Or is it who's pirating whom? In any respect, I've noticed that a few panels are being released as payware with FS2002 default gauges included in the panels. I've also noticed that SOME people are including repainted FS2002 default aircraft as part of their packages too and charging a fee. (To make matters worse they look really bad.)Now, methinks that this is wrong. Even as part of a custom panel, recycling the default gauges or aircraft cannot be on the level. Sure Microsoft never complains but I would wonder how many of the same people practicing this would mind if their custom panel bitmap were recycled as part of some one elses work?Just an observation.Mike T.

are you sure that they are included in the package or are they just aliesed in the aircraft.cfg file from MSFS it self.. there is a differnce.

Hi Mike, I, for one, am going to have to agree with you 100%. Its ripping... if the rippie complains or not. If you are charging any kind of fee for your product, it should be just that...your product. I think designers should at least acknowledge that they are, indeed, including default, whatever. If its built from the ground up, say so. This will hold alot more water than trying to slide it thru the back door....you can fool some of the people some of the time... joe

The thing is, Perfect Flight doesn;t actually include the models or gauges in their packages. They only use them. Most of their commercial packages install textures for the default aircraft. It is stupid loophole, and nowhere does Perfect Flight acknowledge this, or even that they utilize content originally distributed with flight simulator. I for one, will never buy from Perfect Flight, due to the poor quality of their products, as a result of their predisposition to use content that ships with FS2002, when better freeware is easily obtainable.

Its not a loophole at all.Its perfectly proper to refer to a gauge the customer already posesses. Why reinvent the wheel ?That is the very meaning of the term add-on. To add on to what is already there.Regards.Ernie.

Sure, but one should acknowledge it then on the cover. The prices they charge are comparable to what other payware developers charge for completely original products.Misha

>Sure, but one should acknowledge it then on the cover. The prices >they charge are comparable to what other payware developers charge >for completely original products.I don't agree.There's nothing wrong with referring to stock gauges in a payware product.Its up to the buyer to beware by examining the screenshots, etc, etc and determining whether its a good value before putting their money down.Ernie.

If that is "payware, a Perfect Flight" panel you show there, I hereby rename it "slayware, a perfect fright". Think I'll stick to the marvellous world of freeware.Mark "Dark Moment" Beaumonthttp://www.swiremariners.com/newlogo.jpg

"That is the very meaning of the term add-on. To add on to what is already there"Is that so? Well, I am very certain PIC, DF, PSS, etc would NOT see it as a loophole if someone "referenced" their gauges, bitmaps and aircraft in an addon.How "legal" would it be if someone took the DF 737 panel, "referenced" the FMC and a few of the gauges, and then boxed it up with their own panel called it Mega 737 and sold it for $35? Would this be okay too? Does this "loophole" apply to everyone or just Microsoft?Mike T.

In my opinion, I think there are theives out there amongst all those that are trying to do it by the book. It is no conspericy, it is just how it is. That is life. And it always becomes more personal when you add in the factor of peoples money. Everything has a price and it is all a matter of what it is worth to you. Life is also a risk. It is up to the buyer to decide what is good and bad. When the end result comes only the buyer can decide if it was worth it. Lets just hope that we are all wise enough to see through the smoke screens that the theives may be putting up. When a thief is found out it is the duty of all of us to report them, and make sure they do not get any satisfaction from anyone......!

>>"That is the very meaning of the term add-on. To add on to what is >>already there">>Is that so? Well, I am very certain PIC, DF, PSS, etc would NOT see >it as a loophole if someone "referenced" their gauges, bitmaps >and >aircraft in an addon.The only people who could even use such an addon are those who already posess PIC,DF,PSS so I doubt they would complain about it. If they did they certainly would have no legal basis for it. There's no copyright infringement here.>How "legal" would it be if someone took the DF 737 >panel, "referenced" the FMC and a few of the gauges, and then boxed >it up with their own panel called it Mega 737 and sold it for $35? >Would this be okay too? Does this "loophole" apply to everyone or >just Microsoft? Its merely an add-on to an add-on. I see nothing illegal about this, and there is no loophole. If DF can add-on to MSFS why can't someone else add-on to DF ? Regards. Ernie.

Ernie:I actually see your point! :-lol I humbly concede that you are absolutely right! If someone just "references" or "joins" a product to another one, then there certainly is no fault.I tip my hat in concession to you sir! :-beerchugRegards,Mike T.

If something else is better because of the time and money saved by referencing an appropriate default gauge, I wouldn't care.I do agree that Perfect Flight products are not worth the price charged for them in my experience (though that is with older products only).Not only is there usually better freeware about, these products ARE compilations of freeware combined with automatically generated adventures.I'd like to hear from the authors of the freeware included if they gave their permission...In one package I got I found among others CSi and CamSim models.

haha, Mike your answer definitely caught me by surprise :)Regards.Ernie.

I think that everyone should take a deep breath and reread Ernie's posts. Think about this:1. Add-ons are (normally) designed to enhance one particular simulator (lets assume MSFS since we are in this forum).2. If the package/advertisement/press release says, "For FS2002," that implies that I must own FS2002 to use this enhancement.3. If you own FS2002, you own all of its components and can use them as you please. 4. MOST developeres do not include Microsoft components in their pacakge, they simply call them for use from your existing FS2002 installation. In the case of a panel, Panel.cfg may refer to both custom-made and default gauges in the same file.The point is that the developer/publisher didn't send you anything that is copyrighted by Microsoft, you already OWNED it. I hope that this continues for two reasons.1. I'd rather see developers working on new stuff instead of "reinventing the wheel."2. If they use a gauge that already works for everyone in the default panels, it will work for everyone in the devlopers new panel. If they release a new gauge, there is always a chance that it won't work properly in all configurations and then they get flamed for using the public for beta testing.Regarding DF or other payware gauges, I have seen some panels that come with two different config files: you use one if you OWN the DF gauges, and the other if you don't. I hope it stays just like it is. R-