Posky dynamics forum - NO discussion

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Freeware certainly isn't untouchable, but showing the utmost respect for the way critiques are given I think is a prerequisite for participation in any forum hosted by a freeware provider, or in these forums. I've received emails and public comments from people, the content of which you wouldn't believe. And you know what? I'm not paid to take it, and neither are the freeware groups. Once someone starts mocking a name (using the "Project BrokenSky" example), I think a line gets crossed. Yet someone always comes in and says we shouldn't treat freeware with kid gloves. Why is that? What if the shoe were on the other foot, and I referred to AFG by another combination of those three letters? That's what I'm talking about, and that's the type of commentary that had better stop in our community.-John

[Guest]

The post at DF got not a single response, so it looks like it may well have slipped off the page and not been seen. My suggestion would be to 'bump' it to at least make sure it gets read.Having said that, you state that all was well initially which indicates that something about your setup is the cause of the problem and as you can imagine, that's a very hard one to provide support for.I'd still bump it a few times though.All the best,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...BANNER_PAUL.jpg

[Guest flightpro08]

They only lock/remove posts that involve questions that have been discussed a thousand times and do not be brought up again. These questions usually involve issues people have with the FDEs, and that have been achknowledged by POSKY.Of course they don't want you to modify their FDEs. How would you feel if someone took all of your work, altered it a bit, and then redistributed it as though it were yours? Sure, more people would be honest and give POSKY the credit, but there will always be a few terrible people that come along, alter the FDE, and then claim it to be theirs. I don't blame POSKY for not wanting to take that risk.With all due respect Gregory, you're arugment has no basis, and should have never been brought up in the first place. POSKY works their butt off to produce FREEE aircraft for out Flight Sim community. And this is what you give them in return? :-rollRyan-Flightpro08 :-cool VATSIM Pilot/ControllerZLA ARTCC Senior Controller (C-3)SAN TRACON Lead ASRC (Advanced Simulated Radar Client) Beta Tester-----------------------------My "Home Made" System Specs:Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz ProcessorTurbo Gamer ATX Mid-Tower with 420W Power SupplyEPoX 4G4A Motherboard with Intel 845G ChipsetVisiontek XTASY GeForce4 128MB Ti4600 (Det 30.30 Drivers)512MB PC2100 DDR RAM40GB Matrox 7200RPM Hard DriveWindows XP Home Edition SP1*No CPU or GPU Overclocking*3dMark2001SE Score: 11298-----------------------------Click [link:ftp.avsim.com/library/esearch.php?DLID=&Name=&FileName=&Author=Ryan+Fretwell&CatID=Root]Here to Download my New American Eagle POSKY CRJ-200!

[Guest Milio_B]

I understand what you say, but that is NOT with I am talking about...I talk about the many times a person says "this plane is modelled wrong or has a crappy FDE" and people answer "don't complain, you got it for free." Insulting is a totally different subject.

[Guest]

>>Of course they don't want you to modify their FDEs. How >would you feel if someone took all of your work, altered it >a bit, and then redistributed it as though it were yours? >Sure, more people would be honest and give POSKY the credit, >but there will always be a few terrible people that come >along, alter the FDE, and then claim it to be theirs. I >don't blame POSKY for not wanting to take that risk. >>With all due respect Gregory, you're arugment has no basis, >and should have never been brought up in the first place. >POSKY works their butt off to produce FREEE aircraft >for out Flight Sim community. And this is what you give them >in return?>>Ryan-Flightpro08has no basisWell Mr. Ryan, and with all due respect to you, I think it just might because the basis is in the statement that `editing the CFG file' is NOT `unauthorized FDE editing' as they put it, and there's nothing wrong with asking about issues that may be wrong or backwards.I think what turned them off the most was not that I posted a CRJ report (on their site) or engaged a question from another user, but the elaborate formatted content that I presented.Also interesting to note is that more than twice as many avsim.com users would rather join in what looks like a `hot arguement' here than view the actual CRJ flight report!!Cheers to you... { smile }Gregory Abbey - Edwinnengineering

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"I talk about the many times a person says "this plane is modelled wrong or has a crappy FDE" and people answer "don't complain, you got it for free." "And that's one of my major beefs, because most often, that's how the critiques are presented. I'd rather see someone come in and say "I have improvements with the flight model, here they are" and leave it at that. No gloss, no overblown presentation, no insults. And by all means, people who get something for free but take such issue with flight dynamics should learn how to contribute more. I can't change a broken visual model--but anyone can open up notepad and start learning why flight dynamics are the way they are.If you look in the A/C design forum, you'll also see I have no problem offering suggestions if such information is solicited, or even if it isn't. :) The difference is in trying to take an assertive, rather than an aggressive approach. Coming into a forum and saying "This is modelled wrong" doesn't carry as far as coming in and saying "I've observed these things with a CRJ. Here's my improvements. What do you think?" or "Comparing the aircraft to photos, I noticed the window looks a little low. You might want to consider moving it". Give the freeware author some ownership by saying, "what do you think". And if people really think it might embarrass the author, keep it private. That's the least we can do considering what a gift freeware is.It's a fine line, and most often what I hear is "What do you mean, we can't criticize freeware?" Far from it, but remember that these authors work long hours, whether it be in a business, in school, or both. Look at Yannick's Robin. Lord knows how many hours were put into that. And you can bet, if I see someone come into the forum and say "this plane is modelled wrong or has a crappy FDE", I'm going to bash away. Because I've been on the receiving end of such B.S.... And it feels good to give back what I've been given :)

[John_Tavendale 453]

Now I see you're not only content with posting this on newsgroups, you have to let it spill into here too.Like I replied on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim:Providing information on 'tuning' FDEs only causes trouble from thoseinexperienced users who end up trying to change things they really don't know about. Obviously you're entitled to tweak and tune your own settings until your heart is content, however encouraging others to do so isn't wise. I guess Warren took exception to your posts. If you have suggestions for his FDEs, then why not email him about it? We can only benefit from constructive criticism.

[Guest Milio_B]

John, I totally agree with what you said, and what I said was an example, if I were to "criticize" a freeware plane, I wouldn't present my critique that way, that's for sure.I'm not saying you're the one that says "no complaints-free", there are lots of people that act that way, but without explaining or acting like you do...Of course we do have to count the hours of work, and there's no need to bash and insult a creation, but my point is we can give advices. Sometimes (and again, it's not you) people try to give advices and are interpreted the wrong way by developpers and then get bashed by a certain amount of people with the freeware argument.And about the FDEs, I thinbk John (the other one :() is right. FDEs and aircraft.cfg's tweaks can make the a/c work improperly, and unexperienced users might find it hard to undo the changes, or d/l the plane again..

[Guest]

Gregory,Keep doing what you are doing.

[Guest]

>I've received emails and public comments from people, the >content of which you wouldn't believe. And you know what? >I'm not paid to take it, and neither are the freeware >groups. Once someone starts mocking a name (using the >"Project BrokenSky" example), I think a line gets crossed. >Yet someone always comes in and says we shouldn't treat >freeware with kid gloves. Why is that?John...I cannot agree with you more. Unfortunately, too often we see freeware "discussions" go downhill very quickly, and far too many of them haven't got far to go before they're a lost cause.Yes, you're within your right to make comment on a freeware title. I've always thought that with ANY title (free/share/pay ware), the first line of support is a (polite) email to the author or vendor. Find out if they're already aware of, able to fix, or even willing to help. If that doesn't have legs, post (again, politely) to the boards.The one thing that I hope people keep in mind is that you really do get what you pay for in a lot of ways. If you want 24-hour support from a professional helpdesk, you can't expect it from a guy who spent his free time building a groovy new airplane and has a wife, kids, job, and maybe a master's program to work on. You want that, buy the software from a software shop... and pray that the publisher offers it.I've always thought that Freeware authors, more than their payware counterparts, have to be a pretty thick-skinned lot. It takes some fortitude to put forth the effort to produce an aircraft, scenery, or repaint and then turn around and say "Here you go, lads and ladies. Have at it." From what I can see on the boards here and elsewhere, the negative comments come almost immediately.With alarming regularity, there are people posting things like "This airplane rolls about as well as my gran who died in 1974. The author is either insane or a crack addict. I'll only ever download another of his aircraft just so as I can delete it!" rather than something more constructive like "This plane doesn't seem to have a crisp enough response in the roll axis. Anybody have thoughts or a fix?" Often, shortly a post relating to a freeware title (being of either the first or the second variety), you get a series of posts saying "This author is the man!" followed by rounds of "No he isn't. He's a dope."As to POSKY's models...I've thought that the landing gear are a shade too prone to collapse, but I've also seen the readme files that say "Sure, they may not be the most accurate FDEs in your minds, but we like them and that's what counts." I think that disclaimer goes a long way in this case... and since I spend a load more time flying light aircraft than I do the commercial ones, I simply removed the POSKY jets. Perhaps if I was more of a heavy pilot, I'd have made an issue of it, but that's neither here nor there.

[Guest Milio_B]

"With alarming regularity, there are people posting things like "This airplane rolls about as well as my gran who died in 1974. The author is either insane or a crack addict."Stupid people like that will ALWAYS be out there. There's nothing you can do to make them change their minds and their ways. Just ignore them.

[Guest]

>Stupid people like that will ALWAYS be out there. There's >nothing you can do to make them change their minds and their >ways. Just ignore them. Christ said that there will always be poor... Perhaps He also meant that there would always be those who were of limited means in other capacities as well. :-lolYou're right, of course. Those who are going to make such commentary may never grow out of it. It's tough, however, to ignore it... and I really only used the point to illustrate that it's a damn sight easier to get a hand from somebody whom you ask nicely than if you are, as my brother calls it, a "clI TRIED TO USE A PROFANITY HERE - AREN'T I STUPID!."

[gosta 0]

Hi Paul,>>Having said that, you state that all was well initially which indicates that something about your setup is the cause of the problem and as you can imagine, that's a very hard one to provide support for.<

[Guest]

Greg,I for one am interested in your "tweaks" as I, and others, have found the plane (767) very unrealistic in several performance areas. Dont get me wrong, they look superb and I applaud the countless hours that went into these planes. Warren's creations have brought happiness to folks all around the world. Most of the so-called "developers" can hardly claim that honor. Having said that, some of us are not into "watching" and want the most out of the FDE as FS2 architecture will permit. If you have constructive ideas, I think they would be very welcomed here so long as their posted with respect and tact. Good luck and keep us posted,Michael

[Guest Skedflyer]

Think Greg in not trying to harm or take any credit away from posky.Just think he is trying to help improve it in any way he can, yet follow the wishes of posky would of been the better way.The topic has been brought forward in the posky forum. I and the others were critized by the member of forum (not the posky members) that we don't know how to fly. It seems that the comments on the CRJ FDE seem to be side tracked, i can understand that they are very busy on other projects. Hearing Greg out and letting him present his fact can damage? and maybe we can all learn something.But Posky dose have a point on the edited FDE being released, but if he can help improve it I think we should hear him out.But the FDE is property of posky's, and it is there's to do as they wish for release to the public.