Anyone tried the New World Landclass, at flightsim.com ?newworld.zip It is a 150MB download....says it covers the entire world....Just wondering if anyone tried it?

Can't find anything with that filename with their file search, I'm affraid?

yeah me either...actuallyI didn't download the entire thing yesterday and this morning when I went to find it it was not there...weird...

Whatever it was it's gone now!! The link to the hot files the day it was released (May 19) also doesn't work!! I guess it's true what they say! You snooze you lose!

Hi guys,the package was removed for a good (and very serious) reason.Besides, it contained FS9 textures at 4.8m resolution and the associated land class files didn't fully cover the land so you ended up with a very odd mix of FSX and FS9 textures.Cheers, Holger

Yeah, it wasn't a very good package. I used it as a stop-gap to fill in gaps in landclass coverage provided by other packages like Cloud9's Xclass etc. It's main appeal was that it reduced the abundance of sandy desert textures in some areas. After reading Holger's post above, I'll delete it from my system.

You have to realize something's wrong when a landclass download is 150 mb.:-eek

I'll tell you what happened guys.Yet again somebody ripped out our GE PPO textures claiming them as their own. This was Thomas Trewin and he put them in a package for FSX hoping nobody would notice.I've contacted Thomas Terwin but of course no reply or acknowledgement he stole the textures.Naturally we got them removed from the sites he had uploaded to.Thanks to God Holger Sandman gave us a heads up they looked identical to GE PRO textures. The crazy thing is they are the wrong size for FSX so don't work that well. Of course Thomas Terwin hasn't even paid for his own copy of GE PRO which is fairly typical.That's whay the neworld.zip was about the same size as our GE PRO package.If anyone knows of neworld.zip anywhere else we would appreciate any leads.There will be an update for GE PRO which uses all new textures for FSX.The really worrying thing is we've found our textures were uploaded even to AVSIM by somebody else months ago and hardly anyone ever reports something is wrong.We either find this ourselves or another lead developer such as Holger let's us know.Please guys try and stop copy right theft.Ultimately it hurts you guys too as it effects our ability to produce more for less. The net result of copy right theft is less for more.Anyway, thanks Holger for the heads up.The real message is try and be careful when downloading freeware packages and assume in some cases when textures are provided they may not belong to the person you think they do. If it looks or sound too good to be true it probably is.Peter Wilding Developer of GE and FE by Flight One SoftwarePeter

Nice one Peter. Look forward to the real GEPro X.Tip for everyone: Fly in Spring! It's all green, no deserts. Simple as that.

>Anyone tried the New World Landclass, at flightsim.com ?>>newworld.zip >>It is a 150MB download....says it covers the entire world....>>Just wondering if anyone tried it?landclass or textures?can't see landclass that big.

"There will be an update for GE PRO which uses all new textures for FSX."Do you mean a free patch or a payware update? Not complaining, just asking.In either case, count me in. I'm a very happy GE Pro & FE customer.

Makes perfect sense to have a package like that removed post haste and I applaud Holger's quick response to the issue. However, I also need to bring the spotlight on a couple of other issues:>Thanks to God Holger Sandman gave us a heads up they looked>identical to GE PRO textures.If a user has never owned GE PRO textures there's no (legal) way for them to make a 1:1 comparison. Merely comparing screenshots is not an accurate method of detection, as while you can own the copyright to the product itself, you can't own a copyright to an idea or style. If someone manages to come up with a visually similar but not identical set of textures as your GE PRO - that uses similar color tones for example and would in a random screenshot taken within the simulator look a lot alike - they're not infringing.It's great if someone happens to spot a copy and reports it, but you can't expect the end user to try and figure out if the set they just downloaded has been copied from another developer or if indeed they have simply managed to reproduce a similar look. This is especially true if, as I noted above, the user doesn't have anything to compare it to or isn't even aware that there is a resemblance to another product.>That's whay the neworld.zip was about the same size as our GE>PRO package.Once again, someone who has never owned or looked into your GE PRO package can't know how large that package is. There was no way I, for example, would have recognized the file size as "pretty close to GE PRO" and suspected something. A developer certainly has very intimate knowledge about their own product (such as the file size), but it's simply not something a regular user would likely even consider. And while combined with other details the file size similarity has some merit, on its own it's largely of no consequence.>The really worrying thing is we've found our textures were>uploaded even to AVSIM by somebody else months ago and hardly>anyone ever reports something is wrong.While I'm sure some of those who have downloaded these textures might have recognized them for what they were and decided not to report it (for whatever reason), I suspect a majority of the end users have simply been unaware of what they had in their hands. You can't possibly put blame on or even hint that the blame would be on these users.>The real message is try and be careful when downloading>freeware packages and assume in some cases when textures are>provided they may not belong to the person you think they do.>If it looks or sound too good to be true it probably is.I wholeheartedly sympathize with developers who lose out due to copyright infringement, but I honestly can not support the idea that people are guilty until proven innocent. There's a LOT of absolutely stunning, legit freeware out there. Personally I would hate to take the stance that I should hold every freeware author who shows talent suspect of copyright infringement. I pay that same respect to commercial developers as well - despite the fact that simply asking for money for a product doesn't absolutely guarantee that the product does not infringe on someone's copyright.While you probably didn't intend it as such, the above quote sounds a lot like something Microsoft would say about Linux. "Linux might be free to download, but be aware of the hidden costs involved in deploying it. Plus, we happen to know they are infringing on 235 of our patents and in the long run it might end up costing you more than simply buying Windows now." Basically, FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt).In any case, I didn't mean to rag on you for defending your rights and I do hope this post doesn't come through as such. I can see where you're coming from and simply wanted to point out potential issues I happened to notice.