Mathijs Kok regarding the project cancellation as posted on the distributors forum:
----------------------------------------------------
"Sorry to say that we had to cancel this external product. After discussing it for a long time (internally and with the developer) we decided it would not match our standards."
----------------------------------------------------
See the applicable forum thread - click here
21 comments:
I smell a rat!
Me too, I smell fresh AFR (Aerosoft Fried Rat) with a 1986 Château Pétrus served by Mathijs Kok :P
Stand back everyone, I'll ask.
What "RAT" are you referring to? Please be descriptive.
I can't take anyone serious, who promotes a mid-stage developed scenery product for a couple of months and spontaneously decide, the product doesn't meet his standards anymore!
It stupid to believe that customers are that kind of birdbrained.
Even if they'd saying the truth now (anyway, i'm not buying it) they failed again in announcing products much too early and now it looks like they mask this situation with backdating todays announcement, because everything else in the present thread since January has been deleted.
Custumer Relationship Management is still a poor cousin in Flightsim-business.
Well take a look at this:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RNiK1vdvNXoJ:forum.aerosoft.com/index.php%3F/topic/63811-aerosoft-adelaide-x-preview/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a
Does it take nearly 6 months to figure out that an outside developer was not going to meet their standards?
If so, then that is really bad project management...
A rat means that Aerosoft wants to get away from crapware to go to ORBX for a quality Adelaide. Before it does that it has to leave the badware dev for the good one. I am sure Aerosoft and ORBX have been talking... That's the RAT (or "fried rat") we are talking about.
at least 30$ of AS's sceneries are sub par.
It took Aerosoft 6 months to stop believeing that people were ready to pay bad-quality scenery such as Rome... Some learn the hard way...!
Aerosoft have standards??? Haha, that must be new.
Interesting comment. Munich, Zurich, Stuttgart are excellent sceneries, just to name a few. Orbx Melbourne or Brisbane don't even have decent ground polygons. And everybody says Orbx is so brilliant.
Cool, well here's a carrot falling over: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtj4ZD7chqU
Not to mention horrible frame rates at large ORBX airports
Not to mention their disastrous FTX EU blurriness is not solved AND must purchase FTX Global to solve it.
[[QUOTE]"I can't take anyone serious, who promotes a mid-stage developed scenery product for a couple of months and spontaneously decide, the product doesn't meet his standards anymore!]
You mean like Aviasim? lol
I heard it didnt have any wingflex, no wingflex these days is like admitting defeat
....and here it's not falling over:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNPcV3Az42w
If it's poor quality maybe it's released as freeware.
Put a sock in it!
Wow, How did the this topic get switched to ORBX? You know Aerosoft should have continued with this scenery however good or bad it could have been. I mean I cannot see anyone complaining about a poor scenery or frames or OOMs or waiting a long time for it. Whatever the reason, maybe a falling out, maybe time constraints or whatever. Aerosoft has made its decision, it's what it is. All conspiracy theories aside, time to put on the Aluminum Foil hats to avoid Moon men reading our thoughts.....
One question, how does that guy/girl Anonymous find the time to reply to all the posts and argue with him or herself?
I like wingflex..it taste like chicken.
for me aerosoft lost their credibility, i hope that the developer doesnot give up and finds another distributer or releases the scenery on his own !
KOK..........lmao
Post a Comment
Comments are now deactivated. Please visit our new website: AirDailyX.net
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.