ng to be a complete waste of time as you'll probably end up deleting my reply rather than seeing it for what it really is - a clear indicator of your level of customer service.
What really is, it's a clear indication of how unreasonable an user can be.
Yes 23k replies is a lot indeed, but with all due respect Umberto, my post wasn't made 2 weeks ago or 3 weeks ago or not even a month ago. It was made 3 months ago!
Furthermore, there is a "Show unread posts since last visit" link at the top left, which I'm certain you and your staff know about. That said, I really don't understand how you could have possibly missed it for 3 whole months despite the high reply count.
Well, it seems you are just making MY point here!
Sure, I must have missed this post when you posted it and, of course, as soon as I replied to the other threads, after the session cookie expired, the post would then automatically be flagged as read, so your missed post would never appear again.
I'm sure other product developers would have similar high post counts, yet they (for the exception of 1 or 2) manage to provide adequate customer service. How do I know this? Because I'm also a customer of theirs and have read many of their replies on their forums addressed to me and other customers.
You are making the same mistake as the other post when you reported about the "bump", which I obviously and in timely replied offering you EVIDENCE it NORMALLY doesn't happen, so you can be sure it's something specific to your system. You are projecting your own very limited experience, and taking some conclusions out of it.
They've always provided me (and others) good customer service in a timely manner without excuses or sarcastic condescending remarks
I replied to you in a timely manner, without excuses, in the post I haven't MISSED.
How I could possibly reply in "a timely manner" in a post that I never seen until days ago ? Since you posted it again on it, I got a second chance to notice it (because it showed up again on the unread posts), so I replied to it. Very simple.
You claim you missed my post for 3 entire months (and it would have been even longer if I hadn't inquired about it 4 days ago) and, instead of offering a simple apology for your mistake, all I got was a lame excuse.
What "lame" excuse ? I haven't offered ANY "excuse". I just said I missed it, which is what happened. This is what I've said, about missing the post:
If the question hasn't been answered, it only means your post hasn't been seen (My post counts it's over 23K replies, it CAN happen to miss ONE...) , not that we are not willing to reply.
Where, exactly, you see a "lame excuse"
I just said I missed it, and that it can happen.
And yes, it's a "we", because I'm not the only forum administrator here, fact that I reply to most of the posts, doesn't mean you cannot expect to be replied by someone else at FSDT, sometimes, when I miss a post, it's *possible* that either some of the other admins might either reply directly, or simply pointing me out to the post.
Unfortunately, it hasn't happened THIS time, and it seems that everybody at FSDT missed it too. Yes, WE missed it. But, as I've said, that doesn't mean WE were not willing to reply, as you tried to imply.
Is it too much for you to apologize for what is evidently a mistake on your part?
I said I missed it, I thought it was enough to say "It can happen" so yes, if that will makes you think better, I apologize for having missed your post, even if you don't seem to believe I had, and tried to imply the mistake was to willingly ignoring it instead.
And you say I have an attitude? I have read many of your replies (not just to me) and quite honestly, I've never seen you apologize for any shortcomings in your products and quite often your remarks contain a tone of sarcasm, condescension and arrogance.
Posts don't have a "tone".
The limit of the written communication, is that everything "sounds" (even if it doesn't obviously have *any* "sound", which is precisely the problem) more assertive than it would ever be, if we were talking face to face, since we are missing all the human expression and the body language that comes with it.
In addition to that, keep in mind that I'm not using my own language, so I cannot entirely grasp the entire "tone" of my post.
But I wouldn't DARE to accuse you to be sarcastic, condescending or arrogant, if YOU were trying to write to me in Italian!
And, the sad part is that several of your senior members and moderators on here are adapting the same attitude.
So you *are* aware there's more of us that might eventually reply to you...
And if other FELLOW forum users replied to you too, they are paying customers too, you cannot expect everyone would share the same expectations, and someone might even tell you are wrong.
And why is that? Well, from my experience as a business owner for over 30 years, I'd have to say it's because "attitude reflects leadership".
I have been a business owner for just 23 years so, here, I can only bow to your higher seniority in this status...
When a paying customer reports a problem that is caused by your scenery, instead of conceding the fact and offering an apology for the inconvenience followed by a reasonable timeline of when the problem will be fixed (the way good customer service should be), you offer excuses, dismissal or complete denial that the problem is caused by your products even though it is indeed caused by your products.
You should have said "When a paying customer reports a problem HE THINKS is caused by your scenery"
A good example of this is the following post http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php/topic,14407.0/
where you continue to make such denial just because the issue is not happening on your system, despite the fact that the said problem occurs ONLY on your scenery and NOT on any of the other developers scenery.
You just made my point!! That post proved several things at the same time:
- That I take the time to reply in a timely manner
- That I take the time to analyze the problem.
- That I take the time to provide EVIDENCE the problem is NOT happening.
The only one in "denial" is you, that are not willing to accept the chance that, it's possible that for some reason, just the FSDT sceneries are AFFECTED without being the cause of it. Do you understand the difference ? You are reporting an effect, and are confusing it for being the cause.
By the way, I will discuss that further on the respective thread.
Of course. As I've said, I must test it again with P3D too, otherwise the conditions of the test wouldn't be exactly the same.
I posted the 2ND video proving the problem doesn't happen here, in order to give you what I think might be an USEFUL information: now you KNOW the problem is not supposed to be happening, at least on FSX, so you might start looking at other things you have installed, without having to wait for a complete investigation.
I'll say it again: I don't consider that issue entirely closed, because it needs further testing.
OK, fair enough. But according to the date on the supplied charts, that was 4 years ago!
Those were the charts that were current in 2012, when we made CYVR, and the numbers where still valid when the scenery was released in early 2013 so, again, the scenery was released using the most updated information at that time.
Nowhere we said a scenery is sold with a guarantee or a promise to keep it updated with real world changes. We MIGHT decide to do it, as free business decision, evaluating that, by updating the scenery *might* be worth in term of sales, but that's not something you should expect or take for granted.
All we're asking for is a simple number assignment update too less than 49 gates. How difficult could that be? It's not like we're asking for a complete overhaul of the entire scenery.
I see you are free to use the "we" as you feel necessary...
Gate numbers change only when there has been major modifications (construction) made to the terminal structure, which happens about once a decade maybe (if not more). SIDs and STARS, on the other hand, change much more frequently. Two completely different things. Apples and oranges. I don't know how you can even use this analogy as a justification for failing to update the gate numbers at CYVR.
Your usage of the term "failing" indicates you expected an upgrade, and we somehow "failed" to provide it, and failed to fulfill some kind of obligation.
This is what I'm strongly opposing to: we want to retain the freedom to decide IF, WHEN and HOW update a scenery, that's why I discussed "subscriptions", because it's the only case where we would have an obligation, and you would have the right to complain if we failed to abide to it.
And to add insult to injury, you're suggesting that for one minor update as this in 4 years you would have to charge a maintenance fee? Really? Wow!
We decided not to pursue that business method, but if we HAD, you can be sure we would update *everything* that ever changed on the airport, even the smallest details, even the repainting of a wall (this is just an *example*...), the reason there are not THAT many updates, is precisely the reason why we don't use a subscription model to begin with.
And they're not even the best compared to what's out there! For that kind of money, I expect a lot better! I can't believe you even have the audacity to make such a statement considering how much you overcharge for products that are prone to causing issues all the time.
If you really believe our products are too expensive for what they offer, the only one to blame for having purchased them, it's you.
They are ALL available in TRIAL version, and we always encourage everybody to TRY them (the download is totally free, it doesn't even require a registration) so, you have every means to evaluate if they are both worth the price and if they really cause all the problems you are saying.
They obviously don't, but you don't have to take our word for it: you can download and install the scenery, check it on your system, and freely decide if it's not worth the asking price, if it causes issues on your system, and you can do this in total privacy, since we don't even ask for you email in order to download the Trial.
THIS is customer service, in FACTS.
Once again, no one asked you to "remake" CYVR. It's a simple update to gate numbers.
You are still missing the point: I don't think you asked to remake the scenery. I said that when we decide to remake it, for OUR reasons, it will be fully updated.
And when you say "not something that will happen soon", I guess in your mind making paying customers wait 4 years for a minor update is not long enough.
As I've said, the decision to make an upgrade, is based only by the feasibility of the scenery in its current status on the market. KLAS and KORD are both in dire need to be updated, otherwise we won't sell many more in the next years if we don't.
Speaking about existing users, there are may KORD and KLAS "paying customers" that *already* waited several years (you bought CYVR about a year ago), so those updates are way more pressing, and those paying customers have their expectations too, and I'm sure many of them would be quite annoyed if, after all the years they are waiting (KORD was updated FOR FREE in 2011, so they have been waiting for 5 years ), we announced there will be a delay of both, because someone asked we would stop and update some gate numbers at CYVR.
They main issue here is that we have limited human resources (although we hired new people and working hard to train them), and we walk along a very fine balance between working on new products, and update old ones, and if you take into account the fact that CYVR, KLAS and KORD were made by the same developer, I must understand that even what LOOKS like a "simple" change, can take quite some effort.
CYVR in particular is very tricky because, even if you seem to have dismissed it so easily, is made in a way so advanced (NO OTHER scenery out there ever did what CYVR does, meaning dynamic real shadows that change during the day, something YOU might take for granted in P3D, because it's done by the sim, but it's still, to date, unheard of in FSX), that even a small change requires a *lot* of work.
Up to a point that, for the next scenery (KIAH), we abandoned that method (because P3D happened in the meantime, with real shadows), and then users complained it didn't look as good as CYVR...
In any case, I can only say I'll have ANOTHER look at it, and see if we could find some kind of hack or something, to update the gate numbers in some way without too much pain.
