I'm a 95% freeware addon user and former payware addon addict. Back in the good old days (FS98->FS2004) I used mostly freeware, but with FSX things changed. Not only did the quality gap between freeware and payware increase, but many former freeware developers never moved on to FSX, and those who did had a lot of ground to cover before they were up to speed. But things have changed, and we're seeing better freeware than ever. Impressive creations by SunSkyJet, FSX AI Bureau (FAIB), Manfred Jahn, Dino Cattaneo, Ray Smith, Ant's Airplanes, Tim "Piglet" Conrad, to name a few, is impressive to say the least.

 

 

To me one of the best areas of freeware is AFCADs and AI Traffic. Good AFCADs can make impressive upgrades of stock FSX airports with little fps impact. Even better, most freeware AFCAD devs seems to understand the concept of airline gate codes and parking radius which for some reason seems to elude numerous high priced payware airports devs. Add to that the huge selection of AI aircraft, repaints and flightplans that makes it possible to create super realistic traffic unmatched by any payware offering. But there is one issue that makes all this goodness a somewhat sour grape: Copyright and Terms of Use.

 

 

I recently spent the better part of two month creating a very detailed and realistic AI traffic package for a small corner of the world. It consists of almost every AI aircraft model out there, with 100s of repaints. None of which have been made by me, but I've meticulously renamed and sorted the addons into folders to make manual installation and uninstallation a breeze, edited all aircraft.cfg with extensive, consistent and correct information, updated models and textures to FSX standards (where possible), replaced prop textures/animations, added ai sounds where missing, compiled and edited up to date flightplans (based on real world data), all in an effort to make it as real as it gets. Coupled with freeware scenery and airports this has taken me to sim heaven - for free, unless you count hours burning the midnight oil!

 

 

My problem is that I would like to share this package with other simmers in the AVSIM library, but I can't because of legal issues. Without exception all of the freeware aircraft models and repaints can't be repackaged, and getting 100s of approvals isn't practical, or even possible since many devs have left the scene or changed their e-mail addresses. So for those who want a similar package, I could write a tutorial and let them do exactly what I've been doing for the last two months, but lets face it, most people can't or won't go through all the trouble, and for most simmers it would be too technical anyway.

 

 

So I'd like to ask all freeware developers and users of freeware, is this what we would like the freeware scene to be? Useful for a dedicated few, but unaccessible for most non hardcore simmers? What is the use of putting down all this hard work if only a limited few will use it?

Sorry, but to be honest, you should have thought of this before you got started and planned for it. IMO if the end user doesn't want to take the time and effort to set it up like yourself from your tutorial, then they can do without, the creators of the parts in the package had to do the work, so should they..

 

I design scenery and the last thing I want is users using the objects and textures I worked hard on from my uploaded sceneries for their sceneries for sharing, usually with no credit given.

 

Your package sounds great, I would definitely start asking for permissions to see what can be done, especially given the amount of work you put into it.

Sorry, but to be honest, you should have thought of this before you got started and planned for it. IMO if the end user doesn't want to take the time and effort to set it up like yourself from your tutorial, then they can do without, the creators of the parts in the package had to do the work, so should they..

 

I design scenery and the last thing I want is users using the objects and textures I worked hard on from my uploaded sceneries for their sceneries for sharing, usually with no credit given.

 

Your package sounds great, I would definitely start asking for permissions to see what can be done, especially given the amount of work you put into it.

All good points Michael, and your response is much appreciated.

 

I made this package for me, so it would have been made regardless of redistribution rights. But once the effort has been made it is too bad it can't be shared.

 

As I see it, efforts are much better spent if everyone does a bit of sceney noone else has done before them. That way we can cover more of the world, instead of "wasting" time doing what's allready been done. It's a big planet.

 

Object libraries share some of the same issues. I can see and respect that some people find credit important and doesn't want others to "steal" one's assets. On the other hand, it leads to the same kind of problems. With Instant Scenery a novice could fill a void in the virtual world quite easily if an object library could be borrowed. Of course, a better solution would be to create a library where designers could donate models for all to use. It would not just make designing new scenety easier and more accessable, but easier for those wishing to install addons created by a common library as well. There are even payware publishers who condone use of their 3D objects for new scenery making (FSAddon) and others who absolutley don't (ORBX).

As I see it, efforts are much better spent if everyone does a bit of sceney noone else has done before them. That way we can cover more of the world, instead of "wasting" time doing what's allready been done. It's a big planet.

 

Object libraries share some of the same issues. I can see and respect that some people find credit important and doesn't want others to "steal" one's assets. On the other hand, it leads to the same kind of problems. With Instant Scenery a novice could fill a void in the virtual world quite easily if an object library could be borrowed. Of course, a better solution would be to create a library where designers could donate models for all to use. It would not just make designing new scenety easier and more accessable, but easier for those wishing to install addons created by a common library as well. There are even payware publishers who condone use of their 3D objects for new scenery making (FSAddon) and others who absolutley don't (ORBX).

 

All well and good if the goal was to design the objects as a library for others to use on their work and I agree, that would be a good thing, Luckily there are a huge number of default objects available and anyone could easily populate airports and share till their hearts can tend already, but you don't see that as much as you would think..There is a big gap between just making a bunch of objects in a library and creating a scenery..

When I develop a scenery my goal is to recreate what I picture in my mind, an experience per say, which is much different than just placing objects around an airport.

Your analogy is kinda like being the one developing the brushes that artists use to create the masterpieces in the galleries around the world and who get all the fame and glory, while the brush creator gets squat.

 

I have spent 6 months of research and work creating an object library for a scenery before, I don't think that expecting users to not use my library for their shared sceneries is asking to much for the work I put into sharing my work with the community..

 

What objects does FSAddon allow redistribution of? I know the ones in Tongass Fjords can't be. You can create a scenery BGL based off their objects for others that have that library installed which makes perfect sense.

I totally respect that. We all have different feelings about the value and importance of our creations.

 

I'm just a completely different personality and get my kicks from giving and sharing. I've been a photographer for 25 years and used to make a decent income from it, but now I give all of my images away for free and share a lot of them uncredited on wikipedia for others to use as they please. Sure, it has cost me years of practice and thousands of dollars in equipment, but if only a very few people were ever to see my pictures it would be a shame because to me it is the subjects depicted that are important, not the one who happened to catch the light on film or digital sensor. And I never sign a framed photo when I sell them. I just don't like the attention. We're all stardust. Here today, gone tomorow. I just wished there was more of a wikipedia spirit among freeware creators as it would open up a lot more possibilities to complete the virtual world the short period in time it exsists. But of course it's easy for me to say since I'm not an original content creator!

 

And you are of corse correct, you can create bgls with FSAddon stuff, but not recompile and redistribute the 3d objects themselves. As for ORBX stuff they don't want you to do even that.

I have always published under Creative Commons share-alike, attribution, non-commercial license. Works for me but everyone has their own opinion.

 

scott s.

.

Very glad to hear Scott. Very much appreciated!

Agree entirely with the OP that a more open structure for freeware would be in the entire community's interest. Mike, is there any reason you wouldn't want a freeware package to use your objects or textures provided you received credit? I have to admit I've never quite understood why freeware contributors feel the need to forbid reuse or redistribution of their work, provided of course there is proper attribution and credit given. Surely the reason they create their work in the first place and make it free is to contribute to the community--why then put (what seem to me arbitrary) restrictions on it? Honestly curious.

This is an automatic message.

 

This topic has been moved from "MS FSX Forum" to "Hangar Chat". This move has been done for a number of possible reasons.

• The most likely reason is that the post was off topic.
• The topic could also have contained images or a video that were not appropriate to the original forum it was posted in.
• The images might not have been "illustrative" or "explanatory" in nature.
• The topic could have been moved because we deemed it to be more appropriately placed elsewhere.

Please ensure that your posts are "on topic" and contain illustrative images or videos as appropriate. Do not post videos or images just for entertainment purposes anywhere but in the screen shot or video forums. See our image posting rules here.

 

Members who continue to post off topic posts can be denied entry to specific forums in order to reduce and remove the practice. Your cooperation is appreciated.

I agree wholeheartedly with OP's statement.  I have spent an inordinate amount of time tweaking my AI and freeware AFCAD files to my liking, with an eye towards uncompromising realism.  That means using the latest and greatest models and paints for the world's biggest airlines, and accurate airline assignments at the gates, which change on an annual basis.  I don't mind spending the time and effort I pour into this "sub hobby", but I lack a certain sense of accomplishment for the thousands of man hours invested over the years.  If only I could give back to the community and have others share in my pride and joy.  But alas, technical and copyright issues are a major hindrance.  

 

In an ideal world, it would be awesome to have a central, open source repository of models/paints/AFCADS stored in a central online database, and have it pushed to the users though a simple, painless process.   Console games are able to update their maps and characters seamlessly upon initial loading, or according to the user's schedule, so I envision a similar concept for AI at least.  It's a dream, I know, but I have given this idea much thought and it's a shame we can't have something like this.  World of AI is the closest thing to a painfree, easy installation and update of AI, but it appears to be difficult for the authors to create, probably because permission has to be granted by all the parties who contribute to the final product, like the model,paint, and flight schedule creators. 

 

With that said about the AI aspect, I have always wanted to at least share my edits of freeware AFCADs, which are really just tweaks to the airline gate assignments or include the addition of crosswind runways for multiple runway usage.  But I would have to ask for permission from the original authors, and chances are they would frown upon such work, even if credit is given, perhaps because having multiple iterations of the original file could confuse users, who knows. 

 

 

I have to admit I've never quite understood why freeware contributors feel the need to forbid reuse or redistribution of their work, provided of course there is proper attribution and credit given.

 

I think much it comes from the fact that there have been many issues with people creating and sharing such packages without any consent, permission from or even acknowledgment to the actual creators. Many times labeling it as their own work. The developers finally said enough with it and not entertain any such packages at all. This has actually driven MANY modelers/painters/ etc right out of FS altogether.

Very interesting discussion, especially when it turns to talk about utilizing objects from other developers libraries for scenery development.

 

While I do strongly agree that there should be no redistribution of anyone else's work without permission, I've long held the opinion that developers should at permit the use of their libraries by the end user for other purposes, so long as there is adequate credit given and there is absolutely no redistribution taking place.

 

This way, then perhaps it would be easier for scenery designers to possibly populate more of the world with nicely decorated airports, sharing their results.

 

1. It would be impossible not to credit the original object creators, since in order for the user to actually see the object, it would have to be installed; thus they would have to be made aware of it, in order that they might know to get it.

2. If the object libraries belong to payware, further popular freeware sceneries requiring that payware as a requirement could possibly boost the sales of the payware in question.

3. A scenery that might utilize a third party library is only telling the sim to show an instance of an already installed object; it's not in anyway copying or redistributing that object.

 

Orbx comes to mind, simply due to the quality of the libraries that they distribute; plus they currently frown upon any usage of their libraries. With the 'sanctioned' freeware airports being made available though, perhaps they are softening a bit - time will tell.

 

AI are a slightly different story though; what the OP describes would be completely impossible to share without redistribution. I know myself how much work creating detailed, organized custom AI is, and it's very unfortunate that there's not really a way to share that work with others, beyond a set of flight plans and a tutorial. Makes one appreciate the effort that went into the WOAI packages that much more.

 

It would be great if there could be a curated & maintained freeware object library project that could be promoted for use by afcad and scenery designers though. Would save a lot of people to effort of redeveloping the wheel, so to speak, time that could be better spent developing more scenery!

 

Also, it would cut down on the bloat that starts to occur within an FSX install; I would bet that if I were to start browsing through all the third party libraries in my install I would find a huge amount of very similar looking hangars for example.

It isn't perfect, but it is possible for AI to setup something like a package that can be installed with AIFP, as long as models and paints can be linked to.

 

scott s.

.

I think much it comes from the fact that there have been many issues with people creating and sharing such packages without any consent, permission from or even acknowledgment to the actual creators. Many times labeling it as their own work. The developers finally said enough with it and not entertain any such packages at all. This has actually driven MANY modelers/painters/ etc right out of FS altogether.

 

 

This has been my experience in this and other gaming communities i develop for. I developed a scenery for FS9 called MCMil.zip which has been d/led quite a bit and I have gotten requests to use the objects in it in others sceneries which I have granted for the most part. I state in the readme that you can use the objects with credit given, but you must not include any part of my work with your work, basically because more than one copy of the object library active screws things up, so all they need to do is install my scenery and then they have access to the library and any other scenery that used my library also, pretty basic stuff. To this day I have seen numerous sceneries with my files included, most with no credit and even reworks of my textures in one. I don't feel that abiding by basic wishes and some credit for the 6+ months of research and work I did is to much to ask for sharing it with the community and this type of lack of respect (and lack of moral fiber) makes me reluctant to share anything else which is why I haven't released any of the numerous scenery files I have sitting in my FSX in a long while.

 

from a commercial POV I can understand ORBXs stance with their files. better to have a hard line than be moderate and be taken advantage of which happens all the time in this community.

 

Sad think is, with the tools available in this community, everyone can use whatever files they want to enhance "their" sim world to perfection. If you really feel strongly about giving back, being creative or sharing, do your own work!!!

Why does always people adapt to the actions of bad people rather than the good ones? Negative reinforcement isn't good for anyone. It just leads to a downward spiral...