Lago FSSE opportunity lost

[greggerm 312]

I'm sure it's been mentioned before somewhere, but I just thought of it and perhaps it would be useful for "FSSE v2.0" or something...Perhaps next time around, in addition to the Lago-created objects, there can be some sort of creation and SUBMISSION system. Users can create objects and submit them to Lago, or a team of Lago-selected users (such as the beta testers?) for judgement on size, performance, and quality. There would be a series of strict rules for content such as making things not specific for a certain airport, appropriatness, and perhaps performance hit/texture size. This team would judge them and then pass the good ones along to Lago for inclusion in the next set of updates. Where, of course, Lago has the final say. There are issues of judgement that go into play with it, but it would allow for end-user assistance in creating objects and help to ease the burden on Lago for creating huge volumes of objects.Of course, this also presumes that the objects created for FSSE are done so in GMax or other standard, available tools. Food for thought for the next version, at least. FSSE is probably the easiest to use MSFS scenery tool. It really is deserving of praise for what it can do within MSFS compared to its peers. I just think everyone who is curious about scenery editing above and beyond a passing interest is looking to expand on the ideas and implementations used in FSSE!

[Guest]

Hi Greg,While thats an interesting idea and one that should at least be considered by Lago, I think that only covers one half of the same issue.If end-users submit designs for FSSE as a commercial application, it only makes it right to also include a free runtime for end-users as well. Make the designing.. oops.. "enhancing" aspect of the tool a separate application that is charged for (since Lago is indeed a commercial interest), but if they accept end-user creations for the tool, the runtime must be free as well. This is only fair, from my side of the fence as a designer - um... I mean.. "enhancer". (Actually, I kind of like that term better. Maybe we owe a debt of gratitude to Lago for refining our name better. Enhancer. Yes! :-) - thats a friendly smile for you Mathijs!).I have no doubts thats why Lago created the closed system to begin with. As a commercial enterprise, they do have a responsibility to their bottom line, and we should at least respect that (as mainly businessmen/women here, I'd think). Doesn't mean I personally have to agree with it of course - specially when I see it as having the capability of splintering the established and more than healthy traditions of a thriving community. But then again, I'm a Liberal activist by nature. Yes, really! :-lolTake care,Elrondhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/Boycott-RIAA.gif]"A musician without the RIAA, is like a fish without a bicycle."[/font://http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/B...cle."[/b][/font

[Guest]

Nothing stops you today from adding a static plane, or a fuel box or a fence to a default airport using fssc, or airport, or asd, or architect. Each come with canned macros making themselves available to beginners.If you choose to add only some simple things to an airport using "design" tools , don't those programs magically transform themselves into "enhancement" tools?The key and desireable feature of fsse is the wsyiwyg nature, which is independant of the quantity or purpose intended in the addition of code to fs.Thus my point...semantics that simply muddle the discussion.

[nudata 10]

Quite a judgemental response in itself. If we all required specific credentials to be critical only doctors would criticize doctors or barbers would critize haircuts. A very odd position. As to my opinion - I feel that an open tool is more valuable to the simulator community. If so, then they are the market and will respond in kind. The output of this exceptional item is restricted to only those that purchase the product. Lago, I sense, is having difficulty with creating new products and expanding older ones. It "seems" that creating new products comes first since many appear to be licensed creations. The marketing and support of so many again "seems" to occupy their time.Finally, the product is a commercial item and has had difficulty meeting "perceived dates". Refer to the Lago website. In my total ignorance of marketing flight simulator products I continue to believe that an open treatment of this excellent product benefits both parties - Lago and sim fans.By the way I managed a 3 milliom a year operation where I did both product managment and marketing. I have had two consulting engagements since retirement doing product development and marketing. Just think that "credentials" makes a silly and restrictive argument.Regards,DickKLBEPS: This continues to be my favorite site!Dick

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Dick, I am glad that this continues to be your favorite site, cause if anytime I crossed swords with a reader and they were to leave, we'd be a lonely place here. Thanks for staying, despite me... :)Having said that... "I managed a 3 milliom a year operation where I did both product managment and marketing"... I see your hand and raise it by six or eight (actually more, but that's not really germain). I too manage a substantial revenue generating area for my "real life" job, and am too a Marketing Manager of some 30+ years standing. I would never ever question the marketing judgement of a company in whose field I was not intimately knowledgable of. Being a marketing manager of say, vegetable wholesale operations, doesn't necessarily qualify me to be a marketing manager or product manager in software and certainly not within the narrow niche of flight simulation. I wouldn't know vegetable wholesale from marketing mega-yachts, but you get my drift, I am sure.Your argument of an open tool, had you taken that tack, would have been far more credible (and understandable) rather than the one you did; disparaging, and frankly condescending. It was that tone that got my dander up, so to speak.I think all of us would love to have "open source" everything. The LINUX approach times a gazillion. Ain't to be. I know if our stuff was open source (my real life job that is), I would be out of a job. And I think that is the ultimate point. Open source is great; as long as you keep your day time job to feed yourself. God forbid your employer goes open source... :)

[Guest]

Not to step on either of your toes here, but I think when people in these threads have been discussing open, the issue wasn't one of "open source", but "open architecture". ie: opening up the proprietary data files so end user submissions could be added.I don't think anyone in his right mind would argue for Lago doing a 180 and open sourcing their commercial software and giving it away for free. (but, I did see that exact suggestion here.. LOL). I think most still fully expect to pay for software from Lago when they design or enhance scenery.Again, not to step on either of you or Dick's toes and I could have been misreading the whole thing the past couple days.Take care,Elrondhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/Boycott-RIAA.gif]"A musician without the RIAA, is like a fish without a bicycle."[/font://http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/B...cle."[/b][/font

[Guest Stamatis]

Hi Bob,"Thus my point...semantics that simply muddle the discussion." Reading your reply above I agree that you are definitely confused (or should I say muddled? :-) ). I am sorry about that.Nevertheless, whatever FSSE is to you, I still like it, but I would prefer it an open tool.Stamatis

[Guest daves0]

Yes...I want everything free...enough of this money making garbage...open source the world....In the case of FSSE---If modelers were willing to make objects, give them to Lago to be included in future pack releases, why not???As hobbyists, most folks that have the ability to make 3D objects probably would be very willing to submit them to Lago for inclusion...any reason that could not be done? No toe stepping or money lost...all Lago has to to do is include the objects in the release.I think most users of FSSE would even pay for packs if they were reasonably priced and included a vast array of objects....such as a "Bush Pack"---complete with numerous docks, cabins, etc etc...some northwoods animals, couple of igloos...you know what I mean :)A big tree pack, factory pack, vehicle pack...those 2 cars I have now are quite pitiful IMO....How about United Airline Pack, Northwest Pack, etc etc...all models of an airlines....The possibilities are endless but for just a little code change, or in this case, probably nothing more than a spec to be sure the models are useable in FSSE.

[greggerm 312]

Well, as it stands now, end users already submit their completed scenery files to Lago for distribution. Submitting objects wouldn't be all that different, in my humble opinion. :-) Even though I too wish there was a free "viewer" tool to let people see FSSE scenery, I guess I'll equate it to the Dreamfleet aircraft... Using the Text-o-Matic tool, ANYone can paint and design an airplane. But you must purchase the airplane in order to use it. There are scads of free liveries available for their planes, all done by people who own the original package. True, you don't necessairily buy the DF737 simply to paint it, but many users didn't buy FSSE to actively design in it - they may just want to view other people's efforts. But in both cases the edits, creations, and modifications are done "for the users, by the users" of a particular item. Think back to FS4... the A&SD package (if memory serves me correctly) only allowed you to view the created/edited scenery if you owned the scenery editor. (I was in jr. high then, so it's a little way back) FSSE users all know the limitations on distribution for their works. Most of us bought it with that knowledge. But what better way to secure a loyal user base than involving them more in the creation process! I dunno - I'm just trying to come up with ideas that allow Lago to remain in control of their library, as well as give use outside users a good shot at a huuuuge library of optimized, high quality objects. I like this thread better than the other one on the topic. :)-Greg

[Guest]

An odd twist, a statement that tends toward personal attack. I don't think I've ever jumped on you Stamatis. I'm certainly far from being controversial, and I believe my point is a good one if we wish to flush out the real meaning of a company and get rid of some smokescreen.And if you disagree, fine....but what's up with the highly critical post?Trolling for flame?Well, rather than flame you, I'll just say that you've offended me and taken what had been an interesting thread and bullied away one of the dialogs....I'll keep you in mind and avoid conversation with you in the future.Bob Bernstein

[Guest sbdwag]

Here's my final observations.The complexity of FSSE must be an order of magnitude greater that anyone of us except Lago appreciates.The reason the landing gear on the Arrow has never been fixed is because "It would cost serious money to be fixed" Well that may be the case my question is why have it in there anyway. We could put it in the scenery with all the other animals.Perhaps Lago should just announce no more service packs, unless we pay for them. Then publish the list and let us decide if we like them before we buy them.None of us probable really grasp the complexity and the implications of what we are asking them to do. Back to the real world of laying in polygons and macros by handDennis

[Guest Stamatis]

Bob,I am sorry you feel that way. My intention was not to offend. I reread my short post and I see nothing offensive to apologize about."I'll keep you in mind and avoid conversation with you in the future."That is your prerogative, and I am not offended by your decision.Stamatis