>I have no>problem with developers speaking in user forums as long as>they are courteous. >I'm a developer and a user. I make add-ons, I purchase add-ons.Courtesy goes both ways and should be expected both ways. Since I am both a user and a developer, I can speak as either/or as I see fit. If I were discourteous as a user towards a developer, I wouldn't expect them to be "warm and fuzzy" back.As both a user and a developer, I will stand up for myself against disinformation, misrepresentation and/or flat out attacks. Are you saying that's not permissible?You and Ron go in circles all the time, over just about any subject I can recall. From where I sit, it always comes across as you wanting to smack him down in the forums. My opinion.

>Ed, maybe you should mention that you work for Eaglesoft. I>can call Ron out for advertising if I feel like it and the>moderators of course have the power to stop me if they feel>like it. I don't think I need to point out the obvious. However, you will notice no Eaglesoft signature in my posts. Because I represent myself here, and you would do well to remember that. I do Eaglesoft work in the Eaglesoft forums, always.I am speaking for me. Just like you are speaking for you.

I think this post has served its purpose and it is drifting a bit out of control at this point. I made my initial point, Phil has clarified his position, we agreed with each other and that should have been that. I am asking that a moderator lock this one down as it is going extremely left at this point.Jim Rhoads

Weenie, I'm saying that we and many of your fellow community members have strong disagreement with your views. That is why your postings seem so pathetic to us.I did not stutter and am not mincing words with you. You elected to take a wrong track with us long ago and at that point we lost all respect for you and your views.

>I think this post has served its purpose and it is drifting a>bit out of control at this point. I made my initial point,>Phil has clarified his position, we agreed with each other and>that should have been that. I am asking that a moderator lock>this one down as it is going extremely left at this point.>>Jim RhoadsI second that motion Jim.:-)

I'll third the motion, there doesn't seem to be a logical way to reason with some people.

ha ha, okay.let them speak for themselves then.Pathetic because you disagree with them? Pretty narrow-minded.At least I respond to your points. You don't even respond to my points, you just say I don't understand anything. You are incapable of actual argument, it seems.Fact is, you're misportraying the history of fsx sdk compliance and unfairly blaming ACES for your and other developers' shortcomings. Again, the case of RealAir proves that you are wrong. I came into this discussion on topic. You blather on and on without responding to this point about sdk compliance from the get go.Wrong track, you mean pointing out how you were being condescending and abusive of anyone who had a problem with Eaglesoft products?I don't respect your views either, thanks. But you don't know me.Mincing words? No certainly not, I never said so. Don't try to get all bullish with me old man.Ed, the developers should really be more courteous to the users when the users are giving them cash. I get what you're saying though. I think I've been more than fair in the case of Ron, however. You should still mention, qualified as you see fit, that you've done work for Eaglesoft when you're defending Ron.

Ok folks, I think we can agree to never agree again...LOL.I think Phil and the others have come to a resolution that they are both happy with.Before you guys go on and on and on and on with the rest of your bantering that's lible to get ALL of you talked to, let's just call it a day, shall we?We play together and we fight together, that should be enough.Thanks to all who have come together here. :-)

>Ed, the developers should really be more courteous to the>users when the users are giving them cash. I get what you're>saying though. I think I've been more than fair in the case of>Ron, however. You should still mention, qualified as you see>fit, that you've done work for Eaglesoft when you're defending>Ron. >Purchasing a product does not come with a license to bash, trash-talk... etc. Especially if the one doing it is misrepresenting things or just plain wrong. It's a fine line to walk, which is why users should be courteous rather than antagonistic.As for Ron, I'm not here to defend him... I'm telling you what I see from where I sit, no more, no less. I don't even think I necessarily agree with Ron's original post or it's tone... but I know that it comes across to me that every chance you get, you go out of your way to attack him. Like I said... my opinion, what I see.As for the SDK... please re-read my first post in this thread. It has an entire section regarding the SDK.

Ed,Well yes and no. The customer is always right. Not actually, but meaning that the paying customer should be treated with more conversational fairness than the vendor, especially if it's a support issue. All customer attitudes are different and the best way to deal with them, as clearly shown by flight1 and airsimmer, is with blanket politeness. Customers hardly ever make really personal attacks, and their sometimes expressing frustration with aggressive vehemence should just be accepted. It makes no sense for the vendor to be rude back. Well, in my mind, it comes with the territory.I think Ron was being very unfair to ACES and misrepresenting things, so that's why I responded here. He responded with personal attacks so I responded back. Again, I consider his points, he doesn't consider mine. And whatever ill will I have toward eaglesoft started with his exceptional rudeness to users expressing criticism of eaglesoft products on these forums. Also constant advertisements. It didn't arise from nothing.Your post regarding the SDK does not really answer the following question: If developers were so left in the dark by ACES, how come RealAir was able to produce a fully FSX SDK compliant plane-actually using the FSX SDK and not the FS9 SDK-in December of 2006?

>Your post regarding the SDK does not really answer the>following question: If developers were so left in the dark by>ACES, how come RealAir was able to produce a fully FSX SDK>compliant plane-actually using the FSX SDK and not the FS9>SDK-in December of 2006?>I can not speak for anything regarding RealAir. For all I know they were working behind the scenes with Aces to finalize the modeling tools. Dunno if they were or were not... but I think you can see the point.I do not remember the exact date that 3PD's were given the correct modeling tools for FSX. However the physical timeline I posted is accurate with regards to sequence. I was in the beta and I can assure you that we (developers) were playing catch up from day one. There's more to this topic than can be said and it probably doesn't need to be said. You simply need to accept that we (developers) know more about the actual issue than you (user). You also need to accept that we're unable to openly discuss every aspect of the topic.In Phil's defense, I do not believe he was involved in the entire FSX process from the beginning. If I recall correctly, he joined the Aces team with the FSX development already in process.I do recall our first FSX aircraft had to be (repeat HAD) developed with the current FS9 tools. We were rushing to get something together for Oshkosh if I remember correctly. So, that project was "done" as far as we knew at the time of FSX's release to market... it wasn't until the service packs came out that issues started to show. The primary change was introduced by SP2 which required a significant shift in FSX code to support the DX10 preview. It introduced signifiant changes to the 3D aspect of the program and I don't think anyone could have anticipated just how much it would change. It caught Aces off guard as well as the rest of us developers. Hindsight is wonderful. ;)

Modeling tools released with FSX SDK RTM were for Max7 only, and even so were not working well.Modeling tools for Max7/8 and GMax were only provided with FSX SDK 1a.Modeling tools for Max7/8/9 and GMax were updated with FSX SDK2, but the Max9 tools were "broken" (someone forgot to code-sign XtoMDL.exe).