FS2004/FS9 - My 2 cents

[Guest digtek]

While I agree the program is worth getting, the 'world' _is_ a much better place in the new version - I also agree that other than a few old clunkers I will never fly there is nothing new as far as aircraft. Still for me (I am sure I am not alone) it is the perfect chance to clean up the mess I made out of 2000/2002 and I feel this is a good place to make a few comments regarding add-ons...I would like to preface this by saying I am not a angry person but praising what is already right seems like a waste when so many things could be improved, sorry to anyone I offend from here on in.Feel free to discuss and disagree with me but here are several issues and my feelings on each:Add On AircraftDon't waste my time patching your non GMAX aircraft and posting them, new rule with me is if it doesn't have ALL the animations (right down to opeing doors) I will delete if I did get it and find it is not up to my standards. And while I am at it why would you bother uploading repaints of the stock aircraft since they are the same models as 2002? (I guess if they are new liveries it is valid, and I do understand the lear and baron have new models).PanelsHey, go for it - but just slapping a quick fix on your old work seems like a waste of everyone's time don't you think? TAKE YOUR TIME and put out quality stuff. I for one have patched my stuff but have no intention of uploading them until FS Panel Studio releases the 2004 upgrade and I have a REAL FS2004 Panel set to offer.SceneryAgain, be my guest - but also again slapping out some dumpy 'downgrade' of what is already there only angers me especially since scenery is not as easy to take back out. Fact is I normally avoid any scenery that requires me to edit any files to use it. On the other hand upgrading the airports with jetways and perhaps airstairs ect ect, if that is possible, would be welcomed by many I am sure.Gauge FilesHere there is some real lack of good stuff to work with, not to say there are not some exceptional gauges out there but most seem half finished, of poor quality or just a repaint of another gauge.SoundWell, sound is sound - I do like to have some variety and realism there but other than a few authors I find most to be poorly edited and when you consider size, a few of each type does the trick...Add On/Helper Applications...Here is the biggie, and while I guess many of them may well be worth payware status I for one am very unlikely to start buying things you can get for free (even if the free stuff is of a slightly lower quality). With that said here is what I feel would be some excellent add on applications (outside of a free 'replacement' for FSUIPC, and understand it is not that I cannot afford it, 25 bucks is chump change - but so my battery doesn't run dead? Be advised I will edit every single cfg file and rework the unsupported gauge files out of my panels before I pay half the price of FS9 for something that in my opinion is worth 5 bucks a copy).AI TrafficI am an idiot when it comes to making flight plans, sure would be nice to have a application that could check out all your aircraft and work them in as AI without spending a entire day making everything compatable (not that I can't paste in the aircraft I have, I do understand how that works). Also a application that would let you put in the ID for airports and would create working plans for you that you could paste on to the stock file and compile...I assume the 2002 plans will work in 2004 but perhaps I just see the majority of them as either not applying to me or WAY TOO BIG, I would like to see some US based (especially the SE US) AI FPs released that use airports besides KATL - like any of you care :)Flying OnlineI may be the only one here, or others like me just gave up but the current version of SB does not work on my LAN connection with Windows XP - used to work fine on 98 and ME, but now it has some lost connection and lag problems that make it useless.Flight PlansI use NAV3 and consider it a worthy utility, however it is not compatable with 2004 (chokes when it tries to decompile) so I am still using the 2002 info (seems to be fine this way). I new version seems unlikely but perhaps a utility similar that has the ability to inform you of 'DME Only" VORs, NO GLIDE ILSs and the such would be a nice addition to my suite of programs for FS.I also would like to see a 'Search and Replace' utility for aircraft.cfg files that would make personal preferance and needed changes to sections across 100s of aircraft a bit easier.I am sure that does not cover it all but maybe it will get us all thinking on the same page here, which is to avoid making a total mess out of 2004 with some smarter use of better add-ons...

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"....and I feel this is a good place to make a few comments regarding add-ons..."Sounds like you know a lot about add-ons and how to establish high quality standards. What add-ons have you contributed to the hobby? Also, since a good number of the forum members here contribute add-on projects, can you take more time citing some positives?-JohnP.S. Needless to say, having authored some less than worthy freeware aircraft by your standards, wouldn't you think it better to keep your opinions to yourself, rather than get someone like me all riled up and making them pull out of the business altogether? I imagine that wouldn't win you many friends, as even my less than worthy aircraft have a few fans...

[Guest oyvindhansen]

Please! Everyone has the right to voice an opinion about addons without actually being a developer, just like you can criticise a movie (say, Terminator 3) without being a director or even know anything about moviemaking.- Oyvind

[John_Cillis 2,406]

After seeing his reply, I am editing my post and leaving things at that...

[Guest digtek]

I agree with you, perhaps I could have stated it another way. And to offer a aircraft you enjoy is better than offering nothing at all.(I did author several panels and some help files - also answered a lot of user questions about many things over time so I am not just ranting for the sake of complaining). I have also built MANY panels a few scenery files/airports and even a aircraft or two but decided not to post them for the very reasons I mentioned originally. I also said I was not trying to offend but the intention of my post was not to pat backs but to get people thinking about not rushing to post something in the 2004 file areas just to post.The moral of my story was simply to take your time and offer the best you can, not just post up something to fill the space.And to make mention of the things I personally think would be usefull. Again my apologies should any of my comments 'rile anyone up', as many AI aircraft would be considered 'below my standards' but are also very valid uploads (I just have enough system to run full GMAX aircraft as AI without FPS falling off very much so prefer having only full GMAX aircraft and see MANY aircraft claiming to 'have it all", but in fact they are missing animations). I obviouslly do not decide what gets posted, nor how you promote your post via the description. I was also not talking about 2002 stuff that is already there but what will be posted in the future...

[Guest Macs]

John, Why you getting all worked up? I mean this guy is publicly voicing his standards and opinions.I understand where you're coming from and all...but how about taking a deep DEEP breath and laying off?John

[John_Cillis 2,406]

"The moral of my story was simply to take your time and offer the best you can, not just post up something to fill the space."I guess I flew off the handle because I recently spent two months tweaking Chuck Dome's Mirage, but sure as shooting, I didn't add a door animation to it because with a job, a three year old, a refi, and my wife being in a car accident, I just somehow couldn't find the time. But I'm dang proud of what I did, and it's almost as if a photographer won't shoot a picture of your child because they have a birthmark. Sure, some photographers won't, but you don't want to make the child (or the parent) aware of it :)

[John_Cillis 2,406]

John--note I've already edited my second response... Maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from better when you see my other response...

[Guest digtek]

I will also say that while I said in my post I will not even keep a aircraft withpout door animations that is not entirely true, I kept a handfull that do not have doors because they are otherwise excellent aircraft (and they do have the major animations). I see after reading my posat how it could have been seen as a knock to authors of quality aircraft that simply lack a door, what I really wanted to get across was spending a few minutes to patch your static or minimal animated aircraft without mentioning it as such is not posting the type of file I am looking for when they can be so much more now. I also am not overloaded with spare time and will be doing my best to offer what I can when I can - not just swapping out a gauge and being the first one to post a file... get what I mean?

[robert young 2,897]

Perhaps John had observed and absorbed this paragraph in the original post. I will try to restrain myself from comment, but it's hard:-"Add On AircraftDon't waste my time patching your non GMAX aircraft and posting them, new rule with me is if it doesn't have ALL the animations (right down to opeing doors) I will delete if I did get it and find it is not up to my standards."Meantime I'm trying to look up some contributions (if any) from the poster to see if his high standards have been met by himself!RY

[Guest digtek]

As I said, I could have worded it better, but was not trying to pat the backs of authors who already post the best they can (just like the upload agreement asks), but rather stating my own personal opinion on the type of aircraft I like to see posted - which is not a quick patch of a FS98 model...I would like to see this moved past feeling sorry for yourself for posting files I won't use and on to stopping to think if your file is really ready to post when you know yourself it could be better?And while I do feel bad for making even one person unhappy don't try to tell me you yourself have not downloaded a file only to see it is far below your own expectations/standards, and I will bet you immediatly deleted it - right?! I also prefaced the post by saying I was going to mention the things I think could be better, and that these are my opinions. I enjoy using FS my way as I am sure you do and for me doors are important because the time at the airport loading and unloading, flight prep and watching things happen is what I enjoy, and the landings of course. I suspect the developers who may want to hear what at least I am looking for could take a touch of input, even if it not very positive.

[Guest digtek]

After seeing the reaction to this post, which may be my own doing I agree - this will be the last time I state my opinions or try to encourage authors to put out the highest quality they can.Not going to lose sleep worrying about it mind you and as always I will answer questions directed to me if I can and will continue to release my own files as I find time and when I think they are ready.

[Guest digtek]

You will find several files by me, a few are help type text files and then the Purple Panel Series is mine - however I am far from ready to release the 2004 update to the Panels (though I did already fix them for use with 2004). I also have modified and created countless files that I did not upload, some because I was concearned about the fact that it was someone elses work I altered but mostly because I felt the files were just another quick fix few would need that couldn't do it themselves or that I knew I did a sub-par job and while it is good enough for me it was something I did to see if I could and it was not of the quality I would expect of a file I downloaded...

[Guest jordan]

The fact that you think only aircraft designed in GMAX have proper animations speaks volumes about your experience level. I'm also wondering what your other 6 forum posts were like.From your post, I believe you think the price you pay for freeware is your time, and that a freeware developer owes you for that. Maybe you should ask the freeware developer for some money to compensate for your wasted time. Do you take PayPal?Maybe we should have some freeware regulations in regards to quality, and if the project doesn't make good on your criteria (yes, you'll be the final authority), the freeware will simply be banned.

[robert young 2,897]

"don't try to tell me you yourself have not downloaded a file only to see it is far below your own expectations/standards, and I will bet you immediatly deleted it - right?! "....sometimes yes, but I do it quietly and without listing my personal high demands of others in forums. Call me old fashioned but I feel that comes over as somewhat more well-mannered. Perhaps tact, diplomacy and good manners are not qualities recognised in your particular world.RY