Sign in to follow this  
Guest

AVSIM Community Chat - Right of Reply

Recommended Posts

Fermin, :-lol ... I would have never thought that a transcript of an online chat would have resulted in a "Right of Reply". Good post amigo! And... I am sure that it will generate some discussion; hopefully not heated! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Everyone is missing the real angst between Ralph Zimmerman and folks like Jeroen and me....He equated the loss of APL to the entire sim technology taking a step back.That ELEVATES the claim of importance of adventures, which initiates heated dialog.Had he only said, its a shame that the new sim will be advanced in everything except support for apl, he may not have had an argument.Bob Bernstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,Could you please find any part of anything that I have written that equates the loss of APL to the entire sim technology taking a step back and let me know exactly what that text said by quoting it. All I ever said was COULD be and referenced only one very small part of the whole world of Flight Simulator and concluded this way:"While you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, He equated the loss of APL to the entire sim technology taking a step back.That ELEVATES the claim of importance of adventures, which initiates heated dialog."Very well said.. few reply and most are against to the original open letter, from there is more than millions nick name available in flight sim community 0.000001% reply. Did you think the entire comunity will cry about adventure :-lol Waist of time....Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ralph,<>It couldn't be more simple! Here's the direct quote:"Microsoft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, At least now, we know the reputation of both Fermin and Ralph Zimmerman :-lol, Enought said..Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Dead wrong, so wrong we need to measure the innacuracy with a calendar. APL is part of the FS2000 SDK, so it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, crack me up!It is true that Ralph's admitted purpose was to drum up activity at his site, and I guess it worked. lolThrowing around attention getting headlines (even if absurdly inaccurate) has worked before and will work again.But, Ralph, aren't you just the least little embarrassed by how far you had to self promote to get attention.I'd never heard of you before your headline was followed by an article that did NOT support the premise. Now I know you. Happy? I know you for a person who will stoop to headline scare tactics to get attention.whoopie.oh, and I nearly forgot, great news about your downloads...gets me all a'twitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess many of us were like me, in the wrong time-zone to catch the AVSIM community chat live (in my case 4:00AM) so I was glad to see the TXT dump of the chat was made available. Well after reading it I am sorry I didn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,i think all the guys that say "now i've discovered VATSIM,and that is ten times better" are making a weak point:i fly adventures regularly,and i DO happen to like them.i've also flown on VATSIM,when i could,and liked that better,because you also get to chat with others ocasionally.But,and it is a big big BUT:i also happen to live in a country village of 1200 inhabitants,where there is no highspeed internet,broadband or whatever they call it.being unemployed,having back trouble,and a small gouvernment allowance of which me and my wife must do everything,i simply cannot be online for three hours,let alone do a pond crossing or something.(please note:i got myself into this situation,and i'm only citing it to prove my point for all you jet jockeys with a 4thousand dollar computer and highspeed internet,btw...well done :-) )and THIS is why i like the adventures:i have a friend,who DOES have an adsl connection,and he downloads adventures for me,puts them on a disc,and when i'm with him,i take them home and fly them(kinda hard to burn vatsim on cd eh ;-) )this way,i do get an "as real as it gets feeling" and my wife and i don't have to eat carton because i fly on the internet 5 times a month.so,i would be real sad to see abl go,and i think everyone who talks like:no use,useless,go fly vatsim,is talking rubbish.because for me it is a great invention.i would LOVE to fly vatsim...but i can't pay that,and i am REALLY REALLY glad that there are still people who give me the chance to fly adventures,by which i become a (hopefully) better pilot,AND get the feeling i am flying "real",and all that on a p3 500. thanks for readingTom. p.s i'm looking for sponsors ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like you have a problem with the word "could" for in the same email you find it both inacurate and scary.What is it that you find inacurrate in my editorial? Did I get a date wrong? Mispell a name? The dated quotes are from Microsofts own publications. What is to be scared of in ANYTHING about a computer simulation? Headline scare tactics? NOT. If you percieve it that way, that's your choice.And I am not ashamed at all for anything. If all of this caused just a few people to get more enjoyment out of their flight simulator in a different way then they had previously done and maybe learned something along the way then it's definitly worthwhile.Too bad that you didn't read and comprehend the whole editorial. What I said was that Microsoft stated they were replaceing APL with ABL and what I said was that the same things that could be done in APL can't be done in ABL as stand alone products from Microsoft. Even what was done with Radar Contact, it still depended on a third party utility(FSUIPC) to inteface with Flight Simulator. And, I will give you one very good reason why developers might shy away from even learning the new language. Most of us through time develop little subroutines that work well to accomplish a specific purpose. APL was a compiled language and so those little proprietary routines were essentially hidden from others and couldn't be copied unless someone illegally decompiled or reverse enginereed the file. Because ABL is an interperted language, the source code is open to anyone with a text editor and thus any developers code would essentially be placed in the public domain with no protection for others just taking the routines and code and calling it their own.So, if Microsoft chooses this open method of doing things in other areas , it could hinder other third party developers from producing quality add-ons becase they could not protect their work. Not saying that MS will, but if they did, it could influenece the advancement of third party add-ons that we've all come to know and enjoy. If we have to turn to C++, Delphi or other languages, then we still need FSUIPC (not a Microsoft product) and the interface to Flight Simulator through ABL would still be open source code .Who would have ever though that in spite of the advancement in many areas that Combat Flight Simulator 3 brought to the plate, (especially in weather and clouds- which by Microsofts own tech article may be ported over to Centuery Of Flight) that MS would have departed so radically from their earlier products (Combat Sims 1 & 2). Just look at the file structures. Was that a step forward for Combat Flight Simulator enthusiats and those who had been prodcing good add-ons? Most think not.Not saying that it will, but knowing how Microsoft has promised backward compatibilty before and didn't necessarily do it without changes and rewrites being necessary, it could happen again. Sorry, I forgot, there's that word "could" again that's misunderstood.Speculation? Some, but certainly there is a lot of fact here as it pertains to ABL and APL. And what happened with CFS3 is certainly fact. Just things to think about but certainly not scary.Ralph Zimmerman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GuysDon't you think your attacks on Ralph and Fermin were 'over the top'? To suggest, as you have, that Ralph's editorial was designed to promote interest in his site is plainly ludicrous!I have never understood the technicalities of the 'languages' used in producing adventures and therefore bow to the knowledge of Ralph in these matters.One thing's for certain though. The ATC model used by Microsoft in FS2002, although very much a step in the right direction, is still a long long way from representing the real world. That said, and in fairness to Microsoft, they're certainly moving in the right direction but have always relied on '3rd Party' developers to enhance their FS products. (That is, after all, why they issue SDKs).By limiting or excluding the possibility of adventure programming designed to work with FS is, IMHO, a backward step if you're the type of 'armchair' pilot who, like me, strives for as real an experience as you get out of the simulator.And you can't get any more real that reality itself. Ralph's Flight 9973 IS totally real. It was a real flight from the UK to Malaga and nothing you hear on the flight was synthetically produced. The procedures and routings used on the flights as directed by ATC on the day are what actually happenned on the flight, and you simply cannot get more real than that! Sure, flying 'adventures' isn't for everyone. If you're not into accuracy of flying and enjoy 'basic freelight' and looking at eye candy, that's great.But if you use FS as a tool to mimic reality as far as possible and enjoy the technical procedures of accurately flying planes like 737's as well as using FS as a learning tool, then there's a real place for good adventures.And until Microsoft gets their 'world' closer to reality, guys like Ralph and Fermin, and the work they produce remain an invaluable addition to the hobby. And their work should not be hindered by changes in supported 'languages'. In my opinion.Toni.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom,Your argument is flawed because your merely noting technical and financial reasons why you cannot fully appreciate Vatsim.This really has nothing to do with comparing the experience of Vatsim ATC, to programmed adventures.A better argument would be to note the gaps in Vatsim area coverage whereas adventure generators like Flight Shop, Radar Contactand Proflight could create an ATC environment for any flight anywhere. But that is not the argument you made, and its a pity because it was always the best argument in favor of ATC adventures.Instead your position notes the frustration about not having the resources and access to fully appreciate Vatsim rather than a true comparision of Vatsim vs programmed adventures.Finally I note, I did not claim Vatsim was better than adventures, but rather said I personally lost interest in adventures when I discovered Vatsim. Which is true for many other people as well.Vatsim combined with FS2002's own internal ATC has made programmed adventures less appealling IMO. Even if you give creedence to programmed adventures like RealATC, the number of these type of realistic ATC adventures available are very small.I do know of what I speak, for a time I was one of the most active adventure programmers around, I wrote many adventures and a adventure generator called Aplgen. The document I wrote years ago describing in detail the APL language is at fsadventures.net with my permission. Regards.Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Face it Ralph, your a publicity hound. Your claiming innocence around the word "could" is jouralistic sleeze. It'd be like publishing a headline, "ASTOROID COULD OBLITERATE THE EARTH", even thou in the article you let people know the chances are one in a million. Responsible newspapers will regularly review such possibility, I've read several articles about the trajectory of near asteroids. Know why the newspapers never wrote one of these stories under the headling "ASTOROID COULD OBLITERATE THE EARTH"? I mean, you would defend it, right? After all, they said "could". Right?Bob B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

toni, I don't remember attacking fermin, and as far as ralph goes, my point is only that his headline is all about generating fear that the new version of the sim will be worse than fs2002 (all because of this one element). If he were more willing to admit that his one favorite element is only a small part of a greater product, then I would never have entered the conversation.Publishing under the headline "MSCOF could be a step back" is irresponsible. Right away several newbies beleived fs2002 sdk 3rd party aircraft and scenery would not work. I believe the entire thing is a publicity stunt. I beleive fermin is also vested in increasing the publicity over adventures. This new thread was likely created cuz no one seemed interested anymore.You wish to think about the adventures themselves, and that's fine. Notice I've never commented pro or con about adventures. Bob Bernstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,Just for your information, I did not publish the editorial. I merely wrote it and sent it in as a letter to the editor. Editors could have chosen not to put it where it wound up and I had no control over that. There is no question that I chose the title very deliberatly just to get people like you to read it. Had you read my post earlier today in this forum you would have realized that there could be much to FS2004 in the way of changes like MS did with CFS3 You could have also chosen NOT to read it or read to the point where it didn't interest you and left it at that. I also cannot be responsible for how people choose to interpet what they read or if they lack the education do so. If you feel that new people are confused then why do you not lend them a hand and steer them straight which would be constructive instead of continuing to belabor a moot point that cannot be changed. Publicity hound, NOT. At least not for my work. I encouraged folks to seek out this type of enjoyment at the popular sites and at www.fsadventures.net. The destruction of earth from an asteroid and the changing of something in flight simulator are very not quite the same, Bob.Ralph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie,Thanks for jumping in here with your views. It wasn't until this post that I realized who you were. I remember your work and thought it was great.Best regards,Ralph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie,as flawed as my argument may be,it IS the APL language that gives me the opportunity to fly a "real" flight,with real voices,instead of ATC by MS .now a couple of the reasons why i use it are quite clear,BUT the biggest you've missed(maybe i did not explain clearly,being non english and such)i use those adventures because i REALLY like them,and even IF i could fly VATSIM,i would still practice my flying skills by flying an adventure.IMHO they are perfect for what i want to do,and so I would be sorry to see ABL go.now those are all my FLAWED opinions,i know,but to say abl is useless(as some people do,not YOU personally) is way over the top,it serves me well,and i would love to continue to use it.one question for you though:as most of my reasons are financial and technical,does that make them less valid?ABL does best in creating what i like best...that is why i won't want it to leave,but most other reasons are indeed financial and technical.little example:i drive a fiat panda,and i do not have a navigation system(could use it though ;-) ) ,because of technical(it does not fit in my car) and financial(IF i could pay it,i would rather buy a new puter)reasons,so i use a roadmap instead.now if i take your opinion bluntly,the argument not to buy a navigation system is flawed,because "i am merely stating technical and financial reasons" and therefore by stating why I personally choose the roadmap, i am giving you a flawed argument.however,we all decide that way,isn't that true?these are all my opinions...and for me ABL is good enough,and i would indeed be sorry to see it go.(i bet you use a roadmap too...c'mon,admit it ;-) )respectfullyTom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BobWhere did that idea come from? I fully read Ralph's article and certainly didn't get the impression that 3rd part planes and/or scenery may not work in the new version of FS..... (although, based on past experiences, some probably won't work without patches despite claims of full SDK compliance :) )Unless I'm sorely mistaken, Ralph's main contention is that adventures which work in the current (or last) version will no longer be supported in the new one. And, as I said before, that can be considered a retrograde step if truly authentic flying 'is your thing'.Perhaps in time, Microsoft's ATC/AI setup will be close to reality, and they're certainly taking large steps towards it, but effectively closing the door to 3rd party adventures in the meantime surely isn't the way forward.... They've 'accomodated' plane and scenery designers, even encouraged them. Why not adventure designers too?All a publicity stunt? I certainly don't buy that theory at all.Toni.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>i use those adventures because i REALLY like them,and even IF i >could fly VATSIM,i would still practice my flying skills by flying >an adventure.>>IMHO they are perfect for what i want to do,and so I would be sorry >to see ABL go. now those are all my FLAWED opinions,i know,but to >say abl is useless(as some people do,not YOU personally) is way >over the top,it >serves me well,and i would love to continue to use >it.ABL or APL ? Because my understanding is Zim's argument is to preserve the 'APL' language in favor of the ABL language.>one question for you though:as most of my reasons are financial and technical,does that make them less valid?Well I think it does if it is used to counter the claim of those who feel Vatsim is better as making a "weak point" your argument the only holds up if things are not equal. > ABL does best in creating what i like best...that is why i won't >want it to leave,but most other reasons are indeed financial and >technical. Ok what about the current version of radar contact ?. Which seems to be able to provide ATC adventures using Visual Basicand FSUIPC.That would seem to satisfy your requirements plus release the programmer from the limitations of both APL, and ABL. I'm sure it was the compelling reason the radar contact team went in this direction.>little example:i drive a fiat panda,and i do not have a navigation system(could use it though ) ,because of technical(it does not >fit in my car) and financial(IF i could pay it,i would rather buy a new puter)reasons,so i use a roadmap instead.>>now if i take your opinion bluntly,the argument not to buy a navigation system is flawed,because "i am merely stating >technical and financial reasons" and therefore by stating why I personally choose the roadmap, i am giving you a flawed >argument.Yes I think it is flawed. Because you do not consider the advantages and features of the navigation system.You are not comparing the navigation system, against the roadmap. Instead you simply say the roadmap is better because its the only option you have.Its like having only a PPL and deciding between flying a C172 or a B757 for a NY-LA flight, and claiming the C172 is better because you don't have the ratings to fly a B757.Is the C172 really better for this flight ? or is it that its simply your only choice ? >however,we all decide that way,isn't that true?>these are all my opinions...and for me ABL is good enough,and i >would indeed be sorry to see it go.Agreed, but they have to consider who's still using adventures. If its only a small number of users, then it does make sense to retire adventures. But I don't think we are that point yet. Regards.Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ralph, since you wrote:<>further discussion with you is clearly pointless, as you can't understand the similarity between the use of scare tactic headlines, even thou the two situations described by the headline are different.enjoy your self generated publicity, even thou you clearly aren't a publicity hound! Bob B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Fermin, :-lol ... I would have never thought>that a transcript of an online chat would have resulted in a>"Right of Reply". Good post amigo! And... I am sure that it>will generate some discussion; hopefully not heated! :)Gracias Se

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie,sorry,i meant APL....sheesh ;-)i agree...must say it's fun discussing with you,and also must say you are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this