AVSIM Community Chat - Right of Reply

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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

[Guest crashing_pilot]

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.

[Guest Toni Rauch]

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.

[ErnieAlston 33]

>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.

[Guest]

<It came from his title...as I keep saying.Bob B

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

>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

[Guest crashing_pilot]

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

[Guest]

>Bob,>At least now, we know the reputation of both Fermin and>Ralph Zimmerman :-lol, Enought said..>>EricDevastating logic Eric, breathtakingly profound and unassailable...Fermin - fsadventures.net][/b

[Guest]

Bob, why not take your arguement with Ralph to the post that is dedicated to that? I had no desire to revisit the FS2004/APL issue...Fermin - fsadventures.net][/b

[Guest]

Ernie, I thank you for your input, you are the only one here that can present an *opposing view* (for want of a better expression) in a calm, respectful way, one that can be accepted.I think it is more than a matter of a difference in view about programming languages/applications, but fundamentally a difference of interests, as you said - you "lost interest". Some of us still retain it. I think FS is broad enough to accomodate all of them. For example one of our team is a veteran VATSIM controller and he still enjoys programming adventures, not necessarily a contradiction.Some of the contributers to/users of our programs include real line pilots and air traffic controllers so I guess some can see the worth of real ATC adventures (with the right accent for the part of the world they are based in).I understand your appreciation for VATSIM, but some of us also like adventures which include an instructor/co-pilot that can perform many useful functions in addition to the ATC.Thanks again for you input and the comment about the upgrade of C++ etc. is appreciated, I agree with you on that.Fermin - fsadventures.net][/b

[Guest]

Bob, I don't see your comments as an attack myself personally either, but I do think you missed the point. I am not desireous of beginning the FS2004/APL debate PART II.What you say about Ralph (and the way you say it) though is a little disturbing. Do you need to be demeaning? So you never heard of him? (Ever seen the Who's Who at FS.COM?) Be careful, you may be giving away your depth of knowledge of the FS world and it's past.>I believe the entire thing is a publicity stunt. As long as it only exists in the realm of your belief structure that's fine with me. It certainly isn't in mine.>I believe fermin is also vested in increasing the publicity over adventures.Perhaps you can explain what problem there is in that? (BTW FYI I was asked by an editor of AVSIM to post a news item about our website - more publicity than our server could handle) Should I be ashamed of our work? Are we to deny thousands of people the opportunity to try our free programs because you don't appear to agree with it?>This new thread was likely created cuz no one seemed interested anymore.It seems to have rekindled your interest... I think the first paragraph makes pretty clear the purpose of the thread but you seem to have succeeded in steering it down the FS2004/APL path bringing Ralph into it again (not, I repeat NOT the intent of this post). If I like and make adventures and I see they are getting clobbered with no-one to speak in their defense, I am not allowed to do it? Fermin - fsadventures.net][/b

[Guest]

>enjoy your self generated publicity, even thou you clearly>aren't a publicity hound! >>Bob BBob, re-read your first response to this thread, tell me who's name do you see there?Why would Ralph need to promote himself when he has you to do it?Do you know what is really pointless? Wanting to forcibly get someone to accept your viewpoint and then saying it's "pointless" when you don't get your way. Let's agree to disagree shall we?Fermin - fsadventures.net][/b