My FSX payware aircraft that are true FSX models

[n4gix 4,947]

Actually, not even a hex-editor is needed...Simply rightclick on the .mdl file and Open with Wordpad.exeFSX SDK compiled models will have this in the first line: MDLXMDLFS9 SDK compiled models will have this in the first line: MDL8MDLIn either case though, it's dangerous opening any .mdl file, because one can easily change something by accident and throughly toast the .mdl file... :-eek

[Guest weeniemcween]

Ron, To be correct, I said "most" payware developers, meaning the bad ones.So I do support the honest and courteous payware developers. And in your listing of things that you do here you forgot your constant advertisements.As far as the other thing goes, facts are facts. RealAir, under just as much pressure as everyone else, was able to produce fsx compliant planes from the beginning, and did not try to pass off fs9 sdk planes as fsx planes. Telling me that I don't understand your points doesn't change the facts which cause your and others' argument that its ACES fault to fall apart.Alvega,I remember that thread well and it definitely concerned Mytraffic. Have they updated their models since? Whatever, they are so great looking that Aerosoft has to use AIAardvark in their advertisements and claim its Mytraffic.Another instance of misrepresentation.

[PhilTaylor 45]

Jim,I published an edited version of the above clarification as a new blog post, just to address the fact that I have potentially muddied the water where I didnt intend to.Phil

[PhilTaylor 45]

See my updated blog post, I make sure to call out in a clearer way it is only the ports that do not work that are at issue.

[Chuck_Jodry-VJPL 663]

So its a truth in advertising issue , and you are taking the high road if i understand correctly.Any clarification possible on this one ? http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho..._id=36146&page=

[Manny 1,293]

>This is the problem I have with most payware developers. They>take our hobby and turn it into a business, sucking up a lot>of the community focus, and spitting it back out with business>rhetoric. >>>> >>>>> Sorry..this one of the dumbest thing I have ever heard! Microsoft Flight sim is not a freeware. They are Payware developers too!and its YOUR hobby? Really? Like some exclusive club of yours?I love freeware and I have contributed to Freeware in my small way too. But I love paywares. They are the reason I still flight sim! I fly with payware aircrafts and payware sceneries (and good freeware aircraft and sceneries) exclusivly. I do not fly in the default environment. Period!BTW..My hobby is not just flight simming.. My hobby is also to fly for real. They have also commercialized that hobby of mine. Where are the freeware vendors?.Manny

[PhilTaylor 45]

I replied in that thread that no decision is made, and clarified what part of them is causing us to think hard.

[N400QW 205]

Weenie: "you forgot your constant advertisements"If that were true don't you think the powers that be would stop it? You've made this accusation before and I recall the mods telling you to back off. Why don't you listen to them?On the last confrontation we had you made some rather ridiculous assertions as well. It's clear that you have no respect for us so don't be surprised when you don't receive any from us.:-)

[Guest PPSFA]

My .02 after wading through this entire thread:I have been burned by some payware due to false or miss-leading advertizing, and/or descriptions, however I don't see ANY of them in this thread, and you won't see any of their planes in my 'hanger'.I have literally 1000's of hours, very enjoyable hours, in Flight 1 and Eaglesoft planes, and will continue to do so. These two companies set the bar for others to follow, I only wish others would.You folks have nothing to defend against and I hope you continue the trend!

[Guest weeniemcween]

That's not what I'm saying. The key word is most, at least a majority, too much. Some examples: 1) Wilco, Captain Sim, Ariane, PSS lately, a number of developers on Simmarket that take your money and run. 2) Aerosoft concerning the mytraffic/aiaardvark thing and the altering of the fsx default.xml; PMDG with the whole FSX unifier upgrade and attitude toward weather radar inquires; Level D on their forums-particularly regarding the no FS9 757 decision; Eaglesoft on forums where they don't respond well at all to criticism; Leonardo SH-no explanation of long overdue virtual cockpit; Airlinerxp on forums, if it counts, have a big problem with honesty-but then again, no one has paid them.3) Doesn't really fall into the same category but yes, Microsoft marketing. Enough said. But not ACES if they can help it. Certainly not Phil.4) Flight1, the best of the bunch, is represented by a lot of people, so it happens but only very occasionally. But they did market some fs9 models and traffic as fsx products, without substantive disclaimers. Some (group 1) are obviously much worse but I have seen all of them condescend, usually indirectly, to customers. It's when someone gives you business rhetoric when you ask them to be upfront, to have a conversation. The whole fs9 port debacle is a prime and widespread example of equivocation. While some developers are just plain tired of people asking questions and it shows. Please understand me when I say the quality of their products is beside the point I'm making. I realize the enjoyment that is brought. I spend a lot of money on payware. But you will find that others share this sentiment in some form or another. A number of freeware developers actually. Bottom line is the customer should be treated with respect. When you pay good money for something you should not have to be exuberantly grateful for it. You showed your gratitude with cash. Quite a bit of it, and for downloads which cannot be resold. Acknowledging economies of scale should go both ways.I don't see how anything I said suggested that I think this hobby is an exclusive club of mine or that I speak for all. Is it not a fact that this is our hobby, belonging to many people? Did you read my post in its entirety or seize on this one thing?To end positive, let me give some examples of developers who I personally think are by and large totally upfront and cool, who present a model for good customer relations (I have not purchased from all of them):Flight1 the vast majority of the timeAirsimmerRealAirLionheart CreationsSkyUnlimited Suprunov DesignErnie Alston Shockwave ProductionsRazbamIris >> >>>Sorry..this one of the dumbest thing I have ever heard! >Microsoft Flight sim is not a freeware. They are Payware>developers too!>>and its YOUR hobby? Really? Like some exclusive club of>yours?>>I love freeware and I have contributed to Freeware in my small>way too. But I love paywares. They are the reason I still>flight sim! I fly with payware aircrafts and payware sceneries>(and good freeware aircraft and sceneries) exclusivly. I do>not fly in the default environment. Period!>>BTW..My hobby is not just flight simming.. My hobby is also to>fly for real. They have also commercialized that hobby of>mine. Where are the freeware vendors?.>>Manny>>

[Guest lionheart777]

Hey all,Its been hectic year and a half, as you can see by the venting.I would like to say, that I dont find it insulting for a 'person' to post a way about finding out if an FSX model is actually a FS9 model. What is wrong with that? Is something being hidden that others didnt want found?When I (I am lionheart creations) launched FS9 models as FSX models during SP1, they worked fine! But, they were FS9 models 'adapted' to FSX. They were 'not' pure FSX models. I am not hiding anything. When FSX DX10 SP2 came out, it crushed cross-overs, and so FS9 models and DXT textures no longer properly functioned in FSX. Ok, fine.. Its done.In the mean time, someone has been kind enough to show us how to identify, without doubt, if a model is a FS9 portover, or a pure FSX model.And, I 'echo' the comment, there are alot of FS9 model packages out there that work fine in FSX, and with those, there is no worry........Why would 'identification' bring about such a mirryad of hostility? A FS9 model is a FS9 model.. and a FSX model is a FSX model, and most FS9 models work fine in FSX.... I for one think its cool that I can check my models that I have purchased and see if they are a 'pure' FSX model. I purchase payware as well. I dont see an issue here.We have vented.. Take a deep breath.. Lets finish the year well.My humble 2 cents.BillLHCEDIT: Thanks WeenieMcWeen for including me in your list. Me and my team are just humble poly-benders.

[N400QW 205]

>My .02 after wading through this entire thread:>>I have been burned by some payware due to false or>miss-leading advertizing, and/or descriptions, however I don't>see ANY of them in this thread, and you won't see any of their>planes in my 'hanger'.>>I have literally 1000's of hours, very enjoyable hours, in>Flight 1 and Eaglesoft planes, and will continue to do so.>These two companies set the bar for others to follow, I only>wish others would.>>You folks have nothing to defend against and I hope you>continue the trend!>>Thanks for the kind words! A refreshing thought after a tough day is that some folks "get it". The fact that you and others understand and appreciate what we are trying to accomplish goes a long way towards refreshing a weary team:-)Thanks again.

[jimdbird 0]

After reading this thread and others like it, it appears that part of the problem, stems from the lack of a universal FSX add-on nomenclature.Normally,

[Guest drawlins]

Whatever,>they are so great looking that Aerosoft has to use AIAardvark>in their advertisements and claim its Mytraffic.>>Another instance of misrepresentation. >>> Can you give a link for this? I checked out the Aerosoft website and I can't find any screenshots of MyTraffic that aren't using MyTraffic models. Granted, most of the screenshots keep a good distance away from the aircraft models, but the few that get closer to them make it clear why that is.As a 3rd party developer, the big problem I have with FSX is that the development "tools" such as they are, are exponentially more difficult to use than the FS9 tools were. And since I'm not a computer code guru, giving me a tool with a command line interface together with sparse documentation doesn't make the path from FS9 model development to FSX an easy one to navigate.I do find the implication that FS9 models are somehow inherently inferior to FSX models a little misleading, at least in my world of AI modeling. When MyTraffic released their new FSX models for the 757-200, I had to compare it to the old aia 757-200 model for FS9. They both showed up in FSX, and they both had textures. But when it came to framerate performance the old FS9 model still outperformed the new 'FSX compliant' model. Course, since it was FSX running on my 3 year old machine, even having better framerates than the FSX model didn't mean much. The FS9 model was delivering 7.5fps in my test, the "performance" MyTraffic model was delivering 5.0 fps. So, for me, it was "unusable" framerates vs "really unusable" framerates.David R

[DadJokeCinema 145]

>Weenie, to be correct...I said I couldn't care less about>your opinion of commercial developers and especially business>folks.Just to clarify, that statement is probably why he doesn't like you.