1 hour ago, CanadianCaptainMoustache said:

Thank you for the kind words and support, everyone. All I wanted from this was to improve a product I felt was sub-par after Aerosoft refused to accept advice/help. 

Tashe!  Great to see you here.

Thanks for everything you have contributed to the community and for all the great mods over at flightsim.to.

It is really sad what has happened with the Twin Otter mods.  It was a decent plane with them.  Aerosoft are now on my blacklist - not that they will be bothered, but still.

2 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

This is baloney.  People have been modifying flight models for DECADES.  Sounds like he did a nice job on it too.

This sets a dangerous precedent...

 

I held off buying the Twotter because of the negativity surrounding it.  However, with several Mods available for it I decided to buy - just before the mod was pulled!  I feel stupid for buying it and will not consider Aerosoft again.

5 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I held off buying the Twotter because of the negativity surrounding it.  However, with several Mods available for it I decided to buy - just before the mod was pulled!  I feel stupid for buying it and will not consider Aerosoft again.

There's someone in this thread that might be able to get it to ya.

Incredible....if they would produce proper aircraft, mods wouldn't even be needed.  I learned my lesson after buying the Airbus and CRJ back in P3d.  Between the experience with their aircraft and their forum, I no longer buy anything from them.

Would it be possible to make this mod without using Aerosoft files and instead use Asobo files?

The more I read about Aerosoft, the more I'm glad I didn't buy this plane. I do own the CRJ planes and a few planes for P3D but I'm thinking that these are going to be the last products I buy from Aerosoft. This soap opera is getting old.

2 minutes ago, Tomaz Drnovsek said:

Would it be possible to make this mod without using Aerosoft files and instead use Asobo files?

Honestly, based on what Kok said in their forums, if you just posted “add the following to the .cfg file:… change 7.1 to 6.8…” etc. they would allow it. It is the posting of the entire file they take exception to (which is BS, as that file is useless without paying for the actual plane.)

Anyway, might be a workaround that keeps them shut up. 

Edited March 3, 20224 yr by haskell
Grammar

46 minutes ago, haskell said:

which is BS, as that file is useless without paying for the actual plane

marketing amateurs playing copyright professionals.

Although many people could download the mod (and the AS copyright information) it is absolutely useless information if you do not purchase the product. In a way the mod actually promoted the product. The CCM Kodiak mod really transformed that plane and I was even thinking of buying the Twin Otter because of the mod. Fortunately I did not.

I wish I was a pitchfork salesman. I could have sold a few around here.

Aerosoft might not like others messing with their latest which I get so maybe they will indicate to the community that a leaf has turned and they are bent on keeping everyone happy.

IOW the  time is ripe for AeroSoft to lead with fully functional MSFS planes.

ns

Edited March 3, 20224 yr by bean_sprout

10 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

I wish I was a pitchfork salesman. I could have sold a few around here.

You're one of the originals here... like me.  The fact that a "large" flightsim company can crush someone from writing lines of text is something that destroys everything we have all worked so hard for...  how much have you spent since you started simming?  We've always supported developers, sometimes even the ones who didn't make the best products.  Flight sim has also been supported by freeware creators for decades. This behavior from Aerosoft is not the norm, and is utterly ridiculous.

What's next?  Addon developers saying people can't make incredible liveries?  It's the devs' texture files...  it's no different than creating a FM cfg edit.

 

Edited March 3, 20224 yr by ryanbatcund

If you want to be outraged about protected cfg files, fair enough give Aerosoft a hard time, but if you want to be consistent then your first port of call should be Asobo/Microsoft themselves who not only encrypt all of their "premium" aircraft cfg files but also encrypt the same files of THIRD PARTY aircraft producers without consulting them as to their views. In other words, by default, all aircraft purchased from MSFS marketplace are encrypted. But many of the same aircraft purchased direct from the developer or say, simmarket, are NOT encrypted.

So it is not just Aerosoft playing this game. Indeed Aerosoft itself is having all of its cfg files encrypted on MS marketplace whether it requested so or not.

What are the real stakes in mods involving cfg files? Well it is not really any different from the FSX and P3d days. Microsoft and Lockheed Martin recognised that in order to keep their sims going and attracting buyers, they had to tolerate a reasonable amount of modding and a great deal of leeway regarding the use of core files. It became a grey area and the litmus test was established: Did the modder or 3rd party developer either 1) seek to genuinely improve something in the core product or 2) Were they designing and publishing a sufficiently different product that increased the overall attraction of the core sim to new customers.

At RealAir our attitude moved according to the intentions of the modder. If someone modded a panel config file and it solved a problem we did not fix, then how could we stand in the way without coming over as rather stupid? Example: folks like Bert Pieke offer numerous panel and graphical fixes that definitely improve the experience of 3rd party product customers. On the other hand several organisations created aircraft that pinched my bespoke development of custom flight modelling which essentially copied years of work then sought to make a profit out of that work. So the test is of INTENTION. If someone genuinely wants to improve something by spotting flaws in an existing product, I think they should be allowed to offer a mod, or at the very least improve it privately. If someone blatantly copies others' work solely to make money on the release of a copied or closely copied product then that should be a matter for a copyright claim.

It's all about being measured and sensible. We all know the difference between a genuine attempt to improve things and a blatant attempt to rip off other people's work. So my conclusion is that MS and Asobo should stop being silly with the ridiculous encrypted stuff and just be sensible. If someone finds their lighting or flight modelling "off", let them improve it. The public will judge whether it is better or not. FSX lasted as long as it did exactly because MS was tolerant of well meaning 3rd parties.

 

In case we need some legal assistance to allow us doing the mods on certain payware products, maybe this attorney could help us 🤣🤣🤣:

 

Edited March 3, 20224 yr by edpatino

 

From the first FS I played and my first internet connection mods were at the core of why I loved this genre.

Not what Aerosoft could do, but what a single person, in a dimly lit room from any place in the world could add to my enjoyment.

Everybody who has used flight sims for more then 6 months know what a person MK is.