"LOL man, nobody has in any way, veiled or not, said MIke Stones work "sucks." (Well judging from the quotes below, I would say that perhaps you don't think it "sucks" but it's definitely "incomplete" or "inadequate". Yeah, that's so much better)... 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...(The only thing that has changed between today and the past is that the models are harder to build, the visuals are harder to model, and the users are more critical of the work)...Work that only contains the visual aircraft should be used as AI these days. 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... (Ok, great. create a great visual, a nice model, with hyperacurate flight dynamics, and at BEST we MIGHT let it be used for AI traffic which flies on "rails" and is best seen from halfway across the field, or occasionally parked next to)...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... Why is it's MIKE'S job to change because times have changed? I and others on this thread have criticised people for being too lazy to find or build a panel of their own. In the past this was not expected by the community, but because some commercial and freeware developers develop some extra special packages, and all the other freeware developers are "expected" to put in the same effort because "times have changed".The reason many of us are a little miffed at this thread is the very simple and arrogant statement that says "hey, we're greedy, we expect more. Don't think you can come around here and offer what you did last year and expect it to be accepted.What MANY of you fail to realize, is that this used to be a spirit of cooperation in this community. Many great freeware developers further developed their skills. A great freeware developer does not grow on trees. As he develops, his skills develop.Yet the pervasive attitude in this thread is if your freeware doesn't measure up to a Captain Sims 727 or a PMDG 737NG, then forget it.Take a look around. Compare the number of "original" works in the FS98 files to that in FS2004. A greater and greater majority of files available for FS2004 are either AFCAD files or repaints of an existing commercial package. And since the "community" demands freeware authors to meet these standards, we have more and more people discouraged from even starting, because he does not want to be found to be weighed, measured, and found lacking by his peers.So in ten years, when there is no more developed freeware talent, because the community has disenfranchised those who can't reach a perceived level of perfection, where will we be? Trading liveries for the latest commercial model available online at $30.00 a crack? Trading AI traffic routes for the latest Commercial Traffic generator that costs another $30.00 to get. Waiting for someone else to develop a market case to develop a local airport? I flew Pro Pilot 99 for several years in the gap between FS98 and FS2002. For me the experience was much better than FS2000. Yet because the system was "closed" there was VERY limited freeware available. 1 repaint, a "voice" recorder, One scenery area for Philadelphia, and some redone textures. It was like manna in the desert.Todays "freeware" consumers have grown fat and complacent with the wealth of the freeware and commercial software available to enhance the MSFS world, and if some of us don't grow up, we may either find ourselves with a closed system, or worse, an "freeware" environment that exists only to embelish existing commercial addons. Times are changing....I suppose we should open our wallets and welcome the new era.

>If you wanted a separate panel, it was the "downloaders" responsibility either to find one, or make one himself. And the aircraft designer was neither obliged, nor expected, to provide it himself.

Will if your going to quote something I said, quote this:"We are not writing him nasty emails stating 'why didn't he include a VC in his work'.... No, we're saying this is how I'll use his design based on my needs and this is why I'm using his design that way.""I also agree it is sad to put in work on an FDE and visual model when you know 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."Yes it's not the freeware designers responsibility to provide the panel and sounds to go with his bird but it sure would be nice if he/her considered his audience and looked around a little to see if someone has done at least a panel. You can't fly a plane realistically from outside the aircraft. So here we are with a visual model that is awesome and no panel to fly it with. As Flight Simulator moves to the newer versions you can't go back to an FS5.1 panel and use it in FS2k4. Heck you can't go back to FS2k2 and use those panels in FS2k4. This is not just concerning Mikes bird but many aircraft. If all of you want to go dig back up the good old days of FS98 remember we had much more freeware and/or payware panels (RFP V1, PSS 747) choices to mix and match. I could see everyone's point here if we could do what we did in the days of FS98 but we can't, Microsoft cancels out the last version's add-ons with compatibility problems with each new version. You can't mix and match VC's either. I'm so sick of you guys mentioning the past when we don't have that same situation going on anymore... Will, everything else you quoted is really being taken out of context to suite your own perception and I'd wish you stop...

Ron we can't "do the searching and merging" the way we did in the days of old because so much of the older stuff is not compatible with FS2k4. We don't have that many options with certain aircraft like we've had in the past..."Serve it to me on a silver platter", Come on Ron like I said earlier I'd gladly pay for something instead of asking for it for free. All that was said here is if I can't find all I need to for a certain model and it looks great, I'll use it as AI. I'll even thank the author if need be."Ah the good old days when we spent hours searching libraries on a sllloooooowwwww dialup to find just the right panel/gauges/sounds"Many freeware designers aren't going to keep updating their add-ons to FS2k4 standards. So even if I wanted to fly this great Gulfstream model what options do I have these days concerning panels and sounds. That's why it makes since to get a completed package if it's available. It's not about give me everything, HELLO, it's not there to begin with if I did a search..."and don't leave one thing that I need to contribute to make this my dream machine lest I become a critic"I am not going to create crap and put it out there. If I don't have the time to do quality work because I have a new born at home, I can't do it. If FS2k4 doesn't have allot of options concerning compatibility with older panels, I have no choices but to go payware and/or use some otherwise great models as AI...We can't sit here and bring up "the good old" days when we're not there. FS2k4 isn't FS98 and what worked with FS98 doesn't work with FS2k4.

You are correct that freeware developers are not as prolific for FS9 as FS98 and I certainly wasn't implying that they were.The point of my post was to state that "where there is a will there is a way" even to the point of developing your own custom panels/sounds/etc. Another possibility is to collaborate with friends who would like to develop the same thing you like:-)Never implied that it has to be released:-) Simply for your own enjoyment could be motivation enough.Good old days or good new days makes no difference to the dedicated simmer who wishes to apply himself to mergeing and/or creating something for his own enjoyment:-) No one said it would be easy...but it can be very rewarding:-)

No problem Jim...How can I explain my statement "can of worms" if many of you already don't get it...As of today so many would like to see a quality FS2k4 Gulfstream and what we get is offerings we have to go mix and match (panels, sounds). Problem is we don't live in the days of FS98 and there are not allot of options out there for the Gulfstream if your looking for realism in a great panel and sounds. So any release that comes short of the mark of a complete package is the "can of worms" I'm talking about. If we had what we had in the past and that was three to four different Freeware panels/sounds to go with this model, it wouldn

What exactly do you folks expect me to do or say here? Do you want me to say "Mike, your work is superb. I will be using your planes to the exclusion of all others in my hangar?" I can say that. It would be a lie, but I can say it. Is that what a developer like Mike Stone wants? Empty platitudes? If you re-read my posts, you'll see that I don't expect anyone to change what they do to satisfy my own wants. But by the same token, no developer (freeware or payware) should expect me to adjust my expectations in order to keep everyone happy. I like VCs. I'm sorry if that offends some of you. I simply don't get as much enjoyment out of flying a plane with the 2D panel alone. Not everyone feels the way I do, but quite a lot do. Do you really feel that the state of freeware is worse today then it was back in FS98 times? I just don't buy that. There may be fewer freeware planes now, but I'd say in general the quality of the freeware is enormously better. I don't think thats necessarily a bad situation. Sure, I can go out and spend time trying to find all the parts to make a plane my "dream machine." And once I do, maybe it will all work the way its supposed to, or maybe I'll be faced with random ctd's or other issues. Who knows. But why am I going to do that when there are so many great complete packages available that have been tested so that everything works the way its supposed to and doesn't cuase problems? If somebody else enjoys that challenge, more power to you. I personally don't. For me, I barely have enough time in the day to spend an hour flying around in one of the planes I already have. I simply don't have extra time to spend on building them myself.

Look I am not going to persue this thread any longer. Dillon, you have not been one of the major offenders, and although you have been very selective in your words, the underlying attitude is the same.You won't fly a model that does not include a panel, You are unable (like me) or unwilling to make your own, and for realism sake, you will not fly a Gulfstream with the default Lear panel.My attitude about panels differs greatly from yours. The only custom panels I have are ones that came with the FS2000 era Abacus planes that I occasionally fly, and the Richard Probst 727 panel that I have slaved to my 727.Every other plane I own, I use a panel from friendly panels that are basically recompiles of the default panels. I have never been a custom panel guy. If it is a small 2 engine jet, I use the lear, if it is an Airbus or Boeing medium twin jet, the 737 panel gets used, and on the Heavies, the 777 gets the nod. The only real reason that I use Richard's panel for the 727 is that I don't have a "reasonable" trijet panel, so I chose his.Your a panel guy, you like VC's and accurate panels for all models of aircraft you fly. I can dig that. I have no problem with what freeware you use, can use, or do use. My issue is that you have publically declared that a fellow authors work was not adequate for you because you thought it incomplete, and that you would use it for AI but nothing else. You may not have found that as a slam, or a slant, but it felt different to others, me included.I apologize if I took your words out of context and used them in a way that they were not meant to be used. If by any cause I 'twisted' their meaning or misrepresented your position, then I am sorry.My position is that today, an increasing number of us routinely dismiss out of hand, what was considered years ago, either extraordinary, or above the norm. As a result, we "expect" more work from someone to get the same credit, and we discourage others from "contributing" in the field. Every good scenery guy started out doing a couple bridges or airports. Every good model guy started on repaints and moved up. If we don't recognize these individuals for their budding accomplishments, how will they ever develop the talent to make the truly superb packages that we see from a Holger Sandmann, a Richard Probst, or Eric Ernst?If we continue to take these individuals for granted, they will continue to "leave the hobby" because they just don't find it worth it anymore. But hey, I guess if they weren't good enough, so be it.Some of us will never realize how thirsty we really are, until we have to walk through the desert. Perhaps that's what it's going to take.

Ron no one I know here or anywhere else has access to a real Gulfstream IV. If I was to do a panel I would want to make sure it was done to the same quality as your work (at least realistic as possible, switches in correct location etc.). First off I'm no artist and second the subject matter is like pulling teeth to get...Since 9/11 it's harder than ever to get data on anything. My hat is off to all of you that can do it. Your Citation II/X is awesome. How many of us can do that. 9/11 has closed doors for many of us that had been open before. We will never have the add-on community we had before because of this.It's easy to sit back and say why don't you do it when you've been in the game longer. You take for granted the connections you've obtained over the years not understanding it's a different world today. Some of the same people you've come across others will never meet. Look at the guys who live in the Netherlands who have to go through hoops to get Private Pilots Licenses. Their only flying enjoyment is going to come from the work others with better access to the subject matter can get. Even the pics on Airliners.net is not going to give me all the views I need to make a quality panel.Just thought about it, even in the days of FS5.1/98 there still wasn't a decent panel of the Gulfstream IV ever produced. Now this is going back years. The only model that did this bird justice was the one released last year for FS2k2 (VC, Cabin). It wasn't so much it had a VC, it for once in the history of FS portrayed the bird correctly from the inside (which most of us fly from anyway).What CEO or Fortune500 company is going to let one climb into his bird and take pictures??? So this is what frustrates me about Freeware like the Gulfstream, it has nothing to do with being lazy, unappreciative, or ungrateful. You tell me Ron where can I get a decent FS2k4 panel to fly with Mikes Stone's great visual model that's half way realistic???Payware companies are now taking away the ability to use their panels with freeware designes (RFP). I don

Point well made....it certainly is NOT easy to do the R&D to develop something post 9/11. But it is possible given the the difficulties.I don't have the sources needed to do a GV at the present time or we would have one in development since so many would like for us to do one to our standard. Rest assured that when we do make the right connections we will do our best to produce one:-)As to our panels being used in freeware planes...nope it won't work...too much interaction and other tidbits:-)My original post was and remains an opinion regarding some folks attitudes regarding this hobby and is not intended to "cause a rucas" or accuse anyone of anything:-)

Well I guess I've had my bad news for today... :-hang If you guys of all people can't get close to the Gulfstream, how can you even suggest the rest of us can??? :-hmmm

At this point, there's nothing to be said. The provberbial toothpaste is out of the tube. What those of us with opposing viewpoints are trying to get across is simply if you can't think of something good to say about freeware, don't say anything at all. Ever see a crappy freeware review by Avsim? No. Notice how they removed the star rating system for freeware? They get it. Applaud the great work that has been done. But if you find something that's not to your liking, quietly delete it and don't worry about it any more. No one is born Milton Shupe or Richard Probst (all due respect to them and their peers.) If someone puts out their modest attempt and they see that it's not downloaded often according to the stats, perhaps it'll cause them to re-evaluate and try to improve on a version 2. OTOH, if they see that someone is going out of their way to point out the flaws by spending the time and energy to create a forum post about it, then it's a little more personal.Don't like it? Leave it alone. I believe that's all we're saying.

Hmmm,I didn't say we won't have the sources....I said we don't have the sources right now!:-). Actually it's not easy but we are pursuing the leads before us and over time we believe we will have the access needed to do a nice GV:-)As you may know, research and the right access takes time to develop since real GV owners aren't breaking down our doors with offers:-)While we do feel confident that our initial contacts will produce some fruit we are unable to "rush" the process for obvious reasons. Time will tell on this one:-)>If you guys of all people can't get close to the Gulfstream, how can you even suggest the rest of us can???

Jon no one said Mike Stone's Gulfstream was bad... :-hmmm There's nothing out here in the FS2k4 arena to go with it (panel, sounds, etc.). That's really the root of this whole issue.

Would you "settle" for a GIV, Ron? ;-)I'm sure a GIV would be just as popular.Give me a call, as I don't use ";-)" for nothing!Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...RUM_LOUF_A2.jpg