You’re not paying for a download – you’re paying for the labor and other costs involved in creating the item and continuing to update it through future usage. If you don’t fly the plane because it’s not the right plane for your play style, you haven’t gotten any benefit from your purchase and should be refunded.
1 Like
Almost every addon I know lists their realism as a highlight and even sometimes exaggerates it.
You’re not ripped off if you’re buying an addon that states that it is a simulation of a real aircraft and then it actually matches the real world performance and systems.
In that specific case, the product page states:
The Arrow III features realistic and accurate flight dynamics based on real-world performance and handling data, and input from Arrow pilots.
I don’t get it where you see a rip-off if the addon provides the speed that the manual states.
You’re paying for a usage license, nothing more. Usually the TOC of online shops rule out return/refund for digital sales for a good and legal reason, the rest is goodwill. Also note that I’m not talking about the Marketplace alone, it’s a common and legal practice.
Please inform yourself about digital sales and let’s stop the off topic here.
Also please avoid multiple posts, it makes things very complicated to follow.
4 Likes
I’m sorry you don’t think consumers deserve fair protection. Goodbye.
4 Likes
This is an interesting topic, and very hard for developers to fulfil all user’s preferences unfortunately. The mentioned idea of a product having selectable difficulty ( easy, medium, hard ) would be the best solution by far, but it’s actually very difficult for us to do as it would require three different models, with three differing sets of .cfg files, and probably three different modelbehavior files for each aircraft - a great deal more work, basically.
The developers mentioned by the OP all produce much more systems-depth aircraft than I do, but one of the issues even I often get is that many users don’t actually know all that much about aviation / aerodynamics. One example that crops up almost daily is the request for a Mach 2 aircraft: “I’ve tried everything but it won’t go faster than 800 knots indicated no matter what altitude I’m at.” Those who know the answer to this, will know 
It’s a really tough call. I build for the entertainment market, but when that market then tells you your aircraft is not able to do what it should ( when in fact it’s doing just that ), it becomes clear that there is no one-fits-all solution. I’d actually decided to go full-bore realism with the flight model on the forthcoming F-14, and the F-15s are heading more that way too, simply because it’s so tough to please everyone, so what the hell, just go for max realism and hope that users eventually figure it all out for themselves ( or do something crazy like read the manual )
I’d be open to suggestions, as I’m sure most developers would, that could bridge the gaps between user preferences without over-loading developers’ already-tough workloads.
8 Likes
I do think consumers deserve protection, but that’s a topic for the regulators and lawmakers.
Also I don’t see a rip-off if the product delivers what is advertised. I fully agree that in cases of unsatisifed customers the developers should provide a refund by goodwill just to keep customers coming back. But there is no legal requirement to do so.
Goodbye
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but making aeroplanes for the sim,is not a sport or a hobby(except the freeware who suck) but a business model.
If the consumers who want arcade models,are more than the other,then they will get what they want.
MFS is a $$$ product which is based on sales (hello xboxX)
But seriously i don’t get the fuzz.Options to turn off every realistic failure is in the game.
As for the Corsair…big deal ? You just open cowl flaps and oil cooling,lower throttle and you’re good to go (yes i also blew my engine 4 times and i enjoyed it )
I am against the changes that are shown in the pic(flaps etc)
Peace
2 Likes
I couldn´t agree more. If you want an easy flight, change your settings to avoid damages, etc. The fact that developers are thinking and adding realistic behavior is what would make FS2020 unbeatable in the future (in my humble opinion). So if any developer is reading this, PLEASE KEEP UP WITH THE REALISM SETTINGS!!! We love them. Complex simulation is what makes it not just fun, but a learning and training tool.
4 Likes
Hi Dean! I liked your post. It is simple, poor aircraft get extremely bad reviews. The highest rated ones are the ones with the highest level of details. I´m saying that from an end user point of view (which happens to be a pilot and aircraft owner as well). Getting into a new activity, especially being this a simulator will involve a learning curve. It is as if I wanted to use a train simulator… as you said, I should at least read the manuals and learn beforehand. Why, because it is a SIMULATOR, massive difference with a GAME. I guess the best way to please everyone without damaging market penetration would be, as somebody suggested, through settings that increase or decrease the level of realism. Nonetheless, I´m all for full max realism. That´s the way to go.
Very good topic!
This is exactly what I’m afraid of about MFS2020, i was even imagined how many complaints will land if Asobo/MFS2020 have been decided to make the Live Weather realistic as much as possible in terms of severe weather conditions like big time vertical mass air mouvement in thunderstorm, updraft/downdraft etc which will obligate the simmer to avoid TS/CB by flying a C152 or a PA28 so that by creating a flight plane based on the weather conditions of the day … Anyway it feels that many users will be offensed by the realism, I’m almost sure about it… The wish-list and votes for adding contrails or other visual effects in MFS2020 are much more important than the wish to have accurate flight models, adverse yaw etc, wear/tear/maintenance and realistic turb in CB/TS for instance…
Hopefully it won’t go this way and hopefully they will build a Flight Sim more than an arcade game included some realism here and there in order to give the illusion, hopefully it won’t go this way…
By waiting better updates in terms of dynamics/physics and weather, Xplane 11 is still alive guys and as a grounded pilot like me, indeed I feel something good by flying Xplane based on my experience even if it’s not perfect, XP works fine with a huge amount of credibility for the sake of realism no doubt… knowing that MFS2020 has a huge potential in front!
Wait & See 
3 Likes
In my opinion, some kind of a short trail/demo versions of them could help those people to try the products. And If you like the plane, you go buy it, if its to hard to handle, you wont. Im sure its easy to get those casual flyers with a nice mode, easy acecombat handling and ready, give em the price of the study level planes. Easy money at this moment.
I rather love complex airplanes, which are binding me and pushing me to learn proceeds. Nice feeling when it finally works and you all steps know to get that plane, started and save back on earth.
So, a 1-2 Flight Try Demos would help a lot. So even me can save money on bad and simple programmed planes, which are nicley developed but absolutly nothing what I was looking for.
1 Like
Yeah, but see, Dean, that’s the difference. You outright say that you build your aircraft for the entertainment segment. It’s gonna be somewhat realistic and simple enough for people who just want to jump in and fly, but still fly well and look good. And there is nothing wrong with that. It’s a little tough when people ask for A LOT more if it’s not in the SCOPE.
A different thing is when a developer known for high-fidelity aircraft comes out. Like MilViz or PMDG. Aerosoft is already dealing with a degree of backlash cause their stuff is too complex for some. When PMDG comes, I can already foresee a choir of complaints about how the AI can’t fly it, interactive checklists aren’t implemented, the flight plan from default planner doesn’t show up automatically in MCDU, etc. I don’t want THEM to have to dumb things down…
MY vision for MSFS (which is probably just that, MINE) is for it to eventually develop like P3D has - there is a variety of levels for aircraft - Carenado and Just Flight and Aeroplane Heaven does middle-of-line stuff, PMDG, FSLabs, MilViz, Majestic, Leonardo do complex things, and I am sure there are some junky arcade things too. But the sim is KNOWN for high-fidelity simulations. It’s part of the reason why it still is around and is going strong. However, LM doesn’t market to entertainment sector AT ALL, so there will probably be different end-game clientele on MSFS.
2 Likes
immediately broken and locked flaps 5 knots more than max speed is not realistic, it’s a on/off failure. Also I don’t know why flaps would retract on their own because it’s “almost impossible to extend” them. For a 50kg woman flaps levers are harder to pull than for a 90kg man. I’ve seen people using their second (left) hand to make full aileron deflections to the right at normal speeds. Should the aileron be restricted now? Realism is something that requires experience and when you interpret a statement like this so you build in features that don’t belong there just to pretend something then people complain rightly. Don’t invent silly features just to make it harder. Make it real.
And Milviz’ engine failures have never been realistic. There have always been on/off-features too. There is no degeneration of the systems, they work at 100% and just fail suddenly. Something a PT6 turbine for example wouldn’t do but you would have to maintain it. So I also disabled their failure feature. Not because I couldn’t handle it but because I can’t stand over sensitive failure triggers far from reality.
There have always been and will always be different expectation of addons. And there is enough room for new developers to chime in to offer products for everyone.
4 Likes
Excuse me but I take offense on the “never been realistic” comment.
Show me how it’s not realistic when you’re not watching your CHT and you blow the engine… exactly as it would happen in real life… the KA engines have the same type of realistic failures as well as wear and tear…
Not cool mate… not cool
4 Likes
So, for MilViz on the King Air 350i in P3D they have a way for you to monitor engine condition. You can start a flight and have your aircraft in various engine conditions. If your condition is pretty bad, you have a high chance of engine failure in your flight. I don’t see how that’s not realistic. That’s their PT6 simulation. I find it to be good. If I overstress the aircraft enough, I expect my engines to be fairly degraded by the end of the flight. They are also not the same - each engine has their own condition. How is THAT not a realistic simulation? I remember when I first bought it and didn’t manage my ITT well enough, I had my two engines fail about 5 minutes apart from each other and had to make an emergency landing in a field in Poland. My mind was BLOWN. This is the kind of thing that keeps me coming back to P3D to fly more of THAT.
4 Likes
And on the KA, we had actual instructor pilots help us to make SURE that stuff was done properly…
So, I’m going with nope…
2 Likes
Good points by all. I’d actually forgotten that the sim has its own realism settings ( too much developing, not enough flying! ) so in many ways that does actually cover much of what’s being discussed. Tone it down if it suits, turn it up otherwise. I wonder how much this affects LVars though ( custom-coded features by developers that the sim might not recognize, as they’re not stock variables ). Developers, especially those going for high-fidelity realism, typically contain a lot of these so I assume the sim’s internal realism settings would not apply.
2 Likes
Before I had the turbine life ini file set to „read only“ I experienced sudden bangs every now and then, rather now than then. I fly TPE331 engines and know how to handle turboprops, how they wear and behave when they become old (or worn). The Kingair has an amazing engine model when managed correctly but its sudden death behaviour just because the torque was in the red for 2 seconds when the sim stutters during the takeoff run is simply not what would happen. It assumes an immediately melted/broken compressor and that needs so much more than that. Even when I flew the Kingair with this ini file operative (new computer, forgot to disable it) and when the engines became older they just blew up suddenly after a couple of flights. No high temperatures or fuel flow, no assymmetric spooling. It just made a bang and the engine stopped. This is not a complaint, this is what I noticed flying the plane. I have no problem with it as I can simply deactivate it but it is not „realistic“. In reality we‘d notice vibrations, it would sound differently. Turbines wear noticably. What you did with your PT6 is great for a 80$ computer simulation and the value of the aircraft exceeds its price a lot, no doubt. But the engine failure is not needed the way it‘s done.
1 Like
Like I said, when I first started, I flew with the torque in red for MINUTES before engines started to fail. It’s not at all two seconds or anything of the sort that you have described though. Even now, I SOMETIMES let things go into red for a little bit if need be, but it doesn’t result in any sort of instant failure. I haven’t had the KA350i PT6s fail in MONTHS now. If I fly the aircraft sensibly, I land with my engines in good condition. I think you may be exaggerating a little.
If you buy a Fender Eric Clapton Signature guitar, plug it in and find out you still don’t sound like Eric Clapton, would you feel being ripped off by the guitar company? It’s because you just can’t play. The guitar is perfect, but you’ll have to learn to play like Eric Clapton.
It’s the same with a realistic high class aircraft. You have to learn how to fly it or you won’t get it off the ground. That’s why I like flight simulation. You have the opportunity to learn things that you’ll never have in real life. And sometimes your expectation were wrong and the money is gone. That’s life.
13 Likes
I haven’t had the file active for many months and generally keep my engines in the “green”, I could try it again though. I don’t even exclude that the stutters that cause the engines to overtorque also cause much more damage than any maltreatment. But I only wrote here what I monitored: normal engine parameters followed by a failure, no point to exaggerate, but simply not realistic. What you describe is much more how it should be. I love the Kingair and hope to see the Porter again, Milviz created amazing addons over the last couple of years.