Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
Come on guys, this is getting boring....what about a DC-8, early 737 or Mercure?
Ask that a year ago, Bjoern, when you get the time machine. Or has your development experience so far not told you how long these things take to reach the stage they were at?
A year ago, we had ZERO Mustangs. We now have two. Hardly "masses" and "overload" or anything else.
Seriously. If you're not interested, read another thread and ignore Mustang ones. It's not hard.
Bjoern, surely by now you must have realized that the particular area of (simulated) aviation you're interested in is not the same one that the majority of people on this forum are interested in, and the one which this forum was, in fact, originally set up to cater to.
does not, to my eye, look like an accurate and convincing representation of the real thing. I will not be purchasing.
In what way?
What difference does it make to you? I'm not interested in arguing aesthetics; a Mustang, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder. You like it, you buy it. I don't, I won't. No point in me taking the time to say anything further.
What then is te use of telling us you won't purchase? I have the experience that contacting developers directly with specific - constructive - critisism is appreciated by them. In this thread there are several posts with detail critisism but these are almost entirely negative. Why not also mention positive points? That is much more encouraging and constructive and developers can then better decide what to modify and what to retain, given limited resources.