The difference is I'm not employed by either of those companies and I don't have commercial status at these forums either, it's also not a personal thing, my beef is with your company attitudes and ethics not with you personally. I definately agree that developers shouldn't make any comments about competitors products on these forums, this isn't the place for them, keep such comments to your own boards.And Mike I'm sorry to perpetuate this nonsense further but I just couldn't let it lye any longer, you have an amazing product and it deserves all the accolades that I'm sure it will receive in the future, I cant wait for your next project.

Hmm, I suggest that either entity might not be as pleased with your remarks while identifying with them but that's not your point is it Andy?I repeat, we have not said a single negative thing about this product and have not mitigated the authors skill set at all.Frankly, I'm more impressed by the fact that he is essentially a "one man show" than the fact that he uses game studio techniques to acheive EFFECTS that have not been seen in FS.As to your comments about our attitudes and ethics I suggest that you check your own attitudes and ethics before publishing negative drivel about others.Oh by the way, just noticed that you don't have Mod Status so maybe you should stop trying to be one....Clear enough? :(

Need I say more..... no.......... you proved my point most eloquently, thank you.

A moderator brought other developers into this discussion, bad choice in my opinion.Then certain individuals felt they should toss out their own personal vendetta against developers into the discussion, another bad choice in my opinion.I was then attacked for simply pointing out VC complexity is a tradeoff issue developers have to deal with, yet another bad choice in my opinion.Several bad choices made by several individuals... yet only developers are 'at fault'. I don't think that's either fair or accurate.How about the actual discussion return to the amazing work on the gentleman's aircraft?I personally love the detail in the VC and think it's positively amazing. I wish that all aircraft could have that level of detail. It would bring a level of realism to the sim that's not always there. However, as I stated... the issue comes down to gauge complexity. You can't do 3D modelling for a CRT-based gauge. So, one is being unrealistic in expecting that all addons should be released with the same detail level. Their system honestly wouldn't be able to handle it. So, in my opinion... when someone releases an aircraft that can support that level of detail, we should be grateful that it's possible. We should also be respectful that it's not something that every aircraft made can have. Especially since frame rate performance is important too. :(

I've yet to purchase the L39 but it does look very well done. I also own the ES Cirrus G3 - one of my favorite aircraft to fly.... IMHO these two products are very different and both are very good. Period.

I personally love the detail in the VC and think it's positively amazing. I wish that all aircraft could have that level of detail. It would bring a level of realism to the sim that's not always there. However, as I stated... the issue comes down to gauge complexity. You can't do 3D modelling for a CRT-based gauge. So, one is being unrealistic in expecting that all addons should be released with the same detail level. Their system honestly wouldn't be able to handle it. So, in my opinion... when someone releases an aircraft that can support that level of detail, we should be grateful that it's possible. We should also be respectful that it's not something that every aircraft made can have. Especially since frame rate performance is important too. :(

No one is expecting all addons to be released with the same level of detail. No one has said that. Why do Eaglesoft take every other add-on release personally? No one is comparing this product to one of yours! And what you are basically saying is 'Ah yes but we make much more complex aircraft which is why they are not as good'. Are you saying the L-39 wouldn't be as good if it had more complex gauges or are you saying Eaglesoft could do the same if you made products like this with simple gauges? I don't get your point here? The L-39 doesn't have CRT-based gauges. That's like saying 'Yes, it's very good but, but, but if it was a Space Shuttle you probably would'nt get very good FPS so it can't be that good really' - it doesn't make sense as an argument and it still just comes across as mean spirited. 'It's good but .......................... 'This is about a hell of a lot more than gauge complexity. If you think that simple gauges and 'special effects' are all that sets this product apart then you have no right to be in this business at all. Now, I have a masterpiece to fly.

Mesa, let it go man. You've already made you agenda clear. Sheesh. :(

I've yet to purchase the L39 but it does look very well done. I also own the ES Cirrus G3 - one of my favorite aircraft to fly.... IMHO these two products are very different and both are very good. Period.

Thanks Ryan,You are correct. Different aircraft, different developers, different markets. Some simmers seem to think there is no room in the community for anything other than their favorite aircraft and their favorite developer.Attitudes like that prevent them from seeing that the development community at large offers a rich variety of aircraft and feature sets. :(

A moderator brought other developers into this discussion, bad choice in my opinion.

I guess you are referring to me. I am only a mod on the french forum and mr anybody anywhere else and entitled to my opinion. You are blaming the messenger. When Ron wrote "I see a well done package with well done effects (FX) files contained in a very well done movie file.", implying that the movie was probably better than the addon, he did not need anyone else to turn this thread into a PR disaster.

I am not an Eaglesoft customer but feel some members are quite harsh in their comments towards this developer. If you take time to read through the comments, Eaglesoft are quite justified in replying to this thread as their name was mentioned by a moderator in one of the posts. All developers know what they're up against and that what is accomplished today will be surpassed tomorrow. Frankly, we need all the developers we can get, it's what drives this hobby forward.Now, back to the topic. I'm not a military buff but I must say the Lotus Sim L-39 looks really tempting. I'll have to see if I can squeeze it in my budget for next month. All the best to Lotus Sim,Michel

Competition is a good thing! "Keep in mind that you are looking at (FX) Effects files gentlemen, nothing more, nothing less." Who cares technically how they are accomplished. The point is that they were accomplished, they work and.... you dont have them. Sorry, your statement sounds like "Oh, no big deal, anyone can do that". Bob

Yep, i agree. Who cares how it was done? As a customer, i ask for better and better addon's. If someone can do it (Until now, some developers talked it was impossible to do it in fsx), than i realy would prefer the addon that has it. And L39 is much more than effects, the model, flight physics, etc. All great!

I guess you are referring to me. I am only a mod on the french forum and mr anybody anywhere else and entitled to my opinion. You are blaming the messenger. When Ron wrote "I see a well done package with well done effects (FX) files contained in a very well done movie file.", implying that the movie was probably better than the addon, he did not need anyone else to turn this thread into a PR disaster.

Hi, Jean,you have my complete support. As other's think they can post what they have in mind, you have all the space to say it too. I had the same impression when i saw this statement in this topic. Not beautiful at all.

Please, for the love of Flight Sim, somebody make me a moderator.

Why do Eaglesoft take every other add-on release personally? No one is comparing this product to one of yours!This is about a hell of a lot more than gauge complexity. If you think that simple gauges and 'special effects' are all that sets this product apart then you have no right to be in this business at all. Now, I have a masterpiece to fly.

+1... all I'm gonna say.

Bob, as always you are welcome to your impression and opinion. This is still America last time I checked :(

Hi Ron, Well, hold on to that thought that "This is still America". Give it another couple of years. :(Bob

Shame to see so much bickering ruining this thread, this is a fantastic release.Has anyone tried any formation flying with this yet? What multiplayer servers are people using with it?

edit - Oh I see. You work at Eaglesoft too. I wonder when Bill will turn up and tell us that the panel isn't very good B)

I wouldn't dream of it! It is breathtakingly beautiful! There is not one single flaw I could find... :( It is also an eloquent testimony of what can be accomplished by someone who is breaking onto the scene having had the benefit of building upon the hard won knowledge of other developers (freeware as well as a handful of payware devs), who's generosity and goodwill have motivated them to share their techniques with the entire world.Do you imagine for one moment that "we developers" never talk to each other? There are many, many websites and forums where "we" all learn from one another. No one has to work in a vacuum unless they deliberately choose to do so. Mike has taken what has been freely given, added it to the wealth and depth of knowledge and experience he has gained as a professional in other genres, and come up with his own, unique and proprietary techniques.This is nothing short of phenomenal, and Mike deserves all praise and accolades for his breakthroughs and unique innovations!Beginning with FS2002, I embarked on what turned out to be a two year quest to discover just how a handful of devs had implemented emissive backlighting of gauges in a virtual cockpit. As I recall, Carenado was one of the few who'd figured out how to accomplish the task. After investing hundreds of hours of research and experimentation, I managed to "crack the secret*." While I could have kept such precious knowledge to myself, I made a decision that I've never once regretted......I published full details of the technique(s) so that the entire FS community of devs and users could benefit from what I'd learned.Before FSX was released, I was contacted by MS/ACES and asked if I would update my original tutorial to explain all of the new possibilities made possible with the new FSX techniques. I was delighted to set aside my work and spent several weeks creating the new white paper, which was subsequently vetted by the nice folks at ACES and published at the FS-Insider website (now moved to the more generic "Developers Corner" at MS**. I will point out that I received nothing for the effort, save the thanks from ACES and a precious few fellow developers. It matters not a bit to me, as I personally benefited from all my hard work in the end. Most of the freeware and payware releases now have incorporated some variation of the emissive lighting techniques I gave away, so I can now enjoy flying at night! That is "payment enough" for me... B) I'm likewise not in the least bit "envious" of Mike's new techniques. Simply knowing that they are possible is all that is sufficient for any competent developer's motivation. What can be done will be done by others. It's truly only a matter of investing the requisite time and effort to discover the "how" of any technique. It actually took only a few moments of thought to figure out how the VC rain has been resurrected. It was one of those "darn, why didn't I think of that" moments... :( Finally, I must add my absolute dismay (but not surprise) that there have been a handful of people who've attempted to hijack this thread of praise for Mike's accomplishements to promote their own agenda of gratuitous insults and cheap shots at others... :( *1: Imagine my utter surprise when I eventually learned that even ACES - the very folks who wrote FS! - didn't know what I'd published was possible!**2: FSX Emissive Textures: And How they Relate to Virtual Cockpit Lighting - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/esp/cc788741.aspx