• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

C-17 Globemaster III

MudMarine said:
Low sales.....what did they expect with an aircraft without a VC? I feel for the people that paid for it!
Click to expand...

..and let me add, cost usd 60 bucks a pop!..

Ok, besides been a developer, i´m also a consumer, and i do love payware aircraft and is a way to support my fellow colleagues....BUT..
What did you guys expected? 60 usd dollars is a HUGE investment in this hobby, Captain Sim released an awesome B-52 (and as far as i have compared, superior to the As C-17 but to be fair i don´t have the AS C-17) for 1/4th the price of that WITH NO PROMISES OF A VC, so what you buy is what you get and if they DO GET TO WORK ON A VC, you can´t bet it will be as least twice the current asking price.
But at 60.00 usd, you don´t make promises, you deliver or simply don´t.You don´t buy a mercedez bens just because you like the looks, you want what mercedes puts under that hood, ´cause that´what makes a Benz..a Benz..or you´ll buy a Korean knock off at half the price.I as a consumer don´t give a rat a** about your finances, i payed (Hypothetical, i don´t have the C-17)60 bucks for an exterior model and a "promise" that in x month or day i´ll get it complete.I did my part (forked the 60 bucks) you didn´t, i would ask my money back.
This absolutely has NOTHING to do with AS products quality, they have an established name in the hooby, it has to do with BAD biz decisions and even WORSE product pricing.
I always refrain to post on ALphasim threads, i HATE alphasim bashing threads. but this time i felt it was necessary to post what i feel.

..Now those that feel like doing so can start a RAZBAM bashing thread..

Best regards

Prowler
 
Roger said:
...and why would milviz do a vc for an aircraft when Alphasim say the vc for the C17 will be ready by the end of May?
Click to expand...


no sir,

This is the question: Why would anyone expect a VC from Alphasim?


It's bull to say that poor sales of the C-17 are causing a delay of the VC. I can lay it out right now: the delay of the VC caused poor sales. It's a little unfair to say that the VC isn't done because more people didn't buy the product, and it's indicative of horrible business decision-making.


I'll bet milviz could start from scratch and have it done sooner, without a wake of angry ex-workers to boot. Anyone can get Kolin on email, PM or the phone, I'm not sure that Phil and I have ever had direct contact.


All this, and I'm still a fan of Alphasim. How does that work? Oh yeah, because for all their flaws, they really know what people want and they release it. Most of my payware is Alphasim.

Believe it or not, I think this is going to be a very good year for Alphasim.
 
People paid for the model knowing the VC was not included.

That is their choice. You cannot blame AS for your poor buying decisions (if you felt that strongly about it).

No where has Alphasim ever said the VC will not be finished.

With regard to CS and Milviz, remember one thing - CS never had any intention of releasing a VC for there model hence the low asking price. If they had intended to release a VC they would've raied the price and offered the VC cheaper or free to existing customers.

Enough of the bashing, lets just look forward to seeing more recent pictures of it than this one I found after a quick google...

View attachment 2191
 
If I may interject before we get back OT.... We only decided to do the VC for the BUFF as CS weren't going to do one. AS "is" doing the VC for the C-17 so we're not willing to tread on any toes there. As well, we would be hard pressed to convince anyone to spend yet another 20 to 30 bucks after having already paid 60. With the BUFF it's a lot more cost intelligent.

However, that said, if Iris doesn't get moving on their CJ-27, we have a big interest in doing that one. The clock is ticking.

kc
 
I see Colin already got to this before me. As he said when Captain Sim stated they had no intentions of doing a VC that is why we jumped on it. AS has said for awhile they were doing a VC, systems, and such. It is never good to step on otehr peoples toes in that department. I do hope that their VC/systems turn out well. Is what my $$ are holding out for.
 
I want this C-17 pretty bad too, but I'm glad I've waited for the VC. I'd be pissed if I bought it without.
 
noddy said:
The VC work has repeatedly stalled due to lack of finance. General low sales and a poor return on the C-17 version 1.0 has left funds gravely depleted.
Click to expand...

Does this surprise anyone? It shouldn't.

I hope they learn better next time..... :blind: It pays to release a full product
 
C-17 goodie for our loyal customers

Well guys...

I'm not even going to attempt to defuse some of the angrier posters in the thread, but I will throw you all a little bone, as a primer for what's to come with our C-17.

Here it goes:

When the C-17 was released the performance document I created didn't quite make the package. If anyone wants a powerpoint spreadsheet that gives you stab trim settings, takeoff and landing speeds, and other tidbits, email me or send me a PM with your email address. I will send you a powerpoint sheet with all the info you'll need to takeoff and land correctly.

The performance information was derived from the -1 with a plus/minus of a few knots here and there since it's a controlled item. For those of you that don't know me, I'm in the Air Force and I am a hydraulic technician on KC-135Rs and C-17As.
 
Shane Olguin said:
For those of you that don't know me, I'm in the Air Force and I am a hydraulic technician on KC-135Rs and C-17As.
Click to expand...

:jump: Wow! Are we impressed. I'm a multi-point exhaust systems technician for the council. I clean the public toilets. Bet you're impressed with that eh? :salute:
 
The world wouldn't work without people like you oldhand and who cares what we do we've all got a bond on here because of our hobby, its not about what you do it how you do it I always say!
 
oldhand said:
:jump: Wow! Are we impressed. I'm a multi-point exhaust systems technician for the council. I clean the public toilets. Bet you're impressed with that eh? :salute:
Click to expand...

Seems okay to me for Shane to explain that he actually works on the plane that he is involved with modeling...What's wrong with that? I don't think ridiculing a member is a great way for a new guy to get known here ;)
 
N2056 said:
Seems okay to me for Shane to explain that he actually works on the plane that he is involved with modeling...What's wrong with that? I don't think ridiculing a member is a great way for a new guy to get known here ;)
Click to expand...

And that's why I know no less than three pilots and a handful of maintainers that can lend a but of truth every now and then run out of here. Very few pilots or maintainers think they're better than everyone, but it's frustrating when people ASSUME they think they're better.


I think Shane just wanted everyone to know that there's a C-17 troop snooping around the AS C-17 project. That lends legitimacy to me.
 
I think its outstanding to have someone who worked on the real aircraft to be a member of the dev team! Its something a lot of us try, but sometimes its hard to find willing people. I know when I did the Sky Unlimited P-38, we had the honor of having a WWII vet on the team that worked with us on getting everything right! He beta tested the aircraft for us, and gave it his approval before it went on sale. There insight in invaluable. Without them, the only thing we know most of the time is what we see in photo's or read in notes. That wont tell you about the little things, the things that turn a good product into a GREAT product. Shane is just proud to be part of it, and I see no problem. I also know that its hard to see something you worked on take slag the way that the C-17 and B-52 did.
 
tigisfat said:
And that's why I know no less than three pilots and a handful of maintainers that can lend a but of truth every now and then run out of here. Very few pilots or maintainers think they're better than everyone, but it's frustrating when people ASSUME they think they're better.


I think Shane just wanted everyone to know that there's a C-17 troop snooping around the AS C-17 project. That lends legitimacy to me.
Click to expand...

Shane, have seen your input on the Virtualavia forum and appreciate you keeping the interest in a product released under a bad plan. Also, thank you for your service to your country and being mature enough to accept criticism from less mature posters in the forum. It is nice to see people offering their assistance in making a good product better with personal insight via physical hands on. Just be careful of some of the input you offer from the -1. It need not be verbatim quotes, just close enough for government work! Wouldn't want you to jeopardize your career with the Air Force based on complete accuracy in flight envelopes and details.

Also, adopt a thick skin when offering your personal insight. I was helping Battlefront with their CMSF release and got into many attacks for my insight.

Matt
 
N2056 said:
Seems okay to me for Shane to explain that he actually works on the plane that he is involved with modeling...What's wrong with that? I don't think ridiculing a member is a great way for a new guy to get known here ;)
Click to expand...

It was only my intention to bring to light that I work on the aircraft that I helped create for AlphaSim. As someone else said, I hope it would lend a little legitimacy to our project. Besides, being in the military is just an occupation. I actually thank taxpayers as much as people thank me because if it weren't for you all I wouldn't have a pay check! ;-)
 
Shane, I hope you don't think I was referring to you in my reply about bashing...I posted that in your defense :salute:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top