Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Howitzer_Bob

  1. its out on the marketplace now...and since AS is being hush about it, i'll do the due diligence of leaving this here until it's out on AS One: - Fixed multiple issues with flight plan sequencing - Fixed multiple issues with DIR INTC and DIR TO functions - Fixed fuel and time predictions - Fixed an issue that would cause VNAV informations to disappear from MFD - Fixed Minimums callout when MDA is used - Fixed rain being visible on side panel on CRJ-1000 Iberia EC-MJP - Fixed radio management panel - Added terrain radar - Added APU exhaust effect - Added support for MSFS steering axis - Added CRJ-550 max passenger check on PERF INIT page - Changed CRJ-1000 passenger entry on PERF INIT page from "--/---" to "---/---" a Note on the MSFS steering axis - If you are using a dedicated steering axis, ENABLE the Steering Axis option in the EFB (Options Page 2) (The tiller will move on steering axis input) - If you are using the rudder axis to steer the aircraft, DISABLE the Steering Axis option in the EFB (The tiller will move on rudder axis input, so in sync with the rudder panels) - The NWS Armed switch is only functional if a dedicated steering axis is used.
  2. Here's a little something I noticed in a Discord straight from JustFlight about their approach to mods (maybe in light of this mess). Further confirms Aerosoft seems to be on an island in regards to copyright and customer relations. *HINT HINT* Aerosoft... Furthermore, the discussion continued: Sounds like a company who knows the copyright legalities of their products and how it effects customer involvement. *HINT. HINT.*
  3. To keep on topic, just a quick follow-up to my original comment and the main points amahran is making above, I really, really want to hammer home the fact to whomever is listening at Aerosoft, there needs to be more transparency and communication with the customers. Its fine if you release something not fully baked, just be honest and address it. Acknowledge the known issues and improvements you're working on. Provide us with updates on whats in progress, whats not possible etc. With this specifically, there are more problems other than the sound pack, which we know you're working on... but what about the stuff from this mod? CCM fixed those problems, very quickly, in a very stable package. He has said that Aerosoft hasn't taken any of his suggestions with any serious consideration, or straight up shuts them down. And before Mathijs or someone from Aerosoft gives me the "testing, testing, testing, blah blah blah" answer, it was a mod thats been active for over a month, with however many hundreds/thousands users, and 5-star rating with reviews and feedback from CCM I might add. <- There's your testing demographic. This whole situation would go a hell of a lot differently if you took down the mod but also put out a statement being like "Hey we're going to be working with CCM to integrate these changes in the next build"... Instead its a blame game of who's right and wrong, airing to the world what's clearly a communication breakdown. I don't know why that concept of "hey look someone improved our product, lets work with them" is so hard for Aerosoft to understand. To be brutally blunt, the impression you're sending is as such: "Our products are the best, we're always right and our experts are always right, don't listen to the customers they're all idiots". I think we'd all be less pissed about this whole thing and could've accepted the fact that Aerosoft needs special privileges to remove their copyrighted material if they were pro-actively implementing meaningful changes to their products with quicker updates and a more substantial list of changes. Not just changes Aerosoft and their experts think are important, but take a good hard look at what the community says, and address them in a two-way dialogue. Not a one-way question and a yes or no one-way answer. Case in point, I've bought into another project, much higher $$ than the Twin Otter, and clearly in early stages still. However, they made that point very clear to me when I bought it. So: Do I feel I got my full value? Nope. Do I want a refund? Nope. Do I want/need a mod for it? Nope. Do I feel scammed? Nope. Am I pissed at their support? Nope. Why did I say no to all of the above? Because they have been fully transparent and actively taking suggestions from the community to improve their product. They clearly state whats broken, whats been fixed, and the future plan, and there's a two-way dialogue about it. I don't want a refund because of that, I don't want a mod for it, I don't feel scammed and I'm not pissed about their support (very much the opposite in fact). Again, because transparency matters. Obviously this goes beyond the core copyright issue. I think going over copyright law is beating a dead horse at this point. Aerosoft you protected your copyright, good job, you win. But where does this go? Stay the course, keep releasing half-finished stuff like the Twin Otter? Or actually change up business practices to listen to the community for better meaningful updates? I honestly would not be surprised if Aerosoft "stays the course" and nothing notable get accomplished. I'm betting the portion of the customer base who used this mod, making a big stink about this or comes to the forum, is a very tiny slice of the pie. The in-sim marketplace is a Goliath, with many who buy things and take it all at face value, regardless of quality. Easy to control copyright, keep (the majority of) customers in the dark, and only update what Aerosoft thinks is important, on their own terms. Just my two cents...
  4. I know this is a fresh account and I don't want to belabour the comments made by Repro and echo_oscar (they make some excellent points that need to be addressed), but overall I want to say there has to be some clarity which we're not really getting. I know the original post is supposed to be that, and its progress, but its not the end all be all we need. Apparently with Aerosoft products, there's some special treatment needed to scurry around the copyright violations and we need a comprehensive guide on what is legal. Even if the rest of the devs out there have a similar policy, and they also view it as infringement, unless its sharing the entire file most don't care. Because A: it probably makes a product better, and B: it provides more value for free, and makes more money for the developer. They might not be happy about it, and they might be annoyed by the people asking for features that are in a mod to be in the original product, I get it. But there are ways to deal with that...work with the modder*, don't provide any support to people using the mod, etc. *on this point, clearly working with the modder isn't viable since above, CCM discredits what really occured ("If we're going to start by utterly making things up, I have zero input into this."). Sorry Aerosoft, most here including me are likely to believe him first and foremost. So maybe address that and clear up any miscommunication you're obviously having between Aerosoft and CCM, that's not a done deal from the sounds of things. What really grinds my gears is this solution: "So how do I share tweaks without violating copyrights? Basically, start with not sharing what you did not type. If you have a tweak to a file, do not share the file (as we have copyrights on that); share what you changed. *Every person who makes these changes knows the diff command;* it shows you the difference between two files. " Everyone buying your product is expecting what they paid for. *Not everyone buying your product is a developer, nor should they become one to fix your mistakes*. Sure, the person who found the fix and telling someone else to do this and that is all well and good, on paper. When it comes down to it, the level of support to "Simply tell people to edit line 10 and change 2 to 1" when the person on the other end just doesn't have the time, or looking at the code as if its some alien language, is not the solution. You know whats easy though, downloading a .zip and extracting it to a folder. I'm a developer, I might be smart enough to know what to change. It's not my identity though, I don't bleed 0 and 1's, I don't see the matrix...If I want to just chill for a few hours, fly a plane I've paid for, realized its not up to par but see someone took the time and effort to make a fix for me, I'm downloading their work. They improved the product I bought so that I don't have to. So that I don't have to waste time doing what I already do 8 hours a day. So that I don't risk breaking things and ultimately getting frustrated. I know the amount of customers looking for tweaks and mods aren't a huge portion, definitely a select few enthusiasts wringing out every last cent of what they bought. But don't lump them into a group that you think have the resources and willingness to do this. If I'm a new customer, and I'm seeing a forum full of tweaks/fixes for a product I really want but have to do myself, I'm not buying that product. Plain and simple. And I'm not recommending it to anyone either. Even as an existing customer, I'd rather just uninstall, even get a refund if possible. Not worth the effort and hoops to jump through. It's laughable, because even if we did a game of tech support to do these fixes, the end result is the same, you're just concerned about the distribution. So fix it. I see a lot of talk about copyright and Aerosoft enforcing the protection of it. We get it. At this point, we understand the problem. Now figure out a solution (it's not this DIY approach). In my opinion, the options are: Work with flightsim.to improve this sort of thing, not just for Aerosoft but for other devs too. Actively work with modders and clear up any communication problems (there seems to be a lot) You have Aerosoft One, build a steam workshop type environment to distribute tweaks on your own system with those you know are real customers (not my favourite option since fs.to is a great one stop shop) Keep in mind, all of the above (and this whole situation) is avoidable if the plane was just improved without the need for mods. Listen to the community and people who are willing to help improve the product beyond your expert(s) bubble. I'm sure the dev's are hard at work on an update, but CCM put in some work too and there has to be a better dialogue there. The mod was out there because a handful of people wanted those fixes, and simply weren't seeing them implemented by Aerosoft, update after update. I didn't want the mod, I actively wanted to get rid of it, hoping Aerosoft would release an update making it useless. I'm sure many others feel the same. I yield my time.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use