FSL back at it again

[ms2 184]

Was just at the point to plan buying this fsl aircraft (June budget ).

Was thinking after the first fsl gaff that the plane is becoming free of malwares.

Now with this recent bad news... that demonstrate for me, (by justifying their actions on Windows), that the news are not fakes ones... I'm very afraid (and definitely), this aircraft and company becoming for me "blacklisted".

Why? Is a nonsense, the product was tested as one of the best of for p3dv4.... 

Change plan for this June buying... PMDG 777 or 747 ?

Keeping the simple hope of aerosoft new Airbuses shall be well done... and soon released...

Mark

 

 

[kevinfirth 1,392]

Is it true that FSL require the sim to be run as admin?

[mikealpha 266]

Not enjoying the best Airliner that has ever been made, with soooo much love to details ? Because of what, a file in the system32 folder ?

I have a hard time to understand how this is a hobby for some. 

[Jetset408 108]

People won't let this rest until FSL are [REMOVED] /disappeared. They have made mistakes, sure, but this continued witch hunt is now only going to hurt those who like and have invested heavily in the A320X (me included!).

Edited June 3, 2018 by Poppet
edited post to remove unnecessary term

[Holdit 551]

I'm conflicted on this one. I hate it when companies get litigious because they don't like what's being said about them, but the FSL A320 is a superb product and if I'd been told at the point of purchase that files would be placed in the system directory, I would still have clicked "Next". Still, I think they'd do better to work on improving their customer service than lawyering up on people.

[Captain Kevin 586]

55 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

Is it true that FSL require the sim to be run as admin?

You should really be running the simulator as admin anyhow, FSL or not.

[Holdit 551]

Well, this whole row gave me my first proper laugh of the day...I was browsing one of the related reddit threads, where various posters were quoting their MS Certifications and criticising the replacement of those files, when someone weighed in with this:

😀

 

[Zangoose 1,631]

FSLabs could have easily solved both matters better but instead they just keep digging the hole bigger themselves. Then they decided to go after the subreddit and a news site for Flight Sim - Disgraceful. 

[DavidP 1,408]

14 minutes ago, MattGarner said:

Then they decided to go after the subreddit and a news site for Flight Sim - Disgraceful. 

If their legal advice is that they have grounds to make a case, then why not??

Edited June 3, 2018 by DavidP

[Holdit 551]

12 minutes ago, DavidP said:

If their legal advice is that they have grounds to make a case, then why not??

Because it it helps spread the very story they're trying to silence, in addition to shooting themselves in the foot PR-wise. Even if they won, it would likely be a Pyrrhic victory.

[DavidP 1,408]

11 minutes ago, Holdit said:

Even if they won, it would likely be a Pyrrhic victory.

I don't understand your stance. You are saying that if someone felt they had a genuine case for defamation, then it's best to ignore it for fear of PR repercussion? Sounds like "turning the other cheek".

BTW I'm not taking sides here, I just don't understand the logic.

Edited June 3, 2018 by DavidP

[Christopher Low 5,332]

Quote

You should really be running the simulator as admin anyhow, FSL or not.

Edited June 3, 2018 by Christopher Low

[Hansaspeed 18]

11 minutes ago, DavidP said:

I don't understand your stance. You are saying that if someone felt they had a genuine case for defamation, then it's best to ignore it for fear of PR repercussion? Sounds like "turning the other cheek".

BTW I'm not taking sides here, I just don't understand the logic.

The problem is no one was defaming FSL. Placing an exe file with the same name as a Windows process in a Windows folder is the biggest red light for malware there could possibly be. The fact that a company feels that they can censor speech and threaten members on unrelated websites is terrifying.

[Holdit 551]

8 minutes ago, DavidP said:

I don't understand your stance. You are saying that if someone felt they had a genuine case for defamation, then it's best to ignore it for fear of PR repercussion? Sounds like "turning the other cheek".

BTW I'm not taking sides here, I just don't understand the logic.

 

The logic is in recognising that you can win the battle and still lose the war. In this case, that could happen if the attempt to silence what was said resulted in many more people hearing about it than would have been the case otherwise. The Spycatcher controversy the in UK during the 80's is a prime example.

 

[LB777 100]

11 hours ago, Sid Starz said:

Just read this topic after downloading the latest version and installing it earlier. This was my first install of the A320X since the last fiasco became public.

Some pics of what was changed and added during the installation and file locations.

https://ibb.co/nQTYay

https://ibb.co/dtxgTJ

 

What tool is this? Seems very handy to monitor changes