Thanks Michael.Bill

Hi Jan, Thank you for your apology. It means a lot to me. I can understand how you feel about this issue. It shows that you are a person who is passionate about your artwork. I think the number of people who use quality VC's are growing, and if not already, will soon surpass 2D cockpit users in the future. Your VC's will live on for a long time. As I stated in the beginning of this post, I just radically changed the way I fly with a second monitor, so a VC is not viable for me anymore. So please understand that most people only want to have the choice of what type of cockpit they use, and no ill will is meant toward the developer. I really respect your work in the Flight Sim community. When I see your name on a project, I know that it is going to be high quality!Bill

To everyone who expressed thanks for this tip, you are most welcome. I'm glad I was able to help. As I mentioned in my original post, I only collected the information from other peoples posts, and stumbled upon the hex editing web site.Thanks to all of you who have expressed support for my views. This has turned out to be a very interesting discussion, and it is nice to see that no one has resorted to flaming.Bill

I've never had any problems with hacking ANYTHING for personal use. I'm in your corner as far as that issue. Also, I really don't see why people should really care what others do with their software. Who really cares? I wouldn't...If I put out a panel, or aircraft, scnenery, whatever, I could care less what others do with it. Not all people have the same likes, or needs in a sim. BTW, I don't see anything you did as being illegal. Not even close. Only if you uploaded them without the original authors permission would I see any kind of problem. BTW, all this fancy flight sim stuff every one takes for granted originated from "hacking" MSFS. I can remember a time when there was very little add on stuff. And no one ever complained if someone "hacked" a new feature, like better scenery, night light fx, add on aircraft, etc...You don't hear the people at MS crying in their milk because everyone "hacks" up their newly released sims...They have come to expect it. Thats why they have it set up fairly open. They could make it much harder to modify if they wanted to... I don't see why the 3rd party people should be any different. I hack up many peoples stuff for my own use. If that bothers them, oh well...If they were to ever find out and complain, "never has happened", I would tell them to get a grip...Or take up golf or something... MK

Wow, at least someone can see me point of view, doesnt happen to often :-lolYou all must realise that I am not against modifing FS files per say, heck look at my site, there are hundreds of modified files on it.My "fear", not sure if thats a bit of a sensationlist word, is that the MDL file is NOT meant to be modified, it is in a format that does not, and in my mind, should not allow editing by anyone other than the original author.It is exactly the same as modifing exe files, these again are not meant to be modified, but that of course does not stop people doing it, but does it make it right?.I seem to always get the feeling that once something, be it a freeware aircraft or whatever, they automatically get the "right" to do what they want with it, whatever that entails.If someone realeses a VC and a non-VC version fine, if someone realeases a VC version and you do not like the VC, and for whatever reason feel that you cannot skip the VC view, then delete it, I would prefer you to delete it rather than to "hack" it out.If the VC's could be turned off without buggering the MDL file, I would be all for it.Bottom line for me is the MDL files do not, and should not allow modifing by anyone but the original author.The Realair Simulation "air" files seem to be "coded" in such a way that does not the end user to modify them, I wonder that if someone developed a way to decode these air files so that the end user could modify them via a hex editor or whatever, what the response to that would be?I think the disscusion is more related to open source and closed source file formats, rather than VC's or FS all together.Dan.

I agree with Bob Scott that this issue is all about control. It is also about narrow-minded petty individuals who bear a grudge. Since I had the audacity to post this method for VC removal in the Aircraft and Panel Design forum:http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchI have apparently been downgraded to minion of Satan status in the eyes of certain people. scott s. asked a question in that topic, and Bill Leaming answered that it was not possible to remove the VC views when in fact it is possible by hex editing, editing the textures or altering the views in aircraft cfg. This was not the first time that Bill had answered in the negative to a question about VC removal, and I began to suspect he was not being forthright with the people who posed these questions for some reason. I believe that the purpose of these forums is to inform and assist each other with the hobby of flight simulation. Many of my replies here have been of a helpful nature, but it seems that some persons are intent that the hex edit method of VC removal remain unknown to the

How nice would it be, to see in MS 2006 (FS 10) in the Settings-menu a tumble-switch implemented, switching between VC and 2D Panel......Paddy.

>scott s. asked a question in>that topic, and Bill Leaming answered that it was not possible>to remove the VC views when in fact it is possible by hex>editing, editing the textures or altering the views in>aircraft cfg. This was not the first time that Bill had>answered in the negative to a question about VC removal, and I>began to suspect he was not being forthright with the people>who posed these questions for some reason. Douglas,I answered in the negative simply because - at that moment in time - I honestly didn't know that there was a way to toggle off (not "remove") the VC in the .mdl via a hex edit. What you didn't report here is that I did - in fact - offer several other viable options to the person who asked the question, in a sincere effort to help that questioner to achieve his stated goal.Now I know that it is possible, and will no longer reply to such questions in the negative.There is no need whatever to impute 'evil design' to my answer at that particular time.FOR THE RECORD: I have no moral or ethical issues with anyone who wishes to hex-edit the .mdl file on their own computer to 'toggle off' the VC. What a person does with the models on their own computer is their business, and their's alone...The whole question would become moot instantly if all developers would simply take the few moments needed to compile a model without the "interior" view, thus allowing the user to have both available! It would make the end user happier to have such a choice, and likely lead to even MORE success of the total project.

>>>> I answered in the negative simply because - at that moment in time - I honestly didn't know that there was a way to toggle off (not "remove") the VC in the .mdl via a hex edit.<<<>>> What you didn't report here is that I did - in fact - offer several other viable options to the person who asked the question, in a sincere effort to help that questioner to achieve his stated goal.<<<

Dan Watkins wrote:>My "fear", not sure if thats a bit of a sensationlist word, is>that the MDL file is NOT meant to be modified, it is in a>format that does not, and in my mind, should not allow editing>by anyone other than the original author.I don't understand why people think that a machine-format program or data file is somehow encrypted or otherwise protected from modification. The MDL file format is not what it is to prevent someone from seeing what's in the model, it's there because that's the machine format specified by MS. If I post a note on this forum in Greek, is it wrong for you translate it to English in order to read it?>It is exactly the same as modifing exe files, these again are>not meant to be modified, but that of course does not stop>people doing it, but does it make it right?.Same goes for exe files. They are simply programs expressed in machine language. The classification of this as right or wrong is your own personal one...and I respect that as far as your front door but no further. Most certainly I do not recognize your version of right or wrong beyond my own front door.>I seem to always get the feeling that once something, be it a>freeware aircraft or whatever, they automatically get the>"right" to do what they want with it, whatever that entails.It isn't that I have the "right" to modify software on my own machine for my own use...it's more that I have the freedom to do it. It's wrong (and under some circumstances even illegal) for me to distribute the modified data...but certainly neither wrong nor illegal to pass along information that will enable others to likewise enjoy modifying the software on their own machines.>If someone realeses a VC and a non-VC version fine, if someone>realeases a VC version and you do not like the VC, and for>whatever reason feel that you cannot skip the VC view, then>delete it, I would prefer you to delete it rather than to>"hack" it out.Sorry, nothing personal, but what you prefer is meaningless at the Scott residence.>Bottom line for me is the MDL files do not, and should not>allow modifing by anyone but the original author.Sure they allow for modification. Just because the means are more complicated than using Notepad does not disallow an edit. Modifying an executable with a hex editor is as natural to me as modifying a .cfg file is to some others. Would you argue that nobody should be able to modify an aircraft.cfg file, either?>The Realair Simulation "air" files seem to be "coded" in such>a way that does not the end user to modify them, I wonder that>if someone developed a way to decode these air files so that>the end user could modify them via a hex editor or whatever,>what the response to that would be?You're just using the wrong tools, then. Any air file is readable and therefore editable. It has to comply with the MSFS file spec, which is a widely known format. Granted, it's possible to reorder some of the tables in a way that makes FSEdit and maybe one or two other air file editors yak, but it's quite trivial to get directly into the data tables...or for that matter to re-format the file so that a standard editor will read it. Again, this is a control thing. It's all about a few self-appointed "Net #####" attempting to tell the rest of us what we should not or cannot do with our computers in our domiciles. I reject the premise summarily.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-V L-300Washington, DC

Ok Bob, enough said I think.I understand your point of view, just like everybody elses, I was just giving you and the others mine.It is up to the individual in the endDan.

>Maybe its not just the "modification" itself, but the ease at>which someones hard work can be undone.It is very easy to "modify" or otherwise undo someones work, and you can do it without editing a single thing! Just don't press the "S" key!There are more than a few simmers who never leave the cockpit view of their aircraft. The external model, which so many developers value more than life itself, goes completely unnoticed and unused.It's their choice to not see or use that aspect of the simulated airplane, just as it is many other folks choice to never use the Virtual Cockpit. Should we blame them for choosing not to use an included feature? For people in those circumstances, making personal modifications to files is a very easy way to gain more enjoyment through performance increases. Aircraft like the PSS Dash-8 have crazy-huge texture files for their external views. Users reduce the size of these texture files, and summarily increase their performance. Likewise, users have discovered a way to "disable" a VC from loading - ALSO giving them a measurable improvement in performance.Hex editing and texture manipulation are simply ways of tailoring a product to your needs. So long as the *actual manipulated file* is not redistributed without permission, there should be no outcry.Personally, I THANK the people who uncovered this hex edit - there are only a select few VC's which I use, and thats only for sightseeing reasons. The rest are wastes of memory for me, so I elected to remove (correction: DISABLE) them. Now, I get a noticable improvement without sacrificing anything I like. -Greg

"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?"In fs9.cfg is the similar variable in graphics section>SEE_SELF=1 /0If I don't like any VC I simply change this variable from 1 to 0 and I don't see any part of VC in 2D cockpit and I can use 2D sideviews instead.There is no need to completly remove VC if I don't see it anymore.

Just thought I would throw a few quick words in the mix here for pondering. I haven't bothered to read but a few words here, but I get the idea.Bottom line, if you download, or better yet buy an aircraft package from a developer and decide to hack the model, or make any other modifications, be it for your own use or for others, I'd say you can forget about any support from that developer whatsoever should you have any issues with said package. Any developer that would even consider giving you support after you have butchered their work is crazy.Probably best to leave well enough alone and use the product as it was intended. If you want aircraft that suit you personally, might I suggest gathering the tools of the trade and begin building aircraft for yourself.On the other hand, I find that Bill brings about a good point. If one already has a full source model with VC, it truly isn't much trouble to remove the VC and rebuild. For relatively simple aircraft I doubt there would be any advantage to this, though for complex aircraft models I can somewhat sympathize with users not wanting a VC, possibly for performance reasons.

>Hi Jan, >Thank you for your apology. It means a lot to me. I can>understand how you feel about this issue. It shows that you>are a person who is passionate about your artwork. Well, thanks very much, Bill, that's very kind and understanding of you to say and also very true. It was first and foremost the wording of the subject " very easy way to remove a virtual cockpit " that went up the wrong way for me because there certainly isn't an easy way to create one. There seems to be a quite a huge gap between FS users who create stuff and those, obviously the majority, who use FS 'just' for what it is actually ment : virtually flying an airplane. That's quite allright of course and normally shouldn't be a problem at all but sometimes this 'gap' can make for a lot of misunderstanding, from both sides , and can easily turn a topic into something rather unpleasant as we have seen happening here. Mind you, Bill, i am 100% positive that such couldn't have been further away from your intention when you posted this topic.I can honestly say that i was rather dumbfounded by some of the remarks that were adressed to me by a particular person. It's not everyday that i get to be called puerile,easily ridiculed,not worthy of any attention and poor company to top it off, just because i wanted to make a statement from an 'FS aircraft designer's point of view'. Again, nothing to do with you of course, and i even have the feeling nothing to do with what i actually ment with my reply ( " it's all about control "......sjeeshh ) >I think the>number of people who use quality VC's are growing, and if not>already, will soon surpass 2D cockpit users in the future.>Your VC's will live on for a long time. As I stated in the>beginning of this post, I just radically changed the way I fly>with a second monitor, so a VC is not viable for me anymore.>So please understand that most people only want to have the>choice of what type of cockpit they use, and no ill will is>meant toward the developer.I absolutely do understand, Bill. Although i could tell you a few sorded stories about a freeware aircraft model or two,of which i was dumb enough to make the source files available, which happily turned up in commercial packages as designed by another designer. ( the feeling you get from that is like you just found out that your girlfriend has been having an affair with somebody for half a year or so. Believe me i know, i've been there.. ;-))But that has nothing to do with my reply to your post. In fact it has nothing to do with my own models. I am fully aware that people want to have a choice between using a VC or not. F.i. i did not go to the trouble of designing 3 versions of the MAAM-SIM B-25 model,a full, medium, and light version, of which the latter doesn't feature a VC at all, just for fun. I can also understand that there are people who would be more happy with a particular model if the VC could be removed. It's just that my point of view happens to differ, not only because i create these things myself but also as just another dedicated FS flightsimmer who has been around right from the beginning with FSII on a Commodore64.Personally i have been eagerly awaiting virtual cockpits to arrive in FS ever since i saw one in another sim, just like i've been waiting for all the animation possibillities, reflective textures, specular highlighting,etc. Now that we've got all these fantastic features with FS9 i just think it's pretty ironic people can't seem to wait to get rid of some of these wonderful achievements again. I mean, do we want progress in our beloved virtual world or don't we..Sure, not every freeware designer is crazy enough (and what's more, has time enough! )todevote all his free time to design a full blown photoreal virtual cockpit (and cabin and what else springs to mind ), but atleast he will try and give it go anyway. I think we should be really happy that we now atleast have *the possibillity* to add and use a VC. My statement was just about the seemingly very 'casual' stance towards throwing out one of the most interesting and exiting new FS features just like that. Sure again, that's only my personal view and has all to do with my own personal way of using FS. Totally different from possibly most other simmers. F.i. i never fly the big iron, just no time for that and i'd like to enjoy the gorgeous scenery and go where i want rather then let a FMC take that away from me. Here's already where my point of view towards VC's will completely differ from those who *do* fly the big iron. Surely a crisp and clear 2D panel is much more favourable here, what's there to look around for at FL350 anyway.. (heard a Captain say "clouds are for Second Officers only.. ;-) ) I am not designing big iron ( what's the use, just about everything is there already in great and glamorous glory! ) if i had done so i would've sure had serious thoughts about adding a VC.But i can't for the live of me even begin to understand why someone would want to rip out a well done VC from a GA aircraft, a classic airliner, militairy classic prop or jet,or modern jet fighter. If i like a model that looks good and flies well but has a bit of an awkward looking VC i just forget about it. Plenty of other models which have it all nowadays, commercial and freeware alike. In fact already too much to name without forgetting to mention a lot of 'em. My Gawd! Aren't we sitting pretty when it comes to VC's in smaller aircraft ! That's all i wanted to say, really. >I really respect your work in the>Flight Sim community. When I see your name on a project, I>know that it is going to be high quality!>Thank very much again, Bill,that's highly appreciated ! Hope you don't mind my rambling on here but i felt i needed to try and put a more positive light to my point of view on this issue,hoping that some other participants in this thread might pick it up as well. Just in case i failed i'll be sure to wear fire protective clothing when revisiting. Best regards,Jan a great lover of VC's, be it puerile and easily ridiculed or not