Re: New Captain of the Ship Aircraft + 50% off COTS this wee

[AKar]

There's an interesting discussion, by the way, going on over in the AVSIM PMDG support forum where people are complaining that the DC-6 doesn't live up to A2A B377 or AT-6 engine standards. Even more interesting is the PMDG response which alternates between "it's to hard to do right" and "you aren't smart enough to handle a realistic system." The difference in attitude toward customers and the tone used to communicate here and at PMDG is astonishing.

Not to sidetrack too much, but that's related to why I never really came up to be their loyal customer, buying every product. I recall a conversation a while back, where someone made a valid point about incorrect behavior of I think it was the pneumatics system of the NGX, or was it some other topic - can't recall anymore. It was quite elementary mistake anyway, and easy to fix, I'd believe. What rose my eyebrows was the response of the community: first, several folks quoted the applicable procedure, saying the poster did it wrong. That was his point: it should have worked his way too, there was just some small difference from the book's way. Several replies discounted the post, taking cheap shots about why would you think they hadn't studied their stuff - without even bothering to study the system in detail themselves. In the end, it was like "okay, this may be incorrect, you're right, but if you did it by the book we gave you, then it behaves correctly. No fault found."

Nothing agains even heated debates, everyone can disagree on many subjects, and of course, no simulation can reproduce everything. But only a couple of topics where valid customer concerns were treated as if the poster was stupid or something, made me decide that maybe they aren't the number one products for my hangar after all. There are many things that are lacking on my ratings, telling what's important to me, and I kind of see the community interaction as an indication of values in future development.

Anyways, I'm excited the A2A is back in doing big plane. No rush with that GA twin anyway!

-Esa

[Alan_A]

In fairness to PMDG, though, they have a very different customer base that's probably very hard to deal with - a big community, covering everything from professional pilots to kids who think flying means programming the FMC and setting up autolands. And the focus of modern airliner flying is procedural, which lends itself to a certain rigidity. Not defending every last form of customer interaction - courtesy should rule - but on the other hand the A2A "cadre" is probably somewhat smaller, a bit older, maybe a little more creative, maybe a little more flexible, in a way that matches A2A's house style. So it's possible that the style of the company and the style of the community sort of evolve together. Just a thought...

[Ian Warren]

In fairness to PMDG, though, they have a very different customer base that's probably very hard to deal with - a big community

ALAN , you nailed it , really both A2A and PMDG go hand in hand .. I love both these products .. I can't see PMDG pants on fire in Single seaters , you all have to go through a training regime even before twiddling a 737 cockpit .. , with out sounding too to .. to bla bla they are works of art ! .. even the in-house JUSTFLIGHT team and AH Aeroplane Heaven have really picked the game up ... Leaving me redundant ... so in comes the scenery (freeware) but this is how I decided were to draw the line 20 years back almost , wick aircraft models .... we need a place to land them !

[AKar]

Hmmm...I thought I was replying in the topic? Not sure what happened here??

Off topic enough, that perhaps should be deleted instead of moving to the right place?


Alan,

There are typically quite many valid ways of doing stuff, and equally, there are many adaptations used by different airlines, depending on their procedures and operations. To me a good simulation is logically and functionally correct, otherwise it would be not much more than an interactive flight manual tutorial . I'm not suggesting that was the case here, as far as I remember it was just a mistake in system behavior - those things surely happen no matter how thorough one attempts to be! They are excellent simulations, no doubt about it. What made me to stay outside the fan club, so to say, was maybe a cultural thing: I tend to study airplanes from engineer's perspective, and enjoy taking considerable time and effort to study them and their operations 'bottom up'. I like simulations that provide me a playground for that, in context of virtual flying. To me, those few topics (in all fairness, it was quite a while ago, so things may have changed!) gave an impression of unwillingness to admit they are just simulations, with certain things not working like they were supposed to and so on, and an attitude of limiting what you can do with the simulation. The issue is not the simulation itself per se, but the overall atmosphere of holding up to its assumed perfectness to the last draw. To me, that gives some doubts whether the future development there will be that much of interest to me as a customer.

-Esa

[Alan_A]

Makes sense. Given the complexity of the systems they model, it's possible they have to reduce the operational flexibility here and there. I don't know this for a fact, I'm just speculating. If that's the case, I can understand also why they might be reluctant to say so in so many words, since their "crowd" is, maybe, not so understanding of design decisions like that. And if not... well, I still think their communication culture is, by its nature, just a bit more firm, for the reasons noted in my last post.

I've flown PMDG simulations but can't say I've gotten to know them in depth. Sort of a love-hate relationship - I grew up on airliners and want to like detailed airliner sims, but I can't get them to fit into my limited time, and also, it feels too much like having a job. Whereas a very detailed, highly authentic simulation of an airplane you can get off the ground in five minutes - say, a Spitfire or a Mustang - works well.

That said, I'll probably try out the Flightsimlabs A320 when it comes along. I love the Airbus design philosophy. Workload reduction is always OK in my book...

Though it's apt to be a case of radials first and foremost...

[AKar]

Given the complexity of the systems they model, it's possible they have to reduce the operational flexibility here and there. I don't know this for a fact, I'm just speculating. If that's the case, I can understand also why they might be reluctant to say so in so many words, since their "crowd" is, maybe, not so understanding of design decisions like that.

Well I'm not sure. Speaking generally, often simulating stuff properly is not necessarily any more complex than doing them in a way they are in many instances. If you study certain behaviors in many simulations, you'll note that they tend to show some misunderstood or misinformed elementaries, and then show some 'over-engineering' on top of that to make it match more or less. Also, in cases where the systems are just if-else logic trees, it should be quite straightforward to get the proper function in overall, instead of just some versions of it, at least when having an access to the proper data (which is typically claimed in every instance anyway!).

I kind of see your point on understanding of design decisions though. I guess it depends on the target audience quite a bit: it is fairly common in flight simulation community to pay the premium for the most realistic add-on available, and then complain about stuff that mainly includes the realistic features. Reminds me of those left turning tendencies. But in great communities, these debates are studied in detail and various points of views are explained - even several times as new topics pop up. No cheap shots are often taken ("we have pilots in our group", or "use the search function"...). I wonder if we often actually want an illusion of realism, instead of realism? A believable experience, but not too good to challenge or even humiliate us. Like an easy Hollywood.

[...]I still think their communication culture is, by its nature, just a bit more firm, for the reasons noted in my last post.

Oh, that's not a problem. After all, I'm quite a big-mouth myself often when I think something is wrong and I'd like it better. Besides, most of the real-life "communities" I've been a part of were based on yelling.

No, to summarize, my beef is mostly with "Who are you to say!" mentality, if you know what I mean. That's something I've got a big beef with in real life too: if you claim something (such as realistic simulations in this context), it is you who's to stand up with that claim.

(And of course, it is all okay to be wrong and admit it - or to agree to disagree in the end! Surprisingly, the latter seems to be the hardest one in the world of the Internet!)

The good, productive debates exchange valid broadsides, not puffy cheap shots made of references. I mean, I've got no problem to go dig an issue deeper even if I understood it already, and often finding I didn't actually realize this and that before - why should those who I pay as a customer for that kind of work be allowed to stand in their foxholes? And yes - there are limits for any simulation. But when the developer honestly acknowledges those when the issue is brought up (as was the case in certain topic on the limitations of the T-6 spin modeling for instance), then I know what I pay for - as a customer - and it is easy for me to accept known limitations in great simulations for most of the time! If they happen to be at the very areas important to me, I'm supposed to know that, or at least be able to count on their willingness to improve their future products in these areas anyway.

Often I ask more from knowing what I'm putting my limited resources into, than from the product itself. I'm big enough to learn eventually when I was fooled. A simulation is like a movie you've got a chance to watch in detail thousand times - you'll learn the script when there is one.

Edit: Now I know why the post went outside the original topic: the save draft function apparently did that! I had to switch device while typing. But not sure why it did that?

-Esa

[taildraggin68]

Having a few products from the Dev that is being addressed here, including their newest release for another platform, I would also echo the standoffish feel in their support forum. I am truly spoiled by the A2A community and Cadre as the level of professionalism is the scale to be judged against. When you have a product that is good, but present yourself as egotistical, it dampens the impact of that product for me anyway. There are communities for all platforms that thrive on professionalism and concern for customer feedback, and those are always overshadowed by the pompous, arrogant Dev support forums. That is an unfortunate side of this hobby.

The product offered to the other platform community by this developer is IMO not quite up to par with this platforms offerings (FSX/P3D) and as a first offering should have been better researched for customer expectations when the price point is well above average for the platform. Couple that with using Avsim instead of normal platform support forums and some of the initial negative responses towards customers, has the potential to put the developer in a very negative light. Especially when customers like myself, are spreading the Sim budget over multiple platforms mean that customer service is a priority.

Enough of my soapbox now lol, let the rambling cease.

[MarcE]

I really don't want to blame PMDG for that... They< did great addons so far, I love the NGX and the 777 the same as I loved the 747 for FS9. PMDG were my first payware addons when A2A suddenly came out with their P-47 and I was literally shocked that there was another developer making that amazing addons.

But WHAT I definitley absolutely DO hate on PMDG, is the behaviour and maybe education of their customers. I follow PMDG on Facebook and every time they gave an update on the DC-6 the people went crazy shouting for the 747 v3 and insulting every soul who didn't care about it. No matter what age. children of 13 insulting adults of 40, 50 and as you thought it wouldn't get worse, those "adults" slapped on these kiddies doing it just vice versa.. I have never ever witnessed that on here.. Sure, Scott and Lewis never would accept it and would stop it before it went out of hand... But something is different here... I personally think A2A addons are recognized more as a real life simulation and PMDG more as a click game how to program an FMC... great addons both, but different clientel.

[tbaac]

I actually quite like their DC6.

But have you seen the update process?

IXEG's 737: type a code into a box within the simulator and the update is downloaded
A2A Accusim: Run the magic update-everything-er
DC6: Redownload and reinstall the product. Really??

[taildraggin68]

I actually quite like their DC6.

But have you seen the update process?

IXEG's 737: type a code into a box within the simulator and the update is downloaded
A2A Accusim: Run the magic update-everything-er
DC6: Redownload and reinstall the product. Really??

Exactly

The DC-6 is good and enjoyable to fly. Would I love to see a DC-4 or DC-7 COTS to sort of show how it should be done.....you bet.

I believe every developer wants to have the dedicated following that A2A has, but the I'm a DC-6 pilot and you don't know what you're talking about attitude really hurts that opportunity. Of course the immature posts by some customers and non customers on their forum don't help the situation either.

[john99vette]

DC-7 would be outstanding Worked on a couple of those back in the day. 3350's are awesome!

[Alan_A]

But WHAT I definitley absolutely DO hate on PMDG, is the behaviour and maybe education of their customers.

I really think this is the crux of it. The A2A customer base is a different demographic. People attracted to the A2A fleet are likely to be a bit older, many are historically minded, some are active pilots. And the active forum population is probably smaller. All of that makes for a better customer service experience. I'm not trying to take anything away from A2A itself, which really does a model job of maintaining a good online community. But the PMDG online crowd probably makes it harder for them to achieve the same results. Again, their house style might contribute a little. But if I had to deal with hordes of pre-teen push-button pilots, I might get snappish, too.

Of course the immature posts by some customers and non customers on their forum don't help the situation either.

This.

[AKar]

Well, from my perspective it would mean that your argument says that the customer base establishes somewhat how a product is regarded. As in, if I kept a lecture, it would affect my score what the audience was.

A good point, a really good point. That's how it is, indeed.

Perhaps my point has been a bit exaggerated by my original mistake in posting, I didn't intent to start a discussion!

I buy a product that is supposed to be realistic, to the fourth from the comma. I find an instance where it isn't, in my opinion. Yes, I understand that I'm pointed to the references at first, have you done this and understood that. Of course, I do that myself due to the 4-out-of-5 fact of how there usually turn out! But...if the resulting discussion is actively mocked down instead of allowing for the further discussion....no matter how good the product is, unless it is that good, then I'm leaving it behind. I've not up to this time found a single PC flight simulation that is entirely, exactly convincing to me. There are quite a few that are very good, and comparing those: "the dev" has, to me, indicated their hostility towards improvement. The A2A, on the other hand, has very well shown their willingness to improve, and where there is disagreement, just allowing for that to be for now!

-Esa

[Alan_A]

I guess I'd say that the customer base and the company are an ecosystem that evolves together.

I was thinking also that, if you come from an airline culture, you might be inclined to establish SOPs. Maybe there are four ways of doing something, but you insist on one way, which removes variables, makes things safer... and makes your customer support life easier. Not sure if that's in play here but it comes to mind. Sort of as if Dudlley told us to always make wheel landings in the T-6... or to never make wheel landings in the T-6. Neither absolute position would be correct, but you could get everybody focused on being really good at the one thing.

I wouldn't say PMDG is against improving their products, which do get patched, repeately. The NGX is on, what, 1.3 now? So there may be a disconnect between improving things and seeming open to it.

I also don't mean to imply that there's a hard line between GA/historic aircraft (good customer service) and airliners (bad customer service). It's not that simple. Were you ever around the Dreamfleet forums back in the day? Great products, great community but they could sometimes be, um, bracing, I think is the word.

So credit to A2A for getting it right.

Interesting discussion.

[AKar]

A good discussion indeed - thankfully, I originally wanted this to be deleted!

I guess I'd say that the customer base and the company are an ecosystem that evolves together.

Yes, absolutely!

I was thinking also that, if you come from an airline culture, you might be inclined to establish SOPs.[...]

Yes. But I want to also understand them. That's what makes the simulation the preferred playground to me. And to the certain extend, to the industry also - it is just plain cheaper! The procedural approach is all good, but it is not a scripted, one-way correct solution.

Hell, if I pull my chokes out in PMDG NGX, I loose my ground power!!! I mean, what?? Think about the dependencies, where there is none!!! It may be a clear to one, but it is entirely stupid to me. That's why I prefer real dependencies and simulation.

-Esa