On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:23:12 PM UTC-7, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Apr 2, 2:33*pm, Ramy wrote:

On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 8:12:55 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Sean, et al; please understand, this is an issue of disrespect to supporting users before it is an issue of approved flight recorder.



Yes, the soaring community is safer with the advent of PowerFLARM and certainly, the collision avoidance value of PowerFLARM is not in question.



However, it was PowerFLARM who took the initiative to submit software to IGC for evaluation and approval. When IGC approval was received, PowerFLARM had a fiduciary responsibility to make the software available to their supporting customers. So once again, where is PowerFLARM and especially PowerFLARM.US? Gentlemen, the longer you are unresponsive, the more disrespect you project.



The soaring distributor and consumer needs to send a stronger message to manufactures and not "enable" them with acceptance of poor customer support by adopting the "whatever" attitude. Unless you, the end user, openly express your displeasure, this type of customer treatment will only increase.



So, less sizzle and more steak please.



Ben



There is a 2.7 beta version which is working well and with some pressure I am sure they will post it publicly soon. Perhaps try posting to their official forum athttp://flarm.invisionzone.com/index.php?showforum=6



Ramy



I think posting it here is more appropriate as more people will see

how bad this manufacturer is. This has been going on for way too long.

They just don't give a ****! They sold us features that either are not

implemented or they don't work properly. Isn't this a breach of

agreement?

For heaven's sake folks, it seems like you're trying to put PF on the same level as a large corporation like Samsung, Apple or Microsoft. PF has done the US soaring community a huge service by being brave enough to introduce a challenging technology into our market. It's very hard to make a living in general aviation, let alone a decent living. I doubt these folks are getting rich at this. There are inevitable bugs in any technology development and I'd much rather have the PF capabilities sooner and help debug them than to wait until it's fully "mature". Perfect is the enemy of good. Yes, I'd love to have the logging function up for this season, but if it's a choice between enhanced PCAS or logging, I'll wait for the logging.

Small companies, limited resources. That's our world in soaring and I'm constantly amazed at the creativity and passion that's brought to bear on improving our sport.

A happy PF customer.