When things are taken out of context, there's plenty reason to read it again... :-bluegrab

Oops I got it, sorry... ;)

"I for one feel the days of planes without decent panels and/or sounds is over. If you don't have a decent 2D panel with your model, it should at least have a functioning VC. Using a panel with no side views is old as well... Work that only contains the visual aircraft should be used as AI these days. There's nothing wrong with this. If someone has a nice visual model like the Gulfstream mentioned here, there are many options for users depending on what's out there on the web... We're in a different age. "I am not throwing sticks at anyone, but the above quoted statement is what bothers me.I am pretty sure that the flight model of an AI aircraft does not need to be as exacting as a flyable model. One look at the config files for some of the default "AI" aircraft has shown this.While some may not think that "AI" use is not considered a slant, if I had put in hours trying to perfect a flight model that someone said was only good for AI (because I hadn't included a VC), I would hurt me a bit. I guess my question is WHEN did a good flight model and repaint stop being enough? Why in the past did we cobble together the best models, the best panels, the best gauges, and the best sounds together and felt a huge sense of gratitude to each and everyone who made each component together.Yet now that's not enough? So now the software designer of the model must put in a functioning VC, provide a custom 2d panel WITH side views, or get permission from another panel designer to use his panel in the archive???I'm sorry, but I feel that at the very least, if it is free, we as "consumers" can at the very minumum, take the time to marry a descent model, to a descent panel, with decent sounds ourselves.The final sentence in this post seems to sum up the feelings of a growing number...."We're in a different age".So in other words, 6 years after FS98, a freeware author is "expected" to put in 10 times more work into a single title, to get the respect he got 6 years ago with 1/10th the effort.In real terms, if my boss expected me to do 10 times the amount of work for the same level of pay, I would get out of the business. And appearantly a good number of freeware developers have. A freeware developers only wages for a job well done, is a "thank you" and a "good job". Apparantly times of changed to where he has to do 10 times the work as before to get it.

Thanks for backing out on me Jim... (-: I'll stick to my guns by myself if I have to...Oh Yea, I'm supposed to be done with this thread... :-smile12

This is a really touchy area of discussion. Ftmp, I agree that theres little to be gained by criticising the work of freeware authors. It's free and should really be looked upon as a gift and if you happen to not find the gift pleasing you simply put it in the closet and forget about it. Otoh, I think the comments of some of the "oldtimers" who remember longingly the days of FS98 when we used to go get ourselves all the parts of a plane "from hither and yon" and put it together "by hook or by crook" are pretty much equally as pointless. You fellows have to face the fact that those days are gone for most of us. The hobby has moved on. Every few days or so I come across another great freeware package the likes of the Morane Saulnier, the Maule, MS's AC500, the Ju-52 - the hard truth of the matter is that if its a choice between spending hours flying around the globe in those incredible machines, or spending hours tracking down a panel for this plane (or a guage for that matter), or a sound package for that one - well, I guess you get my drift. I've got a couple of Mike's planes in my hangar and they are well done models ftmp, but when it comes time to choose a machine to go flying about in I just invariably find myself in one of the "total packages", whether it be of the freeware or the payware variety. I appreciate all the work thats involved and how frustrating it must be for a freeware author to hear this kind of thing about his creations, but its the reality of the situation.

Again with the "times have changed" argument.Times haven't changed as much as expectations have.It shouldn't be suprising, I suppose. As a community a vocal minority of us never seem to be satisfied with what has been given to us. An "old timer" has the perspective to look at what was available in the late 80's and be floored by what is offered today at the same price. Yet the "young whelp" can't help but be offended that Microsoft didn't solve their pet peeve bug that they so vocally railed against in the last version. Never mind all the extras that have been thrown in, if they didn't fix MY bug, then they are just a bunch of crooks out to take my dough.If my kids used the same arguement about their dinner not "really being worthy" of dinner because this time I didn't grill up Corn Fed, Aged Prime Beef, I would make sure they had bullion for the next meal.We all appreciate when a freeware designer makes an entirely Kick-A$$ freeware plane with all the bells and whistles. A recent Fokker 500 I downloaded was loaded with extras. But to make a statement that basically says, that a superior package should be one by which all others are compared is simply unfair.It's kind of like dismissing the $20.00 your grandfather gave you for Christmas, because your Father gave you a bike. Would you write to your Grandfather and say "Gramps, I know it must be frustrating to hear this, but the 20 bucks just doesn't cut it anymore, since dad bought me this kickin bike!!!"Each contribution by a freeware developer is like a peice of the puzzle. Some peices are larger than others, some have had more work put into them. But in large, I am as grateful to a scenery designer who had the time to upload the Coranado Bridge, as I am to a designer who transformed the Northern Cascades.Both individuals shared their talents and their gifts to make my flight simulation experience more complete.I suppose the parable of the Widows Offering says it best:"[21:1] As he looked up, ******* saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. [2] He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. [3] "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. [4] All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on." (Luke 21:1-4)Lets try to remember something folks. It's not the size of the gift, but the spirit in which it was given. THAT'S the reality of the situation.

>Again with the "times have changed" argument.>>Times haven't changed as much as expectations have.er, is there a difference?>>It shouldn't be suprising, I suppose. As a community a vocal>minority of us never seem to be satisfied with what has been>given to us. >I am extremely satisfied both with what has been given to me and with what I've payed for. As I said, while I very much appreciate the work that every developer puts into his projects, the reality of the situation is that I'd rather spend my time flying great planes than looking for great parts and when it comes time to fly, I always end up choosing the complete packages. >An "old timer" has the perspective to look at what was>available in the late 80's and be floored by what is offered>today at the same price. Yet the "young whelp" can't help but>be offended that Microsoft didn't solve their pet peeve bug>that they so vocally railed against in the last version. >Never mind all the extras that have been thrown in, if they>didn't fix MY bug, then they are just a bunch of crooks out to>take my dough.I am continuously "floored" by the incredible mountain of wonderful creations that I find almost every day for this sim. >If my kids used the same arguement about their dinner not>"really being worthy" of dinner because this time I didn't>grill up Corn Fed, Aged Prime Beef, I would make sure they had>bullion for the next meal.Yes, but if your kids had 5 plates of food in front of them, one of which contained bullion and four which were aged prime beef, would you blame them for choosing to enjoy the prime rib and leaving the bullion on the plate? Again, this is the reality of the situation with freeware today. Simply put, some is better than others and most people when given a choice between average and great will always choose great. Thats not meant to be rudely critical of any developers work. Its just cold hard reality. >We all appreciate when a freeware designer makes an entirely>Kick-A$$ freeware plane with all the bells and whistles. A>recent Fokker 500 I downloaded was loaded with extras. >>But to make a statement that basically says, that a superior>package should be one by which all others are compared is>simply unfair.Thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm simply saying that the superior packages are the ones I always end up flying. >>It's kind of like dismissing the $20.00 your grandfather gave>you for Christmas, because your Father gave you a bike. Would>you write to your Grandfather and say "Gramps, I know it must>be frustrating to hear this, but the 20 bucks just doesn't cut>it anymore, since dad bought me this kickin bike!!!"Actually, its kind of like dismissing the bike with no pedals and wheels your grandma gave you in favor of the complete one your father gave you. And no, I would not call up grandma and complain about her gift - but I wouldn't use it either.>Each contribution by a freeware developer is like a peice of>the puzzle. Some peices are larger than others, some have had>more work put into them. But in large, I am as grateful to a>scenery designer who had the time to upload the Coranado>Bridge, as I am to a designer who transformed the Northern>Cascades.>Both individuals shared their talents and their gifts to make>my flight simulation experience more complete.>>I suppose the parable of the Widows Offering says it best:>>"[21:1] As he looked up, ******* saw the rich putting their>gifts into the temple treasury. [2] He also saw a poor widow>put in two very small copper coins. [3] "I tell you the>truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the>others. [4] All these people gave their gifts out of their>wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live>on." (Luke 21:1-4)>>Lets try to remember something folks. It's not the size of>the gift, but the spirit in which it was given. THAT'S the>reality of the situation.Again, and as I said at the beginning of my previous post, theres nothing to be gained from criticising work given freely. It really is a case of "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." But we're mostly all grown-ups here and I think we're capable of speaking in an honest and forthright way about this without intending to hurt anyones feelings.

>Thanks for backing out on me Jim... (-: I'll stick to my>guns by myself if I have to...>>>Oh Yea, I'm supposed to be done with this thread... :-smile12>Dillon,Sorry man. I really do feel that most all of your post was well put. But like I said, after reading further posts, I had second thoughts about whether freeware offerings should have(pretty much anything) said about them in a negative light. I do think maybe folks are being a little harsh about your critique. It's a very fine line to walk apparently. I mean after all, in your very first post here you did say..."Thanks for the effort Mike Stone..."I mean.. look at that sentence picked out out all on it's own. Anyone can pick out one specific sentence from a paragraph or an entire story thereby pushing the whole thing out of context. You're still ok in my book Dillon. I do think maybe you should clarify about the "opens up this can of worms" statement. If have fallen from grace in your book Dillon, all I can say is sorry! But I do feel I have the right to change my mind after gaining further input and feel a little more enlightened and should state that I have done so.With that said, I guess I'll walk the tightrope a little more and say...Lighten up a little people! Dillon isn't the only one who has stated that they felt the Gulfstream is a package that is a little light for their taste. A few other people in this thread, that have made freeware, and that I have great respect for, have pretty much said the same thing or that they outright agree with Dillon... Mike Carr, Eric Joiner, ect. Respect freeware developers. And respect people's opinion's, as long as they're not being nasty and bashing!Now, I know I have said all I'm gonna say. I just hope I haven't offended anyone. :-termJimThe politics of dancing.... the politics of mmmmm feeling good.

O.K. Will... You tell me, where can I get a good Gulfstream IV panel with side views and some decent Gulfstream sounds compatible with FS2k4 to go with this model??? :-hang I see so many releases like this in which there is no panel or sounds in the FS community to go with these creations. If some like flying a Gulfstream with a 737 panel it's fine by me, I'm just not one of them... Once again no one is saying this is a bad model and yes I am thankful that people like Mike Stone are still in the game. Problem is when you get something like this it becomes a problem if you did want to fly this model only to find out everything you'll need to make a complete package is not available. That's why if someone is going to put in the effort (yes it's more work) at least give us a 2D panel. I still don't think AI is a problem for models that don't have other freeware packages to go with them (panel, sounds, etc.) and it shouldn't be looked down upon if all the developer gave us was the visual model. Many hardcore simmers don't care to us a 707 panel or generic 2 engine panel with a plane like the Gulfstream. That died in the days of FS5.1...I also agree it is sad to put in work on an FDE and visual model when you know good and well no one has done a panel and/or sounds for the bird your designing. This is not the case for everything but it is for some. How are you going to get offended when you know all your giving people is a visual model and no one else has done anything to go with your work??? As of now it looks like I can finally fly the L1011 again, all the pieces can be found to make it a complete and worthwhile package. I say the same thing to Freeware developers as I do Payware, do some research before you put in allot of time in on a package. Payware, don't do the same airport/planes that so many others have already done... How many KLAX's do we need??? Freeware, don't do a plane that no one has made anything else for and then get mad because someone suggest using it as AI. If a panel and sounds can't be found on any of the Flight Sim sites then at least give people that option so we don't have a shell and nothing else...

>If>some like flying a Gulfstream with a 737 panel it's fine by>me, I'm just not one of them...You are obviously clueless. Mike's Gulfstream doesn't utilize the 737 panel. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? You should have taken your own advice and stop posting in this thread.

Great post Zevious, you brought out some interesting points...

Your right Edam, I don't know what panel Mike's Gulfstream is designed to use. But anyone whose been around this community long enough knows, you can mate a Cessna panel with that plane if you really wanted to (you just have to know what your doing). I think you may be the one who's clueless on the basics of how to mix and match panels with models/sounds etc. Go try it for yourself and let us all know what you find...

Actually, All I said was that I prefer to fly more complex aircraft than mike produces...however I use his work as AI and am very happy with it. Im fine with Mikes work. I have no expectations or standards in play here. Mike is very clear that he produces his work for his own enjoyment and his own standards. Thats great. Now its just a matter of what makes him and (us) happy.Eric

As a less vocal member of this community, I've been a freeware freeloader ever since the concept of freeware addons for flight simulator has existed. While I've emailed authors and publically thanked them for their work, I've felt for some time that to truly show my appreciation for what's been given to me is to give back.I'm an amateur 3d modeller and artist, usually toying around with household stuff as far as models go. I gave serious consideration to modelling a plane... I was going to approach some noted FDE authors for flight model assistance, and perhaps some others who are more proficient with modelling for advice on creating low poly count, but good looking aircraft.Not now. Hell no. No possible way I'm going to toil over something only to have it trashed because it's not "perfect". This community has become spoiled rotten. Good or bad, there's no way I'll ever publically give my efforts to it, only to have someone stand up and articulately, and in a veilled way, say it sucks.Jon D.

LOL man, nobody has in any way, veiled or not, said MIke Stones work "sucks." As far as I'm concerned, Mike should pay no attention whatsoever to what's being said here. He should carry on doing what he's doing just the way he's doing it as long as he enjoys what he's doing. I would really hope that his reasons for doing this are mostly becuase he simply enjoys the challenge of modelling the planes rather than for the adulation of the community. As can be seen in this thread, there are folks around who still enjoy the "do it yourself" aspects of putting the pieces together and for them, Mike's planes are an excellent starting point. He's got some pretty unique planes in his collection too. I have the Avro Arrow. Its really fun to fly and the panel looks good afaic and I'll continue to take it up for a spin occasionally. All I'm saying is that for "serious" flying I always end up in one of the more complete planes simply becuase they give me a "fuller" and more complete experience. If I didn't have all those incredible planes to choose from, I'd be flying Mikes planes probably, but I do have those others to choose from. I guess that makes me spoiled, but in the end, I'm into this for entertainment and enjoyment and so naturally I'm going to choose the planes that to the greatest extent satisfy both of those desires.Please don't think for a second that I don't appreciate how much work is involved in putting one of these planes together becuase I most definitely do. I fully understand why Mike doesn't bother with the VC's and the side views and so forth. Simply put, those things are a pita to do (thats what makes packages like Airhead's Deke and Miltons AC500 so amazing) and I don't begrudge him the right to decide not to bother with them. At the same time though, I and most others have gotten pretty accustomed to having those things. In fact, I don't think it's accurate to call those things "extras" anymore. Perhaps Mike should team up with one or two others who could focus on the parts that he's not interested in to ease the workload. But in the end it's up to him how much time and effort he wants to devote to the hobby and if he chooses to stay the course then so be it. He's always going to hear this pov though becuase for most of us the times really have changed and its pretty tough to put that genie back in the bottle.