#Bad News# I knew it would happen

[Guest]

Well despite the protests and numerous e-mails the author has gone back on his promise of not releasing ACM with the export feature and it's now included. He try's to make it sound ok by making the export only for old FSDS v1 models. As he was talking complete BS last time then I have no reason to belive that he won't make future releases with the export able to convert any FS model. I for one don't wish even my old models to be reworked by other if I did then I would have released the source files for them. If any updates are needed then I want to be the one to do them or pass it on to someone of my own choosing. Feel free to visit the ACM site (link below) and voice your views. For me I think thats it. It was fun while it lasted.RegardsDavid GAllied FS Group

[Brian_Gladden 0]

this is what i posted on the ACM forum.....I was glad after the initial uproar that the export feature was diabled. I bought the program and use it quite often for setting up contact points and the like. it's also very useful for repaints.But now on to my sticking point. I put many many hours into my aircraft designs and I am very protective of my copyright since most of my FSDS 1 models were created with the commercial version. I'm not worried about the casual user doing a few "tweaks" to his personal taste to a model but the casual simmer is not the problem. Many freeware developers have gone payware because of piracy. I have had my freeware models stolen from a freeware website, placed on a cd and sold on the web and in stores in europe. this was in clear violation of my copyright and my EULA agreement with ABACUS about not selling my models (the plane stolen was made prior to my purchase of the commercial version). ABACUS could have come after me for the EULA violation throgh no fault of my own, had they wanted to.I do not consider any of my designs "abandoned". There is only so many hours in a day and I can only update so many of my designs and still work on new projects too. Just because someone thinks a design is abandoned does not make it so. the person may have a new e-mail address so the one in the documentaion is useless, but the file is not "Abandoned".Please do not take this the wrong way but as an American I see most of the copright theft on flight sim products coming from Europe.... I have many designer friends that are from Europe and I'm not saying that Europeans are thieves but the Copyright laws are a little more lax there it seems to me, so some unsavory folks think they can get away with it.I personaly feel that the export tool is a nice feature but it should be used with care and not placed in the regular download. perhaps there should be a special EULA for those that want it and some kind of file tracking to prevent piracy.This is my $0.02 (two cents)Brian Gladden

[Guest]

BrianTo help me understand this issue better can you provide a link to the site in question.ThanksJohn

[Guest]

I told him I would not have a problem if he gave me the source code for his program.I'm still waiting. Dave

[Guest]

http://www.aircraftmanager.com/en/

[Guest]

David,I don't care if this causes a flame war, but I really do not understand what the problem is.If You are afraid that someone "steals" Your design... well, realize, if someone really wants to, he or she will be able to do it. ACM may just make it easier.Don't get me wrong, I honor copyrights and appreciate the hours of work some designers put into their work. But, if "that's it for me" means that You'll quit designing or releasing AC due to the fact of A.C.M. MAY be released with the export function... to be honest, bye bye, with that attitude, I won't miss You! The benefits are also there: Easier rework of older models to new standards. Include doors or new textures or transparencies to older designs. What about a released model that cannot be updated because the source files have been lost due to a hardware malfunction? Happened more than once!AND, why dont You give newcomers a hand at good design? That might prevent them from decompiling a model just to see how it was done. How many authors just cling to their "secrets" how-to-build a good model or gimmick...?David, AT LEAST give it a chance and don't cry in advance!I'd go with Brian's point/proposal for an additional EULA or something like that.Disappointed for crying before something has happened, ToMey

[Guest]

Flame wars are of no interested to me only debate etc. I know all to well that work can and does get stolen but as you say ACM makes it so easy and he is making money selling this tool that is wrong IMO . As for the "bye bye, with that attitude, I won't miss You!". You don't even know me so don't think you can gauge my attitde from one post. If I have had enough of working on FS then thats up to me don't you think, after all this is a hobby right and unless I am mistaken then that means it should be fun right. Not just the flying but all aspects of the hobby."AND, why dont You give newcomers a hand at good design?" again shows you don't know me at all. I have been asked many questions by newcomers as you call them and I always try to help the best I can. I don't keep secrets from them about the lastest trick etc. The people I did help, did they put my name in the credits NO. Did I asked them to? Of course not. I don't work on FS for fame or glory (there isn't any). I don't like the spotlight I just like to have fun and right now I'm not. The main point of the post is to give designers a heads up no more no less. I'm not crying I'm just informing people of whats going on. Regards David G

[Guest Stefanosg]

"If he or she really wants to" is a very poor way of looking at it. Most people lack the technical know how necessary to decompile an aircraft. Have you ever heard the saying, "locks don't keep people out, they keep them honest". Your program is going to be the skeleton key of the flight sim community. As for Dave, he is perhaps one of the most generous people in the sim community, not only sharing his designs, but his knowledge of design. Myself and many others have benefitted from this generosity over the years and I personally cannot thank him enough.

[Guest]

David,I admit I understood You wrong, at least partially. Thanks for all You've done so far and I hope You won't quit. Thank You as well for Your answer explaining Your intentions on the original post.AND...the "Why don't You..." part was not directed personally at You, sorry, I should have made that more clear: Some time ago, I mailed some designers for some tips, question and/or some criticism on models when I wanted to start GMAX models but found that I was not talented enough to do on my own. Either I was ignored or told to go f*ck myself. I appreciate that You, David, have been helpful to others and no, I did not ask You for advice, so please take my apologies if I insulted You.I ALSOrespect that You are concerned what may become out of ACM, especially on copyright issues - no discussion on that.BUTfirst, on the payware point, I doubt if You had reacted in another way if ACM was designated freeware. Would that be better?second, as I said, I honor what designers have done and all recent repaints I did were made either from authorized paintkits (AI) or personal use only. I intend to get a copy of ACM just to see how it's done and maybe correct some of my PUO repaints. I agree that others may be behaving worse...third, I again suggest that we wait and see what will really be in the package before judging. It's nearly christmas, and I guess we all have deserved a break.Have a peaceful weekend,ToMey

[Guest odog]

I dont like the idea of people ######izing someone else's hard work. If you support that, I will not welcome you here. This is a place for learning and sharing, not fingerpointing and grandstanding. Besides, my box of troll food has run empty this week. This program is a perfect example of 'ANYTHING for a buck,' even biting the hand that feeds it...sad. I will simply add this and Im done with this subject. If you think this is going to make the hobby better, your diluted. It will just hasten the march of great developers out the freeware door. Then you can go back to the main forum and complain how there's no good free releases available.later,

[Brian_Gladden 0]

"A.C.M. MAY be released with the export function... " try looking at the website.... ACM is already available with the export feature.... No "MAY" about it. I admit I use the earlier version of ACM (without the export feature) to visualy set things like contact points and previewing repaints outside of FS. for those features it's an outstanding product.... but the export version is only opening the doors for the pirates of the simming world. "Legitamate" people who want to upgrade a model contact the designer for the FSC file. And if the designer doesn't want to release it or can't be contacted.... sit your backside down and do the design it yourself from scratch.. Just like the original designer did!!!!Brian

[Guest]

>"A.C.M. MAY be released with the export function... " try >looking at the website.... ACM is already available with the >export feature....Has anyone actually tried using the information from the 'export function?'If it's like all the other MDL converters I've examined, what you wind up with is an unusable file where all the various 'parts' are now permanently 'welded' into one, huge, honking mess.IOW, you don't wind up with anything that even remotely resembles the original source file, making it more trouble than it's worth.I'd be very, very surprised if this so-called 'export feature' will work any differently...

[Guest]

Brian is exactly right. If you believe that all freeware designers should release their source files, you're entitled to that belief. You can try to convince them to release their source. Some will probably listen; others won't. However, you shouldn't have the right to "force" designers to release the source if they don't want to, and that is exactly what this program does.I am, so far, convinced that this program is illegal, and I plan to write to tell_fs@microsoft.com and piracy@microsoft.com to express that belief to them. In the previous discussion in this forum on this topic, PeterR suggested that the program might fall under "fair use" for educational purposes. However, this argument does not hold up. First of all, education about design is very readily available through this and other similar forums; just ask away! The only additional education granted by ACM is knowledge of what amount to other people's trade secrets. There is no necessity in this hobby for the revelation of trade secrets.Beyond the legality, though, is the question of what is really good for our hobby. If you can convince designers to release their source, fine. But if they don't want to, and you force their hands, they will leave the hobby. We have two options: we can have x number of designers releasing source files plus y number releasing only finished products, or we can have only x number of designers total, all of whom release their source files. The only gain to be had from ACM is that we have access to some existing aircraft source. In the long run, it is clear to me that the first option above is much better for us than the second.Bill makes the point that having a decompiled model file isn't really easy to work with anyway, and I hope he's right. Still, while I do admire designers who are willing to release their source, I strongly object to forcing their hands.Matt