Weapons for FSX TIME FOR REVOLT

[LVFlyer 0]

Gentlemen,I am starting a revolt and I encourage all that can to spread this and make it viral. Captainsim and VRS are stealing ideas and code that have been in development and released as freeware for the last year. It is not fair for a company to take advantage of our community's contributors time and talent to discover the hidden secrets of FSX and then create a product that practically guarantees that you will have to buy their product in order to use. I am talking about the "Weapons For FSX" and "Tack Pac". The concept of weaponizing FSX with AI SAMs, missiles, droppable objects, guns, and Air to Air weapons have been in development in our community by many dedicated to freeware contribution. This can be seen at http://fsdub.informe.com/portal.html and other posts in the community. Screenshots and videos have been released on Youtube every step of the way and at http://www.dahome.net/fsxpics.htm. Now the greed has begun and the big companies can see an advantage to take what has been in development and wrap it up in a security wrapper and force everyone to pay them in order to use. Captainsim at least is releasing an SDK for development, but anything created will have to use their dll which will cost everyone. Stealing of ideas and concepts from hobby contributors like Sludge and Karol Chlebowski and many others has been happening for years and has damaged our hobby, but we always seem to recover and put the greed out of business, like Alphasim sort of. I encourage all that can to join with me and encourage the development and release of the already being developed stand-alone freeware dll and SDK so it can grow in the spirt of what this hobby is all about, sharing and contribution for mutual enjoyment. We have made major moves in the multi-player environment in the last year so lets join to destroy the GREED. Spread this far and wide

[HUSSAR 272]

Unfortunately there is no governing body to provide the oversight needed to prevent such issues happening. I would be willing to support any developer if they can provide factual data proving they have become a victim of big business but it would be an arduous task.

[LVFlyer 0]

Legally no, but as developers we can put our collective minds together and produce a much better freeware product like the pioneers like, Jordan Moore, Scott Prinz, Karol Chlebowski, Dirk Fassbender, Chris Dub, Dino Cattaneo and many many more have done. I know there are lots of you out there and don't mean to offend by not including you in the list, but these are ones I have had contact with. Together we can show these companies that they can't change the color or look of the code that was created by us and then make a profit off us and those that actually did the work. It's obvious by looking at the videos and screenshots that Chris Dub put up on Youtube that this has been a developing project. It is ours and should remain ours. They didn't even give credit to Scott Prinz for the HUD.

Unfortunately there is no governing body to provide the oversight needed to prevent such issues happening. I would be willing to support any developer if they can provide factual data proving they have become a victim of big business but it would be an arduous task.

[n4gix 4,955]

The second link in your original post - http://www.dahome.net/fsxpics.htm - is 404'rd...The one above works though.To the point you've raised, unless one of the "payware" companies have somehow obtained proprietary compiled source code =AND= have used it in their product, there's nothing "illegal" about it, nor is there any "copyright infringement."One cannot "protect" an idea such as this.Further, one might also argue that what is being offered is nothing more than a "value added solution" via an automated, pre-configured, one click installation program.

[LVFlyer 0]

I agree with all you say and thanks for correcting the link, but you guys have to see the whole picture here. The way it is now if you want to participate in a multiplayer environment with a friend you will have to have the package they have in order to see the guns, missiles, bombs, and effects. There are three companies that I know of that are poised to release different packages of the same thing, but with proprietary code. That is CaptainSim, VRS, and MilViz. You will have to purchase all three base packages to see the effects in multiplayer. Even though they are releasing SDKs the creations from the developers will be useless unless the particular package is owned by all in the session. We are a hobby and not everyone has a desire to purchase multiple add ons to fly with others online. We have already created beta bomb effects and a bomb gauge that calculates the impact point from any altitude, speed, and wind condition and is accurate as far as the eye can see the effect. You can get that free at www.dahome.net/fsxfiles.htm. The install instructions are there. The bomb gauge is installed in both airframe packages you can find there, but can be installed in any airframe. If everyone has these effects installed and are using the client to connect to the bomb server, that anyone can host, everyone will see the explosions on the ground and the black spot afterwards. We have not modeled damage effects yet, but that is why we need to put our heads together. Each has their own talents and together we can knock the socks off anything that has been released. We have even created a guided missile with lockable HUD and weapon load out like that of the Superbug. All the source code is available for free and is mostly in C++. We don't need to support this attempt to hijack our hobby. Come on guys lets nip this in the bud.

[n4gix 4,955]

We don't need to support this attempt to hijack our hobby. Come on guys lets nip this in the bud.

There's absolutely no one holding a gun to anyone's head. If folks prefer to use the freeware option, that's just fine.Likewise, in a free market economy, within which "payware" clearly falls under, the end user's vote with their wallets.My own development work over the past fifteen years, such as it is and what there is of it, is my soul source of income. Even so, I've yet to gross over $10,000 in any given year. After taxes and expenses, my net is ~$6,000.Last year's "after tax poverty level income" for a US citizen under 65 was $10,481. For obvious reasons your "plea" doesn't garner much sympathy or support from my point of view.Commercial FS development for the most part is at best a tiny cottage industry, which appeals to an insignificant fraction of total FS users world-wide. As such, I can state with no equivocation that baring possibly one or two exceptions, no one in this "business" is making any significant income... :(

[LVFlyer 0]

All I can say is don't try to make a living off a hobby. If you are as talented as you say you are there are plenty of corporations taht need good xml or C++ programmers. More money to be made there then here.

[n4gix 4,955]

All I can say is don't try to make a living off a hobby. If you are as talented as you say you are there are plenty of corporations taht need good xml or C++ programmers. More money to be made there then here.

I am disabled, but never earned enough "credits" to qualify for Disability Benefits, so I've no real choice in the matter. There are precious few on-line opportunities for the skills I do have. I earn enough to keep the bills paid at least.But, this isn't about "me" so much as it is an effort to "bust the myth" that FS Developers are "getting rich" or "ripping off" the hobbiest. Unlike most any other hobby, buying "stuff" for FS is entirely optional. Have you ever seen a "freeware" HO scale engine? :(

[LVFlyer 0]

I too am permanently disabled so I know where you are coming from, but when you research this hobby you find that when commercial greed came into it the amount of activity diminished significantly. There is a great article by Jordan Moore at Hovercontrol that lays out the history. I don't want the people that are just getting back into it to get trapped in having to support the big companies for mediocre return. When something is created by those actively in the hobby there is a lot more heart and pride that goes into it than just having the motivation to make a buck and release incomplete crap that requires many updates. I believe the reason for that is to stop piracy. There actually shouldn't be a need for piracy since the original intent of MS releasing the SDK was to build the product from the desires of the users and not for greed to find out the secrets and then force everyone to pay them to use them. We are just now unlocking the hidden locks to the built in combat ability that was deliberately shut off by ACES. Lets keep it in house and not let the commercial interests rule.

I am disabled, but never earned enough "credits" to qualify for Disability Benefits, so I've no real choice in the matter. There are precious few on-line opportunities for the skills I do have. I earn enough to keep the bills paid at least.But, this isn't about "me" so much as it is an effort to "bust the myth" that FS Developers are "getting rich" or "ripping off" the hobbiest. Unlike most any other hobby, buying "stuff" for FS is entirely optional. Have you ever seen a "freeware" HO scale engine? :(

[n4gix 4,955]

I too am permanently disabled so I know where you are coming from, but when you research this hobby you find that when commercial greed came into it the amount of activity diminished significantly.There actually shouldn't be a need for piracy since the original intent of MS releasing the SDK was to build the product from the desires of the users and not for greed to find out the secrets and then force everyone to pay them to use them. We are just now unlocking the hidden locks to the built in combat ability that was deliberately shut off by ACES. Lets keep it in house and not let the commercial interests rule.

Just because someone wants to charge something the fruits of their labor doesn't de facto make make it a case of "greed." That is one of several words that are so often tossed around carelessly and misused that just seeing it really ticks me off... :( That's not to say that there are NEVER some instances, as few and far between as they are, where something IS a result of greed. Simply asking for renumeration for any value added or new product is not such an instance.In the case of Ariane, one might reasonably sustain a charge of "greed" since it is patently obvious that no one there has any real interest other than getting paid as much as possible, from as many fools as possible, and as often as possible. They have zero interest in providing support, and are exceedingly arrogant and non-responsive to customer complaints. This has been going on for over twenty years!Another example might be made about this "Dan Freeman" fellow who's taken the Open Source "Flight Gear" program, wrapped it up in an "installer," and been marketing it as the best thing since sliced bread. While it is most certainly legal, it is morally and ethically debatable. What is NOT debatable is that it is without question an instance of pure GREED.Your second paragraph is non-sequitur, since it is in this instance apparently a case of several "payware" groups who've noticed that "something is possible," then taken that observation and developed their own -in house- version, which is being offered for sale. That my friend is called "capitalism," not necessarily "greed."As it happens though, no one can possibly know when CS or VRS began work on their versions. It may well be that they started before anyone in the "freeware arena" began their efforts......but again, it really doesn't matter! Everyone remains in control of their own pocketbook. If they want to use the "freeware" version(s) more power to 'em! But, just having a choice to purchase a license for a commercial product instead doesn't automatically equate to "greed" on anyone's part. Only if CS or VRS tried to claim the idea was their's exclusively and tried to enforce a ban on anyone else using "their ideas" to create a "freeware version" could anyone reasonably argue that "greed" was a motivating factor. That of course would not only be unenforcable (absent a Patent), but silly, and ultimately self-defeating. That just ain't gonna happen! As I've said previously, I've been around this block for over fifteen years. In all that time I've freely given away most of my discoveries, although in some few instances not until I'd already made something in return for my hard work by using it in my own "payware projects."Let's take a few moments and compare some pay and free airport editor programs:Flight1 has marketed a commercial program for several years now for airport design: Airport Facilitator X (http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=afxv1). It is built entirely from the ashes of Lee Swordy's venerable freeware AFCAD2 program, but updated to work with FSX. It even uses the same (non-Microsoft) compiler that Lee developed. It also suffers from the same quirks, bugs and limitations. There has been no further development of this program since its release. Period. It might reasonably thought of as "Abandonware." However, I do not think that even this is an instance of "greed."There are also two "freeware" airport editor programs available:

Airport Design Editor (http://www.airportdesigneditor.co.uk/)andFSX Planner (http://www.zbluesoftware.com/fsxplanner/index.cfm)

Both of the above freeware programs are completely new, and use the FSX Tools to create their compiled airports, and -most importantly- are 100% FSX compatible. They very carefully follow all the new rules and requirements for FSX.Sadly, FSX Planner hasn't been worked on in several years, whereas ADE9X has been in continuous development. In fact, an entirely new version 2.0 will be released within the next few months, with TONS of added features!What's my point, I hear you asking? Simply this...Without question both of the freeware airport editors are far, far superior to the Flight1 marketed program in nearly every aspect. The only real benefit (and even that is debatable) is that the Flight1 program will allow for "real-time viewing" of one's modifications in FSX.However, the consumer has a choice! They aren't forced or limited in anyway in their decision tree.

[LVFlyer 0]

You are absolutely correct in your statements, but the fact that there are alternatives in freeware that in many, if not most, instances are more flexible and better than payware versions needs to be shouted from the rooftops for all the newcomers to the hobby. What I hope to accomplish here is to make that known and hopefull stop the potential probleme down the road with having to own all the commercial weapons pack core programs in order to enjoy belonging to a VA. I have been a member of many and each run into the same problem with some wanting to use payware products while others can't afford it and then can't see the proper airframe, textures, or effects of everyone in session. Since FSX has an issue with substituting AI models and textures that hasn't been overcome yet, it is disconcerting to see a Blue Angels F-18 when in fact your opponent is flying a VRS Suprebug in Navy colors. It would be nice to see it as it is, but the only way to do that is to pay VRS. They are now doing the same thing with combat effects and that is my main effort to nip that in the bud. There is value to charging for development utilities within reason and as long as they offer more than what is available as freeware, at least more than just a fancy GUI. I won't fault anyone there.

Just because someone wants to charge something the fruits of their labor doesn't de facto make make it a case of "greed." That is one of several words that are so often tossed around carelessly and misused that just seeing it really ticks me off... :( That's not to say that there are NEVER some instances, as few and far between as they are, where something IS a result of greed. Simply asking for renumeration for any value added or new product is not such an instance.In the case of Ariane, one might reasonably sustain a charge of "greed" since it is patently obvious that no one there has any real interest other than getting paid as much as possible, from as many fools as possible, and as often as possible. They have zero interest in providing support, and are exceedingly arrogant and non-responsive to customer complaints. This has been going on for over twenty years!Another example might be made about this "Dan Freeman" fellow who's taken the Open Source "Flight Gear" program, wrapped it up in an "installer," and been marketing it as the best thing since sliced bread. While it is most certainly legal, it is morally and ethically debatable. What is NOT debatable is that it is without question an instance of pure GREED.Your second paragraph is non-sequitur, since it is in this instance apparently a case of several "payware" groups who've noticed that "something is possible," then taken that observation and developed their own -in house- version, which is being offered for sale. That my friend is called "capitalism," not necessarily "greed."As it happens though, no one can possibly know when CS or VRS began work on their versions. It may well be that they started before anyone in the "freeware arena" began their efforts......but again, it really doesn't matter! Everyone remains in control of their own pocketbook. If they want to use the "freeware" version(s) more power to 'em! But, just having a choice to purchase a license for a commercial product instead doesn't automatically equate to "greed" on anyone's part. Only if CS or VRS tried to claim the idea was their's exclusively and tried to enforce a ban on anyone else using "their ideas" to create a "freeware version" could anyone reasonably argue that "greed" was a motivating factor. That of course would not only be unenforcable (absent a Patent), but silly, and ultimately self-defeating. That just ain't gonna happen! As I've said previously, I've been around this block for over fifteen years. In all that time I've freely given away most of my discoveries, although in some few instances not until I'd already made something in return for my hard work by using it in my own "payware projects."Let's take a few moments and compare some pay and free airport editor programs:Flight1 has marketed a commercial program for several years now for airport design: Airport Facilitator X (http://www.flight1.c...p?product=afxv1). It is built entirely from the ashes of Lee Swordy's venerable freeware AFCAD2 program, but updated to work with FSX. It even uses the same (non-Microsoft) compiler that Lee developed. It also suffers from the same quirks, bugs and limitations. There has been no further development of this program since its release. Period. It might reasonably thought of as "Abandonware." However, I do not think that even this is an instance of "greed."There are also two "freeware" airport editor programs available:Both of the above freeware programs are completely new, and use the FSX Tools to create their compiled airports, and -most importantly- are 100% FSX compatible. They very carefully follow all the new rules and requirements for FSX.Sadly, FSX Planner hasn't been worked on in several years, whereas ADE9X has been in continuous development. In fact, an entirely new version 2.0 will be released within the next few months, with TONS of added features!What's my point, I hear you asking? Simply this...Without question both of the freeware airport editors are far, far superior to the Flight1 marketed program in nearly every aspect. The only real benefit (and even that is debatable) is that the Flight1 program will allow for "real-time viewing" of one's modifications in FSX.However, the consumer has a choice! They aren't forced or limited in anyway in their decision tree.

[n4gix 4,955]

Well, you are quite free to tilt at windmills if you like, but it should be self-evident that had I not chosen to reply, this thread would be filled with dry dust and tumbleweeds... :(

[LVFlyer 0]

Apparently this isn't the place to champion the cause.

[Bob Scott 7,747]

I think there's a clear difference between a cause and an axe to grind.I've got thousands of hours of my own time invested in freeware FS projects, but it doesn't bother me to see other people making money doing the same kinds of things I do in my FS projects. The whole idea of ownership of a concept or "the look and feel" of a type of software was lost back in the 80s, and had it not been we'd all probably still be using IBM PCs with a slightly modernized version of DOS and Visicalc.I suspect that virtual military aviation groups are small and cliquish enough already that each will have its own preference for a weps package. Given Captain Sims' well-known and habitual modus operandi of producing half-completed software and then abandoning it after promising fixes in service packs that never arrive, I'd guess that the VRS package has a better than average chance of evolving to be the defacto standard, for those who don't want to have to buy more than one.Personally, I look forward to the day when I can put an AIM-120 right up the tailpipe of the next AI plane that flies through me on final approach...I mean c'mon, you didn't really think that PMDG is putting a HUD in that NGX of theirs just for ILS approaches, did ya? :( Bob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

[HUSSAR 272]

.I mean c'mon, you didn't really think that PMDG is putting a HUD in that NGX of theirs just for ILS approaches, did ya? :( Bob ScottColonel, USAF (ret)ATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VColorado Springs, CO

I hope we are not headed towards this trend in FS. If I want to blow things up I will move to LOMAC, Black Shark or the yet to be released Jet Thunder.