PowerFLARM 2.71...WTF?

Hmm, I see a market for rental IGC loggers. I know of a nice low time VL that is gathering dust at SLSA, somebody make an offer!

Kirk
66

Themi + SN10 + PFB + Oudie = too many darn loggers!

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

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 at
http://flarm.invisionzone.com/index.php?showforum=6

Ramy

Whether it was LX Nav or LX Navigation, it was one of the 57mm single cutout instruments that looks the same as the 57mm single cutout instrument by the company across the street, around the corner, or wherever they are.
"Doesn't do what it says it'll do" was the pilot comment.
A few (in this business 3 might even be considered a lot) companies are doing the same thing. Aren't we used to it yet?
Jim

On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 5:47:42 AM UTC-7, Richard wrote:
Do not put LX NAV in that category!!

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?

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.

On Apr 2, 5:41*pm, Craig Funston
wrote:
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.

Gentlemen...again my point is misunderstood. In order to receive IGC approval, software version 2.71 must already exist. There is no development time or expense involved to make it available to supporting customers so PowerFLARM, please explain the delay.

On Apr 2, 6:40*pm, wrote:
Gentlemen...again my point is misunderstood. In order to receive IGC approval, software version 2.71 must already exist. There is no development time or expense involved to make it available to supporting customers so PowerFLARM, please explain the delay.

Ben, I support you 100%! You are right!

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

Ramy, with respect, I've been asking since October on the official
forum, and after 2.6 beta was released (on very short notice, which
was very good of them), there has been silence from the company. 3
February, 4 March, 3 April posts... deafening silence. Even an auto
response ("Your business is important to us" - which normally bother
me) would be nice.

A lot of people view the requests, but no one posts to say they agree
- one voice from the wilderness is apparently easy to ignore.

I'll buy you a beer - Canadian beer - if you send me 2.7 beta. I
promise, no one will ever know... really, I can keep my mouth shut
(though reviewing my posts on their website doesn't look like it).

I am very happy with the anti-collision, and PCAS functions, of my
Brick. I wish I had FLARMnet data in my display, but I'm more
concerned by what is out there, and less of "who".

Dan