Well personally, that all transcends into "geek" territory to me and I like this model, so I don't really care!
I buy these aircraft to fly and I'm too busy doing that to notice if a part that isn't integral to that end isn't exactly correct as per the Type Certificate or whatever.
I hate it when something nice comes out and people start knocking it for the smallest of errors (which seems to happen a lot on this forum, btw ).
My response would be - (hopefully without being too "anti") - when you release a better job for less than £9 I'll gladly take heed of the critiscism. If they were glaring errors, that's one thing, but this kind of issue seems rather petty to me. It's peanuts for God's sake - give the guys a break.
I'm sorry, but the part-and-parcel of this plane being a 737-100 is that the basics, like the doors and the thrust reversers, be right. They aren't. Part of what made the 737-100 the 737-100 was those reversers. It's the reason that Boeing rushed the 737-200 into production. It's the reason that Boeing spent millions with Rohr aerospace to develop the Target-type reversers that everyone knows so well and then gave to all its existing operators of the 737 for FREE. The 737-100 with the original reversers FLEW much differently than the 737-100/200 with the Target reversers. Both due to the different aerodynamics, but also due to the fact the 737-100 couldn't stop as quickly due to them being ineffective as it was, and then had a nasty habit of being lifted from the runway by the original reversers making them even less effective. To ignore this as if it wasn't a big deal that Boeing had designed an airplane to operate into short runways and small airports and then had to make major changes to get it to be able to do that is like saying the Comet 1 never existed.
Additionally, if I'm going to put out any money, I want to get what I'm paying for. I'm paying for a 737-100, but I'm getting a 737-200. That's not right. If this was freeware, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but it's not. They're wanting us to buy something that isn't what it claims to be on the most basic level. This is the problem with CaptainSim and not just with this model. They still haven't produced a real C-130J. They claimed when they were developing the C-130 project they were going to include the C-130J but never, until after release and eveyone had bought the package, that they weren't going to release a C-130J panel as well because (as they claimed) they couldn't get the data on the panel to make it. Sadly, we proved them wrong on this and provided all the needed data could be had and all the information for the correct autopilot and they just ignored the users and acted like the information we'd provided didn't exist even though it was in front of their faces.
Sorry, but I've not bought anything from CS since the 757 (which I got only because it was on sale and then I binned it because it has an unacceptable performance hit on my system) and until they start actually being honest in their advertisement and listening to the users (they have yet to impliment anything from the "It would be nice if..." forums for *ANY* of their products), I still won't buy anything else from them. They can prove that they're starting to listen if they actually seriously consider fixing these major issues with the aircraft and actually releasing a 737-100, not a 737-200 and claiming it to be a 737-100.
I think that we have to accept the fact, that the main difference between payware and freeware is, that freeware generally is more historical correct, whereas payware may have more eyecandy. Simply because it must attract a broader crowd to ensure sales. Also development time may compromise how much time can be put into research.
By the way; can anyone please paint me an Easyjet livery for the SSTSIM Concorde
).
)
