Very easy way to remove a virtual cockpit- A Rebuttal

[Guest daveg4otu]

Modification : the making of a limited change in something; also : the result of such a changeThe above from the Merriam Webster online dictionary.Notice it doesn't say that the change is always for the better.Look also at the AVSIM Home page today offering 42 new files - the majority of which come under one heading ( as always)....."Flight Simulator 2004 - Aircraft Repaints, Textures and Modifications"I think that because someone may want to modify your work - this shouldn't be taken as some kind of insult-- rather that they ( the modifyer)are getting full use of your hard work and , by making the ( for their own use ) modifications are possibly getting even more enjoyment from it.Look at it like music - someone writes a fabulous song - big hit - but later along comes someone else who rearranges it so much as to be almost a new song - another big hit- is this wrong or in any way damaging to the original composer/artist?Looking at all this from the more practical side - even the inclusion of restrictions in the EULA or readme won't stop people altering things if they want to- it's a fact of life .Dave

[Guest Tim13]

Pulling the VC out of an aircraft is no different that replacing a 2D panel with another from a different author.Tim13

[JimmiG 244]

"I am perplexed and dismayed at some of the responses my posting of simple information elicited."Me too. Sure, I like VC's myself but we should have the option of removing them. I mean, people swap sound sets, airfiles, .cfg files and panels between aircraft all the time. Why would it be different with the VC? I think some people don't understand what this tweak reslly does...you're just editing some bits to disable the VC. I think "boshar" explained this very well. This won't allow you to steal anyone's VC or even make any modifications to it - doing anything useful with a HEX editor without a thorough understanding of the file format is virtually impossible. Sure, you could "rip out" a part of it but it would just be an incomprehensible string of hexadecimal numbers.HEX editors and various tracers are part of the programmer's toolbox. You can not hide the fact that HEX editors exist more than you can hide word processors or sound editors.If an FS9.cfg variable was found that did the same thing (e.g. DisplayVirtualCockpit=1/0) would you still be angry and try to hide this tweak for everyone?SOME PEOPLE DON'T WANT THE VC - why should they not be given the option of removing it? There are many legitimate reasons for wanting to remove it...here are some that I can think of:-Performance-2D bitmaps - if 2D sideview bitmaps are available you may want to remove the VC-Multi-monitor setups - if you have seprate monitors for sideviews you may not want to constantly display the aircraft interior in those, especially since that would eat up frames."Boohoo I spent all this time making a VC and now I want to force it upon everyone!!!(sic)"Why? What if I don't want it? If I don't like your textures I can remove those. If I don't like the flight model I can change that. If I don't like the VC, *WHY* do you want to force me to use it anyway?

[Guest odog]

"Boohoo I spent all this time making a VC and now I want to force it upon everyone!!!(sic)"wow...hopelessWhere did that come from?If you were speaking in general, that's fine, but if you are directing this towards me, you owe me an apology.as a stated AGAIN... i dont care what people do.a personal attack is uncalled for. I have my opinion, you have yours. No need to go there Jimmy.I am fully aware what a hex editor is and does, I am simply stating that this is a slippery slope that could lead to ripping off part, or all of the original MDL.This attitude does have a profound effect on all the designers I know. Im just trying to prevent the mass exit of quality freeware builders to the payware side. (not that this alone would, but it's the attitude.)but that loud sucking sound has been evident for sometime, so I take my leave of this issue... for good.enjoy.

[Bob Scott 7,721]

Maybe we should all start by remembering that most of our add-ons would be dead in the water were it not for the magnificent "hacking" into MSFS itself by Adam Szofran and Pete Dowson plus the cast of a thousand helpers that made FSUIPC a reality and gave us the kind of insights we now have into the inner workings of the FS core itself. If the aversion to looking under the covers with all the available tools were Pharoah's Law, we wouldn't have any of this.Let's also remember that the panels we use, the FMS software we emulate, the liveries we paint, are mostly facsimiles of the work of others to begin with. For a 737 model, there's the original work of some Boeing design engineers that's completely unaddressed in this whole debate. Does that FS panel maker that doesn't want me looking at his FMS software consider that Smiths or Honeywell, or Collins might have some concerns over their use of the likenesses of the real FMS software? How far do we take it before it becomes utterly ridiculous? Anyone remember the scandalous attempts to gain control over use of a commercial airline livery by Peter Tishma a few years back? If we live by the sword of censorship, it won't be long before the rules are so stifling and bizarre it won't be fun any more.In my own experience tweaking, merging and combining my own work and the works of others, I have come across more than a few who would throw down the gauntlet over my making modifications to their work (or showing others how to do it), even despite the fact that their works rely, directly or indirectly, upon the very same sort of "hacking" that they would deny to me. That's hypocritical and two-faced, and I give it little consideration for that reason.I view this as a control issue. The most diehard of the crowd here come across to me as control freaks, intent on somehow preventing the average Joe from gaining the ability to adapt the software on his own machine to his own needs. Fortunately, it's virtually impossible to keep that Genie in the bottle, and the harder some people try to smother the discussion, the more prominent it will become. Free men can sense censorship and unwarranted intrusions into their lives easily, and from great distances. I sense exactly that sort of intrusion here when people ask the forum moderator to ban any discussion of the topic.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, DCP.S. Bill...this was a useful tip. I'm writing a freeware utility to perform this mod on any .mdl file without use of a hex editor. Should be released soon.

[JSkorna 137]

Thank you for showing me how to easily remove a VC.

[Guest LLgaz]

This is definitely about control. You see, the old adage "do as I say, not as I do" applies here.By reaading another thread, it seems that, although its unacceptable to modify one person's model and remove the VC, its perfectly acceptable and encouraged, for an airfile to be modified to enable a payware panel to work with a freeware model....or at least, to prevent high epr readings on the panel. I know the payware company in question spent hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours developing their model and getting it to run smoothly. Not to mention the angst of the community when it was finally released with numerous bugs....and the countless hours spent ironing out those bugs. Then FS9 rolled around, and the company released a patch which again took .....hours. But the patch was buggy causing tons of complaints again, so ......again.....countless hours spent refining and patching the patch for FS9.And after all those countless hours, some are perfectly willing to simply cast the model aside and modify the air file. Remember also, that this company sells repaints of their aircraft, so by using a freeware model, its directly affecting their sales.....which is akin to stealing their work. More so than removing a VC.Yet, these same people are unwilling to allow any modifications to their hundreds of hours of hard work on their VC cause it just ain't right.....It just ain't right.Do as I say.DON"T YOU DARE do what I do.:-roll

[rhodges 6]

Great shot Bob!I, like many others I am sure ask myself why I read posts like this, and even more as a dummy come back and read the updates to it. Probably even more than that, to add a reply.No modifications to other's work for ones own personal use? The heck with just one's personal computer that nobody else ever sees. If we want to be dogmatic about such an issue, we are left with the MSFS package as it comes out of the box ONLY, and as you have pointed out I am not sure but what that even infringes on somebody somewhere. However, I imagine Mr. Gates does in fact consult with the big bird manufacturers for those he includes in FS. To totally conform to the what it seems I am hearing, we do away with all added scenery including mesh, landclass etc. Include FSUIPC and Autosave, FSMETEO (and the other similar weather options), Repaints, third party aircraft, RWYINFO, VatSim, FDC, FSNAV, ServeInfo, AirEd, Active Camera, CFGEDIT and the newer panel editing programs, Squawkbox, Third party gauges (Sorry Tony), Traffic Tools, and I don't know what else. (Could bring up the subject of starting up FS witout a..... Uh Oh I want say it. JAIL JAIL! Sorry Mr. Monitor, I didn't mean it.Thanks to a good system, I have never deleted a virtual offering and include them in all my downloads even when the option without them is available. However, as an old CFI interested mostly in how well the panel functions, not how impressive an eye candy it is I seldom implement any of them. A lot of my real time was in J3,s old Cessna 120's and 140's along with a Luscomb or two. I wish their panels could have been 2D as they were not very pretty anyway. In addition with these old eyes, reading the gauges is usually a bit of a problem as well with most virtual offerings. I am afraid I fail to see much difference in never useing them and deleting them. At the same time I may be just tickled to death with the rest of the plane along with the 2D panel and have tried to give my appreciation to the developers of such at every opportunity. For any developer that is offended by this, if you will let me know I will sure apologize and remove your bird from my hanger immediately. Somehow, I fail to understand how my being happy with the rest of your contribution and complementing it as such but not useing your virtual offering is an insult, but so be it if you are offended. Somewhere, somehow some degree of common sense must come into the picture, or we can just turn flightsim over to the lawyers of the world and consult ours every time we crank up FS. Thankfully there are countless contributiors to flightsim, both free and payware with such wisdom that I hope this is not an issue to them. I sincerely hope that these gifted folk are never offended by my adding a timer, fuelstat gauge, fsmeteo window or other such item to their panel (or deleting something heaven forbid). Although I have not been guilty (YET), of deleting a virtual panel, seems like the same thing to me.Bob, I think you summed it up well with your: "How far do we take it before it becomes utterly ridiculous?" I think we are about there (including everything I was dumb enough to add).Thanks for your wisdom:RTH

[crvm 0]

That's true Dave. Take my Aeroworx landing panel package. It's certainly a cut up modifed version of their IFR panels BUT my intent was to offer folks something I feel helps the simmer and the original add-on out. I did the same with PIC and of course my work on the PMDG 737 600-700 which became part of the finished product. Now, the PMDG was not something one could actually modify as stated in the EULA, this was clear enough but was allowed to me personally. Of course this is not talking about taking away (VCs) but I believe a mod is a mod regardless of final result. In fact a big kudos to Wilco/PIC Team (LEVEL D), Aeroworx and PMDG for letting me chop and share to the community! Hopefully Wade and company will allow me to do it better in the new PIC. Best Wishes,[h4]Randy J. Smith[/h4]http://www.rawbw.com/~bdoolin/shinault/Animation1.gifCaution! Not a real pilot, but do play one on TV ;-)AMD 64 3200+ | ASUS KV8 DELUXE | GFORCE 5700 ULTRA @535/1000 | Maxtor 6Y080M0 SATA 80 GIG | 512 DDR 400 | Windows Xp Pro | Windows Xp Pro 64 |

[Guest Javis]

Bill, i'm sorry i have offended you.I'm also sorry i've had the urge to butt in. I should've known better.I'm reading these forums for, oh, how many years.Will never happen again.My mistake.Jan

[1mikel151 71]

Wonder how many budding aircraft designers are going to read this and think twice about spending the time designing an aircraft?Dan, thank you, I totally agree with your posts. There are some fundamentals that seem to be lost here, one, not everyone is honest, plain and simple and sooner than later someones file will end up at FSPlanet with the VC removed, a tacky paintjob and it'll be in an EXE file that overwrites a bunch of default files, then we'll be screaming! Another is that there is a huge difference between a payware file and a freeware file, at least in my mind.Bill, I have a great amount of respect for you that you posted this in defense of your original post, I see nothing wrong with what you are doing and with your setup, yet not everyone has that kind of set up. Like Dan I just don't see why simmers can't just pass the VC view and before Wolfko jumps in, I would really like to see the documented proof about the VC performance bog when not in view, because I get better performance from going from a detailed VC to the 2D, shouldn't it stay the same? To bad you just can't switch it off in the CFG somewhere, that would be handy!Guess this will all be a mute point when MS does away with 2D panels. Regards, MichaelKDFWhttp://www.calvirair.com/mcpics/PBTMCa.jpgCalVirAir International VACalVirAir International

[Bob Scott 7,721]

>Bill, i'm sorry i have offended you.I'm also sorry i've had>the urge to butt in. I should've known better.I'm reading>these forums for, oh, how many years.Will never happen>again.My mistake.>>Jan Thanks Jan. Everyone makes mistakes. It takes a real man to admit he was really, really wrong. Just don't let it happen again.BobP.S. sarcasm cuts both ways, yes?

[Guest Erick_Cantu]

Not to be rude, but...Paragraphs - use them. I was about to real all that but lost track before I can get anything meaningful from it. It's also a bit straining on the eyes.Thank you! :)

[Guest Javis]

>P.S. sarcasm cuts both ways, yes?Sure does.Boy,oh boy, what fun we have.Jan

[boris4356 4]

Hi Bob, A freeware utility to remove the VC is a great idea! I'm sure the developers would favour this over hex editing. This way they would know that people have no evil intentions, and simply only want to disable or remove the VC for their own use. You also brought up some interesting things in your post.Bill