Jump to content

Question for upcoming aircraft developers


Xflyboy2
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To be honest that's a pretty rubbish option just to save $10.

Isn't that what this whole thread boils down to? Someone's reluctance to pay the damn $10, under the pretext that it wasn't written up in large enough letters.

Honestly, wait until life deals you a really bum deal then you get to see how trivial arguing over paying $10 is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disappointment is the difference between expectations and reality.

User did not expect a nag screen...reality provided him with one, he was disappointed.  If Armchair had provided a suitable disclaimer, the expectation would have been instantiated....reality would have matched...no disappointment.  This thread boils down to a user suggesting we understand enough of what goes through a customers mind..and then managing that information so he is not disappointed.

Note the warning I came up with vs. the one Armchair uses.  I want to make darn sure users aren't disappointed.  Joe...bump up that warning man...too easy to miss.  You know how people are!  You have to spoon-feed em...and rightly so.  I like to be spoon fed as a customer myself.  It's your job to know me and show me.  All they'll see is "$40.00 -> Buy Now"

post-4-131369614616_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest that's a pretty rubbish option just to save $10.

Isn't that what this whole thread boils down to? Someone's reluctance to pay the damn $10, under the pretext that it wasn't written up in large enough letters.

Honestly, wait until life deals you a really bum deal then you get to see how trivial arguing over paying $10 is.

Oh, for... I was never arguing against paying $10 for Gizmo! My thoughts were on ways the Gizmo payment could be more easily understood by the user, or included in the aircraft price.

edit: Yes, $10 is not very far on the 'bad things in life' spectrum. But attention to details and 'trivial' things should still be reasonably made. I think it is reasonable to make Gizmo a little 'friendlier' to new people if it is possible to do so without a huge amount of loss.

post-2864-13136961462_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess there is a huge misunderstanding here.

- Users don't want to pay twice, be it justify or not, be it childish or not, be it stupid or not, that's just the way it is. You can argue until the end of times, users are the ones who pay eventually, so they are right - denying this simply denying reality.

- Users are too often stupid. Sorry to say so, non-polically correct, insensitive, but that's a fact as well. Whatever the size of the fonts, even the clearest warning will simply be ignored. Denying this is, too, denying reality.

For instance, go on the org and lookf for the B17G download. Size32, Red, high-case warning, first of all, top of page : "doesn't work with engine running on load". "Needs RTFM, absolutely".

5000 downloads : a rough 500mails+PM+comments (I don't exagerate, that's the actual value) saying "That's buggy, when I want to formation-fly, it falls like a brick".

Nobody is going to change users. Setting warnings gives the devs some sense of responsability, but eventually it will NOT change the feeling the users have BUT it will make sells drop.

One can deny this, and endlessly argue about is a "fair approach", there's no avoiding that users pay, users want, users decide.

And I'm pretty sure they will decide (have decided) it's the devs' problem to get rid off any nagware or whatever. So, want it or not, devs have to find a way to achieve this : mine was to go through XA for sells.  Others will choose other ways.

But explaining a user he's wrong to think what he thinks is just as useful as a safety belt in an jetliner. Specially when the user owns the jetliner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arno, et all,

The point of this is everyone is right. I am right, Joe is right, Ben is right, and even Ed is right.

We all have our OWN opinions.

The REALITY is acceptance. What is truly "right" and fact is that Gizmo is currently deployed in the fashion it is, and we must accept that. The reality is also that suggested methods in this thread have been tried...they did not work. The reality is also that the return of investment to do what some would suggest is "right" is not there, and should you want that method X-Aviation has that solution for your customers all while Ben gets a slice of the pie. It is also reality that majority of funding or existence from the beginning of Gizmo's entrance of the commercial market was due to X-Aviation products. Ben has had the idea of Gizmo for ages (and thank God for it!). X-Aviation products (be it publicly seen or not) were the push to get it done.

What we must face is that Gizmo is distributed how it is, it IS a small fee, it IS a tried and true model that does work to bring Ben cash (like it or not!), and Gizmo DOES give power to developers to get things done. Those are the facts, those are the pre-requisites to know as developers, and those are the realizations developers must face. With those realizations comes responsibility of alerting customers by informing them of how Gizmo works.

I view the problem here not so much to do with the fact a customer can (not has to) purchase a license to rid of the nag screen, but to alert customers that Gizmo is in use, the conditions in which it is used, and why it is so valuable to the customer (not only for one said project, but for many in the future). With these things in mind, I do firmly believe customers will realize Gizmo's existence and importance. For now, it's just a name to those that don't develop. However, getting the word out there to non-developers and why Gizmo is important will also help others "see the light."

It is how it is. X-Aviation has an edge through not only contract, but also infrastructure. Years of it. Such an infrastructure to duplicate would not be economical, nor is it within scope of any agreement in place.

Facts. We must face them. ;) Spreading the word of how important Gizmo is to our future will also help. That is and should be the responsibility of all developers, myself included. I am forever grateful for Ben's drive and efforts put into this fantastic project.

Thanks, Ben!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been said in different way, but why can't the cost of Gizmo just be built right into the price of the aircraft that require it?  At least on the retail side of things, the consumers would only have to make one payment with each purchase.  That's my simplistic view of the whole thing.  Then again, buy a Gizmo license once and you seem to be good to go, right?  By the way, I've paid my $10 bucks and might even do it again, just for good measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I would prefer if _all_ Producers/Stores worked off the same basic "go and buy one Gizmo serial" system.

The "preferential treatment for X-A" removes headaches for X-A and it's producers at the cost of increased headaches for me and everyone else's customers.

Them's the breaks.

The cost isn't absorbed in other systems because I can't track their true sales figures and I want to work on Gizmo, not DRM and sales-systems.

The serial number system in place now is as simple as it can possibly be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read my post above, Steven. There are reasons and logistics involved. I lightly touched on this as to reasons why it's not done in that way.

As a customer it may never make sense. As someone involved very directly to what's going on with Gizmo it makes perfect sense.

It is what it is, and I believe very firmly in my post just above yours.

Good on ya for your purchase. Thanks for supporting Ben's efforts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...so after six pages of going around in circles saying "please make it clearer to your customers Jack and Joe" - I am notified of this "new"(?) Org Store listing for the Dash:

http://store01.prostores.com/servlet/x-planestore/Detail?no=287

...snip...

Gizmo enhanced: We use Gizmo to add more systems and features that would otherwise be impossible to be implemented if left to use the default X-Plane logic. Future updated will expand on the number of systems that use Gizmo.

...snip...

..same old lack of detail.

Do you guys(Jack, Joe..) seriously just not get it or what?

Don't even bother replying, I just don't care. It's obvious you don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...so after six pages of going around in circles saying "please make it clearer to your customers Jack and Joe" - I am notified of this "new"(?) Org Store listing for the Dash:

http://store01.prostores.com/servlet/x-planestore/Detail?no=287

...snip...

Gizmo enhanced: We use Gizmo to add more systems and features that would otherwise be impossible to be implemented if left to use the default X-Plane logic. Future updated will expand on the number of systems that use Gizmo.

...snip...

I noticed that too. I though you guys were going to only sell at Armchair Aviation???

..same old lack of detail.

Do you guys(Jack, Joe..) seriously just not get it or what?

Don't even bother replying, I just don't care. It's obvious you don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...so after six pages of going around in circles saying "please make it clearer to your customers Jack and Joe" - I am notified of this "new"(?) Org Store listing for the Dash:

http://store01.prostores.com/servlet/x-planestore/Detail?no=287

...snip...

Gizmo enhanced: We use Gizmo to add more systems and features that would otherwise be impossible to be implemented if left to use the default X-Plane logic. Future updated will expand on the number of systems that use Gizmo.

...snip...

..same old lack of detail.

Do you guys(Jack, Joe..) seriously just not get it or what?

Don't even bother replying, I just don't care. It's obvious you don't get it.

...but you gotta give them credit, at least the number of grammar mistakes are up to the .org standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but you gotta give them credit, at least the number of grammar mistakes are up to the .org standard.

I hate to point out spelling and grammar mistakes in released products (if it's likely to be too late to fix) in case the developer's first language isn't English. But I wish more people were available to proofread stuff before release.

On that note: any developer who's reading this, if you'd like someone to help spellcheck your work, drop me a PM. Ideally before you spend twelve hours baking 'Alieron Trim' into your cockpit textures. I won't ask for any payment; it just annoys me to see avoidable mistakes made...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but you gotta give them credit, at least the number of grammar mistakes are up to the .org standard.

I hate to point out spelling and grammar mistakes in released products (if it's likely to be too late to fix) in case the developer's first language isn't English. But I wish more people were available to proofread stuff before release.

Absolutely. But as far as I know, Jack, Joe, and Nicholas all know English to the point to know that "cant" needs an apostrophe.

I'm half teasing and half being serious here... I'm half Australian myself and my family members from there tease us about our English and vise-versa...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but you gotta give them credit, at least the number of grammar mistakes are up to the .org standard.

I hate to point out spelling and grammar mistakes in released products (if it's likely to be too late to fix) in case the developer's first language isn't English. But I wish more people were available to proofread stuff before release.

Absolutely. But as far as I know, Jack, Joe, and Nicholas all know English to the point to know that "cant" needs an apostrophe.

I'm half teasing and half being serious here... I'm half Australian myself and my family members from there tease us about our English and vise-versa...

Heh, I'm half-Australian too! But half British, so all my halves speak English and no other language. If you know more than one language Kaphias there's a chance you'll know the rules of English grammar better than native English speakers!

It would be great if the next version of the Q400 could fix the typos on the overhead panel, and adjust the mapping so the words are all completely visible and not half-vanished off the edge of a panel. Typos - well I know many people who really struggle with spelling due to dyslexia and stuff like that, but failing to fix the misaligned text on the panel borders has no good excuse in a payware product I think; it suggests a lack of attention to detail, but I really hope that that is a wrong impression. For me the Q400 is competing with the Saab 340 in the 'being a regional turboprop' field and the CRJ-200 in the 'being a regional airliner with lots of LCD panels' arena, and that's very tough competition (both for purchasing and for flying time) - the Q400 needs all the refinement it can get! (Especially as it's priced at $40.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but you gotta give them credit, at least the number of grammar mistakes are up to the .org standard.

I hate to point out spelling and grammar mistakes in released products (if it's likely to be too late to fix) in case the developer's first language isn't English. But I wish more people were available to proofread stuff before release.

Absolutely. But as far as I know, Jack, Joe, and Nicholas all know English to the point to know that "cant" needs an apostrophe.

I'm half teasing and half being serious here... I'm half Australian myself and my family members from there tease us about our English and vise-versa...

Heh, I'm half-Australian too! But half British, so all my halves speak English and no other language. If you know more than one language Kaphias there's a chance you'll know the rules of English grammar better than native English speakers!

It would be great if the next version of the Q400 could fix the typos on the overhead panel, and adjust the mapping so the words are all completely visible and not half-vanished off the edge of a panel. Typos - well I know many people who really struggle with spelling due to dyslexia and stuff like that, but failing to fix the misaligned text on the panel borders has no good excuse in a payware product I think; it suggests a lack of attention to detail, but I really hope that that is a wrong impression. For me the Q400 is competing with the Saab 340 in the 'being a regional turboprop' field and the CRJ-200 in the 'being a regional airliner with lots of LCD panels' arena, and that's very tough competition (both for purchasing and for flying time) - the Q400 needs all the refinement it can get! (Especially as it's priced at $40.)

Humm, odd, cause all those items you mentioned were fixed a while back. The one item on the overhead that was misspelled was windshield, and has been fixed for a while. the image on the site you may be looking at in reference was from pre-release version. Guess it is time to update that image. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humm, odd, cause all those items you mentioned were fixed a while back. The one item on the overhead that was misspelled was windshield, and has been fixed for a while. the image on the site you may be looking at in reference was from pre-release version. Guess it is time to update that image. :)

Yes! Please do. The image I was talking about was the first image at http://store.armchairaviation.com/ ; the image is here. 'Windsheild' and the text is cropped at "Ice Protection", "APU"; "Baggage Aft", and above the panel light switches. If this is all fixed you really must update that image - the typo and text-cropping really stood out for me and it was the first image I looked at. It's funny, at the time I knew it would be wrong to write off the Q400 from that single screenshot - and I was right! The Q400 IS better than that screenshot made it look!

(The 'Alieron trim' was from an early WIP of the IXEG 737. I pointed it out, which reminded that developer why he'd not published that screenshot earlier...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but you gotta give them credit, at least the number of grammar mistakes are up to the .org standard.

I hate to point out spelling and grammar mistakes in released products (if it's likely to be too late to fix) in case the developer's first language isn't English. But I wish more people were available to proofread stuff before release.

On that note: any developer who's reading this, if you'd like someone to help spellcheck your work, drop me a PM. Ideally before you spend twelve hours baking 'Alieron Trim' into your cockpit textures. I won't ask for any payment; it just annoys me to see avoidable mistakes made...

Nice offer Dozer- that cracked me up! You must be half-Aussie. I wont ever type wont again after seeing that Ad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is critical that the word "Gizmo" does not become auto-translated into "DONT BUY THIS".

I have done everything I can to ensure this happens.

- DRM removed: check.

- Licensing simplified: check.

- Available to all, for any purpose, free of charge: check.

- Ensure future compatibility with X-Plane for as long as practical by going COMPLETELY OPEN SOURCE: check.

- Attempted to ensure ongoing practical maintenance bug fixes and improvements by putting a minor nag box in: check.

Please try and ensure your customers have a smooth experience so that we can all build on something into the future.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...