albertsch

If you bother to read my post, I have certainly accepted the fact that I made an error -- a "complete mistake," as you so curiously phrase it (as though there were any other kind). That has never been at issue.

I also stated, quite plainly I thought, that my dudgeon is over the lack of any such annotation on the main featured advert, the one just under the new Dakota. It seems to me that the Archer should have been clearly and obviously labeled as being solely for FS9/2004 -- and not dependent upon a line buried in the text of a subsequent page.

Dream Fleet is a commercial operation, and, as such, should be held accountable for the clarity and accuracy of its advertising, just as any other commercial enterprise should be. I see nothing "immature" about admonishing the publishers of the website to clearly and accurately mark their products.

Further, it would seem your definition of "harsh" is other worldly. Nothing in my post could conceivably be considered as anything other than an honest criticism, as it was intended to be.

Albert, I think you are being really harsh and immature.

 

Basically, you made a complete mistake. The Archer is clearly marked as a FS9 product. It's proximity to the advert for the Dakota is irrelevent. You made the mistake and as I see it, you have absolutely no comeback or reason to in anyway blame or criticize Dreamfleet.

 

Stand up to your mistake and stop blaming everyone else.

 

David.

I clearly stated above that this was the case, only that the text to which you refer was not a part of the main highlight on the home page which is the source from which I made the purchase.

I am critical of the way the aircraft was advertised; immediately under the advert for the new Dakota, touted for FSX. That is what I judge, not anyone in particular. If you are associated with Dream Fleet's website, you should be making a change so that such errors are avoided. If you are not associated with the Dream Fleet website, I don't think you have much room to rate me on my post.

I think that you might want to check your sources. According to the purchase website located here:

 

http://dreamfleet2000.com/Previews/181/purchase_181.html

 

I have extracted this quote:

 

"The Archer III is for FS2004 (FS9), Windows XP and Windows Vista 32* only. It will not operate in FSX. A version of the Archer III for FSX is planned for release at a later date."

 

What is important is in bold. I really hate when people judge you and they are wrong, for something so obvious.

I am a bit irritated that I downloaded and attempted to install the Archer thinking that it was, like the Dakota emblazoned just above it on the website, already FSX capable. Alas, I paid for it and cannot install it. Ergo, I shall vote for the Archer out of self-interest in hope that I may eventually benefit from my purchase.

As an aside, it would be beneficial to all were the current Archer to carry a label indicating that it is not yet ready for FSX -- as it is now, that admonition is mentioned almost as an aside in a paragraph of text on the detail pages.

:(