RicardoNY1

Hello Ben, the situation was certainly a flop. "Ben" waited patiently for his quadrant, only to have it arrive damaged. I can relate to the furstration that must have been. I understand you never purchased the quadrant, the original poster of this thread, our customer who received the damaged quadrant's name is also Ben. I was addressing him.

We are not a grandiose outfit that would describe our products as an "Innovative solution", but we are certainly not a flop and neither are our products. We are not a large outfit, so you will not be seeing people swarn into this post, but I feel that those persons who we've had the privilage of doing business with will or can acknowledge that we are honest and fair. Ben, I am certain that you are a person of integreity. Please consider the idea that posting "What was promised in two weeks" when you agreed to a 2-3 week lead time and understand the idea that shipping a product overseas using conventional and reasonable shipping services such as USPS Priority International, which in this case added an additional 3 weeks between travel time and customs clearance makes it unreasonable to make such a statement. I again apologize to you that the quadrant arrived damaged, I'm going to leave this topic alone. As one of the members here pointed out, it is a shame to see things like this unfold on forums. If you honestly feel that you are doing the community here a service, then by all means, you can continue as you wish.

Ben, we requested from you a 2-3 week lead time. We were off by a week and extended to you a 50% discount on shipping which you accepted. We took an additional three days to fulfill a minor cosmetic change you requested. Would it be fair for us to point out that Priority International Shipping via the United States Post Office took an additional 3 weeks to reach Australia and pass customs before the quadrant arrived to you? Here's the link Ben.... https://tools.usps.c...1=CW159019764US Do you think it is fair to say that you were promised a quadrant would come in two weeks when you agreed to a 2-3 week lead time just to complete it and are not even mentioning the shipping/travel time which neither you or I have control over? The quadrant did take almost two months to arrive to you, but saying you were promised something to be delivered in two weeks is untrue and misleading. Please be a gentleman Ben.

Ben, what I mentioned is simply one of the ways in which the quadrant may have been damaged in transit. Being redlivered 3 times per the tracking link certainly did not help. https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction?qtc_tLabels1=CW159019764US I acknowledge that the quadrant arrived damaged, but to say that the packaging was poor is unfair. You used the same box and packaging materials to resend it and it suffered no further damage. The quadrant arriving to you damaged was an unfortunate incident that could've occured to anyone and anything. As I mentioned to you, this was a first for us. I am not aware of anyone's quadrant previous to yours sustaining damage in transit.

Ben, as mentioned to you privately, the quadrant was most likely damaged upon arrival and inspection at the customs house. I highly doubt they repackaged it the way I sent it to you or they may have handled it improperly, such as grabbing it by a lever knob. Sending it back for a refund was not necessary, I would have issued you the refund as I did regardless. And please remember that I offered you a replacement at zero cost to you. I again apologize to you that it arrived to your door damaged, but packaging was anything but poor. Ricardo

That's the problem with FLIGHT............is it not their approach to reel people in with it and then have them buy FSX? The ultimate question which I think I already know the answer to is just how serious and motivated about FLIGHT is MS? Are they ready to bring out the Boeing and Airbus manuals like the other guys did, roll up their sleeves and start getting to work on making FLIGHT attractive enough for people to see their DLC purchases as a good investment? Are they ready to create an AI package or system as good as freeware WOAI? The list is long. Now here is my take........I honestly don't think they have anything! You know......sometimes it's hard to beat dedication, passion and motivation with a mind set on finances. The people who have brought us the add-ons we see today, they had finances on their mind, but the drive and motivation to give us their art and talent is very apparent. I forgot where I heard the quote, I think it was from someone at FDS, that it takes a bigger fortune to make a small fortune in their sector of the FS market.

One can only hope we see CPUs that are easily OC'able to the speeds that are required to run FSX in much the same way we can run FS9 today, Jan. 20, 2012. That is the beauty really of FS9............throwing whatever the heck you want at it with 40+ or more frames locked knowing they will never drop.

It's not written in stone. Matter of factly, I posted elsewhere why MS would not at the least release a freeware only development SDK. People responded that 3PDers would use it,to create payware, to which I said to them that it wouldn't be worthwhile investing the time and resournces for something you cannot legally market or sell online. You may as well give it away for free. If you don't have a legit online marketing and revenue collection system for selling software online, it's lights out for your company.

/I reckon Flight will be what it will be, but I doubt it will amount to the mass development FS9 or FSX have enjoyed, effectively turning them into really nice simulation platforms. The stuff you see is amazing.. I think al ot of the "Hate" at this point is from the community feeling deceived into thinking we would see a FSXI. I'll tell you what.........if FSX didn't have the CPU ghz/performance issues it has.........FLIGHT would've been dismissed at this ppoint with no hard feelings. Since that is not the case, a third service pack from MS would be nice right about now!

With no SDK, the future for FSX actually looks brighter than ever until the entire community finds a replacement platform.You may as well call it the longest standing version, because that is the direction it's taking.

Flight will be good..............to MS' wallet........actually, probably not. I highky doubt the DLC idea is going to take off for many reasons. We shall see. Time will tell.

I'm not really sure what the future holds for companies like PMDG.........considering that FLIGHT does not appear to be that many steps above FSX, I think compaines like PMDG do have a few years left of profitable business working with FSX........and they may be able to hold the fort longer by pumping out key software at an opportune time. If I had to bet my money, I'd say 3PD's future is pretty secure with FSX for at least another 3-5 years.

Good read indeed. As much as I may be one of the ones running around with their hair on fire, my concern with FLIGHT is MS' sincerity and ability to produce the quality and selection of add-ons that the communuty desires. Are they motivated and are they going to take the time to create the airports and scenery utilities we have come to enjoy? I have this feeling that MS is seeing things in pink........I don't think they are in touch with or have a reliastic understanding of how involved, complex and varied add-ons are. Or maybe they do. Again, I have a hard time belieiving MS will be capable of organiizing the manpower and talent to produce what we have seen from at least a half doxen big name 3PDs. It's my impression that it takes not only a lot of time, resources and motivation, but a sharp ear for what people really want in an add-on. I think outfits like Orbx, Wilco, Flytampa listened to and sensed what the community was looking for in terms of the product and quality. How good has MS been at that as of late? I'd honestly like to believe that MS has a crew over there ready to roll up their sleeves and start coding an entire fleet of AI aircraft, repaints, flightplans, an FSUIPC alternative, replacement textures for everything from the ground to the clouds, that they would be opening up the Boeing and Airbus manuals to give us a Project Magenta or a Prosim737 replacement, specific aircraft sounds sets, specific runway/aircraft replacement lights, specifc replacements for the flight models, and the list goes on. That is the beauty of an SDK, being able to spread the realistic workload of such a vast selection of resources to everyone, and everyone involved has produced tons of them. I just don't see MS being able to replicate the caliber or selection unless they are so darn serious about Flight SImulator and we just don't klnow it.

I understand...........the point I am trying to make is that most people who have been using MSFS are used to the idea that they can expand the simulator based on add-ons, both freeware and payware. For an example, take a look at free water replacement textures for FS2004 or other freeware options offered for free here and elsewhere. You'll see the download figures in the millions. People know and have been expecting to be able to customize FS at the very least through freeware add-ons. My second point is that because there are that many more options and resources available for MSFS, that it is the more attractive sim to use. I don't know if everyone understands that conecpt. I've seen some very nice simulation pieces out there, one in particular is the World of Subways series, like the "PATH". As nice as it looks, it gets boring quickly because you can't add or do anything else with it. Same few routes, same limited car selection. MS Train Sim is older than heck and people are still using it over many new sims of that genre. Why? Because of the devleopment around it. And if MS released a new version with an SDK, people would jump on it.

You have a point..........many people do buy the program without any knowledge of add-ons, but tell me who wasn't around for FS98 and on and didn't know about the file libraries online? For you or anyone else who purchased FS9 or FSX and not X-Plane, I am pretty sure many already had the idea of being able to go into this or other website to start downloading aircraft and scenery. How many of us always take into consideration or are worried about backwards compatibility with our current add-ons and the next version? Let me ask you a question.......if the developers stated early on when FSX was released that they were not going to do any of the aircraft for it that they did with FS9........do you think FSX would have sold the same amount of copies?

Aside the usual cfg. file tweaks.........the only thing that causes texture loading problems for my FS2004/XP installation in the way you describe it is fragmentation. Also, and I don't know if this had any positive effect or not, but I "Short stroked" the hard disk by partitioning it in an attempt to increase hard disk performance in the sense of keeping files nice and tidy.

You don't understand the history of flight simulator to make that statement. That, or you don't understand the importance of a product, whether it be software or a car, having devleopment or aftermarket support............free or pay. I'll explain it in short..........the more interest a software item gathers from add-on devleopers, the more likely it is people will purchase it, based on available additional options,resources and selection. That atrribute makes it a more valuable item. Wouldn't you ask youself why people are now going around talking about backing up or buying additional copies of FSX? They see and know the value of the product! Silly of course as it sounds, because we can back up with ISO. In truth, MS should be thanking any developer who contributed to the success of MSFS. That is the plain truth pal.

I'm not a fan of FSX...........I've been using FS9 since it's release day to the present moment for the very reasons you stated, particularly its performance on today's hardware. I don't even own a copy. I've tested it many a time when putting together systems for firends or clients. With that said, MS has some serious work ahead in terms of producing enough add-ons of the same or better caliber that are out there for FSX.........I honestly do not believe most FSX users would jump over to FLIGHT unless that was the case. I can be wrong as I already have been manyl a time, but I do not believe MS has the desire or motivation to devleop like that for FLIGHT, I personally thought FLIGHT was going to be a refined FSX ready to run on today's CPU's.........an FSX that could be run well on a $1k computer. To some degree it probably is, but without an SDK, we're left to entrust that MS has the drive to do what PMDG, Wilco, Carenado, Dreamfleet, Flytampa, FSDreamteam, Imaginesim, Orbx, ProjectMagenta, on and on and on and on have done and beyond. I seriously doubt that. The other problem lies in the idea that was simply forgotten by MS...........that the success of the software itself is and has always been due to the explosion of devleopment for it, both freeware and payware. At this point, I think the success of any flight simulation program lays in the community's willingness to embrace it as a devleopment platform. If X-plane or any other capable platform was somehow decided upon as a development platform, MSFS, MSFlight would end up like Propilot/FU. In the past. X-Plane has not been in the development spotlight like MSFS, and that is why MSFS is and has been what it is in terms of the community that surrounds it.........faith in the platform. Considering the SDK betrayel, as mean spirited as it may sound, I would honestly like to see a new sim franchise/system arise.

The only way that FLIGHT will affect the pockets of FSX develeopers is if MS actually produces exactly what the 3rd party developers have been producing in terms of quality and selection. If you see MS put out aircraft pacakges that rival the stuff Wilco, PMDG or Carenado makes, then those companies are in danger of going out of business..........BUT.......they still have hope left. MS would still have to be able to single handedly put out the selection of airports and sceneries made available by the big names in that department such as OrbX, Flytampa, FSDreamteam, etc. And it actually doesn't stop there........MS will have to make sure it has an FSUIPC replacement so that everyone's gear works........anything from generic yokes to those fancy interface cards people buy. How about VATSIM? AI? Is MS going to cater to the changing aircraft, airlines and flightplans that the world of ai installations require? If MS can muster all that development, it would surely gather the interest and hope, and people would jump over to FLIGHT. 3rd party developers would absolutely go out of business quickly. BUT..............what are the chances that MS can pull off the development that at least six big houses have poured into FS9, FSX over the past 5+ years or so? Are they reallly that serious about FLIGHT? Wasn't the idea to get these FLIGHT initiates to buy FSX? How serious and dedicated to Flight Simulator does one believe MS still is? I say they are nowhere near prepared to take on the task mentioned above.............unless perhaps Orbx and PMDG were the ONLY ones to back out and other outfits caved in to their demands.My prediction.........FLIGHT will NEVER put 3rd party devleopers out of business...........possibly a different simulator with a different company behind it. FLIGHT will never amount to anything unless they release an SDK. If people honestly believe that the same people who have this idea that if you find FLIGHT entertaining and want to step it up you can buy a copy of FSX are going to produce the quality, caliber and selection of the big houses.................that is something I highly doubt will happen.

Flight for whatever it is, and most likely it's just a somewhat cleaned up in code FSX............would certainly have many capabilities, but if it comes down to no SDK release, No leaked SDK, no way to access or edit the code, then it is useless for our purposes.Even a leaked SDK would not resolve much because devleopers wouldn't get involved with that, not the payware ones.

Are you a communist? Why do we need a filter to ensure only high quality add-ons make it to a market and who is the judge of that high quality? You? What if medium quality software is being sold for a reasonably medium price? And what about freeware? Do you realise that killing the SDK means that won't be available either? Caught in the crossfire perhaps?What do you mean by there are no specifc controls? Are you proposing that a community involved in trading, purchasing or selling add-on software requires specific controls to thrive? Or are those specific controls your ideas? You mention many FS developers have no right leeching off this hobby......so which ones do? Let's hear your opinion. The bottom line is in every business there is good and bad. We have the right and ability to choose who we buy from based on an informed buying decision, not specific controls or the filters you propose. In this hobby, word spreads pretty fast about quality, and those who fail to deliver eventually fall into their place.Lastly, why shift blame where it doesn't belong? What do 3rd party developers have to do with MS's decisions. Are they on the MS payroll? Are developers sooooo important these days that MS couldn't throw in the mainland and a few airplanes if the developers wouldn't cooperate? Give me a break guy. The money sign blinded MS and they decided to suit themselves. Good luck to them.