Capt Sim releasing B52H Exterior only this month

[papab]

http://www.captainsim.com/products/b520/

• Key Features:

<!-- &bull; Free Demo Available (http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/../demo.html)
-->• Unparalleled visual quality and realism
• Designed according to FSX standards
• DirectX 9/10 compatible

• Highly detailed and accurate Boeing B-52H Model
• 4x high resolution* textures of USAF Livery
• Hundreds of Custom Animations
<!-- &bull; Wing Flex
-->• Wing Vortices
• Exhaust Smoke
• Custom Self-shade
• Custom Views
• Manual
• Repaint Kit (coming soon)
• <!--300+ 0 -->Growing number of Free Liveries
• Exterior only**

** - VC, 2D panels, sounds alias default FSX B747.



I don't know--looks pretty

[Rezabrya]

If I do decide to buy it, I am going to wait for the VC. I vowed to never buy an unfinished product.

[papab]

If I do decide to buy it, I am going to wait for the VC. I vowed to never buy an unfinished product.


Unless they give it away for
Hmmmmmmmmm-$9 USD

The when they get the VC and sound pack, charge the correct price..
Just one man's opinion....
Rick

[Henry]

Unless they give it away for
Hmmmmmmmmm-$9 USD

The when they get the VC and sound pack, charge the correct price..
Just one man's opinion....
Rick
by the looks of that i would agree:icon_lol:
H

[hews500d]

It does look nice, but I'd really rather fly it from the interior/vc rather than the exterior :isadizzy:

Darrell

[Odie]

Dang...this one looks awfully tempting! Speaking for myself, I spend a lot of time outside of the cockpit on flights and the BUFF is something I grew up with on Barksdale AFB's flightline.

I may have to take the incomplete plunge on this one and hope the pool is full of water ! :icon_lol:

[papab]

It does look nice, but I'd really rather fly it from the interior/vc rather than the exterior :isadizzy:

Darrell


It says on the posting:

** - VC, 2D panels, sounds alias default FSX B747

[DX-FMJ]

Quote from Captain Sim about the VC


Interior and systems takes very long time and hardly can be completed till 2011. :mixedsmi:

[papab]

Then I wait!

[calypsos]

Would have been better if they had released the VC first, we could then have learned all the procedures like in.....a simulator!!!! :icon_lol::icon_lol:
Before getting in the aircraft itself.

[flaviossa]

I think doing the model is much easier then doing the vc and systems .... isn´t it?

[kilo delta]

Hmmm...this seems to be becoming a common trend these days.....exterior only releases/pre-releases. CS was first iirc with their B727, then the Alphasim C-17, Iris C-27, Suprunov Design DH Vampire.
Personally,I'd be happy to get the Buff...on one condition....that they include a low LOD model for use as AI ;) .

[Scratch]

I always wanted to fly in the Buff:rolleyes:

Sorry, I couldn't resist:icon_lol:

[Tweek]

Tempting. When I do fly heavies (such as the CS C-130), I rarely fly them from the VC. If they're going to be big and slow then I prefer to have a bit of eye candy to keep me entertained, and the external model is always nicer to look at than the cockpit.

However, it's nice to know that you've got the option of both, so I may only take the plunge if the exterior comes at a reduced price, then if you want the VC later, you pay for the rest.

Also, Christoffer Petersen did a B-52 sound pack, so I'm not too fussed about the lack of sound.

[MudMarine]

Anyone who buys it without the vc is a sucker! It's an insult to offer it as an incomplete package! :isadizzy:

[Helldiver]

I can't find out how much they are asking for it. Why do these designers make it so hard to find the price? Thats the most important part. It should be the first thing you see.

[papab]

I can't find out how much they are asking for it. Why do these designers make it so hard to find the price? Thats the most important part. It should be the first thing you see.


Isn't this the same way they released the 727 as an exterior model only at a reduced price.....
The it took a long time for the VC model
Rick

[BOOM]

I'm wondering how the people who bought the Alphasim C-17 without a VC feel now that it's been out a few months and still no VC?

[Ferry_vO]

It's on my list........ for the annual CS "Everything is €9.99" Christmas sale of 2011... :mixedsmi:

[empeck]

Maybe I'd buy it if it had VC and avionics without exterior :P

This is ridiculous :icon_lol:

[azflyboy]

Given that the first previews of the B-52 showed up about two years ago and we're just now getting an external model, I'd expect the VC to be done sometime around 2012-2013.

[Kavehpd]

It's on my list........ for the annual CS "Everything is €9.99" Christmas sale of 2011... :mixedsmi:

Oy, get back in the line! lol :icon_lol:

[anthony31]

Eight engines into an FSX system that can only handle a maximum of 4? Hmmmm... I'll wait until the systems are done to see how/if they can solve that little problem.

[Ian Warren]

Im a gluten for punishment , we dont see Stratofortress in the NZ due our anti Nuclear stance , politics , but honestly we could'nt land them here anyway .. damn runways just are,t wide enough , but due to the quality off Captain Sim aircraft , no hesitation ! :salute:<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[deimos256]

I have always been a fan of Captain Sim and have purchased a lot of their craft, but my latest purchase, the 767 is plagued with a buggy AP and FMC, Until that gets fixed i'm not interested in an incomplete aircraft.

[hews500d]

It says on the posting:

** - VC, 2D panels, sounds alias default FSX B747

I meant to say I'd rather fly from a B-52 vc rather than the FSX 747. As I tell my wife, you're supposed to hear what I'm thinking, rather than what I say/type :icon_lol::icon_lol:

Darrell

[Prowler1111]

From a developer´s stand point:
What the f*** is with this ****ng trend to release unfinished products????
These guys are BIG (not like us or many i know)why don´t they assign more people to the project??..they are going to ask an eye and an arm for it anyway....

Prowler

[michael davies]

From a developer´s stand point:
What the f*** is with this ****ng trend to release unfinished products????
These guys are BIG (not like us or many i know)why don´t they assign more people to the project??..they are going to ask an eye and an arm for it anyway....

Prowler

Beats me :isadizzy: dont agree when AS did it, still dont agree now. There are fans who'll buy it and be very happy, their choice of course, but not for every one I fear.

[fsafranek]

I think doing the model is much easier then doing the vc and systems .... isn´t it?
They both have their challenges. But if you go deep with the cockpit systems then
building the external model is absolutely easier! IMHO anyway. (I do neither but I
do get very involved with the development of both.)

Heck I'll take a good looking B-52 shell if it's priced as a give-away. I'm not too proud
to fly it with some default VC or even the 2D panel from Alphasim's FS2004 B-52
set (which someone recently updated for acceptable FSX use).
:ernae:

[Tylerb59]

Anyone who buys it without the vc is a sucker! It's an insult to offer it as an incomplete package! :isadizzy:

+1

Exterior does look good though.

[N2056]

This discussion has happened before, and is guaranteed to happen again!
I still compare this to buying a car with no engine...but hey! We should have that done soon! It's your money, mine stays in the wallet on this one. :d

This one gets the monkey...

http://avatarfarm.com/avatarimages/animatedimages/laughingchimp.gif

[JAllen]

Though I have anxiously awaited the arrival of the BUFF, I refuse to get into the exterior only puchase. I did that with CS once and never ever again. Even more, I do not wish that experience on anyone.

[Pepere]

I'm wondering how the people who bought the Alphasim C-17 without a VC feel now that it's been out a few months and still no VC?

They were charged full price too. :isadizzy: If the Buff is 1/2 or less I may take it.

David

[Wing_Z]

I'm wondering how the people who bought the Alphasim C-17 without a VC feel now that it's been out a few months and still no VC?

Why, we feel exactly the same as we did on day 1 after installing it! :d
Money in their bank, helping them develop a brilliant finished product.
Times are tough, if that's the basis of the business then so be it.
There may well be some heartaches ahead, doing it this way, but would you rather have the developer fall over, and that's the end of the Golden Goose??

One could take this further: sell cheaper "shell" models which can be further developed by the freeware user community?

[papab]

I meant to say I'd rather fly from a B-52 vc rather than the FSX 747. As I tell my wife, you're supposed to hear what I'm thinking, rather than what I say/type :icon_lol::icon_lol:

Darrell

Understood!

[SirBenn21]

Maybe I'd buy it if it had VC and avionics without exterior :P

This is ridiculous :icon_lol:

I agree! :blind:

[Kiwikat]

They've had the exterior done for like two years. Why are they doing this?

DEVELOPERS NEED TO STOP RELEASING UNFINISHED PRODUCTS.

[anthony31]

Why, we feel exactly the same as we did on day 1 after installing it! :d
Money in their bank, helping them develop a brilliant finished product.
Times are tough, if that's the basis of the business then so be it.
There may well be some heartaches ahead, doing it this way, but would you rather have the developer fall over, and that's the end of the Golden Goose??

One could take this further: sell cheaper "shell" models which can be further developed by the freeware user community?

And this answers Kiwikats question.

The people who buy these half finished products are not so much customers as investors (particularly in the case of Alphasim where they paid full price). They invest their money into the publisher. The publisher then has some capital (interest free thank you very much) plus they've offloaded some of the risk onto their customers. If the project falls through they've already got your money and aren't going to give you a refund. The customer has only spent a relatively small amount of money so they are less worried about any loss they may occur.

Publishers probably like these customer/investors better than real investors because real investors expect a share of the profits for taking the risk of investing.

Just be aware that when you buy a half finished product that is all you are buying. A half finished product. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Gdavis101]

Then I will wait until 2011.

[Kiwikat]

Just be aware that when you buy a half finished product that is all you are buying. A half finished product. Nothing more, nothing less.

If it were HALF finished, I'd give you that. In this day and age, an exterior model is hardly 1/4th of the final product... :kilroy:

[anthony31]

Good point!

[jeansy]

fat chance !

[Piglet]

On my planes, the VC and gauges often take as long to build as the ext. model, due to extreme detail all crammed into a small space, of which a good chunk is right in front of your viewpoint!
And no, I will never release an unfinished project. Even tho with my prices, it wouldn't matter, but still I release whole planes.

[Ian Warren]

I will never release an unfinished project. Even tho with my prices, it wouldn't matter, but still I release whole planes.

I think this is were you become the 'Legend' , to prove the payware companies have really got to learn how to step up to your mark .

Quite frankly , you seem to outdo so many in such a short time , and with a personal quality worth .

Im just pleased you pick the oddities most dont touch , the Grizz :icon_lol:



<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[arrowmaker]

To be honest the only CaptainSim product I have is the C-130. However when I installed it, the product was a complete aircraft. None of this buy in installments business. Ok you can buy expansions for it, but they are simply different variations. The base pack, though, already has it all: model, panel, VC, sounds and systems.

I agree with the earlier statement that anyone who buys this latest release from CaptainSim is a fool. What are they going to sell next, wireframe models.

The problem is that some people are just too impatient, and they will go out and make a purchase. This only encourages developers like CS to pursue their policy of selling by blocks. Most likely an over simplification of the matter; but if NO ONE bought highly incomplete products then developers simply wouldn't try it on.

One solution would be for the likes of AlphaSim or CS to offer a guarantee that their product would be fully completed within a certain time frame, eg a, reasonably bug-free, VC within three months time or offer a FULL refund. However we all know that this is never going to happen.

[Tweek]

Gotta love people getting so annoyed about this. If you don't want it, then don't buy it until it is finished. Hardly difficult to understand.

And as for people who do decide to buy it as just an exterior model, why, in the eyes of some people, does this make them fools? Believe it or not, around 90% of my flying is done from an external view and I'm sure I'm not alone in this. If, say, they charged 50% for the external and then the rest for the VC later, if anything, I, personally, would be getting a lot more value for money than if I bought the 'complete' thing.

However, if they charge full price with the aim of added the rest later, as AlphaSim did, then I'll be steering well clear.

[hews500d]

Gotta love people getting so annoyed about this. If you don't want it, then don't buy it until it is finished. Hardly difficult to understand.

However, if they charge full price with the aim of added the rest later, as AlphaSim did, then I'll be steering well clear.

That's the beauty of a message forum such as this, we can hopefully give some constructive feedback to the developers, many of whom visit here frequently. If everyone stays quiet about it, then how will they ever know what we do or do not like?

Darrell

[Lateral-G]

I'll wait until the VC and sound pack is available.

Just like I did for their 727......

FSX ain't going anywhere.

-G-

[IanP]

I have to agree with Tweek here. My only problem comes when someone is actually not telling the truth about what you are getting, or tries to charge you full price for it.

I wouldn't buy this, because I have no use for a B-52 exterior, but say, for example, that someone offered an external model only of something I wanted primarily for use as AI and offered it at an appropriate price for an external model only, I'd get it. As others have said, though, I will never buy a partial product at full price with a "promise" of the rest of the model that I've already paid for at a later date. I seem to remember a 737 pack that was sold exterior only, with a promise that the VC would be out within a month. Years later, still no sign of the VC. I passed on that, as I will any other product sold in that way.

[Henry]

I have to agree with Tweek here. My only problem comes when someone is actually not telling the truth about what you are getting, or tries to charge you full price for it.

I wouldn't buy this, because I have no use for a B-52 exterior, but say, for example, that someone offered an external model only of something I wanted primarily for use as AI and offered it at an appropriate price for an external model only, I'd get it. As others have said, though, I will never buy a partial product at full price with a "promise" of the rest of the model that I've already paid for at a later date. I seem to remember a 737 pack that was sold exterior only, with a promise that the VC would be out within a month. Years later, still no sign of the VC. I passed on that, as I will any other product sold in that way.
that about sums it up for me also
H

[Ferry_vO]

BTW I wonder if it would be possible for a (Freeware) designer to make his own B-52 cockpit and use it to replace the default B747 cockpit in the CS model....?
I don't think CS would agree with another payware designer selling VC's for their product, but if it remains freeware? :engel016:

[centuryseries]

BTW I wonder if it would be possible for a (Freeware) designer to make his own B-52 cockpit and use it to replace the default B747 cockpit in the CS model....?
I don't think CS would agree with another payware designer selling VC's for their product, but if it remains freeware? :engel016:

I don't think CS could do anything about it if another dev made a Buff VC.

There's nothing to stop anyone making a VC for it.

This is the same old argument as before. :icon_lol:

[Wing_Z]

........

[Henry]

I don't think CS could do anything about it if another dev made a Buff VC.

There's nothing to stop anyone making a VC for it.

This is the same old argument as before. :icon_lol:
to make a VC wouldnt you have to have the original source file
now a 2d no problem
H

[hews500d]

to make a VC wouldnt you have to have the original source file
now a 2d no problem
H

Not necessarily. One could easily get a 3 view drawing and just model the nose of the B-52 so to speak, then model all the internal parts in the cockpit and export that as the interior model.

Darrell

[Kowalski65]

I would be tempted if the price was right-I like to look at the plane from the outside as I fly,and this is a lovely looking plane,and am not that good a pilot to do ALL the right checks etc,I just point & go! But I understand the appeal of doing all systems correctly,so hope CS bring out the VC ASAP for those that want it.

[peter12213]

And alphasim for the C17!!!

[Kiwikat]

And DA for the Fokker!

and....

:rolleyes:

[EgoR64]

:wavey:

Very nice - indeed, I will wait, I purchased the 727 earlier before the VC came out, and ended up buying the 2.0 all over again -

Very nice though - Major Drooling - :ernae:

Cheers -:icon29:

[Pepere]

I wonder when it's going on sale? We are in January, I think.

David

[Prowler1111]

..and a new market idea is born!!...:running:

Prowler..

[Henry]

Not necessarily. One could easily get a 3 view drawing and just model the nose of the B-52 so to speak, then model all the internal parts in the cockpit and export that as the interior model.

Darrell
thanks that makes sense
not something i could do:isadizzy:
but you are correct
H

[Wing_Z]

You know...just scrolling through this thread...all you naysayers, to a man (I'm pretty sure):
NONE of you have contributed to this year's bandwidth drive!
What's the matter with you?
Do you have so little trust, that you think Ickie will take your money and run off with it???

[N2056]

Sir, you are way out of line with that.

[hews500d]

You know...just scrolling through this thread...all you naysayers, to a man (I'm pretty sure):
NONE of you have contributed to this year's bandwidth drive!
What's the matter with you?
Do you have so little trust, that you think Ickie will take your money and run off with it???

What's THAT got to do with the current thread about the Captainsim B-52? I can't speak for the others that have posted to this thread, but as for myself, I AM going to contribute as soon as I get paid next week. I'm sorry if I'm not as wealthy as you apparently are and have had other living expenses the past 2 weeks to where I can't contribute at this moment as it would seem you wish...:isadizzy::pop4:

Darrell

[strykerpsg]

You know...just scrolling through this thread...all you naysayers, to a man (I'm pretty sure):
NONE of you have contributed to this year's bandwidth drive!
What's the matter with you?
Do you have so little trust, that you think Ickie will take your money and run off with it???

I agree with the other two posters, what does your statement have to do with the thread? :isadizzy:

Matt

[Wing_Z]

It involves the same principle as we're discussing.
If you don't get it, I'll explain - before the thread derails - but later, I have things to do first.

[TheOptimist]

Cue tenuous association between not yet making a donation to SOH and not being willing to pay for half a product...

[CodyValkyrie]

Severely off topic, but there are plenty of naysayers that have donated. Easy way to tell? If they have a sig, they donated.

Just because they don't have charter member below their name doesn't mean they don't donate.

[Nick C]

You know...just scrolling through this thread...all you naysayers, to a man (I'm pretty sure):
NONE of you have contributed to this year's bandwidth drive!
What's the matter with you?
Do you have so little trust, that you think Ickie will take your money and run off with it???

I'm not sure where that comment came from in this thread, but I presently don't have Charter Member under my name but have contributed to the drive, plus the medals I had for the previous contribution have also vanished. It doesn't bother me one iota if they are visible or not, but perhaps you should be a little careful with your accusations?

As to the Buff, I mentioned in the "last exterior only model thread" that I wouldn't purchase an aircraft in this form, but it's down to individual choice and I certainly wouldn't knock anybody else doing so.

[kilo delta]

You know...just scrolling through this thread...all you naysayers, to a man (I'm pretty sure):
NONE of you have contributed to this year's bandwidth drive!
What's the matter with you?
Do you have so little trust, that you think Ickie will take your money and run off with it???
:isadizzy:

[Sedr37]

Anyone who buys it without the vc is a sucker! It's an insult to offer it as an incomplete package! :isadizzy:

Come on, guys! Do not want - do not buy! Those interested WILL buy, what problem is here??? Take it easy. And who at CS ever said you will be charged full price and then wait for complete model???
For me everything is clear. Those who need exterior model go and buy it for failr price, charge for the model ONLY. BTW Captain Sim do not promise the release of VC, like with their 727. They say: 'As for now the B-52 product is just an exterior with nothing else promised. As for the future VC/systems upgrades, we will see what the future will bring us.'
No faulse promises, everything is clear.


Gotta love people getting so annoyed about this. If you don't want it, then don't buy it until it is finished. Hardly difficult to understand..
Could not have said it better!

[harleyman]

You know...just scrolling through this thread...all you naysayers, to a man (I'm pretty sure):
NONE of you have contributed to this year's bandwidth drive!
What's the matter with you?
Do you have so little trust, that you think Ickie will take your money and run off with it???


I'm pretending that I didn't really read this off topic post... :mixedsmi:

[Carbine1]

This is really becoming a disturbing trend, releasing products only partially completed.

Regardless of the developers current status, tell me guys how often did you all experience this half baked approach to flight sim aircraft, say 2 to 3 years ago. Short answer is it hardly ever happened.

Even "some" not all well established developers are releasing nothing more than high end beta's for public release at the moment and expect their paying customers to do the bug fixing for them.

Enough is enough.

My thoughts on the matter.

Cheers.

[gajit]

This is really becoming a disturbing trend, releasing products only partially completed.

Regardless of the developers current status, tell me guys how often did you all experience this half baked approach to flight sim aircraft, say 2 to 3 years ago. Short answer is it hardly ever happened.

Even "some" not all well established developers are releasing nothing more than high end beta's for public release at the moment and expect their paying customers to do the bug fixing for them.

Enough is enough.

My thoughts on the matter.

Cheers.

I agree completely with that.

[IanP]

No, the product is not "partially completed". The product is being sold and advertised purely as an external model.

We don't know what bugs there are in yet, so paying for a beta may well be the case (as it is with many packages these days, I agree) but you are not being defrauded, you are not being deluded, you are not being lied to, misled, ripped off or anything else.

Each person makes an individual choice whether to buy an add-on or not. You. No-one else. No-one is forcing you to and you are entirely free to decide not to. If you do choose not to buy it, that is also your choice, but this product, the same as any other package that comprises only an exterior model, only a panel or only sound files is not "partially complete", it is complete as advertised.

[Carbine1]

Not once did i say i was being defrauded or deluded, lied to ripped off or anything along those lines.

If the shell or aircraft depending on which way you look at it, is all that's on offer than so be it.

Time and peoples custom will be the judge on whether this is a sound move on behalf of the developer.

I have a funny feeling it may not work out as they have wished.

Cheers mate.

[IanP]

Not once did i say i was being defrauded or deluded, lied to ripped off or anything along those lines.

If the shell or aircraft depending on which way you look at it, is all that's on offer than so be it.

Time and peoples custom will be the judge on whether this is a sound move on behalf of the developer.

I have a funny feeling it may not work out as they have wished.

Cheers mate.

Sorry. That post wasn't aimed directly at you - if you read back through the thread (even just up a few posts) you will find sentiments such as those expressed by other people numerous times. This is also far from the first thread that those people have vocally expressed their displeasure about not every release being what they personally want.

I'm not going to change peoples' views about what is and is not acceptable to them, nor would I want to if I could. My statement was primarily aimed at those who are basically trying to put forward their preference for a complete package (or what they personally perceive as being a complete package) as being what everyone should demand from every release. That simply is not the case and will never be so.

Personally, I have no interest at all in a B-52 whether it has an interior or not (love the real aircraft, would never use the add-on) but as I said, that's my choice and I'll choose not to buy this. :)

Sorry again if it came across as entirely pointed at you Carbine1. It was far more of a scattershot aimed at a wider number of people than that.

[Carbine1]

No worries here mate, just expressing my view on what is fast becoming a hot topic across many different sites.

No problem.

Cheers.

[Lateral-G]

You know...just scrolling through this thread...all you naysayers, to a man (I'm pretty sure):
NONE of you have contributed to this year's bandwidth drive!
What's the matter with you?
Do you have so little trust, that you think Ickie will take your money and run off with it???

open mouth....insert foot.......

You sir, had better check your facts first before making inane statements like that.

-G-

[Francois]

open mouth....insert foot.......

You sir, had better check your facts first before making inane statements like that.

-G-

:icon_lol::icon_lol:

[Prowler1111]

As a matter of fact, it´s not the 1st time CS has pull this, remember the 2 seat Hornet? yup no vc(sure they did the acceleration hornet) but it came with a VC-less F-117, and AFAIk it did pretty good out there, so the gamble (for them) has payed off more than once...

Prowler

[centuryseries]

You know...just scrolling through this thread...all you naysayers, to a man (I'm pretty sure):
NONE of you have contributed to this year's bandwidth drive!
What's the matter with you?
Do you have so little trust, that you think Ickie will take your money and run off with it???

It's called 'choice'.

[IanP]

As a matter of fact, it´s not the 1st time CS has pull this, remember the 2 seat Hornet? yup no vc(sure they did the acceleration hornet) but it came with a VC-less F-117, and AFAIk it did pretty good out there, so the gamble (for them) has payed off more than once...

Prowler

Yeah, but that's because people paid for - and got - the F/A-18D. Does anyone actually ever load the F117?

[Wing_Z]

Everyone's been whickering on about how they wouldn't pay out money for an unfinished product...
I'm not quite sure what the point is of announcing this in a discussion forum - the developer would know whether there was take-up or not.
So if it's not to trumpet this to the world, for some feeling of solidarity with others that didn't do something, it comes down to a matter of principle, right?

If you go to the store and buy a popsicle, it better be finished and taste good, right?
This is how capitalism works, and don't mess with it!
Right?

Well, there are some alternatives.

Unlike the Popsicle Delivery Contract, the flightsim community is a closed, interactive one.
Many developers are among us in the forums, as users themselves, and listening to the group.
There is much less of an "Us" and "Them" than out in the Popsicle Commercial world.
There is often a chance that, given some encouragement, something great could emerge, that otherwise would be stillborn.

So why not some financial encouragement?
If a project is going to die in the water because the money has dried up, why not give it a little nudge, who knows, it may be one of the best products yet!
Think of it as Venture Capital.

In some of the posts, it was implied that you'd have to be stupid to do this.
Sure, I wouldn't hand out hard-earned Shekels to some fly-by-night who's about to disappear into the woodwork with it.
But there are outfits who've been around a long time and value their reputation and long-term relationship with the community.
If they plopped something unfinished on the table and said: "Guys, this has dried up. If you want more, then we'll need help", then I would consider this as an honest business pitch, not a ripoff attempt.
This happens every day in the real world, and not just in the realm of Venture Capital.
Remember the choice is always yours - you can help kill it by just ignoring it.
The more people ignore it, the better the chance that the guys who bought in, will lose out.
Just please don't justify this negative action by some kind of holier-than-thou attitude rooted in the Popsicle Contract!

Which brings me to the SOH Donations post...(which was a slightly obtuse way of getting your attention ;) )
When you make a donation to the Bandwidth Drive, it is based on a couple of promises.
 That the admin will not run off with the money.
 That SOH and the admin will still be here for at least another year, delivering you the forum services
Do you see that these promises are the same as the developer of the unfinished contract?

So you can take the plunge and support it financially if you can, on the basis of that promise.
Remember the choice is always yours - you can help kill it by just ignoring it.

So my point is, there are possibilities other than the Popsicle Delivery Contract.

I'd like to see some more innovative payware development programmes...
There might be benefit in paying some-one to do the hard bits, releasing it as open-source payware, and then the flightsim community has a crack at producing amazing variants as freeware.
Many payware developers are hamstrung because they can't use some of the great freeware elements in their work.
(Piglet can tell you all about the freedom of freeware.)

It will become harder and more expensive to produce products to meet our ever-rising expectations.
The Popsicle Contract might not be the only (or best) method to use.

[GT182]

Anyone who buys it without the vc is a sucker! It's an insult to offer it as an incomplete package! :isadizzy:

You can say that agin Mud. Besides, how do you fly an aircraft with no guts? Kinda silly to even offer it to the public IMHO.

Hmmmm, maybe Capt Sim is hurtin for money. Call the White House...we need another bailout. ;)

[djscoo]

Yeah, but that's because people paid for - and got - the F/A-18D. Does anyone actually ever load the F117?
I've got it loaded, but I have never flown it. I never use the single-seater Hornet anymore...The vc-aliasing doesn't bother me if the match is close...

[Kiwikat]

But there are outfits who (...) value their reputation and long-term relationship with the community.

That does not sound like CS to me. Their customer support is widely regarded as well... do a search.


Which brings me to the SOH Donations post...(which was a slightly obtuse way of getting your attention ;) )
When you make a donation to the Bandwidth Drive, it is based on a couple of promises.
 That the admin will not run off with the money.
 That SOH and the admin will still be here for at least another year, delivering you the forum services
Do you see that these promises are the same as the developer of the unfinished contract?

This has nothing to do with a company with a sketchy history of charging high prices for "blocks" of a product. It also has nothing to do with this thread.


So you can take the plunge and support it financially if you can, on the basis of that promise.
Remember the choice is always yours - you can help kill it by just ignoring it.

I guess I'll kill it then (the CS B-52, not SOH)! I pay my money for complete products. I don't go to the store for a pizza and just buy the pepperoni.

There is also a difference between DONATING to a nonprofit and PURCHASING from a company, and the expectations that come with both.


I'd like to see some more innovative payware development programmes...

Yes, like actually finishing it before releasing it!


There might be benefit in paying some-one to do the hard bits, releasing it as open-source payware, and then the flightsim community has a crack at producing amazing variants as freeware.
Many payware developers are hamstrung because they can't use some of the great freeware elements in their work.
(Piglet can tell you all about the freedom of freeware.)

If that was indeed their goal, they would be releasing it as freeware!


It will become harder and more expensive to produce products to meet our ever-rising expectations.

Other companies manage it.

This isn't an attack against CS at all. This is the maybe somewhat harsh reality. Other companies have been in business for many years and have never released an unfinished product. You don't see them in situations like this. Captainsim has had a history of being detached from the community. It seems they are continuing this trend by doing something that almost no one approves of.

[GT182]

You know...just scrolling through this thread...all you naysayers, to a man (I'm pretty sure):
NONE of you have contributed to this year's bandwidth drive!
What's the matter with you?
Do you have so little trust, that you think Ickie will take your money and run off with it???

Easy now Wing..... some of us don't have the money to donate. There are those of us that aren't working and don't have the extra money. I for one can't right now due to the time of the year. Once the grass starts to grow I'll kick in. But don't come down on us that can't at this moment, or just can't.

[Prowler1111]

Many payware developers are hamstrung because they can't use some of the great freeware elements in their work.

say WHAT?!..:angryfir:

And can you give me some SOLID proof regarding that statement?..

Prowler

[strykerpsg]

Cut and pasted from the Captain Sim forum:

<TABLE class=bordercolor style="TABLE-LAYOUT: fixed" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=windowbg2 style="OVERFLOW: hidden" vAlign=top align=left width=140>
Administrator
http://www.captainsim.org/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/starblue.gif
Offline
http://www.captainsim.org/yabbfiles/avatars/blank.gif


Posts: 3075


</TD><TD class=windowbg2 vAlign=top align=left>
http://www.captainsim.org/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/xx.gif (http://www.captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1196789767/103#103) Re: Captain Sim B-52 Stratofortress
Reply #103 - Yesterday at 10:42:47
http://www.captainsim.org/yabbfiles/Buttons/English/quote.png (http://www.captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?action=post;num=1196789767;quote=103;title =PostReply) <INPUT class=windowbg2 style="BORDER-TOP-WIDTH: 0px; DISPLAY: none; BORDER-LEFT-WIDTH: 0px; VISIBILITY: hidden; BORDER-BOTTOM-WIDTH: 0px; BORDER-RIGHT-WIDTH: 0px" type=checkbox value=103 name=del103>
As for now the B-52 product is just an exterior with nothing else promised. As for the future VC/systems upgrades, we will see what the future will bring us.
</TD></TR><TR><TD class=windowbg2 vAlign=bottom>Back to top (http://www.captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1196789767/90#top) </TD><TD class=windowbg2 vAlign=bottom align=left>





<HR class=hr style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" width="100%" SIZE=1>Thank you,
Enjoy Your Flight!

CS Web Site (http://www.captainsim.com/) | Customer Support (http://www.captainsim.com/support/) | Contact Us (http://www.captainsim.com/company/contact.html)
http://www.captainsim.org/yabbfiles/cs/logo_forum.gif

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

So, buyer beware of future additions to this product.

Matt

[Wing_Z]

Cut and pasted from the Captain Sim forum:
...So, buyer beware of future additions to this product.
Matt

Right - so no ripoff, you will get what you pay for.
Nice change.
End of this particular argument.


Easy now Wing..... some of us don't have the money to donate. There are those of us that aren't working and don't have the extra money. I for one can't right now due to the time of the year. Once the grass starts to grow I'll kick in. But don't come down on us that can't at this moment, or just can't.
GT this was not a personal attack in any way - just a jolt to point out that the premise must be the same: one can commit to stuff that is promised, but not yet delivered.
I was hoping to draw naysayers who had made a SOH donation, into admitting that comparison.


say WHAT?!..:angryfir:
And can you give me some SOLID proof regarding that statement?..
Prowler
C'mon...just about every aircraft element has in some way already been done.
When you make a payware model, you have to re-invent everything from scratch because you can't use the freeware parts bin.
That wastes a huge resource, and makes the payware much more expensive, to the detriment of the consumers.

[Prowler1111]

C'mon...just about every aircraft element has in some way already been done.
When you make a payware model, you have to re-invent everything from scratch because you can't use the freeware parts bin.
That wastes a huge resource, and makes the payware much more expensive, to the detriment of the consumers.So i take you´re into MSFS aircraft development and must definitely know something i don´t , because that is a completely WRONG statement..

Maybe in your logic we should ALL move into freeware, right? so everything should be FREE..like it was in the "old days"?
Prowler

[N2056]

I'd love to know where that freeware parts bin is!

[CodyValkyrie]

A high amount of innovation in this industry is driven by consumer demand. I would bare to say that the majority of the innovation is indeed started commercially.

[Prowler1111]

I really find this statement extremely insulting!:

When you make a payware model, you have to re-invent everything from scratch because you can't use the freeware parts bin.


:angryfir::angryfir:

I know many developers who truly try their best to innovate and produce something never before done!, standing the common "are we there yet" questions from potential customers who demand something new on every single release, i´m not against freeware developers, in fact, i admire those who give their time for such an ingrate hobby(yup, even when is freeware, you get a kick on your keister).

Prowler

[Wing_Z]

I really find this statement extremely insulting!:
Prowler

There's no insult direct or implied there.
It's a statement of fact: as a payware developer you are prohibited from using most freeware resources, in terms of their eula statement.
This means that the resource is lost to you, if you had wanted to use it.
Even if it were the source file for a source file, it's work done that you then don't have to do.
As to the parts bin, try
www.avsim.com
or www.flightsim.com
and see if you are unable to find a widget that in some form or another, has not been done, from an XML HSI gauge, to something that makes AI taxi faster.
If the basis of commerce were slightly different, the community could benefit from the common pool.
And it might free you the developer to apply your considerable talents to the interesting and innovative stuff, rather than re-invent wheel hubs.
It's a win-win

[spotlope]

Is anyone here who's a dev ever tried to integrate someone else's model into their product or workflow? I can tell you from experience, it's a nightmare most of the time. Not because there's anything wrong with the way others do things per se, but everyone has their own way of building. The idea of a "freeware parts bin" gives me a twitch just thinking about it. I tried to add some default FSX objects to some of my scenery recently, and my beta team started screaming about how low-res some of the models were. You guessed it... all the stock stuff. Nope, once you've developed a visual style, you're committed.

[ryanbatc]

Easy now Wing..... some of us don't have the money to donate.

Or have spent a lot helping out other forum members :salute:

I guess that's why my sig is gone....

[N2056]

For any developer that is striving for a quality rendition of a plane those "resources" are generally a waste of time. There is very little in the way of mesh, and finding an xml gauge of a specific instrument used in a specific plane that you are modeling are very low indeed. After 10+ years of doing this I have a very good feel for what is out there in the freeware parts bin, and for anyone doing a serious model it's not worth the effort to go through.

[Wing_Z]

I am not a modeller, and so have no experience of the past.
What I do see is a whole lot of effort going in different directions which looks like a wasted resource.
The implication also is that freeware efforts are crap which I do not accept.

But, if the discussion has sparked even a small shift in how a payware product comes to market - and it's a cheaper or faster process - then it was worth the effort.

[N2056]

The implication also is that freeware efforts are crap which I do not accept.


Your intentions are well meaning, but your understanding of development is not very clear. There is a lot of stuff out there, but when I need say, a very specific gauge for the plane I am doing...I am probably going to spend less time making my own than I will spend trolling the 'net hoping someone else has made it. I have had only one instance where I found something that was a huge help, and that was the soundset that I used for my Pietenpol, but that was a freeware release. You are correct that none of these things are available to be used in a payware product. Someone attempted to do something similar to what you envision, but it failed miserably. People put a lot of effort into their work, and they are understandably not about to give it away for someone else to profit from!

[Kiwikat]

But, if the discussion has sparked even a small shift in how a payware product comes to market - and it's a cheaper or faster process - then it was worth the effort.

But it hasn't. There's nothing wrong with how payware is made now- by those who FINISH their products before selling them and have good customer relations. You never see these types of threads about them.

:mixedsmi:

[Wing_Z]

But it hasn't. There's nothing wrong with how payware is made now...

Well, seeing as how two of the major players have decided to try a slightly different tack, there might be some room for discussion here.
But speaking as you do for the entire industry, I'm sorry to have taken up your valuable time... ;)

Fact is, there will come a time when the do-it-all-yourself cottage industry format isn't sufficient to produce the necessary quality and volume.
The aerospace industry has already shown this.
Airbus, Boeing Commercial Airplane...they don't make their planes any more, they just assemble a lot of stuff which may or may not have been produced inhouse.
There is a rocky road in managing that transition, and it's best done early in the learning process.

[N2056]

Well, this has become more than I can take...
Eject! Eject! Eject!

[Kiwikat]

Eject! Eject! Eject!

You're ejecting and I'm falling out! :wavey:

[Prowler1111]

..what a load of.....

I´ll better eject from here as well...

Prowler

[JamesChams]

Finally... I'll be able to put my 8-Axis Throttles to use... :engel016:


Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." (http://www.lionheartcreations.com/Spiritual_Journey.html)

Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
From,
James F. Chams

[centuryseries]

It will become harder and more expensive to produce products to meet our ever-rising expectations.

Hasn't it already? FSX changed the development times completely due to all the new functionality and things to learn.

I suggest you install gmax and try and make something because clearly you have no grasp of the work involved. :kilroy:

Your bandwidth recruitment drive post would've been better served as a completely seperate thread, and put in a polite way. Afterall you don't see charity fundraisers following members of the public down the street asking them why they are not donating to their charity.

I would suggest that this thread gets closed as it is a complete waste of time.

Perhaps in future new release threads should be in the sticky and locked at the beginning post to avoid the same old arguments every week. Most of us are intelligent enough to make up our own minds on products without the constant ranting.

:isadizzy:

[Francois]

Well, seeing as how two of the major players have decided to try a slightly different tack, there might be some room for discussion here.
But speaking as you do for the entire industry, I'm sorry to have taken up your valuable time... ;)

Fact is, there will come a time when the do-it-all-yourself cottage industry format isn't sufficient to produce the necessary quality and volume.
The aerospace industry has already shown this.
Airbus, Boeing Commercial Airplane...they don't make their planes any more, they just assemble a lot of stuff which may or may not have been produced inhouse.
There is a rocky road in managing that transition, and it's best done early in the learning process.

Some people are taking this discussion too personal and maybe also too narrow-minded.
Of course there are things written that just aren't the way it works..... today.... but there are also forces at work that weren't here before. Partly because of how the economy works, partly because of technology changes, and partly because the world we live in changes...... like it or not.

So I agree that FS development will NOT be the same for everybody in the years to come. Companies like Aerosoft have branched out to using east bloc programmers for some time already, and are also using them in a 'production mode'. Aerosoft is not alone. Others do, or tried, as well.

And then there's the issue of new markets. Maybe MS did stop making FS, but fact is that it is not used in other parts of the world as much as it is used in our western world.
You'd be surprised as to what will happen in the next few years to that end.

And branching out to new markets works two ways.. getting new customers, but also getting new resource suppliers.... programmers, factories, ideas...... I think it will be a much larger shift than many of you here envisage today :wavey:

Now, the important thing for THIS community is to be able to benefit from those changes that will take place elsewhere, and not be left behind because of rejecting changes beforehand. Lets keep an open mind.

[some1]

So I agree that FS development will NOT be the same for everybody in the years to come. Companies like Aerosoft have branched out to using east bloc programmers for some time already, and are also using them in a 'production mode'. Aerosoft is not alone. Others do, or tried, as well.


Captain Sim has always been an 'east block' company. Apparently that didn't help them with B-52.

[Francois]

I wasn't referring to Captain Sim and I wasn't referring to east bloc 'companies'. I said Aerosoft (as an example) is using (former) east bloc programmers.

[raptor19]

No VC, just an external model? This may well be the second "Payware" model to be released this way. Sorry guys but you ain't going to get my money until you finish them. Other than the many, many brilliant "Payware" releases out there now this makes you appreciate the "Freeware" guys who are up to "Payware " standard (we all know who they are) and the hours they spend even more. And yes, I have several great Captain Sim aircraft like the F-104 and Herc etc.

[OleBoy]

Piranhas are stirring. I'm surprised I stuck around and finished reading after the two above hit the eject button. Seems over at captainsim someone voiced their opinions in the same fashion as most here.



Hi I was extremely excited at the announcement that Capt sim was working on a B52!..i usually dont bother with payware as my funds are not exactly overflowing....however i have purchased a few FSX addons over the yrs when i feel they warrant the expense...

I am a BIG fan of the Vietnam war and all the aviation that was involved and was delighted that the Buff was going to be modelled by the great Capt sim.....and looking at the screenshots it looks amazing!....

One thing that attracted me to FSX was the inclusion of dedicated and highly authentic Virtual cockpits as oppossed to say xplanes basic offerings...even the FSX default aircraft have excellent functional/flyable and in most cases detailed Virtual cockpits....however they cannont compare with some of the better PAYWARE VC's out there.....so one of the attractions for me and i would say EXPECTATIONS is a realistic and fully functional detailed emersive Virtual cockpit...

I often look out of the cockpit and also enjoy the many exterior views that FSX offers to further enhance my simming experience...

But what i fail toi understand is why such a respected and reputable company as Capt sim is doing when they intend to release such an iconic and amazing historic aircraft like the B52 which is so highly anticipated and desired by many....is being released with an aliased 747 Virtual cockpit and NO dedicated avionics or interior views at all!


I have just joined this forum to register my absolute disappointment and utter confusion of what the hell Capt sim is playing at?....no one would order a truck and expect to pick it up incomplete?...

Imagine the scenario:
Oh, did I tell everyone I was buying a brand new truck next week? I got a heck of a deal!! Yeah, it's being delivered to KSEA via air freight. I have to take a trailer to pick it up. Strange new approach to the auto industry. I saved money and bought it without the engine, but it has pedals and two seats


Please please please Capt sim...stop this ridiculous policy and release fully complete and interior as well as exterior models!..i for one will sadly have to pass this one by and wait to see if the vc is released at a future date..which from the admins comments here looks highly unlikely...i personally dont want to fly a b52 around from the default 747 cockpit...how belittling and unrealistic for any serious FSX pilot!....sorry for such a long post and going on but i am very disillusioned with your companies attitudes and policies as regards Payware releases of late and am deeply saddened that such a great company as yours can resort to such tactics.....thank you and take care...

[Wing_Z]

My apologies to those who didn't understand the argument, and got offended.
Don't you just love it when a plan comes together?

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=30047&page=10

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=31038