These developers produced work far better than Blueprint's quality and gave it away for FREE! To me what Blueprint is doing is no better than if Mach 1 were to start charging $17.50 for their stuff. There would (believe it or not) be folks that would buy it and at least Mach 1 does a better job at texturing their work! My other issue with Blueprint is their disdainful behavior as if they are the best developer on the market. It's their prideful behavior, quality of work, and outrageous price that disgust me. Really, charging for BOTH FSX and FS9??
I have a question for you...
If all those freeware developers didn't exist - we didn't have all those great works they produce - would you still feel the same way about Blueprint? I ask that because, many people (not necessarily you as the rest of your post explains), complain and their biggest complaint about them is that there is freeware work that is better than what they produce. Well, stop comparing them. All those freeware designers chose not to charge for their work when they could have and if I was them, you can bet I would be.
For those of you defending them, please explain why Blueprint is stating on their webpage: "
"At Blueprint Simulations we are committed to producing scenery add-ons for the Microsoft Flight Simulator of the highest-quality possible..."
That statement is proven untrue!!
I guess it depends on your definition of quality. To them, what they produce is high-quality stuff. Believe it or not, some people don't care about all the realistic texturing and impeccable detail you get with FlyTampa and FSDT (I know I once didn't care about it when I first started simming). But I agree, not exactly a true statement.
"Blueprint Simulations version of KLAX is by far the most detailed and accurate rendition ever attempted for this important airport...
Again NOT TRUE!!
Definitely agreed. It is not the most detailed. The C9 version put out many years ago is far more detailed. Accurate? Well, maybe. I haven't compared the C9 version and the BP version to real life but I know since the C9 version, there have been many changes at LAX and if BP represented those, then that would hold true. But yeah, the statement as a whole is not true. Completely agree with you there.
"Blueprint’s version of KMCO offers the most accurate, up to date and detailed rendition ever offered..."
Maybe it is more up to date given the C9 version is a few years older, but that would be the only accurate statement there.
Again, I agree. It could be the most up to date (I'm not familiar with the airport) but as for most detailed, maybe not. The C9 version is quite detailed and there is a freeware version out there that is also very good (I believe it is Mach 1).
Blueprint is playing both sides of the fence. They are saying:
"At Blueprint Simulations we are committed to producing scenery add-ons for the Microsoft Flight Simulator of the highest-quality possible..."
Then, because people know their work is very bad for the price they charge, they cover their tracks on the other side of the fence by saying: "We did not embark in this adventure to improve or replace what other developers are already offering..." Or that they know how their work compares to others... If their work didn't suck, there would be no need for that statement on their webpage. Yet, for some reason, they seem to be producing sceneries FSDT and other developers are currently working on, or already recenty did. If they are not trying improve or replace other developers work, why do them? Why not stick to stuff no one has done yet? But to create 2 sceneries previously done by Cloud9 and say "BluePrint Simulations version of KLAX is by far the most detailed and accurate rendition ever attempted for this important airport... "Blueprint’s version of KMCO offers the most accurate, up to date and detailed rendition ever offered..."
It sounds to me like Blueprint IS improving and replacing what other developers are already offering... At least by their standards.
If the quality of their work actually reflected how they advertise it, or stop advertising their work in such a manner, I would shut my mouth. Otherwise, I really feel bad for those folks who shoveled out so much in desperation to have an airport they love not modeled in the world of FS at such bad quality. What Blueprint is doing today is barely equal to what Simwings was doing 7 years ago. Someone posted that Blueprint's business strategy is very good idea. I agree!!!! I believe it is Blueprint's marketing strategy to target these people, and given the fact that they roll out so many a year by creating poorly modeled and textured buildings etc. is a great money making strategy with little and quick work.
Again, for the most part, I agree with you. (Surprise Bruce, I'm not a "fan boy." I notice the flaws in Blueprint and I don't defend them over everything.) Their marketing is false and possibly misleading, although they do provide so many screenshots no one can claim you didn't know what you were buying.
I think part of the problem is the definition of "quality." I think to them they think what they are making is high-quality but our definition of high-quality is quite different. And when they saying they aren't trying to improve or replace...again, I think they are trying to express that they know they aren't going to get customers like us that strive for the detail level of FSDT or FlyTampa. They know that and they accept it. But that is just my interpretation.
It is obvious which developers are here because they love the hobby and who is here to make money. That is their right. I just feel bad for Umberto, Kappa, George, Martin and several other developers to see competition like this. But no worries, these guys are getting my money. 
And that is exactly what you should do; vote with your dollars. If you don't like it, don't spend on it. If enough people don't vote for BP with their money and not enough people do, then they won't be selling their product anymore.
And to Virtuali's earlier post, I bought KDCA last year. It's old and it doesn't have AES sadly, but the quality is DAMN good for such an old scenery. I would like to hear just one person say that about one of Blueprint's NEW sceneries. Even the folks defending them think their work is weak.
KDCA is one of my favorites from the FSDT/C9 crews. Mostly because of the unique location of the airport but they did a bang-up job on that airport and for such an old scenery, it really doesn't show its age.
And no, you don't really sound angry. As you said, you said rather passionate, especially about LAX, which if I recall, you work there right?
(Sorry, I had to work that in once more.) You are absolutely right...capitalism at its finest. Unethical? I disagree. I actually think their price point is rather fair, maybe slightly high, but really not as bad as some people claim.
Anyways, hopefully my quoting worked right and I don't have any of my comments stranded in quote tags.
