Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerAce
It seems a lot of you are forgetting that HM encountered several months of urgent bug fixing after their release (which was rushed due to the announcement of the PT3 beta release) too.
It seems to me the mention of a PT3 never came up until after HEM was being developed and released in beta. I really doubt that the development of PT3 even started before HEM started being released in beta. The thread for HEM started in June of 2007 while the thread for PT3 was started in January of 2008. They have been WAY ahead of you since the beginning. Were you in the HEM meeting when they were discussing their initial release and the reason they were releasing it? If you were then your claim that it was released because of the announcement of PT3 is valid. If not then you are bashing your competitor with no proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerAce
They have a much smaller user base, and few people with a grudge against them, so you didn't hear about their problems as much.
Smaller user base? If this is true it's not much smaller. At least if we are talking about PT3 user base vs HEM user base. However I wouldn't be surprised if HEM user base if somewhat larger than the PT3 user base.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerAce
The initial release was rushed due to business arrangements, anxious partners, and a demanding public.
Way to pass the buck. The decision to release was ultimately made by those in charge of PT3. Way to even blame "a demanding public". When the customers are pissed the best thing to do is blame them as being part of the problem - sarcasm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerAce
In hindsight, things would've been smoother if we could've held off on the release, but that wasn't really an option.
In hindsight holding off the release was a perfect option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerAce
Basically, the problems we are having are due to an extremely complicated, flexible and POWERFUL Hud framework.
Excuses are for chumps and this sounds like something out of an infomercial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerAce
We could've gone the route of our competition and simply used pre-existing technology (PA Hud), but then we would face the same problems they will face: difficulty in expanding functionality and keeping up with user demands. Our Hud framework will allow us to do nearly anything we can imagine with it.
I really don't think you can foresee what will happen in the future with HEM and it's HUD. Sure the framework may be more simple the what you are trying to do but that doesn't mean that they won't be able to keep up with user demands. You may be absolutely correct but we really just don't know if this is true. Again, with the bashing of HEM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerAce
Fortunately, we are now extremely close to having the major problems completely eliminated. I don't expect it to take another full week, but I am not comfortable releasing what we have now since there are still a few known bugs.
I really hope this is true. I own PT3 and, as I have stated in the past, I hope it is successful. Competition will only help make the databases we use, whether it be PT3 or HEM, better.
I've said it once I will say it again, I wish you guys all the luck in the world. There is no doubt you are putting in long hours trying to make the best product possible. Have you made correct decisions all the way through this project? Not by any means. Have you always done what you thought was best? Certainly. Right now you are just WAY behind the competition and are losing customers. I own your product but will be purchasing HEM when my trial period is complete. I will then have two database management tools which I can use and will use which ever is best for my needs. Right now it's not even close....HEM is what I am using.