Sign in to follow this  
Guest digtek

FS2004/FS9 - My 2 cents

Recommended Posts

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...

Share this post


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

"....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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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 "Have you checked out Ultimate Traffic? It is the best add-on I have paid for. If your time is worth money, then the $29.95 asking price is a bargain.It contains OVER 800 Liveries, each one geographically matched to the airports they fly out of. Over 400,000 flight plans included.I spent around 10 minutes to install it into FS2004, and right now I have full AI traffic in KPDX, KHSV, KSEA, PHNL, and of course KATL.The only thing missing right now is FS2004 compatible AFCAD files, so parking is a bit screwy in FS2004. At ATL I saw two or three instances with two planes "parking" in the same space.Overall I think you will enjoy UT if you enjoy AI traffic. Look at the review here in AVSIM. They give it 5 stars out of 5 stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the people who I am directing this post at fall into 2 categories...1) Those who read it and take it for what it is, perhaps doing exactly as I said and re-thinking the hasty posting of files that may not be 'as good as they could be' - or they already know they have done as best they could and whether the file meets my personal standards or not they are satisfied with it and take my opinions, or call them suggestions if you want, for what they are...2) Those who know they have posted sub-par files and are now offended because I have labelled them as such by saying I would personally not keep them and suspect others who may be keeping silent so they do not get attacked like this feel the same way...Fact is I also have spent a lot of time creating freeware add-ons (had you read all the posts you would know this) and in many cases I decided that the final product, while useable, is sub-standard and as such decided that no matter how much time I spent learning and creating the project it was below my own expectations and not worthy of posting. Even if I felt it was I would not expect you to think a static aircraft with blurry textures and unstable flight characteristics is of the quality one would like to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said.After reading his post and wanting to throw up. I guess it really is time to move on if this is the drivvle level this so called hobby / community has become. I would suggest he writes to Mike Stone and post Mike's polite reply.I assume also, this outrage is intended at Commercial vendors, not the freeware authors ?AD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You people would EXPLODE if I was the one who got final say on files posted here - that is fairly obvious. Just imagine the reaction if I got to add to file descriptions things like "and it has dark, blurry textures" or "hope you know how to edit the cfg file because this plane has some awfull flight characteristics".I will follow this post for another day or so but am sorry I even made it now and will not be posting my selfish, tactless opinons again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank You very much for posting, I have not checked it out yet but it does sound like what I am looking for and while I don't mind spending endless hours tinkering with stuff as I enjoy that nearly as much as the flights themselves I do need a application like the one you mention to get my AI working like I want.Only question would be: does the program allow you to use your existing aircraft in those flights or are you only able to select from a list of aircraft they supply?Or at least can you edit the files it makes to substitute your aircraft for the ones it would normally use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Digtek, I'm new around here, picked up FS2002 at a boot sale for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Those who know they have posted sub-par files and are now offended because I have labelled them as such by saying I would personally not keep them and suspect others who may be keeping silent so they do not get attacked like this feel the same way..."I had decided to stay out of the fracas after our discussion yesterday, but seeing this comment, all I can say is you are way out of line mister.... Since when is your "sub-par" label the litmus test by which we all must pass? I already told you my reasons for uploading my work as is. And I'll continue to do so, until someone decides to pay me for work that meets your standards. If my work meets one person's standards on this forum, that's the opinion that counts--not yours.Now show a little class, and dump your opinions elsewhere. Simply put, you are not welcome here if you download freebies and then decided to pick on authors or a community of authors in the forums when they don't meet your standards. That has nothing to do with expressing an opinion...had you left the discussion where it stood yesterday, I would have given you a little ground. But you seem intent on classifying people as if your standards are the only ones that matter here. Don't think that those telling me to "lighten up" represent the majority in the forums here. Most haven't responded hoping you'd go away--we've all too often people plunge into these forums before with this baloney. And still, I haven't seen you respond to my first suggestion--now that you have a litany of what's wrong, why don't you post what's right?Regardless of your response, I don't give a hoot about making you work to find the files you like. Truth is, I never heard of you or your work until you barged into the forums, introducing yourself with this attitude. You even seem to go as far to suggest that if you were running the library here, you'd get to pick what stays and what doesn't. God forbid you're a parent. What do you do when your child proudly shows you a bunch of scribblings? Do you say--sorry "sub par", come back when you're Picasso?#@##$$@@!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that you can substitute the provided Project AI aircraft with AI Ardvaark craft which supposedly are much better looking. And the updater allows you to go to their website and download additional aircraft that others have posted.So yes, you can add to it, What's nice is that there is plenty of variety out of the box. I'm gonna fire it up tonight and do some flying around Ireland. Go Wingtip to Wingtip with some Aer Lingus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, this is going noplace - you are free to disagree with me and I do agree that you have a very valid point that your posts are making.On the other hand let assume that the aircraft that are provided with the program set the standard and not me.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the purple panels are not based on any actual aircraft and are simply a series of panels I made that all have the same basic layout of gauges/instruments but a panel is supplied for each type of aircraft (2 jets, single piston ect - 7 panels total). The goal of the project was to create a single window panel that has all the needed controls to fly and with only the modifications needed to change from one engine type to another would be the same for every plane. Easy enough to find, just search "purple" in FS2002 panels here. It will likely be a while until I update it for use with 2004 (though I have patched mine to work for now), since I await the 2004 version of FS Panel Studio and will take my time making sure they are ready before I post them.

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