. This obviously could be a BIG gotcha if you were drastically reducing the runway length.

I can't buy this product until the Bay Bridge is fixed. That's absolutely pathetic. The stupid part is the SF side of the bridge was perfectly done in the old landclass region. I know this was flagged in the Xplane version as well so sad they didn't fix it.

The first thing you learn in Statistics is correlation does not imply causation. I think it is much more likely that after over a year most the people who wanted your product already purchased it, and that's why your sales dropped. I've never been a big believer that most pirates will actually purchase a product they can't find for free. Also that speeding argument is ridiculous. I'm sure at some point you have broke a law. In no way does that make you just as bad as a murderer. Get off your high horse and understand the discussion. The more sites that the government blocks the closer we become to China or North Korea.

I think you are taking this a step to far. yes FBW ALLOWS the computer to vary the responce to the imput applied. However that does not mean that it needs to. The invention on FBW has allowed aircraft manufactures to include computer stablizations in their design (why wouldnt you). However you could create a FBW system that does none of this. You could create a FBW 737 that responds the exact same as the current one. Doesnt mean that its not FBW. "Essentially in FS it's like FBW in Direct Law. It requires additional modelling to create the effect FBW has on aircraft handling, and also the various protections that are available." Exactly!!! FBW does not need to include protections. I understand what you are trying to say, however FBW in itself does not need to have any protections and can be just a "driect law" kind of situation. All to often i see people confusing these two different terms, thats all im trying to say.

While somewhat correct the 777 and 787 don't have near the amount of computer protection as Airbus aircraft. Boeing design philosophy has always been and will always be the pilot should be the ultimate authority not the computer. And all PC aircraft are fly by wire because you the pilot are NOT moving the control cables (because they don't exist, your on a computer.)

Just to clarify because I see this misunderstanding all the time. There is a huge difference between fly by wire and airbus' laws. Fly by wire just means that the pilot does not physically move the control cables. What people normally mean is airbus laws and how the computer can protect the aircraft from stalls, overspeed and excessive banking. The 777 and 787 are both fly by wire but don't have these protections. Hence why i think its funny when people ask if developers are going to model fly by wire because technically every plane for FS is fly by wire.