AVSIM Community Chat - Right of Reply

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

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! :)

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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

[Guest Eric]

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

[Guest]

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

[Guest Eric]

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

[ErnieAlston 33]

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

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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

[Guest crashing_pilot]

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 ;-)

[Guest]

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

[Guest Toni Rauch]

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.

[Guest crashing_pilot]

Amen Toni.

[ErnieAlston 33]

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.

[Guest]

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