From Flightsim.to to SimMarket in one day...

[Chock 17,769]

Just now, edpatino said:

I think the reference is to the use of sketch up models in commercial scenery, according to this post:

Cheers, Ed

This again raises some issues too. There are different versions of Sketchup, the pricier versions of the software can be used to create commercial stuff, the freebie ones not.

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

8 minutes ago, Chock said:

This again raises some issues too. There are different versions of Sketchup, the pricier versions of the software can be used to create commercial stuff, the freebie ones not.

Yep, there have also apparently been issues in the past with things like addons for commercial software created with alleged pirate versions of 3D max.

[Chock 17,769]

Just now, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Yep, there have also apparently been issues in the past with things like addons for commercial software created with alleged pirate versions of 3D max.

Yup. Used to make me laugh years ago when I'd see some thirteen year-old kid doing tutorials on youtube for some NLE or 3D program software which costs three and a half grand for a licence and had a ton of plug-ins in it which are two grand a piece. 

[AirlinePilot83 86]

I have to agree with a lot of the sentiment in this thread.

There's so much shovelware nowadays at Simmarket with developers that I had never heard of before.

Part of the problem is that Simmarket doesn't have a strong vetting process with new developers.

 

Here are 3 supposedly different developers at Simmarket that I've seen lately:

Brazil Land Games

Illuminators Company

World Airport Company

 

Seems like three different developers, right? Except that if you look at their customer support email, it is the EXACT SAME for all three. Meaning that the same individual has created 3 different vendor accounts. 

It  just seems so sketchy and I would not purchase from "shell companies" like this that could disappear tomorrow and leave me with no product support.

Edited January 5, 2021 by AirlinePilot83

[UAL4life 237]

I hope they nip this in the bud fast, would hate to see simmarket go under due to litigation ala Gawker...

[pmb 5,137]

This is all very confusing. There was a time of heated debate about using Google maps (not the photogrammetry, just the ground images) for Ortho4XP or Aeroscenery, both programs (as well as the derived sceneries) being strictly freeware. Photogrammetry buildings were an absolute taboo at this time. If memory serves me right, Oskar Pilote even had a photogrammetry-enabled version of Ortho4XP which he never dared to make publicly available years ago.

Nowadays "developers" exploit not only imagery but also photogrammetry for their conversions and publish them on Flightsim.to en masse. Often these creations are neither optimized in any way nor color-corrected or creatively enhanced in any way.

Not enough, I've seen a company called MSCENERY selling a product, i.e. their Palma MSFS, with reference to using Google Maps. I recall the description at Simmarket included explicit reference to the use of Google Maps upon publication. In the interim, they preferred to remove that reference (or were asked by Mr. Blaufuks to do so), but a Google search still has it in cache.

"As of 2018, Palma Airport serves over 29 million passengers per year. Built with Google Maps." (Google search of today)

I found Simmarket a quite reliable source for some time, but nowadays they seem to publish all sort of things from masterpieces to absolute junk - see the case mentioned by AirlinePilot83 above. Some "developers" publish a new airport or city every other day -  and obviously even find customers.

Kind regards, Michael

[Chock 17,769]

39 minutes ago, AirlinePilot83 said:

if you look at their customer support email, it is the EXACT SAME for all three. Meaning that the same individual has created 3 different vendor accounts.

Whilst I agree that is a likely explanation, it's actually a logical fallacy to draw such a conclusion purely based on that information alone. There is the (admittedly slim) possibility that it could be three different vendors which are all using the same third party person to handle their support.

There are some other clues which point to this not being the case of course, notably the same dodgy amateurish coloured fonts on the artwork, the frequent typos, and the general ropey appearance of the artwork, but again this could (theoretically at least) be for similar third party contributor reasons which might lead to an incorrect assumption.

Nevertheless, these are quite evidently fairly cheap and nasty products which have been quickly knocked up, and it's really that reason which would lead me to not buy any of them.

Edited January 5, 2021 by Chock

[AirlinePilot83 86]

1 hour ago, Chock said:

Whilst I agree that is a likely explanation, it's actually a logical fallacy to draw such a conclusion purely based on that information alone. There is the (admittedly slim) possibility that it could be three different vendors which are all using the same third party person to handle their support.

There are some other clues which point to this not being the case of course, notably the same dodgy amateurish coloured fonts on the artwork, the frequent typos, and the general ropey appearance of the artwork, but again this could (theoretically at least) be for similar third party contributor reasons which might lead to an incorrect assumption.

Nevertheless, these are quite evidently fairly cheap and nasty products which have been quickly knocked up, and it's really that reason which would lead me to not buy any of them.

If you go to Simmarket right now look at the two latest new products in their homepage. The two newest products just posted are New Orleans Night Lights enhanced by Illuminators company and Minneapolis Airport lights by World Airport Company. 

Two seemingly different companies and yet, when you look at the product covers they have nearly identical style design. They even use the same font.

It's obvious that it is the same individual creating the same type of products under different company names. 

And I'm not convinced that three different vendors would hire the same guy with a no name gmail account to handle their support. 

Edited January 5, 2021 by AirlinePilot83

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

24 minutes ago, pmb said:

This is all very confusing. There was a time of heated debate about using Google maps (not the photogrammetry, just the ground images) for Ortho4XP or Aeroscenery, both programs (as well as the derived sceneries) being strictly freeware. Photogrammetry buildings were an absolute taboo at this time. If memory serves me right, Oskar Pilote even had a photogrammetry-enabled version of Ortho4XP which he never dared to make publicly available years ago.

 

 

What constitutes "fair use" of Google maps/earth data for freeware and private use is always controversial and Google are not helpful either simply saying "ask your lawyer" about your particular use case.

 

For Payware it seems pretty likely you should have a Google maps platform account and probably pay for it.  Not necessarily a subscription unless you update your product every time the maps change.

https://cloud.google.com/maps-platform/

 

[Dominique_K 10,138]

I do not think that MS has less stringent copyright rules than Orbx which prohibits the use of their models in any free- or payware. I have made for me sceneries that I couldn’t share because I used a couple of Orbx buildings by calling GUIDs.

f) not to modify, use, call GUIDs, reference, extract or in any way make use of the Orbxlibs in any software project be it freeware, donation ware or payware.

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by Dominique_K

[JacquesBrel 639]

6 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

For Payware it seems pretty likely you should have a Google maps platform account and probably pay for it.  Not necessarily a subscription unless you update your product every time the maps change.

The terms for the commercial Google maps platform account also state that you cannot "export, extract, or otherwise scrape Google Maps Content for use outside the Services"

I've tried twice now to clearly inform SimMarket that they sell products that violate Google's property rights, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. It would be great if more could try and contact them about the issue (contact info here: https://secure.simmarket.com/impressum.php )

Are there any good alternatives to SimMarket, because I'm very reluctant to be their customer nowadays.

Edited January 5, 2021 by JacquesBrel

[tup61 1,560]

Simmarket is on my blacklist. I wouldn't spend a dime over there. The word not allowed they dare to sell... it's unbelievable. I advice everyone to stay clear.

[MarcG 2,974]

What strikes me as "amazing" is seeing people charging for simple File Edits & Textures, that Runway Texture Pack thing for £14 for example is something that I personally wouldn't touch with a barge poll as it's clearly something that Asobo could & should do themselves eventually. The "rush" of people wanting it now though makes things like that a quick buck for the modders, can't blame them at all for wanting some cash for their "hard work", but some things I've seen for sale would probably take the average person a couple hours themselves to edit if they knew how.

It's such a stark contrast to the Sim Racing scene where really the only Paid "mods" are made by the Developers themselves, whilst the community releases 99% Free Content and some of it is Developer Level Standards (as we've seen here with some items on Flightsim.to). Unlike what I've seen for Sale for MSF in poorly constructed Airports & quick Google Scenery Hacks and they charge £15 for it! Bewildering to me, probably nothing new to you guys though!

Edited January 5, 2021 by MarcG

[omarsmak30 4,068]

Okay. I saw this here:
 

Quote

ATTENTION: Please read this:

DISCLAIMER: simFlight GmbH and the simMarket store will not be made liable or responsible for misuse of code, copyright infringements and issues occurring with the programs offered at its premises. simflight GmbH and the simMarket store solely markets the products in behalf of the respective author, developer, publisher or manufacturer who are solely responsible and liable for their products.

Send all correspondance to: team@simmarket.com

Sincerely,
Miguel Blaufuks
CEO - simFlight GmbH

So let's put it like this, they are off the hook as they claim to be.

[Dillon 2,197]

10 hours ago, edpatino said:

I don't know if I'm missing something, but this morning I downloaded for free from Flightsim.to a version of the Midway Airport (KMDW) in Chicago (very small size, around 420 KB, with default textures and objects). Honestly, the airport is very well done, and I understood it was a WIP.

This afternoon, several minutes ago, there's apparently a similar payware version (looks like it's the same) of KMDW available at SimMarket (https://secure.simmarket.com/arif-studio-chicago-midway-airport-kmdw.phtml).

Then, tried to be back at Flightsim.to, just out of curiosity, and it seems the KMDW version that was available this morning is not there anymore.

I'm not sure if this can be done, but it looks like using default MSFS textures for selling them in a product as a payware is something strange and would probably violate some legal rights.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it's what I think.

Cheers, Ed

I spoke with the developer and he removed his content as freeware and is now selling it a payware. He put so much time into it that he would rather sell it.  This is not a case of pirating software this is totally on the modder himself.