ORBX Textures to Replace UTX Custom Ones

[alainneedle1 97]

What is it you want ORBX to do exaclty? Stop making scenery? Go out of business. Fold up? And to what end?

 

Please... Be short and clear.

 

Charles.

 

 

 Come on man, pull yourself together.....

banned at orbx, endless posts at this forum, temporarily banned at avsim, move to aerosoft and kostas blog where next?

 

what if we dont want your kind words of caution?

 

what if we want uninterrupted threads about Orbx/P3D/whatever-Alain-doesn't-like. when is enough enough?

 

or are we all still in the dark and need to be enlightened

 

Wrong...

 

Don't read my post or if you do just don't pay attention to them...

 

Make a formal complaint to the mods.

[IUBrian 151]

As an attorney, I'm actually amused by ORBX's hollow threat to a customer of legal action. Are they going to pay a silk-stocking ip lawyer $300 an hour to write a threatening letter that they will be powerless to back up if the recipient deposits the threat into the circular file? How many people has one of the largest companies in the world sued for violating their EULA by "jail breaking" their IPhones?

 

Reminds me of the bumpkin who threatens the neighbor with his "loy-yer" because the neighbor's dog took a dump in his yard. De minimis non curat lex - "the law does not concern itself with trifles"

 

Bush league chumpism.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

[DaveCT2003 1,820]

 

 

or are we all still in the dark and need to be enlightened

 

Respectfully, Actually, I do want to hear / read them. Older posts tend to get buried, and not everyone visits every forum. 

 

It's always good to hear both sides of the story, especially as it developes.  I'm not rich/wealthy, and as I'm maintaining a household and have other financial responsibilities I have to watch what I choose to purchase carefully.  

 

I thank the user for taking the time to tell another side of the story. I"m a potential ORBX customer, and I've got some reason concerns thanks to alternative viewpoints.

 

I'm sure you wouldn't want someone censoring you, especially if it was something you felt strongly about, so please don't try to censor someone else. It's just not right.

 

The community deserves to know.

 

 

 

Respectfully,

 

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

Bush league chumpism

 

 

I have to be honest here, there are a number of ORBX posts that I find disturbing for many reasons.

 

Having a product dominate the FS community because it's the best is one thing.  Not being able to get rid of it, inaccurate claims regarding compatibility, and the inability remove the product without doing a complete reinstall (mine takes days to do) really have me concerned. I was seriously thinking about buying Global this weekend, but now I have to question motives and ethics.

 

Just investigating and questioning at this point, not calling it either way.

 

 

 

Dave

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

 

 

Reminds me of the bumpkin who threatens the neighbor with his "loy-yer" because the neighbor's dog took a dump in his yard. De minimis non curat lex - "the law does not concern itself with trifles"

 

:good:

[ant_1984 20]

I think you're missing the major point here... that they advertised UTX compatibility, and it was not delivered

 

Now I don't own FTXG or UTX at this point, and I don't think the post by JV took the best approach with his post, but I will say this.

 

From what you're saying they advertised compatibility with UTX. Can you run FTXG while still using UTX. Yes you can, so it's compatible.

 

Optimised? No, I guess not otherwise there wouldn't have been the trouble with lights on UTX roads or what ever it was.

 

But I don't really see how you can say it's not comaptible, when in essence it is.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[pilotjohn 19]

Here's what I'm taking about... the non-blending stand-out textures are the UTX custom textures. They are even worse at night since they are missing lights and are much brighter than nearby ORBX textures. This is what I was looking to fix since ORBX is clearly not "compatible" with UTX.

 

[pilotjohn 19]

Now I don't own FTXG or UTX at this point, and I don't think the post by JV took the best approach with his post, but I will say this.

 

From what you're saying they advertised compatibility with UTX. Can you run FTXG while still using UTX. Yes you can, so it's compatible.

 

Optimised? No, I guess not otherwise there wouldn't have been the trouble with lights on UTX roads or what ever it was.

 

But I don't really see how you can say it's not comaptible, when in essence it is.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

It's not compatible the same way it's not compatible with a ton of free sceneries where all of a sudden you have trees growing out of the runway after FTXG install. I'm not concerned with that, it wasn't advertised to be.

 

Compatibility means it's advertised features should work. They don't (lights - well they do now that the community got involved). The same goes for textures... it's supposed to be an upgrade for the whole world. Well it is, except for the UTX custom parts of the world. 

[ant_1984 20]

Comes back to what is the definition of compatible.

 

"Compatible - Able to exist or occur together without conflict"

 

Looks "Compatible" to me. Optimised? No. It could certainly look better, but it's not horrible.

 

Don't get me wrong I see where you're coming from.

 

Is ORBX likely to improve FTXG's level of optimisation for use with UTX when they are developing their own product which will essentially compete with UTX? Probably not, and that's their business decision which they have the right to make.

 

If enough voices are heard (probably should be done at the ORBX's own forums or maybe the UTX forums) maybe they will change something, then again maybe it's on UTX to implement a fix.

 

I just don't think you can say it's "incompatible".

[pilotjohn 19]

 

If enough voices are heard (probably should be done at the ORBX's own forums or maybe the UTX forums) maybe they will change something, then again maybe it's on UTX to implement a fix.

 

Tried... I'm here because ORBX doesn't respond to these queries so I gave up bugging them. I figured the community would step in just as they have with the light fixes.

"Compatible - Able to exist or occur together without conflict"

My point exactly... the textures conflict (as do the lights).

[pilotjohn 19]

Clearly it's no longer in ORBX's interest to tell us how to fix the UTX textures.

 

But since now there's a ORBX product that will compete with UTX, it might be in UTX's interest to give some info about which textures in ORBX most closely resemble the UTX custom textures. I don't think anyone is looking for step by step directions, just a hint/comparison that says these ORBX textures/AGNs are the closest match to these UTX textures/AGNs that are used in UTX custom areas.

[hawkeye52 8]

Any tools or files that modify or manipulate Orbx textures or files contravenes the Orbx FTX EULA. Please do not go down the path of modifying or moving Orbx texture assets or we will take swift legal action.

Wow, what a statement to make. I do not own your products and now no longer plan to. That statement shows extreme lack of understanding the lengths fsx users go to to make incompatible addons work together. Shame on stating full UTX support in your site when that is obviously not true.

 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[Kangaby 14]

Question... Should I (or anyone else) be entitled to use the 3D Library objects (models created by ORBX staff) and Textures (drawn and painted by ORBX staff) to make my own airports and upload them to AVSIM Library? Not the same issue as this thread but I always wondered why people thought they should be able to.

 No, you have just violated copyright laws. The law is clear in this instance.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

No, you have just violated copyright laws. The law is clear in this instance.

Take a deep breath friend. He's talking hypothetical and not "after the fact", so as of yet, he hasn't violated anything. However, were Cvearl actually to do that, first, they would not be approved by our lib managers, and he would be permanently banned from AVSIM as it would be a violation of Copyright on the face of it.

[pilotjohn 19]

Take a deep breath friend. He's talking hypothetical and not "after the fact", so as of yet, he hasn't violated anything. However, were Cvearl actually to do that, first, they would not be approved by our lib managers, and he would be permanently banned from AVSIM as it would be a violation of Copyright on the face of it.

 

This may be off topic, but I'll just add my two cents. I think your "on the face of it" alludes to similar situations in software. 

 

So this to me is analogous to software. There are libraries (DLL etc.) that are included with operating systems and other applications/software. Programs then reference functionality in those libraries. Some of the functions in libraries are "public" (either through documentation or access modifiers) while others may be "private" (undocumented or marked as such). But referencing "private" functions in libraries is not a copyright violation. I haven't heard of any such case (the Oracle Java vs Google Android case is not analogous).

 

Apple, for example, does not go after software authors who write programs that use unpublished or private functionality (APIs). They chose to not approve or they remove them from the App Store, but Apple doesn't care that they are available on the Internet (TrimEnabler as a rudimentary example - and in reality this is worse than the analogy since they actually modify files).

 

Microsoft takes the same position. There are many many applications which use unpublished Windows APIs to do all sorts funky things. But Microsoft does not use copyright law to try to ban that software. They, just as Apple, can chose to not approve them on their store, but they are perfectly usable and available for download.

 

In the case of referencing ORBX "library" objects, I think the same logic would apply in the courts. In the FSX ecosystem case it's AVSIM and others that act as the gatekeepers for not approving uploads that violate this "referencing". But, that would not stop (and I would doubt anything would come of it) scenery authors from potentially referencing those objects and self-publishing on their own site (I guess ORBX made an exception for OZX). They just wouldn't have the audience they would otherwise because they would be violating some ecosystem rule (but not a legal one) and their product would not be listed on a popular platform.

 

Now this all assumes you're not (re)distributing those "private" libraries. Distribution is where the legal precedents come in and I imagine that would be a pretty clear and cut case. But the assumptions I'm making is that no one would be dumb enough to redistribute someone else's work (software libraries or otherwise) unless explicitly allowed. This means that software (or whatever) that references content from a "private" library has to assume that that library is already available. In the case of ORBX this would mean that a user already bought some ORBX product.

 

I'm not a "loy-yer", but I'm willing to act as an expert witness.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

 

 

In the case of referencing ORBX "library" objects, I think the same logic would apply in the courts. In the FSX ecosystem case it's AVSIM and others that act as the gatekeepers for not approving uploads that violate this "inclusion". But, that would not stop (and I would doubt anything would come of it) scenery authors from potentially referencing those objects and self-publishing on their own site (I guess ORBX made an exception for OZX). They just wouldn't have the audience they would otherwise because they would be violating some ecosystem rule (but not a legal one).

 

We have no control over what is done elsewhere. We will enforce our ToS' and Copyright law, where we have control to do so. Beyond that, it is up to publishers and authors to protect their Copyright elsewhere.