Question for upcoming aircraft developers

[MaidenFan]

(I find it very annoying when threads are locked.)

Yes, absolutely.

[Leen de Jager]

This is what I like about forums. ( during times my rig is down and I am in the internet-cafe)

Reading this all it leads to the conclusion the initial poster on this topic was right from the start.

This all should have been handled by the vendor and  publishers in a better way.

A warning in advance nothing more nothing less.

The same time we have four pages to waist our time on, time we could have spent enjoying our sim.

Probably I am wrong ,neverteheless its the feeling I get.

Do not get me wrong I take all the aswers serious, neverteheless its to much fuzz about a simple issue in my opinion..

Nothing wrong with Gizmo and just a silly mistake in presenting a product.

I think and expect this not to happen again.

Jack wrote;

I have added a note on the Q400s product page that serves to inform our customers of the nag screen before purchase. This hopefully will minimize incidents like this one.

Perhaps setting up a, "what is Gizmo", page on my site will help as well.

Thanks Jack , please do.

Cheers

Leen de Jager

[hobofat]

Jack wrote;

I have added a note on the Q400s product page that serves to inform our customers of the nag screen before purchase. This hopefully will minimize incidents like this one.

Perhaps setting up a, "what is Gizmo", page on my site will help as well.

This course of action would satisfy me as a customer.

[Leen de Jager]

OK ,as you said, I agree , thats all.

Is there anyone around with a "lock" to stop?

Or can we manage the same, without one?

I think we should.

[Nicola_M]

Um, I was aware the Q400 came with Gizmo, before I even bought the aircraft.

I was also aware Gizmo was Donationware.  I was also aware that by its very nature Donationware often comes with nagscreens in order to get people to, well, donate.

(But it is only dollars, not testicles, guys).

Maybe I was the only one for whom a nagscreen asking me to donate wasn't a surprise.

I think I've now finally met the reason why McDonalds print "Warning - Hot Coffee" on their coffee cups.

"Caution, Gizmo nagscreen donationware with this aircraft. Note, the aircraft may also leave the ground and require flying skills."

[tkyler]

A bit too much defensiveness here is clouding some points.

ED

-Armchair aviation did not disclose their dependency on gizmo to their customers, the issue started with them, they made a bad move and are dealing with it.

-Cameron sidetracked the topic a bit, you're complaint was and is valid...the topic of supporting gizmo is independent of your point.

-xpilot is mostly free speech, you take responsibility for what you say and deal with the fallout.   What you said was fine, you can't please everybody.

-There IS a solution for developers and gizmo licensing...if devs don't investigate, negotiate or disclose, it's THEIR problem, they have to deal with it.

-Leen de Jager, Jack & Joe, Ed, Cameron AND Ben are right.

-YOU'RE right for being upset and voicing it here.

-We all live and learn and make adjustments.

I suspect that this situation, like anything, is a learning process during a growth period and Armchair will make adjustments accordingly to make for more satisfied customers.  If anything ED, thank you for pushing the quality bar higher and demanding more.  

[Dozer]

To give you guys some perspective...

Gizmo Code:

boo = sound.load( acf.getFolder() .. "sounds/boo.wav" )

sound.play( boo )

And the C/C++ equivalent:

http://www.xsquawkbox.net/xpsdk/mediawiki/OpenAL_Shared_Example

The choice is yours.

To be fair to C++, once you figure out how to get PPL and OpenAL working, you can do the same with

ALSoundBuffer boo("some/file/path/boo.wav");

boo.play();

The catch is: getting PPL and OpenAL to work. PPL works fine in my IDE now, but despite devoting a whole fifteen minutes to it I can't link to OpenAL's libraries. And the end result's not cross-platform or anything good like that.

[Ben Russell]

...being able to write C/C++ is about as useful and productive as knowing Latin.

To give you guys some perspective...

Gizmo Code:

boo = sound.load( acf.getFolder() .. "sounds/boo.wav" )

sound.play( boo )

And the C/C++ equivalent:

http://www.xsquawkbox.net/xpsdk/mediawiki/OpenAL_Shared_Example

The choice is yours.

To be fair to C++, once you figure out how to get PPL and OpenAL working, you can do the same with

ALSoundBuffer boo("some/file/path/boo.wav");

boo.play();

The catch is: getting PPL and OpenAL to work. PPL works fine in my IDE now, but despite devoting a whole fifteen minutes to it I can't link to OpenAL's libraries. And the end result's not cross-platform or anything good like that.

[tkyler]

That's a sidetrack to a resolved issue on this thread Dozer.  Move programming how-to or gizmo defense to another thread.  No need to lock this topic, but nothing here relates to the title anymore.

[Dozer]

I remember a comment made by a Soviet diplomat during the first year of WW2. It was something about how the European nations would write down Allied aircraft losses in one column, and German losses in another, and examine the difference in the losses. The Soviets would add Allied and German losses to the same column and add them up!

That's the difference between the Hobbyist and the Professional's approach to X-Plane development. For the professional (such as you Ben) you must consider the return you'll get from people using your stuff against your time and effort in creating it. But for the hobbyist (such as myself), the time and effort spent creating is its own reward, and people using my stuff (and potentially paying for it, in the future, if I can build good enough stuff) is also a reward.

If I were developing aircraft professionally it would absolutely make sense to use Gizmo to build stuff quickly and easily, and it's great that you've made it, and I look forward to the aircraft that will use it - I notice the IXEG 737 uses it, and that aircraft will be as iconic as the MU-2 was in 2009 and the CRJ is now! And if I hated programming, it would make sense to use Gizmo. But I enjoy C++ and learning how to solve problems in a more challenging environment. I'll enjoy the awesomeness of Gizmo as an end user rather than as an application developer!

edit: sorry Tom didn't get your reply til after. I've just realised from the timestamps I spent twenty minutes writing this post. I need to turn off the PC and finish moving house...

[Ben Russell]

Can't argue with that. *hands you a beer*

[UH-60 Blackhawk]

I have yet to use Gizmo, free or donated.  I will say this, I like the idea of developers buying x amount of keys, and selling two products, one with, and one without.  However, two issues I have with it.  First, if a developer's aircraft doesn't sell as well as they expect, then they have wasted a lot of money on keys they can't use.  If a system can be set up so that when an aircraft is sold for the price with key, a system buys automatically one key and provides it to the buyer.  One more thing, don't make the price difference 5 dollars, make it 10.  So basically, slightly change Arno's idea.

[Dozer]

It would be easier to talk about this with clearer names for different tiers of development:

  Laminar

     |

   Gizmo

     |

Aircraft builders

     |           \

     |             People who make stuff like MU-2 Command

     |           /

 End users--

That's four distinct groups who can all be titled 'developer'!

What if the aircraft builders were loaned a small stock of Gizmo licenses, to be paid for and replenished as their aircraft sells?

So, Foo Aircraft Ltd build their Gizmo-driven Wonderjet product and put two versions on sale: $30 for the basic aircraft; $40 for the aircraft and a personal Gizmo licence. Gizmo Enterprises PLC 'lends' Foo a float of twenty Gizmo end-user licenses to sell with the $40 aircraft. If no-one buys the Wonderjet, Foo Aircraft can just return the unused licenses and they're not out of pocket. But if it sells, periodically they return x times $10 to Gizmo Enterprises and get x replacement licences. If it sells a lot, Gizmo Enterprises loan Foo a larger stock of licences to keep them liquid. The point is, Foo don't pay Gizmo PLC up front for the end-user licences but after. I think this is similar to how supermarkets sell their merchandise.

There is a forseeable problem in that more customers of the acf+gizmo product are likely to exercise their statutory right for a refund than pure Gizmo customers (who are more likely to know what they're getting). I don't know what mechanism Gizmo has for returning a 'used' key but it's probably illegal for Foo to say "sorry you didn't like the aircraft, here's $30 and Ben's email address for the other $10".

Ideally, everyone gets paid, everyone knows up front exactly what they're buying and what it costs, and no-one has to see a dancing reminder box. No-one likes to be nagged! And for every 10 people who complain about something on a forum, there's 100 people who never post or read forums (although Cameron's probably the best person to comment on this).

[woweezowee]

To sell the same add on WITHOUT Gizmo

The idea is more like selling without a Gizmo licence (= cheaper) for those who already directly purchased from Ben.

[Dozer]

To sell the same add on WITHOUT Gizmo

The idea is more like selling without a Gizmo licence (= cheaper) for those who already directly purchased from Ben.

Yes. Those buying an aircraft without the licence will either be people who already have a Gizmo licence, be people who are going to see a lot of dialogue boxes telling them to buy a Gizmo license, or be people who disable the Gizmo plugin and see how well their new aircraft works without it!

[Nicola_M]

And for every 10 people who complain about something on a forum, there's 100 people who

... just paid the peanuts Gizmo cost because it's really no big deal.

I really can't see why so many are making a song and dance about this.  When you enter into a contract with someone it is your responsibility to check what the parameters are. There was enough information out there for people to realise that the Q400 came with Gizmo and that it involved a donation.

You don't go and buy a car without first working out what fuel it runs on, what it can do, what it can't.  And then moan to the dealership because they didn't tell you that you had to replace tyres on it every so often.....

Spoon-feeding is supposed to stop at a certain age, surely.

[Dozer]

And for every 10 people who complain about something on a forum, there's 100 people who

... just paid the peanuts Gizmo cost because it's really no big deal.

I was speaking generally - the point is most people don't use forums.

I really can't see why so many are making a song and dance about this.  When you enter into a contract with someone it is your responsibility to check what the parameters are. There was enough information out there for people to realise that the Q400 came with Gizmo and that it involved a donation.

You don't go and buy a car without first working out what fuel it runs on, what it can do, what it can't.  And then moan to the dealership because they didn't tell you that you had to replace tyres on it every so often.....

Spoon-feeding is supposed to stop at a certain age, surely.

People have an amazing capacity to misunderstand, especially customers. You're right; end-users ARE responsible for reading the fine print. But if the fine print can be presented in an easy-to-understand way, and in 72-point font, you're less likely to alienate your users. How you approach this depends on whether you want to develop your customer's characters or if you want them to come back enthusiastically to buy your next product. I agree Ben should be paid for his work - I'm not arguing against that - but a system which can cause an end-user to be nagged is a system that hopefully can be improved to the point where no-one ever needs to be nagged! Part of that is to make it as easy as possible for people to pay for your stuff, which might involve bundling Gizmo licences with aircraft.

I'd forgotten the bit where someone said that providing an aircraft that doesn't require the user to get a personal Gizmo licence is X-Aviation's privilege. I assume that means that an XA can use an XA Gizmo aircraft without their own personal Gizmo licence, but if they then buy Foo Aircraft's Gizmojet they will then need to pay for it.

edit: the difficulty is that Bobby-Sue's Aircraft Foundry will need to explain to their customers that

a) their aircraft use this thing called Gizmo

they'll need a personal Gizmo licence

c) they'll know if they've already got one if they own a Gizmo-powered aircraft that works properly

d) unless that aircraft is from X-Aviation

e) they don't need to pay $10 for each non-XA Gizmo-driven aircraft they own.

They DON'T want customers put off their aircraft if they can't understand how Gizmo licences work - it's very well to say it's the customer's responsibility to know what they're buying but it's the aircraft developers and Ben who lose if the customer walks away. Or has a bad experience and complains on distant forums where the XA guys aren't on hand to explain.

It would be better for everyone except XA if Bobby-Sue's Aircraft Foundry could reach an agreement with Gizmo Enterprises to allow their products to work without a personal Gizmo licence, in exchange for x dollars per sale or some other consideration. XA would lose the advantage of being the best place to sell a Gizmo-driven aircraft.

[Nicola_M]

but a system which can cause an end-user to be nagged is a system that hopefully can be improved to the point where no-one ever needs to be nagged!

Unfortunately the human nature is that people don't want to have to pay for something unless they either want to, or are forced to, are or nagged to.

If that nag screen hadn't been there then Ben would've been $10 lighter right now.  If he wants to be paid then unfortunately most people need to be nagged, me included.

I do think you could put all of those clauses up on the site, and some will still find a reason to baulk and moan.

[Ben Russell]

The approach I'm leaning toward right now is to take this:

Polish it up just a little more...

...and sell it with a Gizmo License for $15.

So you get "an airplane" for $5 extra.

All the content and work is owned by me, so I get to wear all the costs. (The content already exists anyway.)

It's cheaper than some of the stuff in the other stores, and it'll have a whole bunch of "whatever gizmo stuff I feel is cool" attached to it, aka custom systems...

Will it be a study sim? Definitely not.

It'll be my fun project, and an offer to get something you can enjoy while still giving me a decent pay-out.

Thoughts?

[Nicola_M]

I want it! When's it out, Ben? When's it out?? ;D

[Dozer]

Nicola I was talking of a system where Ben gets paid at the point when a Gizmo-driven aircraft is sold, rather than after the user's gone home and taken their new aircraft out the box (metaphorically) and after they've been nagged. Ben owns Gizmo and if he decides each user should pay him $10 to use Gizmo that's his call - I just say it should be easier for the users to understand in advance they'll need to pay, and easier for users to actually pay.

@Ben if other aircraft sellers (like the Q400's seller, whoever they may be) were able to bundle a Gizmo licence with their product you'd be basically doing the same thing - ie, $5 for the F-16 + $10 for the Gizmo licence. Would you still be selling the licence separately? I think it's a great idea! Seems like a good choice of aircraft to showcase Gizmo too!

[Nicola_M]

Hmm, just beware of the hooha when the Q400 came out, I think it was derided for being a $40 aircraft. Imagine if it came sold with the $10 Gizmo licence on top, I can see a certain Blog going to town on the $50 aircraft.

The simplest solution would be for Gizmo-driven projects to be sold via X-A; what's to stop Armchair going under the X-A umbrella?

Ben's issue is the practicality of serial number generating for POS sales. He already said the time and effort outweighed the benefits, so it's back to the current system, or Gizmo aircraft going via X-A to the customer.

Somehow you've got to make it as easy as possible to get the customer to part with $10. Short of giving it away, there will always be someone unhappy.

[Ben Russell]

Beyond the logistics of 'instant serial creation' there's the issue of revenue split percentages.

$10 out of a $40 sale, is 25%. Add in the store/publish rates of 20-25% and suddenly the artist is looking at only getting half their sale price.

That's not going to work.

I make small fee on a sale of an X-A aircraft. That buys them both DRM protection and "no nagware for my precious customers".

That's why the keys dont "stick" - I'm only looking to make a decent amount of money so I can give the product the attention it needs... we're still a long way from that though.

[Nicola_M]

Well, I don't know what the answer is.

All I can say is that I read enough about the Q400 to know that it used Gizmo, and that Gizmo was not free.

I bought the plane, and I got nagged. Eventually the nagging wore me down so I paid.

I don't feel angry, disappointed or peeved or duped about it, and I'm a bit confused why others would be. If the  cost was something like $100 or something then they'd have a point.

It's not as if it was a huge amount to pay, and no one forced me to buy the aircraft, or stopped me from reading up on the development - where I discovered about Gizmo - and in fact no one "forced" me to buy Gizmo. I could've still used it for free with the nag screen.

I don't think anyone hid the facts from customers about Gizmo - they were there if you looked before buying - but maybe as suggested if Jack & Joe put it in big bold letters then there's NO excuse for anyone to say they feel duped.

[Dozer]

D'oh! I'd been assuming that 100% of end-users MUST pay for Gizmo. I'd conflated this issue with the 'trial mode' Gizmo from last year that would shut itself down after a set period. Apologies for my slowness today. I blame the unusually warm weather. All the posts I've written in this thread up til now were on the basis that a user must pay (as I now know) $40 for the AA Q400 and then pay another $10 for Gizmo; I'd forgotten that 'pay $40 and put up with dialogue boxes indefinitely' was an option. To be honest that's a pretty rubbish option just to save $10. Please interpret my earlier comments in this light! Also I'd been thinking of the nag screen Ben suggested that comes back every three minutes but can be closed straightaway - in my mind that's worse than one that sits on the screen until you don't try to interact with it for 60 seconds. I could just go and have a cup of tea if I was too stingy to pay for a Gizmo licence.

I think it would benefit Gizmo if other aircraft vendors could sell Gizmo-driven aircraft with the same method that X-A uses. I bought the Falco, received one installer for the Falco, flew the Falco, wrote enthusiatically about the nuances of the Falco on various forums. Gizmo was there but it didn't require me, the end user, to do anything for it to work. I think that's the ideal for a toolset like Gizmo - it's primarily a developer's toolset, isn't it? If a car manufacturer uses a groundbreaking engine from a specialist engine manufacturer to reduce the cost of developing the car, it's not ideal for them to sell me the car with only two pistons in the engine and then tell me to negotiate with the engine-builder for the other four. Even if I can also use the pistons as novelty coffee mugs and reuse them in any other car I buy that has the same type of engine. Presumably there are two versions of Gizmo behind-the-scenes: the X-A version that doesn't require a personal key, and the version used by Armchair and others that does. If the X-A version could be used by other vendors in exchange for $3.50 per sale (perhaps $2.50 to Ben and $1.00 to X-A for supporting Ben during Gizmo's development) then Gizmo would be taken up by more developers and retailers.

Just looked at the Q400's page - it still doesn't mention that Gizmo will ask for a donation before giving the 'Buy now!' button and twenty screenshot thumbnails. Just looked at the manual - it looks like a good model. Just wish I could have been there in the beta phase to correct a handful of typos in the manual and on the model! I like that it has its own sounds.