A new take on the "Bad Payware" thread

[Guest tdragger]

The price and/or quality of payware add-ons seems to be attracting more and more attention of late. Here's an idea I had. Let me know if you think it makes any sense.Suppose that there was some type of "tested and approved" label that payware vendors could get for their products. To get the label they would have to submit the add-on to some type of review committee where it would judged against a common set of standards for things like compatibility, performance, quality (things like does it include a clickable VC, etc.). The purpose would not be to try and say, "this add-on is better than that one," but simply that it includes what you'd expect, installs and runs well, and performs in an average manner.Would this be useful? If so, who should do it. Because of the many different community standards my first response would be Microsoft, since they don't get any $$ from sales and thus could be more objective. Of course, I realize some people don't trust them either but if not them then who?Interested in anyone else's thoughts...

[kerosene31 365]

I think the problem lies in a large part on the buyer. A little bit of research, and maybe not rusing out to buy something the instant it comes out can go a long way in helping to avoid products that just aren't that great, or aren't exactly what people are looking for. Anothing thing is to browse the support forums and see what kind of issues people are having. Now every product is going to have some people with issues, but you can tell the standard type stuff from the major problems.I have not bought addons, or waited for a patch many times after simply browsing the developers support forums. Even sometimes just waiting 24 hours to buy and seeing the initial reaction from the early buyers tells you enough. Most good developers will release all the product documentation, and reading through it before buying tells a lot about a product. Your idea sounds good, but detailed reviews take time, and most people are making decisions much faster. Plus, people expect many different things with addons. There is visual models, FPS performance, flight dynamics, etc.

[Guest daveg4otu]

The idea is very good but unfortunately I can see it being fraught with difficulties--- a few that I foresee.............Who would be the testers/issuers of the " seal of approval"?How would they be appointed and by whom?How could we be assured of their total impartiality?Who would set what standards- This one is particularly difficult as - just reading this forum - never mind all the others- shows that different people have very widely differing ideas about what is good and what isn't. This is without the added problems of the very wide range of equipment(PCs) in use with differing abilitiies and standards.To give the most basic example - just think of FS9 itself.We have seen over the past year posts with every possible shade of opinion about it's worth as a Flight Simulator. There have been those who are overjoyed with it- right thru to some who - if what they have said is true- won't ever try and use it again.Like I said - a great idea - but I wouldn't want to be the one trying to organize it.Dave

[hangar 661]

i think the intentions behind the idea are of course very good, however, in reality it just wont work...forgetting about the dishonesty of "contributions" which would ultimately corrupt the "governing body", there simply are too many different opinions to begin with, and too many factors to consider whether or not a new add-on would fit my (or others) needs at the time.For as long as I can remember, Ive always felt that any software company NOT offering a return policy SHOULD instead offer a time limited fully functioning DEMO of their product...plain and simple, period.A similar discussion had already been brought up before in another thread somewhere and theres no reason why ANY type of company (especially software related) should expect or even force their customers to be stuck with a product theyre not satisfied with...and theres really no reason why aircraft payware developers cant implement this since its already being done with other flight realted software (and already has been done with payware planes as well)....id be willing to pay twice as much for an aircraft addon if i had the chance to test it out first, BEFORE i plunk down my money..and it met my needs & expectations at the time...yes, id be willing to pay $40-$60 to get the non-time limited version.Dave

[Guest Dakota]

You could start your own company. A payware cenrtification company that certifies for a fee, payware that is sumbitted and meets a certian criteria for reality and quality. Good luck in figuring out what that crtiteria is. Or, maybe a pay website that would be the "comsumer reports of payware" for anyone that wants to subscribe. Actually, I see plenty of reviews on AVSIM, other sites and magazines that are very good at sharing info I am looking for. I usually wait to read those or see what others are saying before giving up my hard earned cash.

[gosta 0]

>i think the intentions behind the idea are of course very good, however, in reality it just wont work...forgetting about the dishonesty of "contributions" which would ultimately corrupt the "governing body", there simply are too many different opinions to begin with, and too many factors to consider whether or not a new add-on would fit my (or others) needs at the time.http://www.hifisim.com/images/as2betateam.jpg

[Guest]

There are so many "seals of approval" that they've all become a joke.In fact, they're by now nothing more or less than another marketing tool.This is the reality (and this is a typical situation):To get a "seal of approval" (or however they call it in the branch) you become a member of the branch organisation (of which there are often several competing ones in a branch).You then pay a lump sum and maybe a yearly contribution and in exchange you're now a "certified somethingorother" and your products are "approved by XXXX".Marketing then only has to add the "scientifically researched" to make the cocktail of consumer deception complete.And if no branch organisation wants you, you just start your own with some grand name and magnificent logo.Have one of your employees deposit the name so it's harder to trace to your company, and have your brand new organisation issue you with an "official certificate of excellence".

[Guest daveg4otu]

>I believe that problem could be solved. Unlike a review, which>is somewhat subjective, the add-on would be tested according>to pre-determined parameters, a bit like a check list. You'd>have different sections, like "eye candy", "realism" etc, and>points are awarded for each item on the check list, for>example: clickable VC = 4 points, animated wipers = 1 point.>Whether you agree with the way the points are awarded, doesn't>really matter that much, as you can disregard items that are>not important to you, and give more weight to things you're>looking for. So you may want an add-on that scores high on the>realism scale, while others prefer good scores on the>eye-candy scale.I can see where you're going Gosta but I think the problem goes deeper than that. It's not just the " what has it got/how pretty is is?" question with points for this or that .I think , more important is the " how well will it all work with my system" angle , and unfortunately, experience by many here shows that one piece of software will- for reasons often never found- give widely varying performance results on systems that are - on the face of it ,pretty near identical. This is not a phenomenom that is restricted to FS addons - just look at the posts on something as basic as graphics drivers- people using identical cards, similar systems - a driver version works well for one - brings the other system to it's knees.Or - as I said before - why does FS9 run sweetly for one - and barely run at all for another?I don't pretend to know the answers to these questions - all I know is that - while the idea is great - how the hell do you implement it in a meaningfull fashion?Dave

[michal 44]

It is unworkable. Too many subjective views, too many variables, too many opinions whether something meets a 'standard' or not. And then there is a price factor - maybe it is not that great but is inexpensive - how do you account for that ?Nothing beats this and other forums as the ultimate 'review-committee' - you read hundreds of posts on the product that interests you and you quickly get idea what it is worth.Michael J.

[gosta 0]

Hi Dave,measuring performance will probably the biggest challenge. The closest you could get would be to take three systems, one low-end, one medium, one high-end, use a virgin install of FS plus the add-on to be tested, set it up at the default location and weather, fly a circuit and compare the average fps to the same situation with the default Cessna. At least this should give you a very rough indication of what to expect. Of course, if on your machine FS is barely running out of the box, it's not going to improve with any add-on plane.Cheers,Gosta.http://www.hifisim.com/images/as2betateam.jpg

[JimmiG 244]

Also, whoever would test the products would want to get paid as well which would add to the price of the final product.I agree, the best way is to simply wait a little before buying an addon you're interested in. You only need to wait a few days before opinions appear on the various forums, and keep an eye at the screenshot forum for any shots of the addon.

[Guest B52Drivr]

Hello All,I'm going to jump into this one with both feet. I think if you are a payware developer in today's market for FS, you had better have you act together and really bring out a totally trick product, or just plan for one release and that's it.I say this because some of the freeware offered today is so amazing and fantastic. It easialy rivals payware of just a year ago. Espicially in the aircraft area. In scenery, well, I think we have quite a bit to go for freeware to match some of the large projects such as USA Roads and such but that is not from a talent viewpoint, but a money point, as satellite imagry is soo expensive.Being that I beta aircraft for several houses, I can say this, some of it is VERY good, and some not so good, but that again is what a beta team is for . . . to find the bugs, refine the product and bring it to a higher level.I like the idea of a team to 'certify' a product before its release, however I doubt if it will take place in FS for some time -- but it should! At the prices of some payware, rocketing up to become 'serious' dollars, (or Euro's )) in this marketplace something has to be done or, software developers will have to offer thier wares to certain testers before the public buys.With the price today, a mistake is a serious fault and setback for some buyers. In the past, 10 or 20 dollars I guess didn't amount to too awful much, but FS software is climbing in price and an unacceptable product is now becoming a 'big hit'. If the payware market was all run by 'totaly honest and filled with excellent products' we would not have this problem. However, it is NOT, as some developers bring forth untested products or products which have serious, unfixable flaws or just plain junk'. And please, for the most part, these are far and few between, but there are a few who have that reputation.I want to close with I don't have any answers for this problem, and for most, the freeware developers are always on my 'favorite' list as they offer thier sweat and labor to us for free . . . so if there is a flaw or two, we can overlook it, as we paid nothing but our time to download it. On the flip side of that coin, I think the payware groups have to sit down and seriously understand that with the rising cost of payware . . . they need to offer us thier 'best' efforts, and that just OK and acceptable, is no longer what we desire. And, that offering a product for pay, without it being refined is just NOT going to work any longer.I will never fault or complain about freeware which has bugs or problems, rather, I will do my best to try to help fix these items.However, with today's rising prices, (and I don't see a limit to this coming, as first class aircraft are expensive to develope), payware product are expected to either be bug free and work properly, or a quick patch forthcoming, (anyone can omit something in the process of marketing, and all deserve a reasonable time to fix something), or a refund should be initiated.Just my .02 cents worth from an individual who loves our hobby, has tons of freeware and also buys a ton of payware . . . and appreciates both!Best to all,Clayton T.Dopke (Clay)Major, USAF (retired)"Drac"

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Since 1997, the community has kicked this idea around numerous times, even going to the extent of setting up forums, sites, etc, and soliciting participation with the commercial vendors. It hasn't worked. There are too many variables, some of which have been discussed here, and frankly, too many egos needing attention or primacy in the run up to actually doing something, conflicting agendas, competitive threats (real or imagined) ad nauseam.I also know what it takes for AVSIM to do a review, let alone attempt to set standards for "certification". That's a ball of snakes that AVSIM certainly would not take on and I admire anyone's courage that attempts it. I would rather chew my arm off than get into business.Face it folks, the simple issue is personal responsibility and your obligation to educate yourself prior to plonking your money down. If YOU can't take the time or the initiative to understand what it is you are purchasing and whom you are purchasing it from, then you better accept that not all things you buy will be up to your expectations. You wouldn't purchase a watermelon without "thonking it" to see if it were ripe; why would you not spend a little time looking into far more expensive software. You have a wealth of resources available to you on the net and elsewhere. All YOU have to do is take the time to look into your purchase before you make that final decision.EDIT: Putting the responsibility for YOUR decisions on some authoratative (perceived or actual) body is ill advised. No single organization on the face of the earth should have that power handed to them. Agendas change, motivations morph, and trust can be abused.EDIT #2: One final thought; one man's junk is another man's treasure. And not too wear it too thin, "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". Simple truisms that apply to our hobby as well. As it applies to our hobby? "Value for money" is a subjective assessment and YOU are the only one that can assess a product's value to you. My four cents worth.

[Guest B52Drivr]

Well said, Tom!And in just today's AVSIM front page it shows what a service AVSIM does for the community.Kudos!Best,Clay

[TweakFS 1]

> Face it folks, the simple issue is personal responsibility and your obligation to educate yourself prior to plonking your money down.That just about sums it up. Thinking of it any other way is delegating something that cannot be - using the noodle.We would be very naive to think that such a body of our FS bretheren would be immune from outside influences.On the other hand it also means folks have to use their freedom of expresion in a responsible way when posting. Just typing one liners such as "this sucks", "I hate it" or even "cool - buy it" does nothing to enhance anyones understanding about a product and doesn't serve the open forum idea very well.