I am more miffed about the outcry and hullabaloo that followed my post more than anything else, it really does get out of control too quickly, too often.

 

I believe firmly in "Do unto others ..."  i.e. being a bit more personable in a post on a forum such as avsim would probably not set off outcry and hullabaloo like your initial post. And you would not need to be miffed.

 

Sascha

Actually, I was drawing an analogy to a TV episode where the subject was a person who made a product so good the customers were willing to take his abuse, and he felt no need to even attempt to be polite. I deliberately omitted the character's name because I recognize that others who are unfamiliar with the show might assume I was making a direct parallel to the behavior associated with the name, as opposed to making a parallel with an episode in a show making fun of a real person who felt it was beneath him to temper his obdurate behavior for the benefit of his customers. It's a subtle, but significant difference.

 

Apparently the comment I was responding to has been deleted.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

 

Apparently the comment I was responding to has been deleted.

 

Yes, it was inappropriate and provocative.

And ORBX's response to the numerous outcries after their threat is.........silence, rather than offer encouragement.

Thank you; I may be sarcastic, but I don't want to cross any lines, and recognize there are different thresholds for acceptable humor outside my own country. If my comments cross that line, please let me know.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

outside my own country

 

Ah, I get it!  You're one of those guys who went and got their very own "country" because you didn't like the rules where you had been?  Now, that's an idea. Paint scheme by ORBX by any chance?  LOL!

 

Sincerely though, I love a good sarcastic swipe when funny is the only motive, though it's true that the pun is too often misunderstood by a lot of people. 

 

So go right ahead and drag it out of the closet my friend!  Well, wait a minute...  No! Wait! STOP! Not THAT closet!

 

:biggrin:

 

Taken directly from the FTXG user guide:

 

 

Ooops! Hmmm... Well that's awkward. I hope that they amend that line out. The rest is accurate.

 

Charles.

Ooops! Hmmm... Well that's awkward. I hope that they amend that line out. The rest is accurate.

 

Charles.

 

Yes of course, but how many peoples bought FTXG because of that "fully compatible with UTX" sale's pitch?

 

Or after this question was asked and answered...

 

Posted 14 February 2013 - 05:04 PM

Hello

 

This probably was asked before, but couldn’t find it:

 

Will FTX Global be DX10 (“Preview”) compatible?

 

Thanks.

 

Cheers

Ramón

---------------------------------------------------------

Posted 14 February 2013 - 05:06 PM

 

Yes it will, as long as you apply some of the recent DX10 fixes discovered on various forums. It will present exactly the same DX10 compatibility as default FSX does.

 

Regards,

JV

---------------------------------------------------------

 

The saying "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" apply here I guess.

 

              

on the other hand,  what's incompatible?  UTX works exactly like it did before installing FTXG.  the "problems" that have been mentioned are these:

 

UTX's special texture classes don't have an FTXG equivalent, however they still look exactly like UTX made them to look, nothing has changed.  GEX did create special textures for those classes, GEX and UTX are distributed by the same company, they were intended to be synergistic and to help drive sales of the other product,  yet somehow that's not evil when flight 1 do it...  

 

FTXG's vector lighting doesn't work on UTX roads, but UTX's lighting still works on those roads, and looks pretty damn good with FTXG too.  

 

so what is "incompatible"?  you guys are stretching the meaning of compatibility beyond "not breaking it" to include all sorts of extraneous stuff that is not rational.  personally I think there will someday be some sort of enhanced content, Holger is or was pretty tight with the UTX folks.  (and has his name on the credits assisting with UTX Alaska) but It's not owed to you, any more than Nick owes GEX users special textures to go with ORBX's forthcoming vector product.

 

I totally agree with the catching flies with honey comment, but that's not how the man rolls.  what he does works in a completely bizarre way.  The products are so good his fans will eat it up regardless of how he behaves, and the people he ###### off will apparently spend months talking about his products too, even if they aren't buying them, and in all that chatter they have no choice but to admit how good they are, and they create buzz for the stuff themselves.  You're not a star unless half the people love you and half the people hate you.

 

 

but that's not how the man rolls.

 

A refreshing and unique (at least different) approach to all of this.

 

Not saying I agree with the entire post/reply, it nice opinion nonetheless.

 

 

 

Dave

Oh I see it... I'm just trying to get the root cause resolved. As cathartic as this thread is for some, it's doing very little to convince ORBX to help. Now I'm simply trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to relay that ORBX has very little if anything to lose by offering a solution. My intent was not for this exchange, but to find a way for two products to work well together (in the end for the good of the community and of course for my own selfish reasons). I hope it's not too late for that, but I fear it may be. 

So it sounds like someone found a solution: http://forum.avsim.net/topic/419199-no-vector-road-lights-with-utx/page-4#entry2796533

 

But it also looks like he/she was scared away by the response from ORBX in this thread.

 

This is unfortunate and proves a lot of people's points from above.

 

One of the reasons that I bothered to criticize JV's silly EULA statement was precisely what you stated above, i.e. that some people would be scared or discouraged and thus unwilling to help resolve the UTX texture issue.

 

I see absolutely no harm in figuring out which FTX textures can be used to substitute certain UTX textures and then copying those to the appropriate UTX directories on my own computer.  Period. 

 

This will be a moot issue for me once openLC and openVector are released as I'll no longer need, or probably want, UTX.  It would be nice, though, if the developers, both from ORBX and the UTX teams, would help the community out a bit and tell us how to get the products to play nice with each other.

 

I have the greatest respect and admiration for the ORBX developers and will be a customer as long as they are in business.  I can't wait for openLC and openVector to be released.  I just don't take well to being scolded by any developer and told I'm violating a legal agreement when I darn well know that it isn't illegal to move some textures, for which I have purchased a license to install on a single computer, to a different directory on my own computer. 

 

That is a form of intimidation and I don't like it.

on the other hand,  what's incompatible?  UTX works exactly like it did before installing FTXG.  the "problems" that have been mentioned are these:

 

UTX's special texture classes don't have an FTXG equivalent, however they still look exactly like UTX made them to look, nothing has changed.  GEX did create special textures for those classes, GEX and UTX are distributed by the same company, they were intended to be synergistic and to help drive sales of the other product,  yet somehow that's not evil when flight 1 do it...  

 

FTXG's vector lighting doesn't work on UTX roads, but UTX's lighting still works on those roads, and looks pretty damn good with FTXG too.  

 

so what is "incompatible"?  you guys are stretching the meaning of compatibility beyond "not breaking it" to include all sorts of extraneous stuff that is not rational.  personally I think there will someday be some sort of enhanced content, Holger is or was pretty tight with the UTX folks.  (and has his name on the credits assisting with UTX Alaska) but It's not owed to you, any more than Nick owes GEX users special textures to go with ORBX's forthcoming vector product.

 

I totally agree with the catching flies with honey comment, but that's not how the man rolls.  what he does works in a completely bizarre way.  The products are so good his fans will eat it up regardless of how he behaves, and the people he ###### off will apparently spend months talking about his products too, even if they aren't buying them, and in all that chatter they have no choice but to admit how good they are, and they create buzz for the stuff themselves.  You're not a star unless half the people love you and half the people hate you.

 

Not sure I could have said it better than this. FTXG compatible to UTX. Basically yes. Optimized 100%? No but you can fine tune in the UTX tool for that. If UTX was the only game in town I would disable FTXG lighting and enable UTX lighting and then disable the custom Urban landclass option in UTX. The effect is pretty good.

 

C.

Just IMHO but I don't get all angst against ORBX, they are a business and as such will sometimes behave in a way that wont encourage , yes and discourage business with others, that we don't like it is probably a balancing act for them but they still need to be competitive in a business like fashion, pleasing many but not all.

 

What I also don't get JV is why you sometimes pull this heavy handed threat, please take this the right way; with all due respect - please stay as far away from becoming PTango like, that's all.