The marketplace desperatly needs quality control ASAP

A kind suggestion which might just prevent Feelings and Pockets being Hurt.
Reviews of all these Products are available for prospective Purchasers.
Many competent Flight Sim Experts are providing comprehensive in depth Reviews of all these Aircraft and it is surely up to the Buyer to do their Research and in so doing be able to make an informed decision.
Elements of both Positive and Negative Reviews will serve their purpose.
Negative comment will encourage Developers to improve on efforts to bring their Creations to fruition and it is not up to Asobo or anyone else to make these Choices for us.

Just a thought and nothing more than that. Happy Flying Guy’s.

ps. There are currently over 60 Reviews of a certain much maligned Aircraft on Simmarket at present so this should help Simmers make a well informed choice.

1 Like

All good points, but none of them apply to those who have to buy the thing in the first place to review it. :slight_smile:

I hope that the various YouTube channels easily make enough money from their review videos to offset the cost of a plane if it turns out to be a turkey. They get some cash to cover their hard work, and help fund further purchases, and we get a heads up on what’s hot, and what’s not.

CPM for YouTube in 2021, depending on where you look, appears to be between $2-$4. So a $30 aircraft review might need 15,000 views to break even, but assume more than that.

Some channels seems to do rather well reviewing dross, so this is clearly a business model that works well for them. The planes don’t need to be good, they just need to come out thick, and fast so they can create more videos of them trying to land massive jets at tiny airstrips.

1 Like

BCP just spilt her Coffee laughing at your typically succinct and funny comment. Thanks H !

ps. Perhaps we should have stated,… ‘competent and sometimes unscrupulous Flight Sim experts’.

1 Like

There is an An225 available at flightsim.to and it uses the default 747 cockpit and systems but is tinted blue. There are your 6 engines :smiley: It‘s basically exactly the same as CS did except that they ask for 30$ for it.

3 Likes

Yeah, I saw that thing and actually downloaded it to try. It literally IS like CaptSim because the two engines don’t show up or work. And there are no levers for them. :wink: But they do visually spin on the aircraft. Needless to say, it’s not for me.

1 Like

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :wink:

1 Like

As many others said: where do you draw the line between what is acceptable and what not? A plane one likes, might be a plane another hates…
Tastes are incredibly diverse and we shouldn’t block and restrict unnecessarily. Customers vote with their money, that won’t ever change.
However, I think a sort of “traffic light” system could be implemented to give users a broader overview that they can rely on and filter out unwanted stuff, that would also require a sort of quality control though.

-Red: Study level (Fslabs, PMDG, A2A, Majestic, Flythemaddog, some JustFlight type of stuff etc…)

-Yellow: Not quite study level, for experienced simmers (Aerosoft Crj/Twin Otter X/Airbus, Carenado stuff, Captain sim, Alabeo, Orbx etc)

-Green: Everything else/beginner friendly/Arcade style planes/the stuff, most people in this thread don’t want to see.(except for the legendary mach4 weather balloon)

With a filter click, the problem would be solved, without leaving anybody behind. Each category would ofc have conditions that would have to be met, regarding system depth. Alternatively, a rework of the rating system could help, allowing more detailed reviews, or a demo-mode per plane/add-on, that allows you to test the product for a day or two, without having to commit at high risk. I agree that more can be done regarding the store.

2 Likes

A “faulty product” would be for example the Carenado aircraft.

Alone they are fine. But because of the Asobo file system conventions if you own more than one then none of them will work.

This is EXACTLY the sort of thing that SHOULD be getting checked before being uploaded to the marketplace.

A “faulty product” would be for example the Carenado aircraft.

Alone they are fine. But because of the Asobo file system conventions if you own more than one then none of them will work.

As the owner and regular user of multiple Carenado aircraft, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

3 Likes

Long time I had a neutral position in this, but last couple of days got me thinking.

The big question is: where do you draw the line of whats acceptable and whats not.

A couple of days ago i made a “studylevel” zeppelin and put it here on the forum as a joke. Some could laugh about it, but a majority flagged the post, and it got removed from the forum. No problem, it took me 30 minutes to create, including manual. The reason why it took me that long because i was laughing that much that I couldnt actualy type or draw.
For the people who missed it: it was a picture of a zeppelin that needed to be cut out from paper and hanged with tape over the screen ( i still have it as a file, so if youre interested let me know lol)
Anyway, this was obviously not msfs worthy, but as mentioned before, where do you draw the line?
My personal opinion is that the whole CS 777 is a big scam, and as an professional/developer, you should have a bit more selfrespect and dignity.

So one big question again to microsoft, asobo, moderatorteam or whoever is actual involved in this:
Where do you guys draw the line? Because if you let go trough all kind of ■■■■: please reconsider my zeppelin and publish it for 1 symbolical cent in the marketplace where all the money that will be generated, can go to a foundation (i dont know if they want to be mentioned here, but its children and aviation related, dutch people know what iam talking about).

3 Likes

He i s probably referring to the HSI conflict between the Piper Seminole and the WMYF5 .

1 Like

All propblem can be solved with a standardized refund systems like on Steam and even on Xbox for games.
This also needs to apply to addons. Problem solved.

1 Like

Agreed. But thats not the case yet, so i still like to know what moral line the marketplace has.

why not just provide reviews for those addons on market place and vote with your wallet? plus if you are already a flight simmer you pretty much know the reputed add on makers. i don’t buy anything from market place apart from those reputed ones…

1 Like

An interesting idea, but who decides which plane gets which colour?

If you ask five people what they think study level means, you’ll likely get five different answers.

You are aware of this forum, and i guess you have been simming for a while.
There is a load of new users comming up, where most of them wouldnt notice some basic issues. They will just take off in their 747, fly underneath some bridges, do a couple of loopings in their private jets, or buzz some skyscrapers with the upcomming top gun package.
But for the people who take it just a tiny bit more serious, there should be in my opinion:

  • a refund option/trial period option
  • an easily accessable review page in the marketplace or link to designated page on this forum
  • somekind of idicator at the product on the marketplace if its for example: arcade, intermediate or “study level” airplane.
  • an honest list of what can be expected or is missing in the form of a checklist and/or pointsystem (1-5, where 1 means not available and 5 is highly detailed) so you can compare products.
3 Likes

I’d say a systems depth range that is clearly defined, and ofc checking if major functionalities of an aircraft are missing, that are regularly used during normal flight and emergency operations. E.g a certain amount of systems has to be simulated, else it goes into the yellow category. Ofc it’s not an easy task, but the goal is to separate products more clearly, in relation to the user demand, and I think it could help. Also, if you’re searching a study level, or near study level plane, but 100% NOT an arcade plane, it’s not so important whether you’ll find your plane in the red or yellow category, since the majority will be found in the green section, and that is what you want to avoid, while at the same time being experienced enough to know what you’re looking for in the red or yellow sections, because new/inexperienced pilots certainly don’t care about that. The goal would be to have an efficient and easy rating system, to quickly filter out the unwanted stuff, while in-depth debates about study-level planes remain on avsim🤪

1 Like

I completely agree.
We don’t need an extremely strict control, there should be all kinds of addons but there shouldn’t be ones like CS, bredok and that other one forgot the name, scenery something i think?
This is bad for users and for asobo/MS in the long run because people, especially newbies will buy this ■■■■ and see how bad they are so they will be afraid to buy anything else after that.
Marketplace NEEDS quality control! I think minimum standard should be no worse than default aircraft. And there shouldn’t be any abominations with fuselage of one aircraft and insides of another one.

1 Like

I think minimum standard should be no worse than default aircraft. And there shouldn’t be any abominations with fuselage of one aircraft and insides of another one.

You think. But who are you to judge? Who is anyone? I can see why this is a can of worms MS/Asobo don’t want to open.

Or can the community create a centralized review board (like metacritic) so we can browse before deciding?

4 Likes